The Doomed Forum
http://www.doom-metal.com/phpbb2/

Women in politic's
http://www.doom-metal.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=505
Page 1 of 5

Author:  Abhorsen [ Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Women in politic's

This is kind of inspired by an article I read today about some uproar about yet another article. It seems some newpaper writer decided to dedicate an entire article on Hillary Clinton's cleavage (showing to much there off apparently), and totally ignoring what she said. Having seen a picture of the speech she apparently showed "too much", I was puzzled, it looked like a normal thing to wear. I think she, and those around her got very mad about the article (especially a lot of women).

Disconnecting this from any personal favour or dislike for Clinton (I for one have no need to see her cleavage :P). The issue raised I think is, that she was judged on looks and what she was wearing over what she was saying.

I have to actually agree with her this once then, it is kind of outrageous something like that can happen. Of course it on occasion also happens to men. But generally when somebody truly does something silly (like the hair of a certain Dutch racist politician) or when they make a statement due to dress sense. Or when somebody does something really daft. Like how the article writer defended herself saying people also criticized some other male for dressing to flamboyant at a memorial service. But I think those things are different. As in this case she did do none of these things.

I am curious if this happens more often. Do women politicians still have it a lot harder then their male counterparts? As I understand for example one Dutch politician (leading the left environment party) always looked quite appealing to the eye, and most people don't seem to take her serious because she is good looking. Al through I find her, and what she says to be some of the smartest things said and done. She clearly actually thinks at a slightly higher level that most people have trouble following. I'd still not vote for her however as I don't support her party and her parties idea's. I'd admit I have thought to myself 'damn your so sexy, I'd vote for you just because of that' :p (note; I just find smart women sexy however :P).

Author:  Worm of Na'Ruq [ Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:54 pm ]
Post subject: 

Dunno. I often have this impression that politicians are far more judged by their appearance or so instead of their (dis)abilities. On the question of women in politics, there still can be a difference. The current slovak minister of social affairs, family and labour is a stupid fat cow exhumed from some completely useless and unimportant office (with her only power being the frequent use of words "liberal" and "solidarity", put randomly into her pointless mumbling), while the former one, who was female as well was quite an ok, rationally thinking woman. And in this case the atractiveness / appearance doesn't really matter to me, I would not date any of them. :p

Author:  perennialsorrow [ Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:40 am ]
Post subject: 

i support women in politics, just not hilary. she is in support of big government, social programs, a strong drug war, and generally things that clash with liberty as defined by the american constitution.

Author:  sauron [ Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:20 am ]
Post subject: 

I recently watched "Sicko" by Michael Moore, and the scene where H.Clinton is debating with some other guy about 'universal coverage health-care system' came into my mind.
Abstracting from Moore films, Hilary's campaigns and anything that some consider good and others bad, the only thing remains clear - the politics are in war with each other. So to me it is obvious this kind of articles are 'black PR' ordered by some of rival politics, so it generally doesn't matter if 'target' is man or woman. Methods of black media PR may be somewhat different when 'targeting' men or women, but the aim remains same - to throw mud at your opponent, no matter the gender.

P.S. Please excuse my catastrophic English.

Author:  Sonic Architect [ Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

The official game of politics is just that, a game. It is about slandering your opponent in the public mind and giving ridiculous reasons as to why your opponent is incapable. Everything from drug use 40 years prior when the person was in his teens or early 20's, to something like showing cleavage. And the public are just as much to blame for this shit because they buy into it all with no thoughts. "What? he smoked a joint in 1958? I don't want THAT type of character running this country!"

All politicians are fucking scumbags.

Politics are inescapable even to those not interested in them. it is time to make it about US though and run our own lives rather some shit bag of a person exploiting us for their sole benefit. I don't want peace in the world, or no wars because Obama or Clinton say it is best. I know it is best and if I have children, or my friends have children I want them to have a chance and not inherit a smoldering ruin of a planet.

I could rant on this shit for hours. I get absolutely infuriated about official politics and how stupid and ridiculous they are.

Author:  Lacrymae Rerum [ Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well, here in both Chile and Argentina we have women presidents... GOD HELP US!!

Author:  Worm of Na'Ruq [ Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:12 am ]
Post subject: 

Lacrymae Rerum wrote:
Well, here in both Chile and Argentina we have women presidents... GOD HELP US!!

Yeah, that's the difference between the "North" and "South". Here we say "Lord, make me an instrument of your wrath!" :p

Author:  ~Empathy~ [ Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:35 am ]
Post subject: 

Politics is an illusion. We are just living in another middle age. It doesn't matter who has the power (except for totalitarian regimes, of course), it's the same.

Author:  Worm of Na'Ruq [ Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:44 am ]
Post subject: 

~Empathy~ wrote:
Politics is an illusion. We are just living in another middle age. It doesn't matter who has the power (except for totalitarian regimes, of course), it's the same.

It matters. Power itself is just a mass-psychological illusion, a context of things we all do. This does not guarantee you'll be heard, but the important thing is that in most western countries you MAY be heard just as anyone else. And that's the difference.

Author:  ~Empathy~ [ Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:29 am ]
Post subject: 

But I an not talking here about the power of the masses/individual here. I am talking about the difference when some people (president + parliament + government) "rule" the country vs. other people rule the country. As long as it is not a totalitarian regime and you have some liberties it is all the same.

That's why I don't vote for anyone except for the City Major.

Author:  Worm of Na'Ruq [ Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

I got that but I disagree.

Author:  AnneGwish [ Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well, I haven't read that article, but from what you're telling us, I find it quite hard to see it as a relevant angle. In every political campaign things boil to a point where every single thing is dissected, from what the candidates wear to how they scratch their noses, as if the smallest detail could make or break an election. But that's sensationalist bullshit.

I do think women struggle much more to gain credibility; we're seen as emotional, prone to the illogical and generally weak. What certain women throughout History have proved is that things like sensitivity and emotional intelligence are personality traits and not characteristics of a specific group, i.e., women, or black people, or jews or whatever. Some people are like that, some aren't.
So, if women are already seen as weak, those who are easy on the eye are not only weak, but intellectually inferior. If you remember Segoléne Royal, who ran for president of France against Sarkozy, you'll agree with me that she was a very pretty lady. So her campaign acquired a motherly tone, which I suppose would cut down the sexy factor a little bit.

Additionally, what we're discussing here doesn't apply only to politics - it applies similarly to the business world where women still struggle to be seen and treated as equals by their male counterparts. Funnily enough this type of discrimination is more common in higher ranks.

Author:  Mordante [ Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:20 am ]
Post subject: 

I think that people should not matter in politics neither woman or man. Politics should be about political parties and their ideas. I think it would be better if we coudn't vote for people but that we could only vote for political parties and that it woudn't matter who actually is in that party.

Now we vote for someone who looks good on TV but that should not matter.

Author:  thx1138 [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

Sonic Architect wrote:
All politicians are fucking scumbags.


I'm with you there mate, I seriously doubt there is a single politician anywhere that gives a fuck about anything other than their own status. Their watchwords are change and freedom when nothing ever changes and they conspire to take more and more of our freedom away while doing their best to grant themselves more freedom. Here they squander tax money that some of us generated by working shitty jobs we don't like on paying off their mortgages or buying that new kitchen they wanted.
Take a look at the people in your government and ask yourself are these really the best we have to offer in terms of leadership? or are they simply the best in terms of maximizing profits for the few. I swear these people think the sole reason we are here is to consume products to generate money. Capitalism uber alles.

Author:  perennialsorrow [ Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:52 am ]
Post subject: 

capitalism is a good thing, it is when the government intervenes in the market (which is how shit has been going for the past 100 years) that the rich become super rich and the poor remain in poverty (partially due to the social programs supposedly intended to cure poverty). in a truly free market there would be less waste of money by the federal government, the working man would get to keep the fruit of his labor, and the ambitious man would reap the fruits of his hard work. not to mention, a free market makes a booming economy.

Author:  thx1138 [ Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:23 am ]
Post subject: 

perennialsorrow wrote:
capitalism is a good thing, it is when the government intervenes in the market (which is how shit has been going for the past 100 years) that the rich become super rich and the poor remain in poverty (partially due to the social programs supposedly intended to cure poverty). in a truly free market there would be less waste of money by the federal government, the working man would get to keep the fruit of his labor, and the ambitious man would reap the fruits of his hard work. not to mention, a free market makes a booming economy.


It's not though. There is only one thing that matters with capitalism and that is money. If something doesn't make lots of money then capitalism tells us it must be worthless. Think of the things money cannot buy: Friendship, Trust, Respect, Love. Now I think if you have those then you trully have wealth beyond measure.
Capitalism means sweat shops in the phillipines making your clothes, cutting the trees down to grow soya to feed cows so we can eat at mcdonalds, cutting the forests down and replacing them with a monoculture of palm trees just so we can put palm oil in things, invading countries to steal their assets, shipping your job to china because it's 'cost effective'. Competition means we don't get decent products that last, we get throwaway shit because all that is important is shifting more units. It's why drugs are only manufactured for profit, after all where is the monetary gain in actually curing something? that's bad for business as where is the possibilty to sell drugs to people who have been cured? Finacial gain uber alles.
"but it must be good, just look at how much money we made"

Author:  Worm of Na'Ruq [ Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

perennialsorrow wrote:
capitalism is a good thing, it is when the government intervenes in the market (which is how shit has been going for the past 100 years) that the rich become super rich and the poor remain in poverty (partially due to the social programs supposedly intended to cure poverty). in a truly free market there would be less waste of money by the federal government, the working man would get to keep the fruit of his labor, and the ambitious man would reap the fruits of his hard work. not to mention, a free market makes a booming economy.

Fucking capitalist. :)
Seriously, give me an example of a country that is the closest to this definition of free market and has living standards at least as high as those of the scandinavian countries, which have the tendency of strong interventionist (though I'd rather make the distinction between intervening and regulating economical policies and go for the latter) policies.

Author:  perennialsorrow [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

there isn't and never has been a country with a truly free market. also, thx, you said that capitalism keeps the quality of products like medicine low, when, in fact, it does just the opposite. consumers will buy the highest quality product or service, and without competition there is no incentive to improve your product, because the government will pay you regardless. that is why housing projects of the US government failed so horribly, the people building them did a quarter-assed job because they were going to get their paychecks regardless. look at medicine; new medicines all come from american pharmaceutical companies, not european ones, because of the free(er) market american companies have an incentive to make newer, better medicines. that incentive is $. saying that humans aren't driven by greed is just silly, because working to make a good living for yourself and your family is greed. that is our primal driving force. all americans would have high standards of living if it weren't for our government's keyensian intervension in the market (which started happening around 100 years ago). greed makes higher quality products and services.

Author:  perennialsorrow [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:31 pm ]
Post subject: 

also, many american companies have found fortune in domesticating their products. for instance, american apparel, the fastest growing clothing company in the country, makes all their products with high quality materials right here in the US (LA to be specific). globalization has many harmful effects, but in a truly free market, comsumers and companies alike would in time discover the economic and quality benefits of buying and building domestic.

Author:  Karnagoz [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think it's worth noting that the U.S. government started getting involved in businesses 100 years ago for good reason, that these huge trusts and monopolies were exploiting the populace. You don't need to make a better product or provide a better service when the government's always paying you, but the same rule applies if you're also the only game in town. I'm a firm believer in capitalism and the fact that competition breeds excellence, but when it comes to money and power it needs a moderating force. Where the U.S. differs from those nations across the Atlantic is to what degree that moderation is taken.

Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/