Doom-metalMDB
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:10 pm



Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Women in politic's 
Author Message
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:16 pm
Posts: 155
Location: The old garde
Reply with quote
Post 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).

_________________
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that."


Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:06 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am
Posts: 1445
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Reply with quote
Post 

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

_________________
Sonic terrorism is too important to be left to ideological amateurs.


Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:54 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 11:56 pm
Posts: 317
Location: Arizona
Reply with quote
Post 

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.

_________________
funn! O)))


Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:40 am
Profile WWW
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 654
Reply with quote
Post 

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.


Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:20 am
Profile WWW
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:43 pm
Posts: 205
Reply with quote
Post 

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.

_________________
Black Bloc - heavy electronics
http://www.myspace.com/blackblocpe

Self Perception Theory - despondent suicide drone
http://www.perceivingthyself.wordpress.com


Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:28 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 88
Location: Chile, at the End of the World
Reply with quote
Post 

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

_________________
http://www.myspace.com/lacrymaererum


Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:16 pm
Profile WWW
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am
Posts: 1445
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Reply with quote
Post 

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

_________________
Sonic terrorism is too important to be left to ideological amateurs.


Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:12 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:16 pm
Posts: 173
Location: Into the Depths of Sorrow
Reply with quote
Post 

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.

_________________
Decadence is Bliss...


Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:35 am
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am
Posts: 1445
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Reply with quote
Post 

~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.

_________________
Sonic terrorism is too important to be left to ideological amateurs.


Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:44 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:16 pm
Posts: 173
Location: Into the Depths of Sorrow
Reply with quote
Post 

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.

_________________
Decadence is Bliss...


Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:29 am
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am
Posts: 1445
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Reply with quote
Post 

I got that but I disagree.

_________________
Sonic terrorism is too important to be left to ideological amateurs.


Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:39 pm
Profile
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:44 pm
Posts: 895
Location: The garden of earthly delights
Reply with quote
Post 

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.

_________________
Whoopdeefuckingdoo.


Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:29 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:32 am
Posts: 217
Reply with quote
Post 

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.

_________________
Julie: You, however, have a problem with women.
Mr. Gone: [scoff] How perceptive... did you figure that one out when I kidnapped you, or tied you up with leather straps? OF COURSE I'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH WOMEN!


Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:20 am
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:13 pm
Posts: 494
Reply with quote
Post 

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.


Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:47 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 11:56 pm
Posts: 317
Location: Arizona
Reply with quote
Post 

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.

_________________
funn! O)))


Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:52 am
Profile WWW
Forum User

Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:13 pm
Posts: 494
Reply with quote
Post 

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"


Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:23 am
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am
Posts: 1445
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Reply with quote
Post 

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.

_________________
Sonic terrorism is too important to be left to ideological amateurs.


Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:49 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 11:56 pm
Posts: 317
Location: Arizona
Reply with quote
Post 

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.

_________________
funn! O)))


Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:28 pm
Profile WWW
Forum User

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 11:56 pm
Posts: 317
Location: Arizona
Reply with quote
Post 

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.

_________________
funn! O)))


Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:31 pm
Profile WWW
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:59 am
Posts: 2721
Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Reply with quote
Post 

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.

_________________
Peace is a waste of time.


Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:35 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 100 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.