Feminism Demands that as Long as a Person Can Do the Job, It Shouldn't
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
October 1, 2007 11:01am CST
matter whether it's a man or a woman doing it.
So why are so many feminists excited about the prospects of a woman winning the White House? If the candidates can do the job, why does it matter?
5 responses
@Angelwriter (1954)
• United States
3 Oct 07
I really don't see the discrepancy with both attitudes. You can believe that the person who should get the job is the one best qualified and also feel excited by the prospect that there's a chance for a woman to be in the position to get the job.
I can't (and wouldn't presume) to speak for feminists as a whole, since we're not a monolith, but I'm guessing that there are those who are excited that a woman is in a position where winning is a possibility, but might still feel that this woman isn't the right one and won't vote for her.
1 person likes this
@Angelwriter (1954)
• United States
3 Oct 07
So it's really not a question of "gender shouldn't matter", because apparently, it does.
It doesn't bother me that gender really does matter to them, in fact, I've known that all along. However, feminists often use that as a weapon when gender appears to matter to someone else.
Funny, I'm not quite sure how you got that from my post. I said that it's possible to believe that a person who is best qualified should get the job. I didn't think it was necessary to specify that they should get the job whether they were a woman *or* man. How does thinking that the best person should be running the country *regardless* of gender, *not* mean that gender doesn't matter?
If you're saying that even after believing that, a feminist can't even entertain the thought that it's promising or cool that a female candidate has a shot, well I think that's unreasonable. And not just for feminists. For human beings. People *get* excited when they see the opportunity for someone of their ilk -be it political, religious, racial, gender, location, you name it, to get a hold that they hadn't before. But, it doesn't mean that where it counts, that they wouldn't want the best person, regardless of who they were.
But, you know what? There may very well be some feminists who do think that having a woman in the White House trumps anything. And, there are some who find the idea of Hillary Clinton appalling and can't find anything good about her being a candidate. And, there are some who feel that gender doesn't matter as long as the best person gets the job, and *still* get happy over the possibility of a woman getting a foothold. That last part seems to be where we conflict. You don't seem to feel that a person can hold those two feelings. Either gender matters, or it doesn't. Which is fine, but I did not say gender should matter.
@Angelwriter (1954)
• United States
3 Oct 07
Eek. Sorry, can't edit. I pasted your response on to my comment so I could refer to it as a typed, and forgot to edit it out.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
3 Oct 07
So it's really not a question of "gender shouldn't matter", because apparently, it does.
It doesn't bother me that gender really does matter to them, in fact, I've known that all along. However, feminists often use that as a weapon when gender appears to matter to someone else.
@victoriasparda (161)
• United States
10 Aug 08
Because it hasnever happened before, over 50% of the American population is female yet we have yet to have a single female president, it shows that gender discrimination is alive and well in today's world.........
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Aug 08
Yes, and you seem to be supporting it. It is just as discriminatory to choose someone because she is a woman as is it to reject her because she is one.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
1 Oct 07
It is not about qualifications - Do you see the Feminist supporting Condelise Rice or do you see the NAACP supporting clareance Thomsa? No because it is about a political agenda and their getting the power. It has nothing to do with qualifications.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
1 Oct 07
True, actual qualifications do seem to take a backseat.
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
1 Oct 07
It is because of the power that the White House represents.
I have no doubt that a woman could be president, but Hillary is not that woman.
To the feminists the White House is a goal to reach... as long as it is a woman, they don't care about the qualifications, or whether or not she could do the job.
This makes as much sense as the anybody as long as it isn't a republican comment I saw the other day.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
3 Oct 07
Yeah, it's the goal to get a woman in the Whitehouse, while demanding the rest of us to act like it makes no difference. ;~D
@rachy577 (99)
•
3 Feb 08
I don't think that it should matter whether a man or a woman is doing a job, if they have the skills and capabilities to carry it off. However, I also don't think that a man or a woman should have preferential treatment because of their gender. That is discriminative. Things should be equal in the workplace, and based on merit only, not colour, gender or background.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
4 Feb 08
Yeah, it's a wierd world we live in where, if you don't give some people preferential treatment, you're discriminating.