Gee, Ann, your picture is hitting too close to home!

It's funny that the only people I've meet in real life who are voting based solely on sex...are all guys.

"My positions match up the most with Hillary, but she's just so...vagina-y...ya know?"

funny genetic, I have quite a few female friends who are voting for Clinton only because she is female. takes all kinds I guess.

ONLY because she's female? Really?

But don't you get it, Ann?

Stories discussing women are interesting because women are so mysterious and different.

Men are just regular folk.

Bwahahahahahaha! Thanks, Ann. I needed that.

Geek, I was going to ask dananddanica the same thing. I have yet to meet a single person voting for Hillary *only* because she is female -- or, for that matter, even mainly because she is female. But I have had waay too many people tell me that they think Hillary and Barack are mostly the same, but when it comes down to it, we need a black president more than we need a female president. I have seriously heard this from multiple people (male and female).

Ann, this is delicious. One can only wish...

If only men's foolishness were "harmless". Instead of resulting in things like the Taliban and the Holocaust.

This point is best proven by the example of a Dead Boys show.

But Ladies, if Obama is really so sexist, why does he keep talking about the change... ?

;o)

hey there Geek, I responded earlier but it seems it didn't go through.

Yes I have several friends who will vote/voted for Clinton solely because she is a female. They do not have a party affiliation and they do not know a lot about the issues nor do they care to. I also have spoken with a lot of people, a few friends among them, who will vote for Obama because of race and no other reason.

Yes I also have friends who will not vote for Clinton solely because she is a female and who will not vote for Obama because of race. I'm not sure why you haven't met more people who are doing that or are so open about it. I'm not particularly well-traveled but I've lived in several states and countries and deployed a lot when I was in the military, met all types and keep in touch with as many as possible. Some people dont care a whit for the political process and simply vote for the candidate they feel is most like them or they vote to make a point based solely on gender or race. To make it a family thing, my maternal grandmother is going to vote for Clinton, she doesnt care about the politics nor does she want to hear about them, she just wants a female to be President. My paternal grandfather will not vote for Obama as he is a devout racist and that set of beliefs trumps anything Obama could ever say or do and just like my grandmother, he doesnt care to hear any more on it. Those kinds of views are echoed by friends from 20-80, they are in the minority but they are there.

Best. Feministing. Post. EVER.

The articles that are so well spoofed here (nice aim, Ann!) make some weird assumptions. Is it really "smart" to vote "as a bloc"? That's not how corporate campaign contributors see it. They contribute oodles of money to every candidate, in hopes that he or she will owe them something after winning. So why shouldn't women strategically split their vote between candidates who reasonably support women's causes, like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama?

"Bloc voting" would make even less sense (and strategic coalitions more sense) if we had proportional representation and a truly multiparty system rather than the two dinosaurs that we call "our only real choices." What if we could also choose a Green or Libertarian candidate without throwing our vote away?

I invite all smart women and men to check out Instant Runoff Voting and other proportional electoral systems that would give us all more choices at the ballot box.

DanorDanica, I haven't met women who say they're voting for Clinton without knowing anything about her except that she's a woman, but I'm in a very conservative area and don't have a lot of local friends I talk politics with.

Still, it isn't fair to compare people who are voting because they want a woman president or a black president with racists and sexists who are voting their prejudice.

I certainly would encourage people to learn more about the issues, but there are valid reasons to want representation of one's gender or race in governmental office in a sexist and racist society. For example, the study that found that exposure to the reality of female presidents really does reduce prejudice (I can find the link later, I don't have time now).

Geek,
Sounds like a good link. I wasn't trying to compare the two, just saying that people doing either are indeed out there. I would agree that there are valid reasons to want representation and I dislike that some people will vote against someone only based on gender or race. I'm glad both of the views are in the minority though as I'm really jazzed up by the level of political participation this cycle. -Dan

The participation is fantastic. People waiting in huge lines just to vote in primaries is really amazing. I know a lot of people are getting primary fatigue, but I think having a really close race is good because it forces the candidates to keep trying to prove why they're better, and keeps the interest high, as we've seen in the democratic turnout.

I'll take you at your word that it wasn't your intent to compare sexism with trying to gain equal representation, but that was the effect of your first post. You were dismissive of the sexism and double standard pointed out by Genetic Mishap by suggesting that some women were also voting based on sex.

All things being equal, if it came between a woman and a man and I had roughly the same preference for both, I would be pulling for the woman. This does not mean I think women are better than men or that it's pay-back time. I just think it's important to get that gender issue for the Presidency out of the way. Once the barrier is broken, it will be lots easier for folks to talk about the candidate without focusing on gender. I would also like to see that race barrier broken once and for all, too, but women make up a far greater percentage of the population than blacks so I consider the gender barrier the more pressing of the barriers.

In any event, there are a ton of women who have more in common with me than the typical white Protestant rich men that we generally seem to get atop the tickets.

Geek,
Thanks, I understand your reaction to my post fully now. I still don't see though how voting for a female only because of gender isn't sexist. Is it justified in the larger view by the positives of representation? It seems so, not having read the study you mentioned but just going off of how my female friends talk about it, but it is still sexist is it not?

Don't hold your breath. *sigh* Misandry is no where near as common as misogyny. In fact my spell checker underlines misandry, if that tells you anything. This reminds me of an old Lalo Alcaraz comic depicting white folks bring a ruckus in one pane and black folks bringing an identical ruckus in the other. The caption for each pane shows how the media is known to interpret both. I'd drop a link, but the site is gone.

Y'all should run a parallel to WaPo's "Outlook" and lambaste their sh*t more.

It can be sexist, but none of the reasons you've given for women who are voting for a woman (rather than other issues) have been sexist.

Bear with my thinking, here, it's not completely organized:
An action can be sexist either by motivation or result. Motivation can be conscious prejudice, or subconscious prejudice (including unacknowledged privilege).
Things that are sexist because it has the result of reinforcing systematic sexism that discriminates against people on the basis of sex are often the result of prejudice, but not always.

It can't be sexist for a member of a group that is extremely poorly represented to vote primarily for more representation. (as an analogy, do you think it was prejudiced for American colonists to want American representation in English government) It's not a vote against men, nor does it result in discrimination against men. It doesn't come from a belief that women are, as a group, better than men and that men don't deserve to be President simply by being male.

It's not a matter of sexism that's justified. It's just not about sexism, which by the sociological definition, is an ideology that believes that one sex is superior to another.

And my post on the study with links is in moderation. sigh.

I can see what you're getting at Geek. I understand but it's hard for me to get past people voting on race or gender if they don't think about in the terms you are talking about, perhaps they are applying your argument without knowing it/being able to talk about it. I see a lot of the representation argument you are using and like I said, despite not having the study, I get that and it makes a ton of sense but there is also, many times, attached to that the feeling that a female president would be better than a male president simply because she is female. Voting for a female President because you believe that kind of representation will be good for all and will have a ripple effect throughout society, yep I can see that. I wish nat'l politics were more like my home state, sure we're only at 33/34% in the state house or senate for female representation but both senators are female, both reps are male but its a very progressive state that doesn't really care about party of gender, only issues and results (I realize thats a generalization but its my take on it).

Either way, my initial post was put up there because I've grown tired of hearing about all the men who wont vote for Clinton because she is female, it does in fact work both ways, when posting it I didnt really think about the points you posted later geek but it seemed strange to me that people had never met someone who would vote for Obama only because of race or Clinton because of gender.

Thanks for your input, I appreciate it. Off to work, have a bootiful day-Dan