US Presidential Election 2016 on RWL

[Firetooth]

The day Hilary Clinton being a woman does not matter to her presidential campaign will be the day that being a woman doesn't matter to your career prospects and place in the world as a whole - and we are a fair way off of that.

How do we get to that place Firetooth? There are fundamental natural differences between male and female that will always influence a person's role in this world, short of abolishing gender or an absolute power enforcing equality I don't know how society gets there.

That's a bit of a disingenuous point. What we're talking about here isn't literal equality as much as it is equity. It's about not having doors closed to you in life based on anything other than your ability and competence, rather than literally getting 50/50 employment in every field of life. Very few people would deny that there are fundamental biological differences between a man and a woman, but that is in no way a justification for the glass ceiling for women in business, nor widespread sexual harassment in the workplace, nor being denied a promotion or paid less contingent on your gender. Therefore, we're really talking about equality of opportunity at every level of society - from the lowest levels of education to the highest levels of employment.

So how we get there is defined by how open the society we create is for women and men who want their employment prospects to go beyond traditional gendered spheres of employment. We need to stop closing entire fields of employment off to people based off of gender - and this is not just limited to women. Mainly, we need to make the sciences, computing and engineering feel less like old boys club, but likewise fields like construction need to be more open to women, and fields like health and beauty and childcare more open to men (there's never gonna be an equal gender balance here, but that's not the point - here in Britain, Andrea Leadsom implied there's a risk of paedophilia with male carers). Mostly, this is about the education system, but the fields themselves can and often to have plenty of issues present for the women who do manage to enter them.

Long term, positive discrimination is of course anti-meritocratic. In the short-to-mid term, however, some level of it is a necessary tool to help achieve this by providing more visible female role models in fields where they are under-represented, as a way of showing young women that pursuing a career in politics or the sciences isn't futile. I think mostly, though, you start by changing the ways parents raise their kids, and how the education system genders roles.

So we don't get there by telling women they should find a new job if they're sexually harassed. We don't get there by scapping gender quotas. We don't get there by calling breastfeeding mothers disgusting. We don't get there by implying that influential female politicians are not worthy of the presidency because of their appearance. We don't get there by implying women in the media are only critical of men because they're menstruating. We don't get there by blasting mothers who are trying to be politically involved for having their child cry.

We definitely don't get there when fathers repeatedly and grotesquely sexualise their own daughters.

As an aside, the natural differences you claim exist between men and women are not as big a factor as I suspect you think they are. They're real, even if some radical feminists would try and deny it, but so much of our gender roles are a social construct.

(also because somebody will probably shoe-horn in maternity leave, my counter is quite simple - increase paternity leave)

[Neobaron]

ooook. I took a day off from this and the other thread. Lets dive back in.

---

especially when you are talking about the infringement of our basic values of meritocracy and equality.

I'm gonna need you to clarify this blurb. I know definitions of words these days are fluid when talking about topics like feminism and (more often) civil rights so this statement is kind of a curve ball for me as the concepts of meritocracy and equality are diametrically opposed in this context.

You cannot achieve equality without abolishing or, at the very least, putting a hiatus on meritocracy as the baseline required for the former does not allow for the latter, and the latter can never be achieved without inviting criticisms that the former has been compromised.

---

We shouldn't be satisfied that we have eliminated the inequalities that we have so far, we should be ashamed that there are still inequalities left. And I'm sorry, but regardless of your reasoning, and regardless of how much you chide him for it, I don't think you can fully appreciate this point if you are still willing to elect as your head of state a well-known racist, sexist, ableist, and all-round bigot. You are willing to tolerate discrimination under certain grounds, and I just fundamentally disagree with that position.

I'm willing to tolerate a lot of things if I gauge that the benefit is greater than the cost. That is the basis of compromise. If anything, it makes me a realist. Not a proponent of all the horrible things Trump says/does. We don't elect perfect candidates because such a thing does not exist. From a realistic perspective, we don't elect the candidate that represents us best, we elect the candidate that is least in opposition to our interests as citizens. Perhaps you elect your officials on the basis of what feels right, but I elect mine on the basis of whether or not they will make my life better or worse with their policies. Idealism flies out the window when you have to figure out where rent is going to come from next month.

In this election, I have come to the conclusion that while Trump and Hillary would be equally bad, I am supporting Trump because he is less likely to make things worse simply because he will not have the broad base support to do anything. Remember that only about half of the population of the US votes, and due to the quirks of the electoral system, a majority of those don't even necessarily select the president. Thus a presidential win is not a mandate as <25% of the population elects the president in the US. And those are the high turnout elections - a fraction of that elects the real power in the midterms. These considerations are where I have hedged my bets. It has almost nothing to do with a belief that Trump is the better candidate from a policy standpoint.

---

Again, another problem I've had with third wave feminism is that it has been too focused on white, middle-class women, rather than women of different ethnicities and backgrounds - who tend to have enjoyed far fewer of the benefits second wave feminism work. However, I do think much of third wave feminism has started to shift towards this angle in recent times.

And this is where I think the national differences start to rear their heads. At least in the US, third-wave feminism (hence 3F its a fingerfull m8) is notoriously objectiveless and welcoming to 'other' causes. The 3F focus on intersectionality has done nothing but hurt the valid causes because 3Fers tend to get lumped in with their allies and frustrations with both groups are amplified. If they focused on, say, the gender pay gap then that would give them more cohesion and something to rally behind. Instead its just an amorphous blob of people that just seem angry about everything without offering real solutions to what seems to be, more often than not, the fake problems they highlight. Body/fat acceptance, for example, tends to fall under the feminist umbrella and I don't think any rational person will find that to be a valid cause, nor do I think it is a feminist issue because overeating is a genderless sin.

3Fers are currently wandering around in the desert firing scuds at the mirages of the ivory towers they seek to destroy. Its ineffectual and pointless, but I guess if nothing else its a statement. They don't have a Gloria Steinem or a Susan B. Anthony to lead them out. When they find their Moses and decide on a destination, they will have no issues getting support and conquering whatever they want.

---

I mean, you yourself freely admitted you blasted me with a bunch of strawmans and reductive reasoning simply because you knew I went to uni; you freely admit you lack objectivity here. End of the day, both sides definitely need to just step back and get a little bit more perspective, and stop applying the views of vocal minorities to majorities. We need more of a dialogue between feminism and wider society, imo, with the problem atm that third wave feminism is becoming somewhat more of an inward-looking movement, whereas feminism should be a gender equality movement that does actually benefit men by challenging traditional gender roles (ie. toxic masculinity, the frequent anti-feminist "but divorcing men never get custody" complaint), even if the net benefit is mostly to women.

I freely admitted I went hard on the offensive because I assumed you were one of the indoctrinated massed that floods out of the university gates with a useless degree and a mind full of tropes invented by people who have never left academia. I knew you were older, but I did not give you the consideration of assuming you grew mentally along with physically. I admit to mischaracterizing and underestimating your ability to think rationally on the basis of our past interactions.

I do not admit to anything else you claim.

3F in its current form is dangerous from an intellectual standpoint because of the prior mentioned lack of an objective, and the fact that so many vocal minorities can get so much airtime is the best example of that. 3F is dangerous because the alleged silent majority isn't standing up to the vocal minorities and telling them that they do not represent the majority. And those very loud, very belligerent minorities are the ones that are going hard into the totalitarian mindset and accusing everyone who stands up to them of thoughtcrime or guilt by association. Fighting against 3F in its current, leaderless and objectiveless, form is not wrong. Movements like those can do nothing but harm as they ultimately become impenetrable to outside influence and interaction. Attacking in every direction is bad for both sides.

I think we agree on this at least, yes?

---

But it patently does though - to both sides. I agree that it shouldn't influence voting intention, but the positive impact that a female POTUS would have in breaking the glass ceiling is obvious, and can't be dismissed out of hand. The day Hilary Clinton being a woman does not matter to her presidential campaign will be the day that being a woman doesn't matter to your career prospects and place in the world as a whole - and we are a fair way off of that.

I'd argue that it would have been much more important in 2008.

Electing a black man as the undisputed leader of the free world is the single most progressive thing the US has ever done or likely will do unless we can finesse a dog or something into the presidency. Perhaps the impact of that statement won't really resonate with you, since I imagine you only have a topical understanding of race relations in US history, but every other glass ceiling was shattered the moment he took office. A woman taking office at this point would be little more than a formality to reiterate the point. And like I said in another post elsewhere, there are many other women who are more deserving of that honor than Hillary Clinton.

---

So how we get there is defined by how open the society we create is for women and men who want their employment prospects to go beyond traditional gendered spheres of employment. We need to stop closing entire fields of employment off to people based off of gender - and this is not just limited to women. Mainly, we need to make the sciences, computing and engineering feel less like old boys club, but likewise fields like construction need to be more open to women, and fields like health and beauty and childcare more open to men (there's never gonna be an equal gender balance here, but that's not the point - here in Britain, Andrea Leadsom implied there's a risk of paedophilia with male carers). Mostly, this is about the education system, but the fields themselves can and often to have plenty of issues present for the women who do manage to enter them.

Long term, positive discrimination is of course anti-meritocratic. In the short-to-mid term, however, some level of it is a necessary tool to help achieve this by providing more visible female role models in fields where they are under-represented, as a way of showing young women that pursuing a career in politics or the sciences isn't futile. I think mostly, though, you start by changing the ways parents raise their kids, and how the education system genders roles.

Take a look at this and this

It shows a ~2% growth in female representation in the span of 6-7 years in traditionally male dominated positions, specifically as it relates to STEM. I don't really think the workforce at large will ever see full equality in either pay or representation simply do to the fact that females will never be physically capable of performing the highly dangerous and physically demanding jobs that usually garner higher pay for their risks. I'm talking about oil workers, construction, and things like that. But if you narrow it down to a particular sector that doesn't carry those caveats, then you see gradual growth.

The ramifications of the victories won by the 2Fers in the 70s are starting to pay dividends a generation and a half after they won their battles, which is about what you would expect to see given the time it takes for a human life cycle. Nobody should ever suggest that we will see equal representation in the workforce overnight, and continuing to highlight what is a changing situation only acts as an irritant. Things are changing. Gradually. As they should.

The pay gap, however, is a concern, and a very valid cause that I wish had a cohesive movement behind it.

[Firetooth]

I'm gonna need you to clarify this blurb. I know definitions of words these days are fluid when talking about topics like feminism and (more often) civil rights so this statement is kind of a curve ball for me as the concepts of meritocracy and equality are diametrically opposed in this context.

You cannot achieve equality without abolishing or, at the very least, putting a hiatus on meritocracy as the baseline required for the former does not allow for the latter, and the latter can never be achieved without inviting criticisms that the former has been compromised.

Fair enough. The goal is meritocracy in the long term, with measures like positive discrimination in the short-to-mid term. The contradiction only exists if you don't see the distinction between the conditions needed to met a goal, and the temporary measures needed to reach those conditions. I did more or less make this distinction in an extract which you did quote later on, but it was late on in my post.

I'm willing to tolerate a lot of things if I gauge that the benefit is greater than the cost. That is the basis of compromise. If anything, it makes me a realist. Not a proponent of all the horrible things Trump says/does. We don't elect perfect candidates because such a thing does not exist. From a realistic perspective, we don't elect the candidate that represents us best, we elect the candidate that is least in opposition to our interests as citizens. Perhaps you elect your officials on the basis of what feels right, but I elect mine on the basis of whether or not they will make my life better or worse with their policies. Idealism flies out the window when you have to figure out where rent is going to come from next month.

In this election, I have come to the conclusion that while Trump and Hillary would be equally bad, I am supporting Trump because he is less likely to make things worse simply because he will not have the broad base support to do anything. Remember that only about half of the population of the US votes, and due to the quirks of the electoral system, a majority of those don't even necessarily select the president. Thus a presidential win is not a mandate as <25% of the population elects the president in the US. And those are the high turnout elections - a fraction of that elects the real power in the midterms. These considerations are where I have hedged my bets. It has almost nothing to do with a belief that Trump is the better candidate from a policy standpoint.

Generally, I believe it actually takes more courage to compromise on your principles to achieve real change that it does to just cling to a few principles. But there are some things you can't compromise on, and a few principles that are inalienable.

Re next month's rent: It's quite short-sighted to base your decision to vote for a candidate based solely upon their immediate impact, and with only a five-year window in mind. I think you are doing this with regards to Trump, which is bizarre as your entire criticism of Clinton seems to be focused upon the long-term damage she would do. I appreciate you probably have weighed up the long-term implications of a Trump presidency to some degree, but I do not think you have considered the full spectrum of these implications, nor the full extent of these implications, with the level of attention which they deserve.

I don't want to sound too self-righteous here, though, as I appreciate I don't have proper bills and rent and such (I do nevertheless have to work a lot of night shifts to afford to eat and such). Nevertheless, wouldn't vote Labour next election, even though they claim they'd eliminate tuition fees, because I realise what an unmitigated economic disaster that would be. You definitely have to weigh up what seems proximately beneficial vs the ultimate good of the country (which ultimately will impact upon you at some point in the future, be it near or far).

As for the broad support base: I appreciate the foibles of the US electoral system, and our own system has plenty of problems with representation. That said, it seems an odd point to argue a chaotic, divided political system is what is best suited to lead America through the turbulent times coming up. Strong leadership is needed to navigate the challenges ahead. Furthermore, to return to the long-term implications of a Trump presidency: don't dismiss the authoritarian undertones to Trump's campaign. Besides the links to Russia and Paul Manafort having lobbied for several authoritarians, most notably Yanukovych, there is the completely anti-media spin to Trump's campaign, as well as his suggestion that he could force the military to torture terrorists in earlier debates. Using the constraints the existing system provides on a candidate who, bolstered by a grassroots movement, has shown he does not care for, and would willingly dismantle, such constraints, is unwise. History (and Volkov) would warn you of this.

And this is where I think the national differences start to rear their heads. At least in the US, third-wave feminism (hence 3F its a fingerfull m8) is notoriously objectiveless and welcoming to 'other' causes. The 3F focus on intersectionality has done nothing but hurt the valid causes because 3Fers tend to get lumped in with their allies and frustrations with both groups are amplified. If they focused on, say, the gender pay gap then that would give them more cohesion and something to rally behind. Instead its just an amorphous blob of people that just seem angry about everything without offering real solutions to what seems to be, more often than not, the fake problems they highlight. Body/fat acceptance, for example, tends to fall under the feminist umbrella and I don't think any rational person will find that to be a valid cause, nor do I think it is a feminist issue because overeating is a genderless sin.

Ok, I can agree that one of the main problems of 3F (it is indeed a fingerful) is that its grievances are diffuse. But that is because we have reached a stage where most of the laws second wave feminism wanted to overturn have been overturned, and most of the laws that second wave feminism wanted to introduce have been introduced. Yet sexism is still widespread - not as overtly, but it is there. This does definitely tie into the unconscious bias I was talking about earlier, but more prominently into stuff that is difficult to police with laws, like some ignoramus at work or on campus harassing you, or media ads on perfect beach bodies. Plus, as you highlight later in this post, it's taken a while for the dividends of the reforms won by 2F to pay - and they are still paying slowly.

That's why the movement is so angry, and it is in turn difficult to criticise them for wanting to change a world that still, in its own way, vilifies and subjects their primarily female membership based upon their gender.

I don't think a broad church is necessarily the wrong approach to take. Patently, the benefits of 2F feminism have primarily gone to middle-class, white women, and I think the movement needed to adapt to that reality. Many causes do have common grounds and almost always the same enemies (don't over-analyse that word choice I'm just too tired to think of something more fitting). I agree that it can go too far, however.

Ultimately, I like to think that the movement will diffuse and fizzle out as the older generations die off, positive discriminatory measures have a cumulative effect, and events like the potential election of Hilary Clinton to POTUS finalise the smashing of the glass ceiling. But that's an optimistic take on events, so we'll see.

That said, I agree with you that the movement could still be more focused on a few keys areas, such as the wage gap. This ties into your next point regarding leadership, though, so I'll get to it in a second.

3Fers are currently wandering around in the desert firing scuds at the mirages of the ivory towers they seek to destroy. Its ineffectual and pointless, but I guess if nothing else its a statement. They don't have a Gloria Steinem or a Susan B. Anthony to lead them out. When they find their Moses and decide on a destination, they will have no issues getting support and conquering whatever they want.

I agree entirely with this, which is why I think it's odd that you use the extreme viewpoints of a few figureheads - who you and I can agree practically don't lead or speak for the movement in its entirety - to criticise the movement in its entirety. I can guarantee you that the majority of people who self-identify as feminist do not fall into the "kill all men" camp, nor even a significant minority of those actively involved in the movement. Thus, the point remains a red herring.

I freely admitted I went hard on the offensive because I assumed you were one of the indoctrinated massed that floods out of the university gates with a useless degree and a mind full of tropes invented by people who have never left academia. I knew you were older, but I did not give you the consideration of assuming you grew mentally along with physically. I admit to mischaracterizing and underestimating your ability to think rationally on the basis of our past interactions.

I do not admit to anything else you claim.

Well thanks for your more positive assessment of my intellect. That said, your assessment of the average student is plain snobbery; I agree some students don't know what they're talking about, but it's not healthy to develop an attitude of superiority in these things - as you have demonstrated with your earlier overly-rash approach. Objectivity is key, after all.

That said, you 100% strawmanned me. I'm not really interested in retreading that ground, but I still will briefly mention it, asthe posts are there to see. You attacked exaggerated versions of my argument, rather than my actual argument, for which you apologised for. I think somebody with a reasonable level of objectivity re-reading those exchanges would come to the same conclusion I have. But let's not get caught up on it.

3F in its current form is dangerous from an intellectual standpoint because of the prior mentioned lack of an objective, and the fact that so many vocal minorities can get so much airtime is the best example of that. 3F is dangerous because the alleged silent majority isn't standing up to the vocal minorities and telling them that they do not represent the majority. And those very loud, very belligerent minorities are the ones that are going hard into the totalitarian mindset and accusing everyone who stands up to them of thoughtcrime or guilt by association. Fighting against 3F in its current, leaderless and objectiveless, form is not wrong. Movements like those can do nothing but harm as they ultimately become impenetrable to outside influence and interaction. Attacking in every direction is bad for both sides.

I think we agree on this at least, yes?

I think we get into the territory of who actually comprises third wave feminism. Ask most students in Sheffield if they consider themselves a feminist, the majority would say yes. Ask that majority if they supported if they agree with stuff like "kill all white men," obviously they'll say no. Ask them about something like no platforming, however, and they probably don't know enough to have an opinion - they probably don't know who Peter Tatchell is. These very are the silent majority, but the question is how far you can consider them as part of the core 3F movement.

If you get into the core activists of 3F groups, things get a bit more complicated. The impression I've always gotten from my own encounters and those of my friends, however, is definitely different to the impression you get from people who don't interact with members of the movement on the ground.

In general, you have to remember that the world is becoming a more polarised place. You can see this over here with the rise of UKIP, with Brexit, and with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader. You can see it across Europe - Syriza, Golden Dawn, and the recent far-left vs far-right election in Austria. You see it in America, right now, with two of the most hated presidential candidates in recent history. Student politics - indeed, any form of politics - has always given the biggest platform to whoever can yell the loudest and longest; the NUS here in the UK is made up of 1,000 delegates elected by a clique yet is that national representative of the student body). This is only going to be amplified in the current climate in which we live.

"Fighting" against the movement is not what I want to do, but I do want to hold the movement to account and challenge it on its misconceptions, echo-chamber mentality and reductive knowledge. I do this not with the attention of undermining it, but because I believe there is still a need for third wave feminist movement - and that the current movement needs a bit of a course correction.

I'd argue that it would have been much more important in 2008.

Electing a black man as the undisputed leader of the free world is the single most progressive thing the US has ever done or likely will do unless we can finesse a dog or something into the presidency. Perhaps the impact of that statement won't really resonate with you, since I imagine you only have a topical understanding of race relations in US history, but every other glass ceiling was shattered the moment he took office. A woman taking office at this point would be little more than a formality to reiterate the point. And like I said in another post elsewhere, there are many other women who are more deserving of that honor than Hillary Clinton.

My understanding of US race relations aside, I agree with your assessment of the significance of the event now vs 08, and would also posit that the levels of sexism - both subtle and overt (primarily the latter) - in media coverage of Clinton are far lower in this contest.

That said, I think it's naive to make this a competition about electing which member of which group is more progressive - and counter-productive. Even if we were to assume your point about all glass ceilings being shattered was correct (and it patently is not - I'd be shocked if we see an openly gay or even openly atheist US president any time soon), the significance of Clinton as an aspirational role-model for young women would surely still be a positive force for young women. A competent, vocally-feminist female president, leading the free world for five years - don't you think that might make a young girl think she could achieve more?

Take a look at this and this

ATM I can only open PDFs in browser, and you need an account to do that for the first link. Thus, can only comment in more detail on the second link.

It shows a ~2% growth in female representation in the span of 6-7 years in traditionally male dominated positions, specifically as it relates to STEM. I don't really think the workforce at large will ever see full equality in either pay or representation simply do to the fact that females will never be physically capable of performing the highly dangerous and physically demanding jobs that usually garner higher pay for their risks. I'm talking about oil workers, construction, and things like that. But if you narrow it down to a particular sector that doesn't carry those caveats, then you see gradual growth.

The ramifications of the victories won by the 2Fers in the 70s are starting to pay dividends a generation and a half after they won their battles, which is about what you would expect to see given the time it takes for a human life cycle.

Agreed that 50/50 equal representation is just never going to happen in some fields. Full equality in pay? That depends. Lots of these manual, high-risk jobs you're talking about are becoming lost to automation.

Nobody should ever suggest that we will see equal representation in the workforce overnight, and continuing to highlight what is a changing situation only acts as an irritant. Things are changing. Gradually. As they should.

Agree with the first bit, disagree with the second; sitting back and waiting for reforms to come good is just now how social progress works. Is highlighting continuing inequality an "irritant"? Yes - that's kind of the point.

The pay gap, however, is a concern, and a very valid cause that I wish had a cohesive movement behind it.

As mentioned earlier, agree on this.