Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General The Political Gender Gap:

You are on fire Scout!!

Rick, We're talking about Orange County, here...of course they(both males and females) are obsessed with their appearance!

Julia
I can understand the confusion inherent in my posting. However a few things are clear.... I have REPEATEDLY said that I do not support appearance based discrimination... and actually I oppose it.

Let's consider an analogous situation in politics. I say "Any politician who does not actively support Israel is crazy." (and by the way I do think that is true.) Does that mean that my view is that the "proper" policy of the US government is unqualified support of Israel? No, it does not. My statement recognizes the political reality that a politician must construct a coalition of broad support... and such a coalition would likely be blown apart if an American politician was indifferent, or in opposition to the very many people in this country that fiercely support Israel. Being indifferent to Israel wins a politician no friends and cements many virulent enemies. And so the "reality" that American politicians face is that they essentially have no option other than to actively support Israel.

In the context of this discussion, I was saying that that women face a similar choice in their career/social path. A woman can ignore appearance related issues on principal... and in doing so she gains nothing other than satisfaction of conforming to her inner principals. Or, alternatively a woman can take note of society's active discrimination against people (and especially women) who do not play the appearance game. A woman can take not of the real benefits to anyone (and especially women) who plays the appearance game well. And having noted the above, a large majority of women will come to my stated conclusion which you quoted..."any woman who wants to be more successful would spend a reasonable amount of effort and resources seeking to maximize her attractiveness as a way of enhancing her competitive positioning in a broad range of activities."That statement is no different from my parallel position that "any American politician would be a fool not to actively support Israel"

Neither is a statement of how the world SHOULD be. Both reflect my estimation of the way this world actually works.


Yes Julia, I completely agree. But it does seem to me that people face such challenges on a regular basis. Again, to take an example... I am quite sure that a lot of people involved in the whole sub-prime mortgage fiasco realized that the whole process was moving in an extremely bad an unsustainable direction. People realized that they were making "bad" loans. Other people realized that they were selling bad loans to investors. And those people also realized that it was in their best interest to keep quiet and "go along" People who objected to the sub prime mess damaged their career and walked away from huge profits. Likewise, people (and especially women)who ignore our society's appearance mania put themselves at a significant disadvantage within this society. And so

Ardy, I don't think I was confused, and I certainly was not accusing you of supporting discrimination.

There's a long way to go between suggesting someone would be wise to live up to arbitrary standards set for them, and discrimination - as we both well know.


Unless, of course, their actual beliefs tell them otherwise and they have the huevos to stand up for their own beliefs, win or lose.

Ardy, that is a good parallel and it will prove each of us to be right in our own eyes!


Nothing other??? Nothing other than principle???? The satisfaction of living up to my own principles is one of the great pleasures of life.

Again, Ardy, I understand what you're saying here. You are making a valueless statement what you believe to be an unchangeable fact.

And I'm saying that a valueless statement is not useful in this case.

My own parallel: I could make the statement that there are neighborhoods in Omaha which black people would be wise to avoid. That's a true statement. But if I leave it at that, I permit others to infer that I don't have a problem with it. Therefore my tendency would be to add to that sentence "and that's overdue for change."

Regarding your statement about women being judged by their appearance -- I believe you see this statement as a fact of life, something that's out there that's not going to change. I believe it can change; I believe it has changed greatly in the last 50 years and will change much more in the next 50. And I think that needs to happen because it's not a fact; it's just a a holdover from earlier times, and those times are long gone.

Ardy, people involved in the stock market CHOOSE to be involved in the stock market. They have a choice about the risk they are willing to take. They can get out at any time. This is not a parallel.

We do agree on many things; the primary difference is that you are leaving your statement without judgment, and I think a judgment should be explicit in order to avoid being misread.

Pragmatism vs. principle; the perfect is the enemy of the good. Been asked to swallow a lot of that lately...

And in fairness, we are looking at this from different ends of the telescope, most likely due to experience.

Because the effect of this prejudice is smaller on men, I believe Ardy is seeing more of a molehill, where I, having a more frequent experience with it, tend to see a mountain. If that's the case, it makes sense that we see it that way - but it can make communication tricky.

Good point Julia. You women, have mercy on us men, it's hard for us to relate to experiences we cannot possibly have. And us guys, we need to give deference to you for the same reason, we can't walk a mile in your moccasins, we can only trust that those blisters came about because of man-made shoes.

Dennis Kucinich is a politician who eschews blind support for Zionism, and yet he manages to get re-elected over and over again, because of his other attributes - physical attractiveness notably not among them - nor wealth!

Cynthia McKinney is a politician who eschews blind support for Zionism, and she was soundly defeated on the basis of her father's alleged anti-Semitism. She also had many other attributes, among them that she is an attractive woman - but alas! she is African American!

Hillary Clinton has been mercilessly taunted for her looks and her un-attractiveness (though I think very unfairly!), and yet despite that has risen to prominence and power in the Senate, and nearly won the Democratic nomination this year, because of her many other attributes. Many people argue (and I agree to a large extent) that she lost because she was portrayed negatively in a sexist way.

Then along comes this clueless neophyte governor of the least populous state in the union, whose career has been marred by politics of ignorance and vindictiveness, and suddenly she is vaulted into the VP slot on the Republican ticket. Why? because she is "a babe". Because she represents what the Republican base thinks a woman "ought to be". Not what a politician ought to be. What a woman ought to be.

When was the last time a male candidate similarly unqualified for the position was foisted upon the public because he represented what a man ought to be?

I think that in all fairness one should acknowledge the following distinction:

With respect to Obama vs. some 3rd patrty alternative (or McCain) I ADVOCATE pragmatism. I have taken a clear public position on that. I have argued the position for pragmatism ad nauseum.

With respect to the current thread, my arguement has not been in favor of "pragmatism" (IE I have not advocated accepting a pragmatic view accepting and working within societal norms which judge people based upon appearance). What I have argueds for is a conscious acknowledgement that if one were pragmatic... and more specifically if a woman were pragmatic.... the "pragmatic " option is to accept and work within societal norms which judge people based upon appearance.

I have clearly NOT advocated that anyone should make a choice of pragmatism over principal in reference to this question. And specifically, I am completely indifferent to what ever choice you may decide on thuis question. If you want to be pragmatic... it is fine with me. If you want to be principaled... it is also fine with me.

Hekate... I ask you to swallow nothing on this issue. Make yourself happy and have my blessing.

Steve...
with all respect here... I am pretty sure that guys mostly do not notice what sort of shoes a woman wears. If a woman decides that she lusts after $500 shoes that are uncomfortable... it is not because of us men.

In fact, my wife has complained about her feet because her work requires a lot of standing and walking. I have repeatedly tried to encourage her to buy practical shoes that give her feet more support. I will leave you to imagine how successful I was.

I strongly agree that standing up for principal is significantly fulfilling. It is, however, seldom pragmatic.

Moreover, I have never said that this fact was unchangeable. I have repeatedly tried to clarify my view as to the dynamics which make this "fact" so pervasive and so resistant to change. And my whole rationale for this effort is not to excuse the "fact," nor to characterize the fact as unchangeable, but rather to more clearly identify the active dynamics so that the situation CAN be changed.
And using your parallel... I have repeatedly said that I am not endorsing the current situation and strongly feel that it should be changed. And moreover that the situation has remained as it is for so long... and even gotten worse... that the reasonable thing to do is to try to understand the underlying dynamics so that an effective change strategy can be devised.
I would say that it IS A FACT, that IS A HOLDOVER from earlier times and that it does need to change.
Julia, you may have misunderstood the parallel.
I am not talking about the stock market at all. Not at all.
I am talking about loan brokers who sold these loans and surely must have know that they were unsound. I am talking about the people who took out these loans and surely knew they could not pay therm back, People who took out the loans and lied about their income. People who bought these absurd loans for investment banks and bundled them up into Mortgage backed securities. All of these people would surely have known that the emperor's new clothes were a sham. All of them proceeded along the path despite any moral qualms they had because of their own personal self interest.

As far as the stock market is concerned... most of the loans were not sold on the stock market. People who bought stocks of banks only saw the profits that came from the process of scrutinizing sub-prime loans.... and the invested accordingly. And those people were told that these mortgage backed securities were rated AAA by rating agencies... and that they were backed by insurance in the unlikely case that they defaulted (credit default swaps)


And in my defense I feel that I have repeatedly and specifically said that I oppose appearance based discrimination and feel that it is unhealthy for girls and I support trying to change it, and I specifically try to change it when ever I have the opportunity... and I most often run into implacable resistance from my wife and my daughter who insist that they do not want a practical or principled approach to this issue. And in that context I rather resent any implied responsibility for maintaining the situation as a matter of self interest.