Jump to content

Women in the World Summit


Recommended Posts

North American's presidential hopeful Hillary, came out swinging during a speech in New York on Thursday night in which she expanded her personal doctrine – “women’s rights are human rights” – to the plight of mothers, fast food workers, immigrants, retirees, students, gay and transgender people and victims of sexual abuse.

I get that Hillary has an agenda with american female voters http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/24/hillary-clinton-rouses-womens-summit-with-first-big-speech-of-presidential-run but seriously, where do the republican men stand up for women's rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hilary Clinton has also declared that 'Women are the primary victims of war'. Because, you know the individuals of the gender/sex that are doing the majority of the dying in war couldn't possibly be the primary victims of war.

781_001.jpg?v=1

Look at all those privileged non-primary victims of war in the image above!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

North American's presidential hopeful Hillary, came out swinging during a speech in New York on Thursday night in which she expanded her personal doctrine – “women’s rights are human rights” – to the plight of mothers, fast food workers, immigrants, retirees, students, gay and transgender people and victims of sexual abuse.

Unfortunately, Hilary is a fraud when it comes to standing up for the little-guy. She cares about fast-food workers to the extent that she thinks they'll vote for her. She's as pro-corporate, pro-bank, pro-Wall Street as any of the Republicans. Her latest gimmick is pretending to be concerned about the Trans Pacific Partnership, despite the fact that she's already traveled all over the world promoting it to foreign governments.

I get that Hillary has an agenda with american female voters http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/24/hillary-clinton-rouses-womens-summit-with-first-big-speech-of-presidential-run but seriously, where do the republican men stand up for women's rights.

They don't. Their company line is going to be that they are standing up for women by creating jobs, energy policies that will lead to lower gas prices, etc. They won't produce one single policy idea targeted specifically at helping women in any regard. The best they can hope for is that they don't make any "legitimate rape", "binders full of women" type cock-ups this time.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't. Their company line is going to be that they are standing up for women by creating jobs, energy policies that will lead to lower gas prices, etc. They won't produce one single policy idea targeted specifically at helping women in any regard.

WTF? Creating jobs and lowering the cost of living does help women. Why should any politician be expected to come up with policies that only benefit women?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF? Creating jobs and lowering the cost of living does help women. Why should any politician be expected to come up with policies that only benefit women?

Good question. I guess women don't like jobs, lower energy prices, cost of living, etc. I guess we need a policy that lowers the price of just tampons or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF? Creating jobs and lowering the cost of living does help women.

I never said they don't. I just said that's what the Republicans are going to say they're doing to help women, and that's all they're going to offer.

Why should any politician be expected to come up with policies that only benefit women?

Well, I'd suggest two things. First off, some issues affect women disproportionately more than men. For example, an pay discrimination law might theoretically benefit men as well as women, but in practice it would be overwhelmingly used by women and not men. And secondly, I'd suggest that if Mrs G were the one attempting to file a pay discrimination lawsuit against her employer, I suspect that your view that it only benefited women might change. I just mention pay discrimination as an example because I seem to recall that Republicans fought vociferously against the Lily Ledbetter Act.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, some issues affect women disproportionately more than men. For example, an pay discrimination law might theoretically benefit men as well as women, but in practice it would be overwhelmingly used by women and not men.

That may be the case but these issues are issues in their own right that should be addressed based on the merits - not because some politician needs to check off the 'policies for women' box on the scorecard.

And secondly, I'd suggest that if Mrs G were the one attempting to file a pay discrimination lawsuit against her employer, I suspect that your view that it only benefited women might change. I just mention pay discrimination as an example because I seem to recall that Republicans fought vociferously against the Lily Ledbetter Act.

Some policies are simply bad policies that come with all kinds of negative side effects and can create perverse incentives. Opposing policies because of the negative side effects does not make a politician 'anti-women'. In this case, the law was largely a jobs program for high paid trial lawyers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be the case but these issues are issues in their own right that should be addressed based on the merits - not because some politician needs to check off the 'policies for women' box on the scorecard. Some policies are simply bad policies that come with all kinds of negative side effects and can create perverse incentives. Opposing policies because of the negative side effects does not make a politician 'anti-women'. In this case, the law was largely a jobs program for high paid trial lawyers.

Well said. It's how the left thinks. They don't see people as just people, they see them as whatever gender, race, ethnicity or sexual preference somebody is. That's why they think there needs to be specific policies for gays, women, asians, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said. It's how the left thinks. They don't see people as just people, they see them as whatever gender, race, ethnicity or sexual preference somebody is. That's why they think there needs to be specific policies for gays, women, asians, etc.

Or 'immigration' ? Do you consider Argus a leftist ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Hilary is a fraud when it comes to standing up for the little-guy. She cares about fast-food workers to the extent that she thinks they'll vote for her. She's as pro-corporate, pro-bank, pro-Wall Street as any of the Republicans. Her latest gimmick is pretending to be concerned about the Trans Pacific Partnership, despite the fact that she's already traveled all over the world promoting it to foreign governments.

They don't. Their company line is going to be that they are standing up for women by creating jobs, energy policies that will lead to lower gas prices, etc. They won't produce one single policy idea targeted specifically at helping women in any regard. The best they can hope for is that they don't make any "legitimate rape", "binders full of women" type cock-ups this time.

-k

This. Hillary is awful and just another in line for the American Presidential Dynasty that has been around for the entire neo-liberal era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said. It's how the left thinks. They don't see people as just people, they see them as whatever gender, race, ethnicity or sexual preference somebody is. That's why they think there needs to be specific policies for gays, women, asians, etc.

People with more than two braincells to rub together understand that there are structural influences that shape individual choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how that relates.

I posted something to him just recently about just this:

"They don't see people as just people"

Is it really a leftist trait or is it a trait that's used by anybody who wants to tie an individual to a group in a blameworthy way ? How does race, country of origin, religion, gender flag somebody as being eligible for special - good or bad - treatment in your view ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Hilary is a fraud when it comes to standing up for the little-guy. She cares about fast-food workers to the extent that she thinks they'll vote for her. She's as pro-corporate, pro-bank, pro-Wall Street as any of the Republicans. Her latest gimmick is pretending to be concerned about the Trans Pacific Partnership, despite the fact that she's already traveled all over the world promoting it to foreign governments.

They don't. Their company line is going to be that they are standing up for women by creating jobs, energy policies that will lead to lower gas prices, etc. They won't produce one single policy idea targeted specifically at helping women in any regard. The best they can hope for is that they don't make any "legitimate rape", "binders full of women" type cock-ups this time.

So the Americans have a choice, white male republican leaders or.......Hillary? Not hard to figure out.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People with more than two braincells to rub together understand that there are structural influences that shape individual choices.

I don't care if someone is right, left, upside down or any other position Clearly opportunities are given or not depending on race, religion, gender etc. it's simply ludicrous to think that one policy fits all.

Of course you need to identify

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted something to him just recently about just this:"They don't see people as just people"Is it really a leftist trait or is it a trait that's used by anybody who wants to tie an individual to a group in a blameworthy way ? How does race, country of origin, religion, gender flag somebody as being eligible for special - good or bad - treatment in your view ?

By definition, immigration involves that. I'm referring to domestic policy and identity politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care if someone is right, left, upside down or any other position Clearly opportunities are given or not depending on race, religion, gender etc. it's simply ludicrous to think that one policy fits all.

Of course you need to identify

I don't think opportunities are given as such. I reckon they are at least partially created.

And very often they are not recognized and are lost for that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    John Wilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • exPS went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...