![[A] Funny Feminist](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisnHa1hK60RfEym10OXwwpvOgsOwCmF97g1e4q3TzBrWXvc08_oKYyBeELeXobSbUriid_AS4l2r3TJW-54JpDWH2j68Wv_7TFAVf5tnsYB1BHGtWdS7ukWc-3aggx4wDEkuYVLOahb5o/s1600-r/bloggerheader1.jpg)
Urge Sudan's allies to allow humanitarian groups to care for Darfuri refugees.
Tell your Senators to confirm Dawn Johnsen for assistant Attorney General.
Help restore protections for endangered species.
Demand justice for Black farmers.
Tell Congress to impeach Jay Bybee.
Urge President Obama to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court.
Take action against child marriage.
9 comments:
I'm curious. If you're all about "equality", why should I "urge" Obama to appoint a woman?
I would urge him to appoint the most qualified person for the position, regardless of gender.
Appointing a woman for the sake of having a woman on the SC is ridiculous.
Appointments based on gender are not equality, they are sexism.
I'm curious too. You read "Urge President Obama to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court," and you assume that I'm not talking about qualified individuals. I didn't think I needed to say "qualified," since we're talking about Supreme Court appointments here.
The purpose of appointing a woman is to have a more representative Supreme Court. There's only one woman on the Supreme Court. To represent the 51% of Americans who are female, the Supreme Court needs closer to five female justices. Given that bit of information, there's no need to get your thong in a knot over suggesting to bring the grand total of women justices to two.
Yes, but you're saying "appoint a qualified woman and ignore qualified men".
Which is, in fact, sexist.
Equality, again, would mean appointments based on skill, not gender.
It shouldn't matter what the sex of the person is. Sadly, most feminists (apparently like yourself) wish to elevate women over men, regardless of any other factors. You just want a woman there because you're a woman.
She could be less qualified than a likely male candidate, and you'd still be satisfied, because someone with your genitalia would be in a place of power.
And that's sad.
I want qualified individuals in my government, not a selection of vaginas and penises.
You got all that from my comment? You're reading way beyond what I'm saying. I'm not imploring President Obama to ignore any men. I'm encouraging him to appoint a qualified woman to the Supreme Court to help balance things out. The Supreme Court is hardly representative; it still wouldn't be if the President appoints a woman. I don't think I'm asking for much to have better representation on my Supreme Court. You talk about equality, but you're satisfied with a Supreme Court with 8 men and 1 woman, and you become outraged at the very thought of a Court with one less man. Excuse me for being suspicious over what your real problem is.
President Obama is most likely going to be appointing a woman to the Supreme Court. She's going to be the kind of justice that he's been describing for the past couple of weeks. She's not going to be less qualified than any man he could have chosen. She's going to be at least as qualified as any man he could have chosen. The only difference is that she's going to be a woman. Her mere existence on the Court is going to make it more representative, which is something a male justice can't do.
See, again, we're having a disconnect. It'd be representative because the people come from the US, and represent the ideas, values, and thoughts of the people living here.
Having a political correctness panel encompassing race/gender/sexuality is superficial and meaningless.
If Obama's views match your own, would you say he represents you? Even if you're (for instance) a white geriatric female, and he's an early-middle aged black man, he's still representative of you.
That's kind of the point I'm getting at. Whether or not the appointee has a vagina isn't going to matter.
Would you feel represented if he appointed someone like Ann Coulter? She's a woman, after all, but her views are markedly different than yours.
but you're satisfied with a Supreme Court with 8 men and 1 woman, and you become outraged at the very thought of a Court with one less man. Excuse me for being suspicious over what your real problem is.Paranoia isn't helpful, nor are your "suspicions". Moving on, read my above statement on representation. Having a woman for the sake of a woman doesn't mean anything. It's not "outrage", it's disgust that someone supposedly into equality only cares about vagina representation, instead of views, ideals, etcetera.
You look at the court and say "Oh no! Too many penises! Not enough vaginas!" and see a problem.
I look and say "Too many conservatives, not enough moderates/liberals."
That's our difference.
The only difference is that she's going to be a woman. Her mere existence on the Court is going to make it more representative, which is something a male justice can't do.Again, see my above statement. Elevating women for the sake of there being a woman with power is sexism.
I really don't think people like you would be satisfied until the entire government was populated with women only.
Was I supposed to have read your mind and responded to your most recent comment? Because you keep telling me to refer to the comment you just made as if I were ignoring you.
Let's get real for a moment. I'm not worried that the President is going to appoint anyone a hair right of center. And neither are you. You're feigning concern over not having enough lefties on the Supreme Court so that you can attack me for settling for TWO women on the Supreme Court. Secondly, you make the wild assumption that I want only women in government. I don't know how wanting a second woman on the Supreme Court for the sake of representation translates to only having women in the government. That's a complete fabrication of your mind, so I don't know why you're coming to me about that.
You're feigning concern over not having enough lefties on the Supreme Court so that you can attack me for settling for TWO women on the Supreme Court.I'm going to have to politely ask you to refrain from thinking you know my thoughts or my intent.
For the record, you don't. Don't assume you do.
That said, again, it's incredibly superficial to only be concerned with whether or not the appointee bears a vagina.
I'm aware he wouldn't appoint someone right-leaning. My point was you see a problem with "too much penis, not enough vagina", and want a woman there. I see a problem with "too many conservatives, and not enough moderates or liberals", and want someone in the center, or left of it, and I offer no concern for the gender of the person.
Secondly, you make the wild assumption that I want only women in government.Based on your intense concern for women above all else. Your thoughts that only women can represent you (which is perplexing, to say the least) tend to lead one to that line of thought.
You're telling me not to tell you what you think, and yet you stand by your paranoid assumption that I want every person in government to be women, simply because I'm suggesting a woman be appointed to the Supreme Court. You also assume that I only care about the appointees nether regions, when I've already said that being qualified is understood when talking about a Supreme Court nominee. You obviously have some serious issues with logical reasoning, which makes it impossible for me to engage with you any longer. Peace out, brother.
You have issues with logic. It's plainly obvious. You claim you cannot be adequately represented by anyone other than a woman, regardless of shared viewpoints.
That's highly illogical.
So, yes, you DO seem to only care about their nether regions, when, if given a choice between two identical appointees, one male, one female, you'd always, every time, choose the female.
Sexism.
Post a Comment