dragonfart28
Banned
What was the original title?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Poll indicates Clinton and Trump voters' contrasting views on likelihood of a woman POTUS in their lifetime, personal hopes
- Thread starter StrikeNinja24
- Start date
What was the original title?
Spheyr
Banned
No one who matters does.
Claude Kenni
Member
The funny part is it was likely Evilore himself who changed the title considering he said it was mostly him before who did that. Because the OP posted the title of the news article he was linking to, which isn't even an incorrect reading of the study. Deserving of shaming and a junioring? Laughably not even close.
Saying Trump voters "don't want" to see a female president might lead some to interpret that as an active preference for only males but it's not explicitly stated that way. Not hoping to see a female president is the same damn thing as not wanting one and yet because it can be read as an active want for there not to be a female president OP is punished for it despite him only quoting the article he posted for his title.
Pretty sad considering it was likely Evilore himself who changed the title, doesn't look like he learned a damn thing from the immature activity that plagued the old version of this site.
Saying Trump voters "don't want" to see a female president might lead some to interpret that as an active preference for only males but it's not explicitly stated that way. Not hoping to see a female president is the same damn thing as not wanting one and yet because it can be read as an active want for there not to be a female president OP is punished for it despite him only quoting the article he posted for his title.
Pretty sad considering it was likely Evilore himself who changed the title, doesn't look like he learned a damn thing from the immature activity that plagued the old version of this site.
Dr. Claus
Banned
We both know that your statement in bold is highly disingenuous. We have had multiple people here who explicitly show how "loaded" the question was. I do not "hope" to see a female president, as I don't care if a president is female. That shouldn't be important, at all. What should be important their stance on issues, how they plan to fix/deal with them. If they are female, then cool - but that is an idiotic reason to vote for someone.
Also, OP has been punished for continued disingenuous posting, hostile attitudes, and low quality posts/threads. This was just a long line of issues coming from them, one that seems to finally have "broken the camel's back". Though the title change was a bit much, as has been said as much by multiple others. You would know this if you did just a modicum of research before posting (but, not sure if you even visit this site, given you have only posted twice since the mass exodus).
StrikeNinja24
Banned
However, we've had plenty of people judging their choices on gender as well. Would you agree?
StrikeNinja24
Banned
Hey at least I made the title more accurate than the Young Turks did.
LegendOfKage
Member
Not really. As a hypothetical example:
Pollster: "Claude Kenni, I see you've ordered an Uber. Do you specifically hope that your driver is Jewish?"
Claude Kenni: "Of course I wouldn't mind a Jewish driver, but I don't really care who drives me. Any religion or nationality is fine with me. Mostly, I just want a safe driver."
Pollster: "Okay, I'll just put you down as a no."
Click-bait journalist: "Claude Kenni joins an increasingly alarming number of anti-Semites who say they don't want a Jew driving their Uber."
I'm not specifically hoping for a female president in my lifetime, but I would gladly vote for any woman who had political values closer to my own than the other choices. That doesn't mean that I don't want a female president in my lifetime. Those are very different things.
That seems like a pretty low bar. You can do better than that. If we're ever going to have discussions where we actually learn something from each other, we all should do better than that. Generalizations and misrepresenting opinions doesn't help anyone.
Last edited:
hammysaurusrex
Member
Not really contributing an original thought, as others have already added the same criticism: There's a lot of smart and accomplished conservative women... that I'd never vote because I find their policy and political positions appalling. I'd hate to be held to sexism for that opinion, so it's only fair to give the other side the benefit of the doubt. Of course, there could be some inherent sexist bias on the right, but if you're trying to present evidence for that claim - this is not it.
That being said, I don't begrudge the people who did select yes to the response. If you're not savvy about how to frame survey questions, it would be quite reasonable for a participant to insert "... that I agree with politically" to the end of the question without a second thought.
That being said, I don't begrudge the people who did select yes to the response. If you're not savvy about how to frame survey questions, it would be quite reasonable for a participant to insert "... that I agree with politically" to the end of the question without a second thought.
Phoenix RISING
Banned
And defile the 300+ year sausage fest???
You see how the country reacted after having to tolerate a negro for eight years. Now you suggest that female dare to exit the kitchen and lead us???
LegendOfKage
Member
How about we elect Candace Owens as our next president? She's both female and black, so liberals and intersectional feminists should love her, and she's conservative so conservatives who actually care about policy instead of race or gender will love her as well. AND, she's got the Kanye West seal of approval. What's not to love?
Last edited:
mcz117chief
Member
There are different standards that apply to conservatives. A conservative black person is usually called an "Uncle Tom" or "House negro". You can't really satisfy the ultra hard-core looneys. Apart from that, Candace is a real treasure, cherish her my American sisters and brothers.
Phoenix RISING
Banned
Let her run in the republican primary and see how far she gets.
Edit: If she's single she's automatically unelectable, so, RIP.
Last edited:
Papa
Banned
God damn, this is one of the most disingenuous posts I’ve read in the history of NeoGAF.And defile the 300+ year sausage fest???
You see how the country reacted after having to tolerate a negro for eight years. Now you suggest that female dare to exit the kitchen and lead us???
StrikeNinja24
Banned
And what's so disingenuous about this?
ickythingz
Banned
And this is /thread
LegendOfKage
Member
If the argument is that race and gender are the most important qualifications for someone, I envision democrats registering as republicans, so they could vote in the republican primaries. It makes perfect sense. That's really the only way to be certain of electing a black woman to the highest office in the land. Then, if the democratic nominee is a woman of color, they can vote for her. But if yet another generic white male becomes the democratic nominee (or a black male, or a white woman) those same democrats can still vote for Candace Owens. Kanye can even let her use "Power" at her inauguration!
Vote for Candace Owens. Only she can smash the white supremacist patriarchy.
StrikeNinja24
Banned
This is a board that has multiple pages complaining about a list of how not to be a shitty person.
You really have an inflated view of where the bar is.
You aren't better than old gaf. You're exactly the same with a different (smaller) cast and a off brand coat of paint.
StrikeNinja24
Banned
Not really. This is people judging one's ability based on strictly on gender, which is far more common than most are willing to admit.
NickFire
Member
You should avoid accusing others of having inflated views. Irony, projection, pots accusing kettles, etc.
StrikeNinja24
Banned
Must be hard to see with those blinders on.
The list is one giant hypocracy. It states to not lump all black people together while doing so for all white people. If the point of the list was about hot to not be a shitty person, it would have one rule: Treat others as you want to be treated. You know the golden rule.
Last edited:
strange headache
Banned
Up until 1856 voting rights in the U.S. were reserved to property owners, limiting the right to vote to about 6% to 10% of the population. Voting was indeed first and foremost a privilege of the rich.
And while the right to vote has been continually expanded to include most citizens of the U.S., access to political offices still remains a privilege of the rich and powerful. Especially considering that campaign spending has increased drastically over the past few decades, reaching up to 1 to 1.5 billion dollars per presidential candidate!
In the U.S. money makes presidents, reserving political power to those who can afford it.
Yeah, Obama was so badly tolerated, he became president twice! Oh and by the way, a black candidate and a woman both had some of the most expensive presidential campaigns in U.S. history:
Nobody here in this topic has said anything against female and/or black candidates... so please spare us your sanctimonious snark.
Last edited:
Texas Pride
Banned
You shouldn't elect someone even partially based on gender. Elect the right person for the job no matter their race, religion or gender. And that goes for employment as well.
Papa
Banned
i_am_ben
running_here_and_there
And equally you shouldn't vote against someone for being a woman.
The poll is not a good look for the conservatives.
Where does the poll say conservatives did or would vote against someone for being a woman?
Phoenix RISING
Banned
Indeed:
And yet, take note in this thread how many people are tripping over themselves to shift the goal posts, saying, "We shouldn't elect someone just because of what's between their legs," because that wasn't the question in the first place. This was not a conditional question concerning qualifications; the question simply translates to, "Are you a sexist ? Y/N?"
60% answered in the affirmative.
I will ask again, why should anyone hope for a president of a specific gender? Why would you hope for a female president?
I don't know how I would answer this question, depending on what side of the bed I woke up on I guess.
I do hope to see a woman president in my lifetime because I believe there are plenty of extremely qualified women I would vote for.
I do not hope to see a woman president because I want the most qualified candidate that aligns with my political views to win, regardless of gender.
Basically the same viewpoint with opposite answers. This is why polling language matters, and how polls can be intentionally designed to show a predetermined outcome.
I do hope to see a woman president in my lifetime because I believe there are plenty of extremely qualified women I would vote for.
I do not hope to see a woman president because I want the most qualified candidate that aligns with my political views to win, regardless of gender.
Basically the same viewpoint with opposite answers. This is why polling language matters, and how polls can be intentionally designed to show a predetermined outcome.
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Words are important. The choice of the word "hope" is deliberate because the people who made the poll knew damn well how to make it serve their agenda.
Attempting to boil it down to "are you sexist? Y/N" is fucking asinine.
Cleared_Hot
Member
Fucking nailed it. Polls are a complete waste of everyone's time when they're created from a meticulously crafted bias.
The definition of "right person" is ever nebulous.
Alternatively, why would someone not hope for one.
LegendOfKage
Member
That wasn't the question, was it? In fact, that would have been a great way to word the question, if you were actually wanting to find people who didn't want a woman to be president. Example:
"Do you hope Microsoft's follow up to the Xbox One is the most popular console of the next generation?"
- "No, I don't really care which is the most popular." - Sounds pretty rational to me. No bias here.
- "Yes, I want Microsoft to be the best!" - Now you have a bias.
Do you hope Microsoft's follow up to the Xbox One loses the next generation?
- "No, I don't really care which console is most popular." - Again, this is rational. No bias.
- "Yes, I want Microsoft to lose!" - Again, we have a bias.
"Do you hope to never see a female president in your lifetime?"
- "No, I don't hope that." = no bias.
- "Yes, I hope I never see a female president in my lifetime." = bias.
If they were wanting to find people biased against having a female president, that's how they should have worded the question in the first place. Does that make sense to you?
Last edited:
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
I hope that when we finally get a female president she doesn't roll over and play dead like Barack did.
RokkanStoned
Member
Haven't checked the sampling and other methodology yet, but the question is terrible. As
strange headache
points out there are better questions to pose, that does not use the word hope. Even something clear as "Would you object to having a female US President?" would better, and even that has its problems (it doesn't measure soft prejudices/inclinations, but then those can be problematic to measure).
I would've definitely answered "no" to the question. It's like how I don't put any investment or hope in Norway getting a black prime minister, but I wouldn't object or care if we got one on the basis of being black. In my own political party (Venstre) I prefer Abid Raja (pakistani descent and muslim) as a potential leader, rather than the disastrous Trine Skei Grande (worst girl), and wouldn't object to him becoming prime minister. (although that's really doubtful) That's because of ability, not because I somehow hope for a result in which "x identity" is represented.
strange headache
points out there are better questions to pose, that does not use the word hope. Even something clear as "Would you object to having a female US President?" would better, and even that has its problems (it doesn't measure soft prejudices/inclinations, but then those can be problematic to measure).I would've definitely answered "no" to the question. It's like how I don't put any investment or hope in Norway getting a black prime minister, but I wouldn't object or care if we got one on the basis of being black. In my own political party (Venstre) I prefer Abid Raja (pakistani descent and muslim) as a potential leader, rather than the disastrous Trine Skei Grande (worst girl), and wouldn't object to him becoming prime minister. (although that's really doubtful) That's because of ability, not because I somehow hope for a result in which "x identity" is represented.
No one votes on who can get the job done. People vote who they can "share a beer with"
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
llien
Member
That's absolutely not true either.
llien
Member
And defile the 300+ year sausage fest???
Had you looked at those, who died in wars, you'd see even more overwhelming sausage fest, are we going to address that?
(talking along the lines of different traditional roles and advantages and disadvantages they bring as you seem to be focused only on disadvantages of particular gender)
Look at Sarkosi:
what makes him so attractive that he interests the likes of Carla Bruni? That he's short? That he has big nose? Perhaps his rather ugly face?
Or that he is an outstanding man, since he got to become a president of France?
Another French president with rather underwhelming looks but quite active romances:
Now let's move a bit to the North and also to the East of France, shall we, UK:
Theresa May, the prime minister of one of the most powerful European countries:
Angela Merkel, the cancelor of Germany, the most influential EU country:
Did becoming heads of the state made these powerful women much more attractive? (a rhetorical question)
So, maybe, just maybe, we still have a "sausagefest" because it's mostly men trying to get on the top and that is because it pays off better for them?
Last edited:
i_am_ben
running_here_and_there
Had you looked at those, who died in wars, you'd see even more overwhelming sausage fest, are we going to address that?
(talking along the lines of different traditional roles and advantages and disadvantages they bring as you seem to be focused only on disadvantages of particular gender)
Look at Sarkosi:
what makes him so attractive that he interests the likes of Carla Bruni? That he's short? That he has big nose? Perhaps his rather ugly face?
Or that he is an outstanding man, since he got to become a president of France?
Another French president with rather underwhelming looks but quite active romances:
Now let's move a bit to the North and also to the East of France, shall we, UK:
Theresa May, the prime minister of one of the most powerful European countries:
Angela Merkel, the cancelor of Germany, the most influential EU country:
Did becoming heads of the state made these powerful women much more attractive? (a rhetorical question)
So, maybe, just maybe, we still have a "sausagefest" because it's mostly men trying to get on the top and that is because it pays off better for them?
This post is nonsensical.
RokkanStoned
Member
It generally helps to show the person your quoting why it's nonsensical, so you don't seem dismissive. I assume his/her hypothesis is that men with great social status can choose a more physically attractive partner, thus giving them incentive to reach for the heights for more than fiscal reasons and the status in itself. Then I guess he proposes that the same isn't true for women, that higher social status doesn't pay out in terms of a more physically attractive partner. Further one might propose that there's an evolutionary instinctive drive to strive towards a more attractive partner to men, though I'm not sure about whether that's accurate or not.
Texas Pride
Banned
In my opinion not hoping for a female president isn't the same as not wanting one. If a couple weren't hoping to get pregnant but did. It doesn't mean they don't want the baby. You can't compare hope & desire like that to further a cause and not be called out.
Unknown Quantity
Member
With both candidates being equal, 60% would not vote for the female one.
Even if the female is far more experienced than the male, they'd still vote for the male ( in the US anyway it seems) unless you count millions of imaginary illegals and discount the popular vote
Why was strikeninja banned? He/she was a refreshing contrast to the other side, which I thought was allowed in this new gaf.
Even if the female is far more experienced than the male, they'd still vote for the male ( in the US anyway it seems) unless you count millions of imaginary illegals and discount the popular vote
Why was strikeninja banned? He/she was a refreshing contrast to the other side, which I thought was allowed in this new gaf.
i_am_ben
running_here_and_there
Leaving aside the fact that this isn't a great example, the couple's feelings change after they find out about the baby.
Dr. Claus
Banned
Do you have citations for this claim? The poll is not indicative and has already been torn to shreds due to its biased word choice.
I would suggest messaging a moderator about this. From what I have experienced, Strike continued to post low effort content/threads with the express purpose of trying to start petty arguments (usually through highly disengenuous/biased titles and content) and attacked members of the community.
Kenpachii
Member
U should never focus on sex of a leader. Voting because she's a girl or he's a guy is a bad practice. You vote for where that person stands for. Therefore if there ever will be a female president in the US in your life time, isn't interesting other then check mark something meaningless.
Last edited:
Texas Pride
Banned
Similar threads
- Locked