Clinton promises 50% women in Cabinet

[Whispering 18,865]

30 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

She oppressed women everywhere by being the victim of adultery.

She and Beyonce should get together. 

Hillary...her Lemonade is coming!  

[Economy 52,846]

8 hours ago, Redstreak said:

Things like this are a cycle: women get overlooked for these positions and lose the potential experience of these jobs, then that lack of experience is used to "justify" why women are incompetent for these positions. It's bullshit to claim it's a quota, women can fill these positions and we need to start showing that. I'm glad Clinton has pledged this position.

Ok. But when your talking about new people then thats irrelevant. Men and women both will have same experience if they are new

 

but we were suggesting they should focus on qualifications and whatever it is that they are looking at.

 

Im all for women being a part of politics but dont hire them just because they are women, hire them if they are the best

 

Men too have to get experience as well at some point its not as if genders arent starting in same place in the beggining of their careers as far as experience goes

 

We also have to look beneath the numbers. Women make less money than men, fewer women are in politics than men etc... But much of this is also in part because of what women as a whole choose to go into

 

I think the bigger issue now is empowering women to try to begin with

 

Fewer women try to go into politics so its natural fewer of them will be hired. You have to encourage more women to try, not skew hiring practices to try and get same number of women hired when the pool is much smaller

[Redstreak 6,653]

28 minutes ago, Economy said:

Ok. But when your talking about new people then thats irrelevant. Men and women both will have same experience if they are new

 

but we were suggesting they should focus on qualifications and whatever it is that they are looking at.

 

Im all for women being a part of politics but dont hire them just because they are women, hire them if they are the best

 

Men too have to get experience as well at some point its not as if genders arent starting in same place in the beggining of their careers as far as experience goes

 

We also have to look beneath the numbers. Women make less money than men, fewer women are in politics than men etc... But much of this is also in part because of what women as a whole choose to go into

 

I think the bigger issue now is empowering women to try to begin with

 

Fewer womentry to go into politics so its natural fewer of them will be hired. You have to encourage more to try not skew hiring practices to try and get same number of women hired when the pool is much smaller

But you don't think she can't find 4 qualified women? And you don't think seeing more women in these positions won't empower other women to see that these are things they can do? No one's suggesting just give random women these jobs, but at the same time why do we just always assume that a man is the best for his job while the woman must always face undercurrent accusations of a consolation "girl power" play?

[Economy 52,846]

6 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

But you don't think she can't find 4 qualified women? And you don't think seeing more women in these positions won't empower other women to see that these are things they can do? No one's suggesting just give random women these jobs, but at the same time why do we just always assume that a man is the best for his job while the woman must must always face undercurrent accusations of a consolation "girl power" play?

Im sure finding 4 women that are qualified isnt difficult...

 

im saying she shouldnt be looking for women specifically. Whoever is the best is the best

 

empowering as i said is important but cherry picking as a way to empower could lead to double standards

 

What if theres 10 positions open for something... Say 25 men apply and 7 women apply

 

If you want an equal ratio, you will have to accept 5/7 women while automatically discarting 20 men because by your ratio you can only have 5

 

but what if only 3 women were in the top 10 and not 5?

 

thats the point im getting at. Theres a much smaller pool of women in many industries and if your gonna try and force a certain ratio or standard that will also screw over men also that may be more qualified but dont get hired because theres already too many men

 

Thats the point im trying to get at.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

25 minutes ago, Economy said:

but we were suggesting they should focus on qualifications and whatever it is that they are looking at.

Im all for women being a part of politics but dont hire them just because they are women, hire them if they are the best

Do you think men have to just through the same hoops you describe?

You look at a man and you see a employee. 

You look at a woman and you see a female employee.

The point is that she isn't hiring them because they are women. She is hiring in spite of them being women. That's something that many people fail to understand.

Do you honestly believe the pool of prospective female employees is that small? They will just be given due consideration. I am confident whomever she selects will have the proper requirements, and there are a lot of them out there.

[Goosey 3,017]

3 hours ago, teo said:

So are you saying that you believe that out of the 320 million people living in the US there are not enough qualified women for these jobs?

Why should 50% of her cabinet be women? There are more men than women in the political world, therefore it follows that if she was being truly impartial and only picking based on people's skills, that her cabinet would be VERY likely to have more men than women.

[MJHolland 12,725]

4 hours ago, Whispering said:

Hillary has been in the political sphere for decades. I'm certain she knows women who are fully capable of cabinet positions and ones that will be assets to her cabinet. 

Yet you refuse to admit that she's a career politician?

You Hillary supporters want everything both way. You want super PACs to get out of politics while supporting a candidate who has them. You don't want to judge her by her marriage to a President unless that is to paint her in a good light. You don't want a career politicians when she's in fact the biggest career politician there is in Washington. You don't want a secretive politician, yet you also support a candidate that wiped clean HALF of an illegal (at the very least negligent) private server before handing it in. You want a candidate that isn't tied up by big interests, yet made half a million dollars every single speech she gave to Wall Street that are still private to this day. You don't want to admit that you're voting for her because she's a woman, but you claim that she's the best candidate for women's rights because she is a woman, and here she's saying she would indiscriminately select at least half of her cabinet based on gender and not who is the most qualified. 

These positions should go to the most qualified individual, not the most qualified female individual. If the most qualified person happens to be a female, that's great. If not, also great. Having a female SoS doesn't do anything to promote women inherently though.

[Morphine Prince 109,655]

4 hours ago, Florin said:

What a surprise. Another topic where Hillary should have got only praise, but because it is Hillary and not fake Bernie everyone is going after her with stupidities that even they dont believe.

You brought up Bernie when the thread has nothing to do with him. You are obsessed

It's so sad because you're supporting the winning candidate... imagine how hateful you would be if you were a Bernie supporter

And I like how you call him "fake" making it sound like Hillary isn't  

[Economy 52,846]

3 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

Do you think men have to just through the same hoops you describe?

You look at a man and you see a employee. 

You look at a woman and you see a female employee.

The point is that she isn't hiring them because they are women. She is hiring in spite of them being women. That's something that many people fail to understand.

Do you honestly believe the pool of prospective female employees is that small? They will just be given due consideration. I am confident whomever she selects will have the proper requirements, and there are a lot of them out there.

It is a smaller pool. For politics it is. So if u want an equal ratio then u have to cherry puck and favour women its that simple

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

12 minutes ago, Economy said:

It is a smaller pool. For politics it is. So if u want an equal ratio then u have to cherry puck and favour women its that simple

That makes no sense.

If you have 1000 prospective male candidates and 100 female ones (and that's a REALLY pessimistic and skewed view) and you only need 4 out of 8 total, then it's not difficult to find four exemplary women out of 100. Unless you're implying that there are 996 men significantly better than all of those women?

It's a preposterous notion that has no real applicable reality. There is literally 0 probability that all prospective female candidates are WORSE than 95% of all male candidates.

You argue something that is mathematically irrelevant.

Also picking people isn't just a checklist of their qualifications. There are many issues at play such as individual proficiency, history, connections, and potential.

[Economy 52,846]

1 hour ago, Goosey said:

Why should 50% of her cabinet be women? There are more men than women in the political world, therefore it follows that if she was being truly impartial and only picking based on people's skills, that her cabinet would be VERY likely to have more men than women.

THIS! Ive been trying to explain this over and over

 

Im not putting into question that women are just as capable...

 

but the fact that far fewer women choose to try politics than men means if you want a perfect 50-50 ratio then you do have to be partial

 

because if theres 10 positions open, 7 women apply and 25 men apply... To get a 50-50 ratio of men and women a lot of very qualified men will have to be cast aside just for the sake if hiring more women to make that quota

 

makes no sense!

[Runway 27,876]

Hillary is punching OUT misoginy  

[JbGaga 2,261]

So why doesn't she pay her female staff like her male staff? Bye Fraud

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, JbGaga said:

So why doesn't she pay her female staff like her male staff? Bye Fraud

Where are you getting that from? It's yet another GOP smear proven false  

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/gender-pay-gap-in-clintons-senate-office/

Ask Bernie why he pays his staff members minimum wage rather than what he promises.  That one is actually true. 

[JbGaga 2,261]

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Where are you getting that from? It's been proven to yet another GOP smear proven false  

Ask Bernie why he pays his staff members minimum wage rather than what he promises.  That one is actually true. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/23/hillary-clinton-as-senator-paid-women-72-cents-on-/

Hes fraud too. Ask his accountant/ wife why he pats less the 15% taxs but wants everyone to pay more