Hillary won't be first female POTUS...

[heyjude]

And women don't really want to be in politics anyway because it's messy....plus it's not sexism!

And other delightful assessments in the "is this the onion or am I reading an article from the 1950s"?

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/14/we-still-won-t-have-a-female-president.html

Like this!


"Instead of dragging out that discussion [that HRC won't be first female POTUS], though, perhaps we should instead be celebrating American women (mostly) having the good sense to avoid getting overly wrapped up in American politics or our government, such as it is. Maybe we should agree to preemptively ditch the “when will we have a woman commander-in-chief?” XX chromosome pity party and recognize that as long as it’s our self-limiting of our own free will, women shunning politics and high office is OK, actually."

[underwaterrhymes]

Well golly gee.

I'm afraid I don't have the time to read this with all of the mopping and cooking and child rearing I have to do as a woman.

[secretlyevil]

ETA: This is satire. I refuse to believe otherwise.

[smock]

"While still a minority of occupants of high political office, women are present at high levels of government and not in insignificant numbers—something that arguably proves that as a demographic, we do not have a huge discrimination problem. We may have a more inherent lack of interest in the jobs on offer, though."

Hey, genius, when women make up 51% of the population but only 17% of our elected representatives in Congress, maybe it's not just a "lack of interest."

Also, "lack of interest" can also be code for "women get raked over the coals when they run for public office and are often treated like shit BECAUSE of the huge gender discrimination problems in our country."

Can we at least elect ONE woman to the presidency before we start with the "it's no big deal that all presidents are men" bullshit?!?

[smock]

Oh, I do have to add that the article's title ("We Still Won't Have a Female President") made me wonder if the author was going to claim Hillary is "manly" or some other sexist bullshit. So . . . it could have been worse?

[heyjude]

Oh and I loved this line:

"But a number of 2016 dynamics favor Republicans...."


I think the opposite is actually true. You can tell this woman doesn't actually herself care or know too much about politics to throw out this unsourced opinion....

[ttt]

Look who the author is! Remember this? She worked on Scott Walkers campaign, for one day:

www.politico.com/story/2015/03/liz-mair-scott-walker-iowa-116174

[mbcdefg]

I opened this thread thinking it was going to be about Edith Wilson.

[WanderingWinoZ]

Lololololol

And

LololololoLOLOLOL!

She couldn't be more wrong in almost every single sentence.

[heyjude]

Oct 14, 2015 19:47:29 GMT -5 ttt said:

Look who the author is! Remember this? She worked on Scott Walkers campaign, for one day:

www.politico.com/story/2015/03/liz-mair-scott-walker-iowa-116174

Ohhhhhh haaaaaaaaa!!!

I missed this yesterday!!!!