English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Mean that women are more oppressed than men? A certain poster on this website seems to think so. Now, that doesn't make much sense to me because one can easily be "represented" by a different gender- the point of representation is that someone represents your voice and beliefs on certain issues. It doesn't matter if that person is a male, a female, black, white, or albino.

Furthermore, if women don't CHOOSE to get into governmental positions, why should there be "equality" in that field? If men WANT to lead and women DON'T, or if women are voting for male candidates instead of female candidates, then what's the problem?

It seems to me that insinuating a group is oppressed because they aren't explicitly making decisions (even though they may easily influence the decision makers) makes very little sense to me; indeed, it seems to show a lack of critical thought and analysis.

So, does the fact that there are fewer women in governmental roles mean they are more oppressed than men are?

2007-05-16 14:46:03 · 11 answers · asked by Robinson0120 4 in Social Science Gender Studies

Edit: I refer, of course, to the fact that there are fewer women than men. I also refer mostly to the United States as this country in particular was the one attacked by said "poster."

2007-05-16 14:48:43 · update #1

Perfectionist Edit:

The above should read "It seems to me that insinuating a group is oppressed because they aren't explicitly making decisions (even though they may easily influence the decision makers) makes very little sense"

2007-05-16 14:57:22 · update #2

11 answers

Robinson, you are 100% correct.

There is nothing oppressive about the system toward women, or men, for that matter. Any man or woman can run for office if they so chose. Any man or woman can vote for whichever candidates are running, male or female.

The people in office are a reflection of who the female and male voters CHOSE to put into office.

Is the system perfect? No, not by a long shot. But, the imperfections apply to men and women equally.

EDIT:

Hilary Clinton IS the woman candidate, at least the only nationally known candidate. Barack Obama IS the only black nationally known candidate.

Any other woman or black man or woman is welcome to announce their candidacy. There is still plenty of time before November '08.

2007-05-16 16:47:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

I would have thought that the in a merit based system of democratic electioneering and ballot casting the onus would be on the candidates to prove Their worth by first convincing the constituents that They are the best person for the position. It is the 'people' who pick and choose who is to govern. Not the candidates. Anyone may have Their name placed on a ballot. And that is as far as Their power to force an outcome goes. On polling day each candidate relies upon Your powers of deduction and Your freedom to make decisions on Your own behalf.
Try this simple exercise.
In the United States of America the right to vote is only exercised by approximately 30% of those legally entitled to do so.
If a candidate of either gender is elected to office by slightly more than a mere half of that number, (15% of the population) + 1 vote, it is an absolute majority of the total popular vote expressed by the People. So You tell Me, who is to blame for the lack of an alternative (insert gender here) representation in the Government in Washington? Those who voted? Those who voted for the successful candidate? Or those who exercised Their democratic right to abstain from voting? The Women's Electoral Lobby can tell everyone how to vote, and why to vote for a specific candidate, but on the day it will always be the apathetic who truly hold the balance of power....not the registered voters. If enough politically aware registered voters could bring another person of a like mind to the polls then perhaps it wound make a difference, and the gender equation would be altered.
Then again I could be wrong. This may be how Americans like to find the best people for the difficult job of thinking for the uncaring masses.

2007-05-16 19:30:15 · answer #2 · answered by Ashleigh 7 · 1 1

"An AP analysis of data from the 2006 American National Election Study Pilot Test found that when it came to selecting a candidate for president, gender matters more for women than for men. But it's a two-way street; women are more likely to vote for a candidate because she is female, and also more likely to dismiss a candidate because of her gender, according to the analysis... Nowadays, women make up the majority of the electorate, and there are varying theories on how gender translates to election results."

The answer is that women are the majority of voters and that majority choose to elect men for whatever reasons.
If it is discrimination, it is women discriminating against women so it can hardly be called oppression, particularly not male oppression.

Since 1972, more women have voted in presidential elections than men and the gap appears to be widening slightly as time progresses.

2007-05-17 02:30:31 · answer #3 · answered by Phil #3 5 · 0 1

Government jobs are not all filled with elected officials. A lot of government jobs (non-civil service) are given out to people who have helped on the campaign or helped the candidate secure his position financially. Men are more likely to solicit other men in running their campaigns and then are more likely to give those same men the patronage mill jobs. Just a theory but since I work in government, I see it all the time.

I would not say that just by virtue of having an "in" men are oppressing women. I would say that the fact that these narcissistic politicians are paying out taxpayer dollars (paid by both males and females) to mostly male friends is an example of an exercise of authority or power in a burdensome or unjust manner that affects those qualified women who apply for those same positions in a discriminatory manner. Furthermore, the fact that there is "unequal" representation of women does not mean that women choose not to be there - it may just mean they try to obtain the positions but are not chosen for those positions.

While inequitable distribution of jobs not awarded meritoriously is not necessarily oppressive in and of itself it is indicative of unjust practices that disparately impact certain segments of the population who just happen not to have male members.

2007-05-16 15:25:21 · answer #4 · answered by Monique D 1 · 2 2

No. Provided the people in power are passing laws to cater equally for both sexes, then a greater number of males in power does not mean that females are being oppressed.

The sex of the people in power does not matter.
A sound moral, capable, competant, assertive and confident mind is what is needed. Sex is irrelevant.

"[If females want to be in power, they] just have to go for it - the electorate is very receptive and wide open for women to make their marks in the political arena. ... [No one] is stopping them, it's a matter of having a base and voter appeal."

2007-05-17 05:19:02 · answer #5 · answered by Nidav llir 5 · 1 1

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps another reason why there aren't many women in goverment is because politics is dead boring and we don't feel the need to prove ourselves.
Not saying that all men do this, but it appears with a few men in government, it's a big ego trip for them.

2007-05-16 14:50:23 · answer #6 · answered by Shivers 6 · 1 3

I think we need to stop catering to all of these whiners, if someone can't make it through adversity than I wouldn't want them in charge of any part of government. You should get the position on merit not because you could cry the loudest.

2007-05-16 14:54:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

Robinson I am so sorry to sound off like this, yet each and every time I hear the word oppressed I feel as though I want to wrap the word around somebody's throat. Oppressed is such a negitive sounding word with way too much negative stress put on it.

2007-05-16 15:01:28 · answer #8 · answered by Laela (Layla) 6 · 2 5

Do more women -want governmental roles? (they would have to forego pregnancies and time with their families)

2007-05-16 14:51:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Until you acknowledge the mountainous indirect, invisible discrimination that women face, particularly in our ability to be lesbians and still be your godesses, Robinson...

NO SEX FOR YOU!!!!

2007-05-16 21:29:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

fedest.com, questions and answers