The abortion discussion is interesting, but I’m gonna move that into the abortion thread, if no one minds.
Yes, but hose people are dumb. They’re making a mistake if they refuse to vote for someone who is less qualified, based on their gender.
But you’re suggesting that you would do exactly the same thing, in order to somehow counter their dumbness… even if it meant you were electing someone who you yourself feel is less qualified/electable/etc.
No, I think electability actually does play into qualifications, during a primary election. Being able to go on to win the general election is a qualification.
Note, however, that I would tend to think that a lot of that metric is in fact just some rebranding of bigotry, where those folks are attributing “electability” to “being an old white guy”, and I think that’s a mistake on their part.
This seems acceptable to me, if you actually believe that two candidates are equally qualified and the only difference is that one ends up being additionally representative of some minority group, so be it.
I was more taking issue with the notion that only by meeting some herculean measurement, such as having super powers, would a white guy possibly be considered as acceptable. That statement suggests that you would vote for a much less qualified woman, simply on the basis of her gender.
I think I can explain the difference here.
For such programs, you are talking about mandating a requirement on employers because you do not believe that those employers would actually do a fair assessment of potential hires.
But in the case here, we’re talking about our own votes. You don’t need to impose some kind of affirmative action on yourself, because you can simply choose to evaluate candidates equally.
