The leaders of Finland's five *government* parties. There's still the Finns Party, National Coalition, Christian Democrats, and Movement Now in opposition in parliament. Of these, the Christian Democrats is also lead by a young-ish woman born 1967, Sari Essayah.
If young-ish white women dominated American politics to this extent, I'd find it creepy. Why? Well, it would tell me something other than an organic process was at work. In my leftist circles, I see a not so subtle reverse sexism. Young men are encouraged to take the back seat and led to think it's their duty to advance the cause of women's ascendancy, more than class issues, and as much as any other issue. It's a cultural phenomenon. Strangely echoing past assumptions of an opposite sort. Our US Senators from California have both been female for decades. I don't buy the notion that women are excluded from the upper echelons of US government any more than they want to be. Given two equally qualified young candidates, one male and one female, I'd flip a coin--or vote for the man.
Then, unfortunately, intentionally or not, you're being sexist. Why? Simple; you're casting your vote not based on qualifications, but strictly on gender. Your final statement makes that rather clear. Bigotry is wrong, no matter the target or your justifications for it.
Yes, we are all sexist, including you. Just as we are all racist. The question is: Are we moving toward a more just world or one in which we have the same hierarchical oppression, with more females and non-whites in positions of power. That is, at the top of the pyramid. Seems to me, that's the model we're pursuing, given that competition and meritocracy are sacrosanct. So, we have feminist Hillary Clinton making sure her girl gets an elite education and marries rich, while the boy born in eastern Kentucky is possibly more screwed than ever. And, if he shows up at a DSA meeting, he'll be lectured on his white male privilege. I'm not sure we're doing anything other than changing the window dressing, as the have-more class, equally male and female, continues to exploit and oppress the have-nots, equally male and female. As there is an ascendancy (assuming we buy the standard notion of economic and political power being of great value) in gender roles for females--I'd argue as a reflection of technological change, as with that allowing family planing--wealth equality by household continues to deteriorate. The black family continues with around 7% of the capital of the white family. More than 50% of Americans, all races and genders, have zero or negative assets. Am I supposed to be excited because women are now the oppressors? About what just happened in Bolivia? In my 63 years, we've gone forward and we've also gone backwards. For the ecosystems of the planet, the animals (the factory farms we, men and women, support with our consumption habits are nightmarish beyond most anything in history) and the poorest people, life is worse than ever. The vote for the man, you mentioned, is a tiny bit of rebellion against an illusion; that being that getting women into positions of power is some kind of panacea.
It's not rebellion to vote for the status quo. Diversity is lacking in our government and it's making us weak. You want help for the poor? Don't vote for 60-70 year old white men with millionaire status.
Old white men have been running the world for hundreds of years and it's been all downhill for the average man. We're placated with technology, the radio, the tv, then the internet, next it's virtual reality... while they rob us blind for short term gains with no eye to the future. Vote for a woman, vote for an Arab, an African, any descent you want except for AN OLD WHITE MAN.
Your position sounds racist and sexist to me, as does this, a really lousy, dis-empowering message for young men: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50805822
It's simple, really. Youth has the tendency to favor action and change, while old age has the tendency to favor preservation of the status quo. In order to have a progressive nation (which Finland is by every possible metric), you need leadership who is willing to see problems and address them, rather than leadership who clings to the past and the idea of 'that's how we've always done it, and we're always right.' Gender has nothing to do with the issue here, and neither does race. The standout factor here is the age of these hugely successful (again, by every conceivable metric) young people. They are willing not only to see what needs to be done in their nation, but to actually do it. Now remember that the average age of a US Senator is 65 years (source here: https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/the-115th-congress-is-among-the-oldest-in-history/175/) Res ipsa loquitur, indeed.
The leaders of Finland's five *government* parties. There's still the Finns Party, National Coalition, Christian Democrats, and Movement Now in opposition in parliament. Of these, the Christian Democrats is also lead by a young-ish woman born 1967, Sari Essayah.
ReplyDeleteTitle amended. Thank you, Jonas.
DeleteAnd Finland currently holds the Presidency of the European Union, so she is going to be very busy.
ReplyDeleteDespite popular opinion, one's age, sex or race do not automatically infer competence.
ReplyDelete...or incompetence.
DeleteIf young-ish white women dominated American politics to this extent, I'd find it creepy. Why? Well, it would tell me something other than an organic process was at work. In my leftist circles, I see a not so subtle reverse sexism. Young men are encouraged to take the back seat and led to think it's their duty to advance the cause of women's ascendancy, more than class issues, and as much as any other issue. It's a cultural phenomenon. Strangely echoing past assumptions of an opposite sort. Our US Senators from California have both been female for decades. I don't buy the notion that women are excluded from the upper echelons of US government any more than they want to be. Given two equally qualified young candidates, one male and one female, I'd flip a coin--or vote for the man.
ReplyDeleteThen, unfortunately, intentionally or not, you're being sexist. Why? Simple; you're casting your vote not based on qualifications, but strictly on gender. Your final statement makes that rather clear. Bigotry is wrong, no matter the target or your justifications for it.
DeleteYes, we are all sexist, including you. Just as we are all racist. The question is: Are we moving toward a more just world or one in which we have the same hierarchical oppression, with more females and non-whites in positions of power. That is, at the top of the pyramid. Seems to me, that's the model we're pursuing, given that competition and meritocracy are sacrosanct. So, we have feminist Hillary Clinton making sure her girl gets an elite education and marries rich, while the boy born in eastern Kentucky is possibly more screwed than ever. And, if he shows up at a DSA meeting, he'll be lectured on his white male privilege. I'm not sure we're doing anything other than changing the window dressing, as the have-more class, equally male and female, continues to exploit and oppress the have-nots, equally male and female. As there is an ascendancy (assuming we buy the standard notion of economic and political power being of great value) in gender roles for females--I'd argue as a reflection of technological change, as with that allowing family planing--wealth equality by household continues to deteriorate. The black family continues with around 7% of the capital of the white family. More than 50% of Americans, all races and genders, have zero or negative assets. Am I supposed to be excited because women are now the oppressors? About what just happened in Bolivia? In my 63 years, we've gone forward and we've also gone backwards. For the ecosystems of the planet, the animals (the factory farms we, men and women, support with our consumption habits are nightmarish beyond most anything in history) and the poorest people, life is worse than ever. The vote for the man, you mentioned, is a tiny bit of rebellion against an illusion; that being that getting women into positions of power is some kind of panacea.
DeleteIt's not rebellion to vote for the status quo. Diversity is lacking in our government and it's making us weak. You want help for the poor? Don't vote for 60-70 year old white men with millionaire status.
DeleteOld white men have been running the world for hundreds of years and it's been all downhill for the average man. We're placated with technology, the radio, the tv, then the internet, next it's virtual reality... while they rob us blind for short term gains with no eye to the future. Vote for a woman, vote for an Arab, an African, any descent you want except for AN OLD WHITE MAN.
Your position sounds racist and sexist to me, as does this, a really lousy, dis-empowering message for young men: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50805822
DeleteIt's simple, really. Youth has the tendency to favor action and change, while old age has the tendency to favor preservation of the status quo. In order to have a progressive nation (which Finland is by every possible metric), you need leadership who is willing to see problems and address them, rather than leadership who clings to the past and the idea of 'that's how we've always done it, and we're always right.' Gender has nothing to do with the issue here, and neither does race. The standout factor here is the age of these hugely successful (again, by every conceivable metric) young people. They are willing not only to see what needs to be done in their nation, but to actually do it. Now remember that the average age of a US Senator is 65 years (source here: https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/the-115th-congress-is-among-the-oldest-in-history/175/) Res ipsa loquitur, indeed.
ReplyDelete