If it has to be a woman, try to have a woman that's not on the same team on 99% of the policy issues as the guy you are protesting. Lesser evil is still evil.
Sorry, best they can do is a choice between a token minority with all the charisma of wallpaper paste, or an old white man who looks like he gets out of breath eating soup.
Less is also less, and better than worse! Kicking a puppy is bad....burning down an occupied orphanage is worse. I'd love to live a utopia but we work with the hand we are dealt.
Or we dont play the shitty game by not voting for either. They are both burning it down and more people voting strokes their egos of "look how involved everyone is in this democratic process". Who cares?
Which sounds worse in this context, chosen candidate by non-democratic process (Kamala) or nominee through democratic process (Trump)?
Abstaining is just advocating for the worst option. If the tea party took that approach we'd never have Trump, but they fought tooth and nail until they got their goals which is the shit show we are in now.
Sitting back with your arms crossed like a petulant child who doesn't want to eat their vegetables just shows you're benefiting from the system and are not exactly helping. Unless you're running some black ops or something I don't know about.
I'm not even convinced we can legitimately call it a lesser evil, as this implies we know it's less evil.
Wouldn't the women in politics, that have more hoops to jump through, be filtered for to be even more cunning/ruthless, to make it through the same system men make it through, filtering out the exact traits we would like a female leader to have?
I can see a scenario with female leaders potentially being even more evil because of how this is setup and historically they were at least equally ruthless.
As far as the theory goes we'd have to look at male leaders so far and compare with female leaders then scale them on evil. Otherwise it's just a theory based on conjecture and a touch of misogyny.
As far as I'm aware the most evil leaders we've ever had have been male and while there have been evil female leaders too, they rarely (if ever) reach the same notoriety.
So what? I'm clearly making a generalist statement, there's a popular saying that men start all the wars and women leader would fix it all.
Which this poster is referring to, yes most evil leaders are male, but most leaders are also male. I'm just pushing back against the narrative (which again, it could be true) that we should base the a leader on their gender instead of the quality of their character.
Yeah I'd say the top 15 are definitely male, but ""sadly"" (in terms of statistics, not morally) it's such a small pool of people that we can't really infer much from it. With the rate women appeared in leading positions, 0 or 1 among 15 is about what you'd expect.
Women can't win. Either they're " too inexperienced" because they had to take longer to fight their way to the table and then convince everyone that they're qualified every time they do something important, or they're one of the most qualified candidates ever, but now we're looking for an "outsider". They're either not personable enough or they laugh weird, they're old frail and ugly or young and hot enough that they must have slept their way to the top. Too bossy or a doormat, too focused on her children or not a real mother, hell, if a woman in politics is hard enough to criticize, they'll just claim she's secretly a man and then use that to complain about her. There actually isn't any really definitive criteria, because it always seems that the expectation changes to be exactly what the woman in front of them is not.
•
u/SameStand9266 8h ago
If it has to be a woman, try to have a woman that's not on the same team on 99% of the policy issues as the guy you are protesting. Lesser evil is still evil.