MPs more likely to respond to women's requests, driven by female legislators bias against men

[ronburgundy]

In particular, I don't know why the first author (Gabriele Magni) is surprised, considering his own research shows that American voters prefer black women and Asian women as political candidates, compared to white men.

Overall, in our sample of almost 2,000 voters, a Black woman was preferred over a white man by 3.7 percentage points and an Asian woman by 2.4 percentage points. Almost every demographic group we polled showed a preference for Black and Asian women, all else being equal. ).

Hmmmmm.. So, the voting public prefers women of color over white males for elected office, and YET 65% of elected officials are white males while only 3.5% are women of color. I guess that shows how much the US is not a democracy, but an oligarchy whose leaders are chosen by self serving white supremacist males.

 

[repoman]

In particular, I don't know why the first author (Gabriele Magni) is surprised, considering his own research shows that American voters prefer black women and Asian women as political candidates, compared to white men.

Overall, in our sample of almost 2,000 voters, a Black woman was preferred over a white man by 3.7 percentage points and an Asian woman by 2.4 percentage points. Almost every demographic group we polled showed a preference for Black and Asian women, all else being equal. ).

Hmmmmm.. So, the voting public prefers women of color over white males for elected office, and YET 65% of elected officials are white males while only 3.5% are women of color. I guess that shows how much the US is not a democracy, but an oligarchy whose leaders are chosen by self serving white supremacist males.

You mean like Sheldon Adelson?

 

[ruby sparks]

In particular, I don't know why the first author (Gabriele Magni) is surprised, considering his own research shows that American voters prefer black women and Asian women as political candidates, compared to white men.

Overall, in our sample of almost 2,000 voters, a Black woman was preferred over a white man by 3.7 percentage points and an Asian woman by 2.4 percentage points. Almost every demographic group we polled showed a preference for Black and Asian women, all else being equal. ).

Hmmmmm.. So, the voting public prefers women of color over white males for elected office, and YET 65% of elected officials are white males while only 3.5% are women of color. I guess that shows how much the US is not a democracy, but an oligarchy whose leaders are chosen by self serving white supremacist males.

Sort of a flaw in the case. I agree.

If I were to guess, and to add to what I've already opined, it may be that more people prefer (or at least say they prefer) more women of colour in politics because they feel there are far too few at the moment, which of course is not the same as saying they would prefer them if (a) they didn't think that and (b) it wasn't the case.

So it's not like saying 'I prefer salad over chips' (fries, or french fries, to the ex-colonials and other foreigner types) and could just be 'I think I should have a bit more salad and fewer chips than I currently have'.

Obviously, referring by analogy (or is it metaphor) to white males as chips, and women of colour as salad, arguably involves a value judgement in both cases. To be fair I didn't say greasy chips.

And I think the analogy with a balanced diet is in some ways quite a good one.

 

[ronburgundy]

Hmmmmm.. So, the voting public prefers women of color over white males for elected office, and YET 65% of elected officials are white males while only 3.5% are women of color. I guess that shows how much the US is not a democracy, but an oligarchy whose leaders are chosen by self serving white supremacist males.

Sort of a flaw in the case. I agree.

If I were to guess, and to add to what I've already opined, it may be that more people prefer (or at least say they prefer) more women of colour in politics because they feel there are far too few at the moment, which of course is not the same as saying they would prefer them if (a) they didn't think that and (b) it wasn't the case.

So it's not like saying 'I prefer salad over chips' (fries, or french fries, to the ex-colonials and other foreigner types) and could just be 'I think I should have a bit more salad and fewer chips than I currently have'.

Obviously, referring by analogy (or is it metaphor) to white males as chips, and women of colour as salad, arguably involves a value judgement in both cases. To be fair I didn't say greasy chips.

And I think the analogy with a balanced diet is in some ways quite a good one.

I agree with all of that, except I love greasy chips and, as Bart Simpson says, "You don't make friends with salad"

But it still would mean that most people want elected officials in the current context that are not the white males that continue to dominate the available choices. Thus, it still shows a that the choices are being dictated by a non-representative minority who prefer white males.

 

[laughing dog]

In particular, I don't know why the first author (Gabriele Magni) is surprised, considering his own research shows that American voters prefer black women and Asian women as political candidates, compared to white men.

Overall, in our sample of almost 2,000 voters, a Black woman was preferred over a white man by 3.7 percentage points and an Asian woman by 2.4 percentage points. Almost every demographic group we polled showed a preference for Black and Asian women, all else being equal. ).

Hmmmmm.. So, the voting public prefers women of color over white males for elected office, and YET 65% of elected officials are white males while only 3.5% are women of color. I guess that shows how much the US is not a democracy, but an oligarchy whose leaders are chosen by self serving white supremacist males.

Metaphor "explained" this - it is because women do not run enough. In other words, it is their choice to under-represented because an insufficient number of them choose to seek office.

 

[J842P]

In particular, I don't know why the first author (Gabriele Magni) is surprised, considering his own research shows that American voters prefer black women and Asian women as political candidates, compared to white men.

Overall, in our sample of almost 2,000 voters, a Black woman was preferred over a white man by 3.7 percentage points and an Asian woman by 2.4 percentage points. Almost every demographic group we polled showed a preference for Black and Asian women, all else being equal. ).

Hmmmmm.. So, the voting public prefers women of color over white males for elected office, and YET 65% of elected officials are white males while only 3.5% are women of color. I guess that shows how much the US is not a democracy, but an oligarchy whose leaders are chosen by self serving white supremacist males.

Yeah, that doesn't really follow at all.

 

[Metaphor]

Is that level of ignorance about the USA common for people in your part of the world?

Is your level of cynicism and existential despair common in your part of the world?

It is better to be alive right now than at any time in history.

I worry about your reading comprehension, because "I would attribute it to their party's acceptance of racism." does not necessarily mean "They're just racists".

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise there was an important distinction between being a member of a party that 'accepted racism' and personally preferring white men to black and Asian women just because they preferred that race and sex, and actual racists.

 

[Metaphor]

Hmmmmm.. So, the voting public prefers women of color over white males for elected office, and YET 65% of elected officials are white males while only 3.5% are women of color. I guess that shows how much the US is not a democracy, but an oligarchy whose leaders are chosen by self serving white supremacist males.

Metaphor "explained" this - it is because women do not run enough. In other words, it is their choice to under-represented because an insufficient number of them choose to seek office.

You can put "explained" in scare quotes all you like, but my explanation is, in fact, correct.

 

[Metaphor]

Hmmmmm.. So, the voting public prefers women of color over white males for elected office, and YET 65% of elected officials are white males while only 3.5% are women of color. I guess that shows how much the US is not a democracy, but an oligarchy whose leaders are chosen by self serving white supremacist males.

Sort of a flaw in the case. I agree.

If I were to guess, and to add to what I've already opined, it may be that more people prefer (or at least say they prefer) more women of colour in politics because they feel there are far too few at the moment, which of course is not the same as saying they would prefer them if (a) they didn't think that and (b) it wasn't the case.

So it's not like saying 'I prefer salad over chips' (fries, or french fries, to the ex-colonials and other foreigner types) and could just be 'I think I should have a bit more salad and fewer chips than I currently have'.

Obviously, referring by analogy (or is it metaphor) to white males as chips, and women of colour as salad, arguably involves a value judgement in both cases. To be fair I didn't say greasy chips.

And I think the analogy with a balanced diet is in some ways quite a good one.

I agree with all of that, except I love greasy chips and, as Bart Simpson says, "You don't make friends with salad"

But it still would mean that most people want elected officials in the current context that are not the white males that continue to dominate the available choices. Thus, it still shows a that the choices are being dictated by a non-representative minority who prefer white males.

It doesn't show any such thing, unless you think both the Democratic and Republican parties are completely corrupted and actively prevent, discourage, undermine, and sabotage the aspirations of black and Asian women running for office.

 

[ruby sparks]

Hmmmmm.. So, the voting public prefers women of color over white males for elected office, and YET 65% of elected officials are white males while only 3.5% are women of color. I guess that shows how much the US is not a democracy, but an oligarchy whose leaders are chosen by self serving white supremacist males.

Sort of a flaw in the case. I agree.

If I were to guess, and to add to what I've already opined, it may be that more people prefer (or at least say they prefer) more women of colour in politics because they feel there are far too few at the moment, which of course is not the same as saying they would prefer them if (a) they didn't think that and (b) it wasn't the case.

So it's not like saying 'I prefer salad over chips' (fries, or french fries, to the ex-colonials and other foreigner types) and could just be 'I think I should have a bit more salad and fewer chips than I currently have'.

Obviously, referring by analogy (or is it metaphor) to white males as chips, and women of colour as salad, arguably involves a value judgement in both cases. To be fair I didn't say greasy chips.

And I think the analogy with a balanced diet is in some ways quite a good one.

I agree with all of that, except I love greasy chips and, as Bart Simpson says, "You don't make friends with salad"

But it still would mean that most people want elected officials in the current context that are not the white males that continue to dominate the available choices. Thus, it still shows a that the choices are being dictated by a non-representative minority who prefer white males.

Yes.

Well, up to a point.

I think it makes the case that it is reasonable to prefer a woman of colour, in the current context, without it necessarily being anti-white male discrimination (using the food analogy again, one might still like chips, but also think more salad is a good thing).

Which I think scotches some of the basic complaints that the OP makes.

As to your point....how, in a democracy (or at least a country where everyone has an equal opportunity to order from the menu) can chip fans dictate what everyone gets for dinner, if in fact, at least in the current context, most people around the table actually do want salad?

Or are people just saying they want salad when they’re on the way to the restaurant, but order chips instead when they get there?

I don’t know the answer. But if I had to guess why certain governments end up being full of old white men, I’d say it’s complicated, and probably involves a lot of things, including money, and the (often manipulative) power that comes from wielding it, because most of the old white men tend to be rather (often or mostly very) rich as well. Or if they themselves aren’t, their (often wealthy old white male) backers usually are.

 

[Metaphor]

Which I think scotches some of the basic complaints that the OP makes.

What complaint? I quoted some research results, and said if the opposite had been found, the establishment media would have made a bigger noise about it.

As to your point....how, in a democracy (or at least a country where everyone has an equal opportunity to order from the menu) can chip fans dictate what everyone gets for dinner, if in fact, at least in the current context, most people around the table actually do want salad?

Except they don't. Chip fans order chips from the menu and salad fans order salad from the menu. Everywhere salad is available, it is more popular than chips (black and Asian women, when standing for election, are more likely to win), but not every place provides salad because salad ingredients are less readily available than chips.

Or are people just saying they want salad when they’re on the way to the restaurant, but order chips instead when they get there?

Some people are doing that. I almost took a gambling bet that Hillary would win in 2016 against a colleague at work who had not discounted Trump's electoral prospects. It was my evaluation that Trump had zero possible chance of winning according to every poll and analysis. I'm glad I didn't take that bet in the end.

I don’t know the answer. But if I had to guess why certain governments end up being full of old white men, I’d say it’s complicated, and probably involves a lot of things, including money, and the (often manipulative) power that comes from wielding it, because most of the old white men tend to be rather (often or mostly very) rich as well. Or if they themselves aren’t, their (often wealthy old white male) backers usually are.

The most obvious main reason, I would imagine, is that America is 77% white, and in every country in the world, men have a higher preference for being political candidates compared to women, and in every country in the world, older people have tended to accumulate more experience, resources, and personal capital than younger people, and in every country in the world, incumbents are more likely to win their seats than new challengers, so incumbents tend to "age in place" compared to younger political challengers.

Of course, all white people in the world are racist all the time (like self-professed racist Robin DiAngelo) and of course white people hate women and nonwhites, so why would we vote for them?

 

[ruby sparks]

What complaint? I quoted some research results, and said if the opposite had been found, the establishment media would have made a bigger noise about it.

I have no idea why I thought you were being as obsessed as usual about discrimination against white men. Maybe I just dreamt it.

 

[Metaphor]

What complaint? I quoted some research results, and said if the opposite had been found, the establishment media would have made a bigger noise about it.

I have no idea why I thought you were being as obsessed as usual about discrimination against white men. Maybe I just dreamt it.

You certainly dreamed that I complained that people prefer black and Asian women as political candidates compared to white men. That is nowhere to be found in my OP.

 

[ruby sparks]

You certainly dreamed that I complained that people prefer black and Asian women as political candidates compared to white men. That is nowhere to be found in my OP

Ok, so then what is your motivation for repeatedly starting threads to draw attention to this sort of thing? It certainly seems like a series of ongoing complaints of some sort in essence.

 

[Metaphor]

You certainly dreamed that I complained .....

Ok, so then what is your motivation for repeatedly starting threads to draw attention to this sort of thing? It certainly seems like a series of ongoing complaints in essence. Often to do with anti-white or anti-male wokeness (and sometimes how it's ruining the world). That was my impression over an extended period of time.

I don't like being gaslighted. In this thread, for example, laughing dog "challenged" my OP by making the idiotic implication that if voters preferred black and Asian female politicians, that's all we would see as politicians, and since we don't see that, the preference displayed in the experiment was meaningless or false.

In other words, even when evidence is produced that the majority of voters prefer black and Asian females to white men, this must be denied. No, people don't prefer black and Asian women to white men. White men hold all the power and there is no such thing as 'reverse racism'. (Note that the only people who use the term 'reverse racism' are people who are using it sarcastically and believe that prejudicial feelings against white people are not racism and can never amount to racism, and those feelings don't even matter).

It's one thing to be part of a society that has contempt for boys and men, where men, in particular white men, can be openly demonised qua white men. It's quite another to be part of that society but then also for that society to deny the anti-male prejudice, and to be told, in fact, that men are the oppressors.

It's one thing to be part of society where teachers grade boys more harshly solely because they are boys, and boys fall ever behind girls in educational outcomes. It's another to live in that society and be told that the tragedy of boys in education is nonsense, that girls are always the real victims, and why does society hate girls and women?

It's one thing to be part of a society that has 58 per cent of university students as women, but be told that we need more girls in STEM. We need to have preferential treatment of girls from high school onwards to get them into STEM. Fuck girl's interest and preferences though. WE NEED GIRLS IN STEM.

Notice that nobody really spoke up about politicians preferring to answer female constituents over male constituents. Nobody seems to care about this unequal treatment.

Indeed, the hard left authors of the study used it to justify more female legislators! Solely because it meant more women would be catered to politically! Because both male and female legislators prefer to attend to women's needs, but women prefer women even more than men prefer women!

I'm tired of being gaslighted. And I will continue to point out ways society treats men and boys negatively compared to women and girls. Maybe people can't be made to care about men and boys, but I do. And the ceaseless one-sided narrative against them needs some countering material.

 

[laughing dog]

You certainly dreamed that I complained .....

Ok, so then what is your motivation for repeatedly starting threads to draw attention to this sort of thing? It certainly seems like a series of ongoing complaints in essence. Often to do with anti-white or anti-male wokeness (and sometimes how it's ruining the world). That was my impression over an extended period of time.

I don't like being gaslighted. In this thread, for example, laughing dog "challenged" my OP by making the idiotic implication that if voters preferred black and Asian female politicians, that's all we would see as politicians, and since we don't see that, the preference displayed in the experiment was meaningless or false.

Since I made no such comment. Not even close.

That means you are gaslighting me with your falsehood "mistake" .

 

[Metaphor]

I don't like being gaslighted. In this thread, for example, laughing dog "challenged" my OP by making the idiotic implication that if voters preferred black and Asian female politicians, that's all we would see as politicians, and since we don't see that, the preference displayed in the experiment was meaningless or false.

Since I made no such comment. Not even close.

That means you are gaslighting me with your falsehood "mistake" .

Sure luv.

So that explains why the overwhelming majority of elected officials are women!

 

[Toni]

Sure luv.

So that explains why the overwhelming majority of elected officials are women!

Thanks for providing the quote that proves laughing dog correct.

 

[laughing dog]

Sure luv.

So that explains why the overwhelming majority of elected officials are women!

First, to anyone even remotely familiar with the English language knows that
"overwhelming majority" does not mean "all".

Second, you left off the rolleyes (i.e. sarcasm) at the end of my comment. For someone who routinely whines about cutting their posts, that is hypocritical. And, it makes your response a bit intellectually dishonest even without your "mistaken" interpretation.

I'd expect a poster with even a modicum of integrity to retract their blatantly false claim or apologize.

 

[ruby sparks]

You certainly dreamed that I complained .....

Ok, so then what is your motivation for repeatedly starting threads to draw attention to this sort of thing? It certainly seems like a series of ongoing complaints in essence. Often to do with anti-white or anti-male wokeness (and sometimes how it's ruining the world). That was my impression over an extended period of time.

I don't like being gaslighted. In this thread, for example, laughing dog "challenged" my OP by making the idiotic implication that if voters preferred black and Asian female politicians, that's all we would see as politicians, and since we don't see that, the preference displayed in the experiment was meaningless or false.

In other words, even when evidence is produced that the majority of voters prefer black and Asian females to white men, this must be denied. No, people don't prefer black and Asian women to white men. White men hold all the power and there is no such thing as 'reverse racism'. (Note that the only people who use the term 'reverse racism' are people who are using it sarcastically and believe that prejudicial feelings against white people are not racism and can never amount to racism, and those feelings don't even matter).

It's one thing to be part of a society that has contempt for boys and men, where men, in particular white men, can be openly demonised qua white men. It's quite another to be part of that society but then also for that society to deny the anti-male prejudice, and to be told, in fact, that men are the oppressors.

It's one thing to be part of society where teachers grade boys more harshly solely because they are boys, and boys fall ever behind girls in educational outcomes. It's another to live in that society and be told that the tragedy of boys in education is nonsense, that girls are always the real victims, and why does society hate girls and women?

It's one thing to be part of a society that has 58 per cent of university students as women, but be told that we need more girls in STEM. We need to have preferential treatment of girls from high school onwards to get them into STEM. Fuck girl's interest and preferences though. WE NEED GIRLS IN STEM.

Notice that nobody really spoke up about politicians preferring to answer female constituents over male constituents. Nobody seems to care about this unequal treatment.

Indeed, the hard left authors of the study used it to justify more female legislators! Solely because it meant more women would be catered to politically! Because both male and female legislators prefer to attend to women's needs, but women prefer women even more than men prefer women!

I'm tired of being gaslighted. And I will continue to point out ways society treats men and boys negatively compared to women and girls. Maybe people can't be made to care about men and boys, but I do. And the ceaseless one-sided narrative against them needs some countering material.

Ok, so then clearly, in starting this and similar threads, you are in fact effectively complaining about the sorts of things I thought you were, and I didn't just dream it.