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

[ZiprHead]

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.

You're clearly being gaslighted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"In a survey, however, respondents sometimes provide untruthful answers. For instance, they may hide their dislike for Black candidates for fear of revealing their racism. To address this concern, we embedded in the survey a conjoint experiment that allowed us to elicit true voters’ preferences. We presented respondents with pairs of candidates who varied in their demographic traits. We looked at gender, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, health, religion, education, age, and political experience. And then we asked them to choose which candidate they would be more likely to support. Because we randomized these traits, we can estimate the effect of each candidate characteristic and the interaction of candidate characteristics (e.g. gender and race) on vote choice."

I don't understand how this gets around the tendency for some not to give truthful answers.

You can also ask questions that conceal the truth:

Flip a coin but don't let me see it.
If the coin is heads say "I will never vote for a black candidate"
If the coin is tails tell the truth.

This a bit more than doubles your cost of doing the survey but is pretty good at getting the truth when people don't want to openly say it.

(If you get 52% saying they wouldn't vote for a black you know the real answer is 4%.)

 

[Metaphor]

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.

This is so ludicrous a defense I can barely summon the strength to answer it.

First, I quoted your post while I was on a mobile device and the roll eyes emoji did not paste. Since it was evident you were being frightfully sarcastic, I don't see how it could have made much difference. You obviously do not believe that the overwhelming majority of legislators are women. Your post was doing exactly what I said: dismissing the accuracy or relevance of the research.

Second, the fact that you said "not even close" to having made such a comment is blatantly fucking false. You obviously did make the comment and I quoted it when you doubted it.

Third, the idea that this turns on the word 'all' instead of 'overwhelming majority' compounds your hysterical persecution complex all the more. Are you serious, laughing dog? You made a sarcastic comment, you made a statement of fact that you know nobody believes and was never meant to deceive, and when I point out you made a sarcastic comment to dismiss the findings of the research, you kvetch that the word 'all' meaningfully changes the meaning of the statement, a statement I paraphrased and did not quote?

Still, you have your mindless cheerleaders on your side. Good for you!

 

[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.

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.

You dreamed that I complained in the OP, and attributed to me actions I did not take. That you didn't go back to check what I wrote in the OP but merely went on your prejudices is your own failing, not mine.

 

[Metaphor]

Sure luv.

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

Thanks for providing the quote that proves laughing dog correct.

Never change, Toni. Your easy intimacy with obvious falsehoods is such a joy to behold.

 

[laughing dog]

This is so ludicrous a defense I can barely summon the strength to answer it. ...

I can tell, because you avoided the issue in your babbling defense of your "paraphrase." "Overwhelming majority" is not "all" - that is the crux of the matter. Perhaps in the heat of your fervor to defend your views, you exaggerated. It happens. But your kneejerk defense confirmed my expectation embedded in “ I'd expect a poster with even a modicum of integrity to retract their blatantly false claim or apologize.”

 

[Metaphor]

This is so ludicrous a defense I can barely summon the strength to answer it. ...

I can tell, because you avoided the issue in your babbling defense of your "paraphrase." "Overwhelming majority" is not "all" - that is the crux of the matter. Perhaps in the heat of your fervor to defend your views, you exaggerated. It happens. But your kneejerk defense confirmed my expectation embedded in “ I'd expect a poster with even a modicum of integrity to retract their blatantly false claim or apologize.”

No. What I wrote was not blatantly false. In fact, it beggars belief you have the hide to raise a ruckus about a paraphrase of a counterfactual statement you do not even believe, a paraphrase that in no way changed the spirit of anything you said nor could possibly cause someone to believe you believed something you didn't believe.

There is no universe in which I would apologise for making true statements about you, laughing dog, unless it's a universe where I have completely lost my mind and integrity. And we don't live in that universe.

 

[ruby sparks]

You dreamed that I complained in the OP.

The OP was obviously essentially a complaint, part of a pattern of complaining about certain things, even if not explicitly stated in this OP.

By the way feel free to complain, or if you prefer, express disssatisfaction. Quite a bit of the time I agree you have at least a partial point and sometimes I agree with you more or less fully in principle. In other ways, I disagree with you or disagree about the extent of the issue or question the balance of your analysis of it.

But I don't see the point in denying that you are effectively complaining when you obviously are.

 

[laughing dog]

In fact, it beggars belief you have the hide to raise a ruckus about a paraphrase of a counterfactual statement you do not even believe, a paraphrase that in no way changed the spirit of anything you said nor could possibly cause someone to believe you believed something you didn't believe.

Your claim that I gaslighted you is based on your blatantly false "paraphrase". "Overwhelming majority" does not mean nor imply "all", which means your contrary to your whine, I did not gaslight you but you did gaslight me.

There is no universe in which I would apologise for making true statements about you, laughing dog, unless it's a universe where I have completely lost my mind and integrity. And we don't live in that universe.

Your responses prove otherwise.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Such things are highly probable, especially among the GOP who exert massive efforts to actively prevent, undermine, and sabotage non-whites from voting. And the GOP clearly discourages females in general from running for office, evidenced by the fact that 80% of women in Congress are Dems and while the Dems have tripled their number of women in Congress in the last 25 years, the GOP has the same number of women now (24) as they did in 1995, back when the overt white supremacist Strom Thurmond was the GOP Senate pro tem.

But discouraging women, especially non-white women from running doesn't require cartoonish thuggery and overt threats. Whithin our system money determines not only the winner but who even runs for office. Without funding campaigns are never get off the ground and certainly don't last until the actual election. Since white males control the vast majority of the wealth, they thereby control who runs for office, whose campaigns can stay afloat, and thus who wins.

 

[laughing dog]

The OP's bias is obvious from its title. The OP states that female legislators respond more often to the queries from female constituents and explains this as an in-group favoring itself. In otherwords, the OP concludes there is bias towards females from women legislators. That does not mean that women legislators are biased against men.

It is a nuanced but important point. While the actual effect of being biased towards X is the same as being biased against not X, the moral implications are different.

 

[Metaphor]

Your claim that I gaslighted you is based on your blatantly false "paraphrase". "Overwhelming majority" does not mean nor imply "all", which means your contrary to your whine, I did not gaslight you but you did gaslight me.

Non. I did not accuse you specifically of gaslighting me, although your actions certainly seem designed if not to make me believe I'm crazy, at least to drive me to it. I'm also pretty sure you don't know what gaslighting means, which is understandable, as feminists have distorted it that they it means 'any time somebody makes a claim about the world that conflicts with feminist dogma'.

"Overwhelming majority" does not mean "all", but that changes precisely nothing about the intent or effect of your original sarcastic statement.

i) You intended to discount the relevance, importance, or meaningfulness of the research
ii) To do so you made a counterfactual claim that you did not intend anybody to believe (that the overwhelming majority of legislators are female); and
iii) You proposed the research 'explained' the counterfactual claim (which everyone knows and is intended to be obviously false)
iv) You then raise a ruckus that somebody substituted 'all' for 'overwhelming majority' in step 2, as if that had any material bearing on your purpose, as if you do believe that that the 'overwhelming majority' of legislators are female but not 'all', as if the substitution completely misrepresents your mockery instead of reinforces it.

If you were as smart as you are petty, you'd be a formidable intellectual powerhouse.

 

[laughing dog]

Non. I did not accuse you specifically of gaslighting me,

Your exact words were "I don't like being gaslighted. In this thread, for example, laughing dog .." So, is your denial another example of one of your "paraphrases" or is it just straight intellectual dishonesty?

"Overwhelming majority" does not mean "all", but that changes precisely nothing about the intent or effect of your original sarcastic statement.

You attributed a false position to me. And then you used it to claim I was gaslighting you.

i) You intended to discount the relevance, importance, or meaningfulness of the research

I plead guilty.
To be fair, that intent was redundant.

ii) To do so you made a counterfactual claim that you did not intend anybody to believe (that the overwhelming majority of legislators are female);

Plenty of posts and most of your responses have taught me to believe there is always at least one person willing to believe something inane.

iii) You proposed the research 'explained' the counterfactual claim (which everyone knows and is intended to be obviously false)

Ah, I see the problem – nuanced thinking escapes you. If people actually prefer women candidates over men, then women would know this, run and win. That would lead to an overwhelming majority of elected women officials.

iv) You then raise a ruckus that somebody substituted 'all' for 'overwhelming majority' in step 2, as if that had any material bearing on your purpose, as if you do believe that that the 'overwhelming majority' of legislators are female but not 'all', as if the substitution completely misrepresents your mockery instead of reinforces it.

You can spin it all you want, but you used a falsehood to provide evidence for your false claim that I was gaslighting you.

If you were as smart as you are petty, you'd be a formidable intellectual powerhouse.

Thank you. I am sorry the same cannot be said for you.

 

[Metaphor]

The OP's bias is obvious from its title. The OP states that female legislators respond more often to the queries from female constituents and explains this as an in-group favoring itself. In otherwords, the OP concludes there is bias towards females from women legislators. That does not mean that women legislators are biased against men.

It is a nuanced but important point. While the actual effect of being biased towards X is the same as being biased against not X, the moral implications are different.

I proposed it as a bias towards their ingroup, but this kind of explanation is never accepted, for example, to describe some white people's preference for other white people (which is always described as anti-black racism, never pro-white ingroup bias).

Nor would male executives preferring to promote other males (if that actual bias existed) be disregarded by feminists as merely a 'pro-male' bias. For feminists, that action would anti-woman sexism, patriarchy, and misogyny.

In any case, male legislators were also biased in favour of responding to women more readily.

 

[Metaphor]

Your exact words were "I don't like being gaslighted. In this thread, for example, laughing dog .." So, is your denial another example of one of your "paraphrases" or is it just straight intellectual dishonesty?

You attributed a false position to me. And then you used it to claim I was gaslighting you.

No. I did not attribute a false position to you. I claimed you made a statement you did not believe (which you did) in an attempt to discount the importance of American voters' pro black and Asian female preferences for politicians. It is exactly what you did.

Plenty of posts and most of your responses have taught me to believe there is always at least one person willing to believe something inane.

Irrelevant. If somebody is ignorant or idiot enough (IIE) to believe that you sincerely meant that the 'overwhelming majority' of legislators are female, then it makes no moral or practical difference if instead they believed you said 'all' legislators are female merely because I paraphrased you. Indeed, your actual words are already in the thread and the IIE can go back and read them herself.

Ah, I see the problem – nuanced thinking escapes you. If people actually prefer women candidates over men, then women would know this, run and win. That would lead to an overwhelming majority of elected women officials.

No, it wouldn't.

If voters preferred women over men (which it seems they do), then female candidates are more likely to win over male candidates in total, but not in every case. In fact, I would say party loyalty, actual track record, and stated policy positions are more important than the sex of a candidate. Sex of candidates influences, but does not determine, the outcome of an election.

But--and this appears to be something you've missed--women are not idiots. If two women run against each other, sex of candidate can play no role in influencing the outcome, and one of those women has to lose. The advantage that a female candidate would have over a white male candidate may not be enough for someone who didn't want to put their hand up for an election race to change her mind and suddenly do so. I have temporarily performed the duties of my immediate boss at work, as a courtesy while he's on holidays. I know our salary differences, and I know I don't want his job even though I'm capable of doing it. It just isn't worth it to me.

Also, what makes you think women-or men-'know' voters prefer women? I'd be surprised if they did know it, since feminists believe society hates women in positions of power and the patriarchy does everything it can to keep women down, and they sermonise constantly on the subject.

If you were as smart as you are petty, you'd be a formidable intellectual powerhouse.

Thank you. I am sorry the same cannot be said for you.

Oh, should I take you off my referee list on my C.V. then?

 

[Metaphor]

Such things are highly probable, especially among the GOP who exert massive efforts to actively prevent, undermine, and sabotage non-whites from voting. And the GOP clearly discourages females in general from running for office, evidenced by the fact that 80% of women in Congress are Dems and while the Dems have tripled their number of women in Congress in the last 25 years, the GOP has the same number of women now (24) as they did in 1995, back when the overt white supremacist Strom Thurmond was the GOP Senate pro tem.

I don't believe the GOP actively discourages female candidates; I believe GOP policies are less appealing to women in general, and that running for office might be less appealing to female GOP voters in particular. But in any case, you ought be glad, as given that there is a voter bias towards black and Asian females over white men, parties other than the GOP will continue to have an edge over it on that factor.

But discouraging women, especially non-white women from running doesn't require cartoonish thuggery and overt threats. Whithin our system money determines not only the winner but who even runs for office. Without funding campaigns are never get off the ground and certainly don't last until the actual election. Since white males control the vast majority of the wealth, they thereby control who runs for office, whose campaigns can stay afloat, and thus who wins.

Males and white people also prefer black and Asian female candidates to white men.

 

[laughing dog]

No. I did not attribute a false position to you. I claimed you made a statement you did not believe (which you did) in an attempt to discount the importance of American voters' pro black and Asian female preferences for politicians. It is exactly what you did.

Your denial is rebutted by your own post. Your wrote
"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...".

You have admitted that "overwhelming majority" does not mean "all", so the "idiotic" implication is literally your concoction which you used as an example of being gaslighted.

Now, posters make mistakes all the time. It happens, and there is no shame in making an honest mistake. A poster with even a modicum of integrity would openly admit the mistake and apologize for or retract the false claims.








I

 

[Metaphor]

You have admitted that "overwhelming majority" does not mean "all", so the "idiotic" implication is literally your concoction which you used as an example of being gaslighted.

Non. To say the 'overwhelming majority' of politicians are female is as clearly and unambiguously false, given a US context, as to say they all are. Your gaslighting does not turn on you saying 'overwhelming majority' instead of 'all'. It turns on you linking research to 'explain' a fact you know is false in order to ridicule or discount the research, and that's precisely what you did.

Now, posters make mistakes all the time. It happens, and there is no shame in making an honest mistake. A poster with even a modicum of integrity would openly admit the mistake and apologize for or retract the false claims.

I made a mistake, but not the one you are accusing me of. I paraphrased you, and my point--that you made an obviously sarcastic statement based on a fact you did not believe (that the overwhelming majority of politicians are female) is not changed by the substitution of the word 'all' for 'overwhelming majority'). Since you do not believe the overwhelming majority of politicians are female, you also obviously do not believe that all of them are.

Here is a concession: I, obviously foolishly, did not quote your exact wording but substituted 'all' for 'overwhelming majority' in my recollection. I did not, obviously foolishly after all these years, imagine that you would raise an objection to my paraphrasing a statement you made that you do not even believe nor expected anyone else to believe, on the grounds that I attributed to you a slightly different statement that is equally and obviously false and merely exaggerates the quantity in the same direction you had already exaggerated it.

I am culpable for not realising how utterly and basely petty you can be, how easily you will engage in pedantic squabbling that makes no contribution whatsoever to the substance of the debate , how desperately-point scoring you can get.

But one thing I'm not guilty of is failing to recognise your double gaslighting attempt. First, when you mocked and discounted the OP by saying it 'explains' a false fact, and then again when you accused me of gaslighting you because I recognised what you had done and you acted as if your gaslighting attempt was not what it was, and that I had misrepresented the gaslighting, as if the gaslighting turned on you having said 'all' instead of 'overwhelming majority'.

 

[laughing dog]

You have admitted that "overwhelming majority" does not mean "all", so the "idiotic" implication is literally your concoction which you used as an example of being gaslighted.

Non. To say the 'overwhelming majority' of politicians are female is as clearly and unambiguously false, given a US context, as to say they all are. Your gaslighting does not turn on you saying 'overwhelming majority' instead of 'all'. It turns on you linking research to 'explain' a fact you know is false in order to ridicule or discount the research, and that's precisely what you did.

Now, posters make mistakes all the time. It happens, and there is no shame in making an honest mistake. A poster with even a modicum of integrity would openly admit the mistake and apologize for or retract the false claims.

I made a mistake, but not the one you are accusing me of. I paraphrased you, and my point--that you made an obviously sarcastic statement based on a fact you did not believe (that the overwhelming majority of politicians are female) is not changed by the substitution of the word 'all' for 'overwhelming majority'). Since you do not believe the overwhelming majority of politicians are female, you also obviously do not believe that all of them are.

Here is a concession: I, obviously foolishly, did not quote your exact wording but substituted 'all' for 'overwhelming majority' in my recollection. I did not, obviously foolishly after all these years, imagine that you would raise an objection to my paraphrasing a statement you made that you do not even believe nor expected anyone else to believe, on the grounds that I attributed to you a slightly different statement that is equally and obviously false and merely exaggerates the quantity in the same direction you had already exaggerated it.

I am culpable for not realising how utterly and basely petty you can be, how easily you will engage in pedantic squabbling that makes no contribution whatsoever to the substance of the debate , how desperately-point scoring you can get.

But one thing I'm not guilty of is failing to recognise your double gaslighting attempt. First, when you mocked and discounted the OP by saying it 'explains' a false fact, and then again when you accused me of gaslighting you because I recognised what you had done and you acted as if your gaslighting attempt was not what it was, and that I had misrepresented the gaslighting, as if the gaslighting turned on you having said 'all' instead of 'overwhelming majority'.

The idea that a recognized sarcastic statement is gaslighting is idiotic. The notion that the mischaracterization a statement someone does not believe does not matter is utterly without merit or intellectual integrity. Accusing your victim of the your very sins is truly Trumperian in scope and venality.

Your responses are depressingly revealing and truly disappointing.

 

[Metaphor]

The notion that it does not matter to mischaracterize a statement someone does not believei s utterly without merit or intellectual integrity

Non. I didn't say it didn't matter in some general sense. I said it didn't matter for the point I was illustrating, and it doesn't. You attempted to discount the importance or relevance of the research results, you did this by saying it 'explained' a fact you did not believe it explained (since the fact was the opposite of reality) and nobody was meant to believe that fact and the fact's obvious falseness was the entire point, and if I had quoted you directly it would have made no difference to my point.

But, in case anybody is under some delusion about what you said and what you meant:

I hereby confirm that laughing dog mocked my OP by falsely stating that it explained why the overwhelming majority of politicians are female, and I am sorry to have misled scores, hundreds, thousands of people about the nature of laughing dog's mocking sarcasm by accidentally recalling he had said all politicians are female.

I can see now how my inexact recollection of the specific wording in an obviously false statement that nobody was meant to believe was an attempt to gaslight laughing dog and harm his reputation, and how laughing dog might be cancelled if somebody believed he had ironically uttered that all politicians are female, when he made the much less obviously ironic utterance that the overwhelmingly majority of politicians are female. My error might cause some people to believe that laughing dog is not subtle enough when he utters statements he does not believe for mocking purposes. laughing dog chooses his words with the utmost care, and his mocking sarcasm had just the right flavour when he said the overwhelming majority of politicians are female, but my crass, inexact, misleading recollection, accusing him of having said all politicians are female, destroyed the care and presentation and subtle nuance laughing dog had put into his mocking sarcasm.

For these and other sins I cannot now recall, I am sorry.