Clinton says half her Cabinet will be women

[Hatman 🍁]

the epic FF Justin Trudeau.

No. Just, no.

[Lyin' Steve]

There aren't many women at the very top levels of government, academia and industry... so lets not put women in positions at the very top levels of government, academia and industry. OK. Even though there's plenty of vastly over qualified women working at jobs below their level. Very good, very solid logic. Not circular at all.

I never said not to put them in the top levels of government, academia and industry.  If women deserve it, give them those promotions and put them there.  Being in the cabinet is a promotion ABOVE the upper echelons of government/academia/industry.  What it seems like you're saying is we should skip the cream of the crop and look deeper because there's a lot of women who are working at jobs below their level?  I find it hard to believe that, for instance, the absolute #1 pick for Secretary of Energy won't be found among the small, elite group of energy company CEOs, nobel-prize winning scientists, or governors/congressmen who've made dramatic progress on energy-related issues.  We have several such people in the United States.  Most of them are men.  Should we skip over them and go searching through Solyndra VPs or assistant professors at state universities or random congresswomen on the off chance that one of them has enormous talent that just hasn't been recognized or given the opportunity to blossom?  I'd rather she just pick one of the really really good people.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Obvious pander for the woman's vote. I don't care if she wants women, or Hispanics, or whatever in her cabinet, but if she's actually picking a woman over a more qualified (and ideologically okay) man, that should be considered discrimination on the basis of sex, and therefore a crime.

[Slander and/or Libel]

As was said above, it's laughable that any of you would believe that there is one objective most qualified person for any job, or even that there is one objective scale by which candidates can be definitively ranked. If there is one most qualified person for Secretary of Energy and nominating anybody else would be a LITERAL CRIME (according to Wulfric), why does the President even have the prerogative to pick a nominee?

More, it's laughable that a lot of you don't understand that there is a value to diversity. An intrinsic value. And that diversity doesn't just happen, but needs to be proactively made to happen.

[Knives]

Obvious pander for the woman's vote. I don't care if she wants women, or Hispanics, or whatever in her cabinet, but if she's actually picking a woman over a more qualified (and ideologically okay) man, that should be considered discrimination on the basis of sex, and therefore a crime.

The notion that by promoting a women some mystical incredible man is missing out is just ludicrous.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Oh, yes, the leftist affirmative action crap. It's just an excuse to be sexist/racist in non-traditional ways. Society needs to wake up and realize that it is NEVER OKAY to consider someone's race or gender when evaluating them for a given position.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Oh, yes, the leftist affirmative action crap. It's just an excuse to be sexist/racist in non-traditional ways. Society needs to wake up and realize that it is NEVER OKAY to consider someone's race or gender when evaluating them for a given position.

This stuff you're saying, in practice, is uniformly used to muster outrage when a woman is chosen for a job. "How dare they not choose the best person for the job?!?!"

[Knives]

Oh, yes, the leftist affirmative action crap. It's just an excuse to be sexist/racist in non-traditional ways. Society needs to wake up and realize that it is NEVER OKAY to consider someone's race or gender when evaluating them for a given position.

YES IT IS.

When institutions are established by one group and the culture in them favours that one group - to increase representation and ensure a plurality of voices are heard unfortunately AA is needed. Also, do you really think in a country of 150 million women, there are NONE that would be able to meet the requirements for a cabinet position? By having AA, it forces people in power to consider people they would normally overlook because historically when a man and a woman have gone for the same position  and they have similar abilities 9 times out of 10 the woman would miss out.

[The Free North]

Oh, yes, the leftist affirmative action crap. It's just an excuse to be sexist/racist in non-traditional ways. Society needs to wake up and realize that it is NEVER OKAY to consider someone's race or gender when evaluating them for a given position.

This stuff you're saying, in practice, is uniformly used to muster outrage when a woman is chosen for a job. "How dare they not choose the best person for the job?!?!"

No one is arguing that a women might not be the best person for the job...but what happens if the best people are 70% women? or 70% men? Setting arbitrary gender quotas (like with racial quotas) is pretty absurd to begin with and in the context of the Clinton campaign, its clear she is simply pandering to voters rather than making any sort of substantive policy decision.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Oh, yes, the leftist affirmative action crap. It's just an excuse to be sexist/racist in non-traditional ways. Society needs to wake up and realize that it is NEVER OKAY to consider someone's race or gender when evaluating them for a given position.

This stuff you're saying, in practice, is uniformly used to muster outrage when a woman is chosen for a job. "How dare they not choose the best person for the job?!?!"

No one is arguing that a women might not be the best person for the job...but what happens if the best people are 70% women? or 70% men? Setting arbitrary gender quotas (like with racial quotas) is pretty absurd to begin with and in the context of the Clinton campaign, its clear she is simply pandering to voters rather than making any sort of substantive policy decision.

Once again, this assumes that there is some objective standard by which we can say who's the best. Quick, can you name me the best person for the job of Secretary of Energy right now in the country? An objective choice that everyone will agree with?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

LOL, I didn't say that Clinton should be keeping women out of her cabinet. But if it's clear that she's skipping over assortments of objectively more qualified men to "find muh woman", that should be looked at the same as if she was skipping over assortments of objectively more qualified women to "find muh man".

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Oh, yes, the leftist affirmative action crap. It's just an excuse to be sexist/racist in non-traditional ways. Society needs to wake up and realize that it is NEVER OKAY to consider someone's race or gender when evaluating them for a given position.

This stuff you're saying, in practice, is uniformly used to muster outrage when a woman is chosen for a job. "How dare they not choose the best person for the job?!?!"

No one is arguing that a women might not be the best person for the job...but what happens if the best people are 70% women? or 70% men? Setting arbitrary gender quotas (like with racial quotas) is pretty absurd to begin with and in the context of the Clinton campaign, its clear she is simply pandering to voters rather than making any sort of substantive policy decision.

Once again, this assumes that there is some objective standard by which we can say who's the best. Quick, can you name me the best person for the job of Secretary of Energy right now in the country? An objective choice that everyone will agree with?

That's not an answerable question because it depends on ideological preferences, which I do consider legitimate to take into account.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Oh, yes, the leftist affirmative action crap. It's just an excuse to be sexist/racist in non-traditional ways. Society needs to wake up and realize that it is NEVER OKAY to consider someone's race or gender when evaluating them for a given position.

There are plenty of competent women and yet so few are chosen because of the "muh affirmative action, competency doesn't count, gender pandering blah blah" bulls**t you've so kindly demonstrated.

[Virginiá]

Oh look, another thread well on its way to misogynistic and/or cringe status. It's almost like Atlas has a monthly quota for this.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Oh, yes, the leftist affirmative action crap. It's just an excuse to be sexist/racist in non-traditional ways. Society needs to wake up and realize that it is NEVER OKAY to consider someone's race or gender when evaluating them for a given position.

This stuff you're saying, in practice, is uniformly used to muster outrage when a woman is chosen for a job. "How dare they not choose the best person for the job?!?!"

No one is arguing that a women might not be the best person for the job...but what happens if the best people are 70% women? or 70% men? Setting arbitrary gender quotas (like with racial quotas) is pretty absurd to begin with and in the context of the Clinton campaign, its clear she is simply pandering to voters rather than making any sort of substantive policy decision.

Once again, this assumes that there is some objective standard by which we can say who's the best. Quick, can you name me the best person for the job of Secretary of Energy right now in the country? An objective choice that everyone will agree with?

That's not an answerable question because it depends on ideological preferences, which I do consider legitimate to take into account.

You can't answer who's objectively most qualified for the job, but you can muster outrage when somebody who you know isn't it gets picked? What are you even on about? Either there's an objective best or there isn't (hint: there isn't).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Very egalitarian of her.   She's going to win the women's vote, so she feels it important for Trump to win the males.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Oh, yes, the leftist affirmative action crap. It's just an excuse to be sexist/racist in non-traditional ways. Society needs to wake up and realize that it is NEVER OKAY to consider someone's race or gender when evaluating them for a given position.

This stuff you're saying, in practice, is uniformly used to muster outrage when a woman is chosen for a job. "How dare they not choose the best person for the job?!?!"

No one is arguing that a women might not be the best person for the job...but what happens if the best people are 70% women? or 70% men? Setting arbitrary gender quotas (like with racial quotas) is pretty absurd to begin with and in the context of the Clinton campaign, its clear she is simply pandering to voters rather than making any sort of substantive policy decision.

Once again, this assumes that there is some objective standard by which we can say who's the best. Quick, can you name me the best person for the job of Secretary of Energy right now in the country? An objective choice that everyone will agree with?

That's not an answerable question because it depends on ideological preferences, which I do consider legitimate to take into account.

You can't answer who's objectively most qualified for the job, but you can muster outrage when somebody who you know isn't it gets picked? What are you even on about? Either there's an objective best or there isn't (hint: there isn't).

The fact that your main argument is to try to pick out whatever problems may or may not exist with trying to litigate this just shows that Hillary Clinton's statement should be looked at as sexist against men and an obvious pander to woman.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Very egalitarian of her.   She's going to win the women's vote, so she feels it important for Trump to win the males.

The men who are going to be outraged by half of cabinet positions going to women were not going to be voting for Clinton anyway.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If we accept that men and women are overall similar in the temperaments needed to be a Cabinet member and we recognise that just as many women have higher education as men; then we would expect a roughly equal ratio between men and women in high-end positions. The fact that there isn't suggests an in-house bias against women, which can be corrected with the crude tool of quotas.

Studies have shown that teams of mixed gender tend to perform better than single gender teams. Therefore it would be advantageous to break-up boy's clubs.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Oh, yes, the leftist affirmative action crap. It's just an excuse to be sexist/racist in non-traditional ways. Society needs to wake up and realize that it is NEVER OKAY to consider someone's race or gender when evaluating them for a given position.

This stuff you're saying, in practice, is uniformly used to muster outrage when a woman is chosen for a job. "How dare they not choose the best person for the job?!?!"

No one is arguing that a women might not be the best person for the job...but what happens if the best people are 70% women? or 70% men? Setting arbitrary gender quotas (like with racial quotas) is pretty absurd to begin with and in the context of the Clinton campaign, its clear she is simply pandering to voters rather than making any sort of substantive policy decision.

Once again, this assumes that there is some objective standard by which we can say who's the best. Quick, can you name me the best person for the job of Secretary of Energy right now in the country? An objective choice that everyone will agree with?

That's not an answerable question because it depends on ideological preferences, which I do consider legitimate to take into account.

You can't answer who's objectively most qualified for the job, but you can muster outrage when somebody who you know isn't it gets picked? What are you even on about? Either there's an objective best or there isn't (hint: there isn't).

The fact that your main argument is to try to pick out whatever problems may or may not exist with trying to litigate this just shows that Hillary Clinton's statement should be looked at as sexist against men and an obvious pander to woman.

This makes no sense.

[136or142]

I updated my Cabinet selections to 8 men and 7 women after Justin Trudeau appointed a cabinet with gender parity.  There are several other cabinet ranking positions but I'm less familiar with them.  This would make her cabinet gender equal because if I were here I would choose Elizabeth Warren to be my Vice Presidential nominee.

While I don't really have an issue with mandated gender parity one way or the other, I do find it bizarre and laughable that in the United States where something like 90% of the CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies and at least over 80% of the members of the Boards of Directors of those companies are men, that it's only when women are hired for these positions that questions are raised on 'did they get hired due to merit?"

There already is enormous gender bias, but it's men (and almost always white men) who are the direct beneficiaries of this bias.  I personally regard much of the 'we must hire the best person' nonsense as nothing more than push-back from white males against the loss of this undeserved privilege.  

Anyway, this is my latest cabinet prediction, please tell me which one of these, regardless of their gender, you regard as not being competent:

1.Treasury, Deval Patrick
2.Commerce, Jill Docking
3.Labor, Alyson Schwartz
4.Interior, Raul Grijalva
5.Agriculture, Bill Haslam (depending on what he does with the Anti LGBTQ legislation)
6.Energy, Rush Holt
7.Transportation, Julian Castro
8.Housing and Urban Development, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake
9.Education, Judy Chu
10.Housing and Urban Development, Michelle Nunn
11.Veterans Affairs, Robert MacDonald
12.Defense, Ash Carter
13.State, Tom Daschle
14.Homeland Security, Jennifer Granholm
15.Attorney General, Loretta Lynch

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Very egalitarian of her.   She's going to win the women's vote, so she feels it important for Trump to win the males.

The men who are going to be outraged by half of cabinet positions going to women were not going to be voting for Clinton anyway.

Yes, she's made sure of that.   drip drip drip.   But she can still help with turnout.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Also lol at people saying "I don't care if she has an all femald/male/Chinese/Quebecois/Otherkin Pansexual Cabinet, if they're the most qualified!". Pull the other one. If Clinton came up with a Cabinet that was all lesbian Filipinas and said "oh it just turned out that these were all the most qualified" I doubt you'd give the benefit of the doubt.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Very egalitarian of her.   She's going to win the women's vote, so she feels it important for Trump to win the males.

The men who are going to be outraged by half of cabinet positions going to women were not going to be voting for Clinton anyway.

Yes, she's made sure of that.   drip drip drip.   But she can still help with turnout.

Please describe for me the voter who wouldn't turn out to vote against Clinton because she's a woman, but will turn out to vote against her because she might appoint a female Secretary of the Interior.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I updated my Cabinet selections to 8 men and 7 women after Justin Trudeau appointed a cabinet with gender parity.  There are several other cabinet ranking positions but I'm less familiar with them.  This would make her cabinet gender equal because if I were here I would choose Elizabeth Warren to be my Vice Presidential nominee.

While I don't really have an issue with mandated gender parity one way or the other, I do find it bizarre and laughable that in the United States where something like 90% of the CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies and at least over 80% of the members of the Boards of Directors of those companies are men, that it's only when women are hired for these positions that questions are raised on 'did they get hired due to merit?"

There already is enormous gender bias, but it's men (and almost always white men) who are the direct beneficiaries of this bias.  I personally regard much of the 'we must hire the best person' nonsense as nothing more than push-back from white males against the loss of this undeserved privilege.  

Anyway, this is my latest cabinet prediction, please tell me which one of these, regardless of their gender, you regard as not being competent:

1.Treasury, Deval Patrick
2.Commerce, Jill Docking
3.Labor, Alyson Schwartz
4.Interior, Raul Grijalva
5.Agriculture, Bill Haslam (depending on what he does with the Anti LGBTQ legislation)
6.Energy, Rush Holt
7.Transportation, Julian Castro
8.Housing and Urban Development, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake
9.Education, Judy Chu
10.Housing and Urban Development, Michelle Nunn
11.Veterans Affairs, Robert MacDonald
12.Defense, Ash Carter
13.State, Tom Daschle
14.Homeland Security, Jennifer Granholm
15.Attorney General, Loretta Lynch

This just shows how few competent people of either gender we have if this is the sort of list you come up with.