Poll data shows Hillary dominates with women who only have a high school diploma (59-34), so why don't reporters start charactering her as a candidate that's appealing to dull and stupid women? That's precisely the language you all use against Donald for cleaning up with high school educated men.
9
I've always wondered why more men didn't support equal pay for women doing equal work--they themselves would be better off if their wives brought home more money for the work they were already doing. But somehow ego gets in the way. Testosterone over money. Probably should have seen that coming. And men say women aren't good at math. Sigh.
21
Why not go for meritocracy?
Enforced diversity is not the path to good governance.
Enforced diversity is not the path to good governance.
11
When women's rights are taken care of then over 80% of all human rights are simultaneously taken care of. True here in America but none more apparent than in developing countries. Hillary Clinton is about a strong advocate for women's rights, here and around the world, as anyone else in the entire world.
Men do not readily recognize this but hasn't that been the case for..well forever?
Their chauvinistic blindness can be the problem but no matter, many men are also lazy and will let a woman do the hard work. Just as well. You know the cliche - Lead, follow or get out of the way. Hillary Clinton will naturally lead.
Men do not readily recognize this but hasn't that been the case for..well forever?
Their chauvinistic blindness can be the problem but no matter, many men are also lazy and will let a woman do the hard work. Just as well. You know the cliche - Lead, follow or get out of the way. Hillary Clinton will naturally lead.
21
NK's argument can be right or wrong depending on the definition of "winning" applied.As he says,there is plenty of data to support the many strengths women bring to any enterprise and to infer from these data that all stakeholders benefit from their leadership or participation.If,however,one defines winning as triumphing in a zero some game,then the rise of women can be a threat.Given that American men,particularly those with less education in the broadest sense,have a mentality shaped by violent sports or hunting,their implicit machismo means that powerful women are, more often than not,an emasculating force to be feared and therefore fuel for misogyny.
9
Ummm who are you arguing against Nick? I don't think your stance is particularly controversial or narrowly-held...
7
How is there a "modern glass ceiling" when 60% of the bachelors and masters and JD degrees, and 55% of PhDs are earned by women?
Examine your motives and stop perpetuating this falsehood.
Examine your motives and stop perpetuating this falsehood.
10
Mr. Kristof presents overwhelming evidence of the benefit of women. However, one bit of evidence that left me scratching my head was the MIT study that showed that the optimal composition of a 12 member team was 55% women. Maybe a Princeton grad could explain that paradox to us.
2
When criminal women win, we all lose.
8
Plenty of voters supporting Trump worry about a woman president, worry about immigrants, and worry about global trade. What an irony! The party that has trumpeted individualism, merit, and a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" message for years hasn't been about that at all. It's just about protecting privilege, whether the privilege of the billionaire, or the poor white worker who can take empty solace in being "protected" and a peg above his neighbors of color. That era is ending, to the benefit of most of us, and while it may be going out with a roar of protest, it is going out and folks ought to stop whining about a lost past and work to live in the world that's being built.
20
This article reminded me of the fact that Justice Samuel Alito during his confirmation hearing in the Senate had to fend off criticism of his participation in a group of male Princeton alumni who were fervently against allowing women admission to their alma mater. How then can he impartially judge cases involving the rights of women?
19
As a journalist specializing in the presidency and veteran of campaigns, I know Trump is the most dangerous candidate in our history and Clinton the most misunderstood. Here's my documented reasons for supporting her to share because this may be another very close election like 2000 and every vote will be critical, esp in swing states (read by 6500 so far): https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-letter-sanders-supporters-scott-s-sm...
15
How any woman of any age, color, faith or ethnic origin could vote for Trump us beyond me. Clearly, the only attribute he vales in women are good looks. Many of us, Mr. Trump, are not super models with staff assistants, hired help and personal trainers like your wife. Instead, we work for a living, pay taxes and vote. And many of us are appalled that you would stoop so low as to criticize Gold Star mother who has lost her son for remaining silent during her husband's brave speech when time after time, we have witnessed your wife standing silently by your side while you went on and on about your phoney "ideas" of how to keep America safe. Her son died keeping America safe, while your sons were hunting endangered species.
29
Seems we are hearing a lot of push back about Hillary's Clinton competence to be president and commander in chief. We heard a lot of the same concerns about President Obama. He was "untested" and inexperienced and even illegitimate.
Also seems prejudice is alive and well in 2016.
Also seems prejudice is alive and well in 2016.
17
Great column Nick. And thanks for the news about Sultana - wonderful!
9
"I understand that many Americans distrust her". Of course they do. You guys have to bring it up endlessly. It's no wonder people think that. Carl Rove must love you guys for doing his bidding. He did say (not a quote) that he could tell the American public anything and that if he said often enough, over a long enough period of time, they would come to believe it. He probably didn't realize that you folks would do the repetition for him.
27
This week's headlines reported Clinton clinching the nomination with a picture of Bill Clinton or Bernie Sanders (Wash Po, WSJ, Chicago Trib) prove how far we still are from equality -- even among "liberals". I appreciate this fact based, unconventional point of view because it turns out, you're not preaching to the choir. Thanks!!
6
For some reason, roughly half of our population (however you want to slice it) seems to have difficulty dealing with change that does not benefit them in an obvious way.
The fact that change is morally the right thing to do, unfortunately, is not enough for them.
The fact that change is morally the right thing to do, unfortunately, is not enough for them.
22
My freshman year at Georgia Tech was 1952 – the year they first admitted women. There were five women and about 5,000 men. The Tech humor magazine, The Yellowjacket, put out a special issue, "Feel and Scream," with a cover, as I recall, a guy with a fishing rod and hanging from the hook, a pair of pink panties. What has happened since those days 64 years ago? Today we graduate more and more women engineers, mathematicians and scientists of all kinds. And the world is better!
28
Kristof's last sentence is his best sentence, "...I’m thrilled to report that Sultana finally obtained a visa and has just arrived in America." Fantastic news for Sultana and our family wishes her much success and happiness in the USA!
10
Thank you, Mr. Kristof, for your thoughtful piece. But because you have a daughter – as well as sons -- you have a child, someone you love beyond words, who stands to directly (not subtly) benefit from the rise of girls and women. I only have sons and grandsons. They have the huge and unearned privilege of being white – but young African-American males have also been left in the lurch by a movement that has essentially ignored them along with every other male.
You, yourself, wrote a piece back in 2010, titled “The Boys Have Fallen Behind (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28kristof.html ),” where you talked about a problem that had “sneaked up on us.” But lots of people already knew it was a problem, and had been working hard to change it. They still are. But not a whole lot of progress has been made; it just wasn’t then, nor is it today, politically correct.
It’s not among our nation’s adults that I have concerns – it’s our children, where boys are, on virtually every measure, lagging behind girls. Yes, you make an excellent case that when women win, men win too. But when boys lose, everyone loses – not just their parents and others who love them, but our whole country and the world.
I have high hopes that when she becomes President, Hillary Clinton will directly address this issue. No one would be better situated to do so, and now that she has a grandson, she can feel the love that all of us who are parents or grandparents of boys know so well.
You, yourself, wrote a piece back in 2010, titled “The Boys Have Fallen Behind (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28kristof.html ),” where you talked about a problem that had “sneaked up on us.” But lots of people already knew it was a problem, and had been working hard to change it. They still are. But not a whole lot of progress has been made; it just wasn’t then, nor is it today, politically correct.
It’s not among our nation’s adults that I have concerns – it’s our children, where boys are, on virtually every measure, lagging behind girls. Yes, you make an excellent case that when women win, men win too. But when boys lose, everyone loses – not just their parents and others who love them, but our whole country and the world.
I have high hopes that when she becomes President, Hillary Clinton will directly address this issue. No one would be better situated to do so, and now that she has a grandson, she can feel the love that all of us who are parents or grandparents of boys know so well.
7
Nick's examples of female leadership benefiting men are really weak and also condescending. But why look to 30 year old studies and the ancient (and male-lead) effort to lower infant mortality. Why doesn't Nick simply cite all the benefits that will accrue to men if they elect Hilary Clinton! Let's start with the DNC: it seems that the primary was rigged by the female DNC chair for Hillary. I guess my going to the polling station this spring was all a pointless exercise. Frankly I don't feel very much benefitted. But let's be fair, let's go to Hillary's website and look at what she pledges to do. Well, women are mentioned nearly 30 times. Men aren't specifically mentioned at all. Even her plans for veterans specifically mention female veterans. Aren't most veterans men? And look at her plans for addressing the fake 'gender wage gap': men will have this conversation with their employer: 'Sorry Bob, your work is stellar and thanks for staying late each night, but if we gave you a raise it would push our average male salary too high. You'll have to take a pay cut.'
8
Great column today. When women and men "lean in" together, we are all better off. I've seen it every where I've worked in my career. And, growing up in a Steeltown in the 70"s, I have to believe if there more women on the boards of the big steel companies at that time, they would have fought harder to protect jobs for their sons and daughters. Now all that is left in the heartland is rust and rubble. As Bruce Springsteen said in the song "Youngstown - Them big boys did what Hitler couldn't do". Maybe maternal love and protectionism would have helped steer a more balanced course toward globalization, and in the process, protected the middle class. So its time for a change. I'm with Her.
15
I'm totally ready to turn over the reins of government to women, especially democratic women. They have the right priorities. On the republican side, the women are almost as bad as the men.
18
As a woman I'm extremely ashamed to have our first potential female president be an extremely dishonest and corrupt person. This will only set women back if she makes it to the White House .
9
You've been deceived. You've fallen for the republican's long, relentless smear campaign directed at Hillary Clinton. It's the only way they can beat someone who is clearly their intellectual and moral superior.
13
Double income white households have hogged the jobs and money that would otherwise have been more equitably distributed throughout the various income levels of society. Look around the floor of the Democratic Party convention and you'll see many a white woman whose double income households make upward of five hundred thousand a year but many a black woman who's lucky to be making fifty thousand a year as the sole breadwinner. Who is responsible for this situation but the supposedly big-hearted liberals whose sense of equality goes no further than the walls of their own double income households--? Most gallingly, Hillary with her ridiculous speaking fees, book deals, and charitable foundation which is essentially a tax dodge for the rich pulls in millions and then postures herself as breaking yet another glass ceiling for women. No doubt it will rain down even more millions for her and Bill.
7
Many families need two incomes to maintain an adequate standard of living because wages and salaries have not kept pace with the cost of living. Things were worse 8 years ago after the GOP's deregulation of the financial sector destroyed the economy and lost millions of jobs in addition to those lost to globalization. Globalization, like deregulation, has been a main component of the GOP agenda for decades. Add to that the porous borders preferred by some of the business interests represented by the GOP (despite GOP rhetoric to the contrary) and the downward pressure on wages has been disastrous for many families. The was the GOP's intent, of course: Take care of the investor class, punish the working class.
It's funny when republicans who worship wealth (see Trump, Romney and Bush) complain when democrats make money too. I suppose all of those well compensated republican talking heads like Gingrich and Palin don't count?
It's funny when republicans who worship wealth (see Trump, Romney and Bush) complain when democrats make money too. I suppose all of those well compensated republican talking heads like Gingrich and Palin don't count?
14
Here's the crux of the problem: "Donald Trump has a huge lead among white men with no college degree." White. Less educated. Men.
10
That Mr. Kristof will say "When women win, men win, too" is not unexpected. Some people, for whatever reasons, look through the prism of genders, sex, race and so on--they just don't understand that things should be looked at objectively--not through subjective whims, caprices, or prejudices. People should look at qualities and skills needed for a job, not at sex or race. Until that day comes, yes men should be pitted against women, women should be pitted against men, blacks should be pitted against white, and so on and so forth. And Mr. Kristof and his elk would find delight in championing women at men's expense. Would Mr. Kristof find pleasure if he is asked to give up his columnist position in favor of a women? Use your job as long as you can to promote women, until your job is gone too.
3
You are dangerously close to stating that women -- just because they are women -- can out perform men. Just a few points. The data for that assertion is simply anecdotal from firebrands such as yourself. You don't even site where the study came from that mixed gender groups outperform all male or all female But -- you phrase it as if adding women made the difference, not adding men to all women groups.
Second -- the study about stock turnover was pretty sloppy. They should have obtained measures of confidence from all those households -- controlled for it -- and then seen what the results were. Finally, the study on testosterone and trading was based on 17 traders over 8 days. And it was a correlational study.
Now, I don't care whether someone is red, green, black,white, brown or striped. I want the best person for the job. HRC isn't that person and being female doesn't give her magic power.
I do think however, the Times would benefit from diversity of point of view in its news room and op-ed pages. Get rid of all the mushy headed thinkers -- or some anyway -- and bring in those who know data, research, and can think. Then you'd have a better paper.
Second -- the study about stock turnover was pretty sloppy. They should have obtained measures of confidence from all those households -- controlled for it -- and then seen what the results were. Finally, the study on testosterone and trading was based on 17 traders over 8 days. And it was a correlational study.
Now, I don't care whether someone is red, green, black,white, brown or striped. I want the best person for the job. HRC isn't that person and being female doesn't give her magic power.
I do think however, the Times would benefit from diversity of point of view in its news room and op-ed pages. Get rid of all the mushy headed thinkers -- or some anyway -- and bring in those who know data, research, and can think. Then you'd have a better paper.
5
Well, the "glass ceiling" was broken but it did take a man to do it.
How's that?
If Hilary R. Clinton was just Hilary Rodham, do you think she would have stood a ghost of a chance for the nomination? Do you really think Elizabeth Warren (Or any OTHER Democratic woman) could have received the nomination?
But I'm ready to "take what the defense will give me" and be joyful that we've taken another step toward gender equality no matter who is wearing the shoes.
How's that?
If Hilary R. Clinton was just Hilary Rodham, do you think she would have stood a ghost of a chance for the nomination? Do you really think Elizabeth Warren (Or any OTHER Democratic woman) could have received the nomination?
But I'm ready to "take what the defense will give me" and be joyful that we've taken another step toward gender equality no matter who is wearing the shoes.
1
Nicholas, what’s with all this anxiety that gender progress might turn men off? The choice in November is simple. Either the United States wants to make itself a laughing stock in the world by electing a clown like Donald Trump, or it doesn’t.
6
I forget who said it, but I think the saying "you can't keep someone down in the mud without staying there yourself" would apply here. I'm old enough to remember the bad old days: when newspapers list jobs as Male or Female, where, if women where allowed in college, had a quota on them, where women couldn't get a credit card in their name (much less a loan), etc., etc., etc. The world is a much better place today.
8
The party of the so-called free market, the GOP, should not be scared of women and immigrants, given the fact that the market will work it out.
4
When a dishonest,untrustworthy, woman oligarch like Clinton wins,
everybody loses.
everybody loses.
8
Non sensical to say that when women win, men win too.Obviously, if there r more women in the workforce, that means fewer jobs for men.You would have to be a troglodyte to deny that women should have the right to vote or compete in the workplace with men, but to say that men win when women win just doesn't add up.Understand why NK would maintain that, since no journo would get far by defying his editors and shareholders,but it is an obvious absurdity.Re attorney KHAN'S rebuke of DT, which liberal press is overjoyed with, Attorney KHAN has close ties with CAIR(Council on American Islamic Relations) and thus, is no mere attorney. but its spokesman. His words re his son were ungracious, since he failed to note all the other casualties of Iraq war,and did not hold accountable HRC who voted for it.That's where the blame lies.Another commenter wrote that Khan was from UAE, not from sub continent as I maintain. But KHAN,a borrowed surname which refers to anyone in the liberal professions who is a doctor, was born in northern INDIA and emigrated to UAE before coming here.One third of expatriate work force in S.A.when I was there as a contractor in 1970's were Indians.Trump's comment was pertinent and perspicacious.Why did KHAN's' wife not speak up, but choose to maintain a servile silence?
4
I don't believe Hillary can change. Her pick of Tim Kaine is evidence of it. The irony here is Tim Kaine can change and I like Tim Kaine, but Cory Booker would have brought the continuum of minorities rise out of the gutter Republicans keep throwing them into.
Off topic but very much on my mind, Trumps act of Treason does not belong on the campaign trail but in jail
Off topic but very much on my mind, Trumps act of Treason does not belong on the campaign trail but in jail
2
Great explanation and argument for supporting the strength and determination of women who continually find ways to improve the health and welfare of children. The problem is that the "white men with no college degree" are often not reading the NY Times, Kris. How to get this information into their hands and heads is the challenge!
Thank you for your always enlightening articles!
Thank you for your always enlightening articles!
4
Thanks Nick. Many readers' letters challenging your column assume you are saying --what you are not saying--that we should elect Hillary because she is a woman. I hear you as saying that being a woman is indeed one of many reasons to do vote for her. I also hear you saying that since women have been discriminated against and kept out of the process, allowing more women in will bring something new and valuable to the process. You are not saying women are better than men or that men do not, and have not, worked to support women. I am dismayed by folks overreading what you wrote and speaking in a knee-jerk fashion about what they read into your article than what you actually wrote.
7
Great explanation and argument for supporting the strength and determination of women who continually find ways to improve the health and welfare of children. The problem is that the "white men with no college degree" are often not reading the NY Times, Nick. How to get this information into their hands and heads is the challenge!
Thank you for your always enlightening articles!
Thank you for your always enlightening articles!
12
Re my previous comment about women in the workplace, it should be added that not only r they able to compete fairly with men , but often r favored over men in the liberal professions. In the want ads in CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, every tenure track position is accompanied by a sentence specifying that "minority candidates and women are encouraged to apply," which means that an elderly white male would not have the same chance of landing the position as the abovementioned "minority candidates and women." This represents at least the eighth or ninth submission that I have written since yesterday,so I wonder whether I am being treated fairly, and equitably, and if the TIMES is tolerant of dissenting opinions in the Comments section.
5
I've been dismayed by the comments here that equate women participating fully in the economic engine of the country with a "loss" for men. This isn't about who gets a bigger piece of the pie, it's about making the pie bigger.
18
As a former Bernie supporter who despises Trump, I shall proudly vote for Hillary in November. But two things.
First, I will do so because regardless of gender, there is simply no comparison between the candidates in terms of qualifications, temperament, and experience.
Second, Mr. Kristof is ignoring a key distinction - between political decisions and those governed by law. If a citizen votes for a candidate for public office because of that person's gender, that's fine. Voting is a political decision and we are entitled to vote based on any criterion we please. Likewise, if a President nominates someone to the Supreme Court in large part because of that person's race or gender, again, fine. This is a political decision and the checks are political: if the Senate thinks that nominee unqualified, it can reject her. And if voters think the President was wrong to nominate this person and the Senate wrong to confirm him, they can vote against the President and their Senator in the next election. Again, the checks are political.
When it comes to decisions governed by law, e.g., the civil rights laws, however, Mr. Kristof's rhetoric breaks down. No one who is unemployed, applying for jobs, and is told "sorry, you are the best qualified applicant for this job, but we must hire a woman, but cheer up, this will be better for everyone" could legitimately be expected to just accept that. The individual is not the group and the group is not the individual.
First, I will do so because regardless of gender, there is simply no comparison between the candidates in terms of qualifications, temperament, and experience.
Second, Mr. Kristof is ignoring a key distinction - between political decisions and those governed by law. If a citizen votes for a candidate for public office because of that person's gender, that's fine. Voting is a political decision and we are entitled to vote based on any criterion we please. Likewise, if a President nominates someone to the Supreme Court in large part because of that person's race or gender, again, fine. This is a political decision and the checks are political: if the Senate thinks that nominee unqualified, it can reject her. And if voters think the President was wrong to nominate this person and the Senate wrong to confirm him, they can vote against the President and their Senator in the next election. Again, the checks are political.
When it comes to decisions governed by law, e.g., the civil rights laws, however, Mr. Kristof's rhetoric breaks down. No one who is unemployed, applying for jobs, and is told "sorry, you are the best qualified applicant for this job, but we must hire a woman, but cheer up, this will be better for everyone" could legitimately be expected to just accept that. The individual is not the group and the group is not the individual.
6
despite Kristof's column -- there is no solid evidence that more diverse work teams perform better. One study (which he didn't cite) means nothing -- most academic studies -- social science studies -- are merely anecdotes until a mass of studies have been published.
And -- in any study of work teams -- you have to control for a number of factors -- smarts of participants, the type of problem, the interest level of participants, experience, etc.
And any study involving students in a pretend situation is always open to question until the results have been replicated in the real world --- no matter how veridical the laboratory paradigm seems to be, it is difficult to lab situations that have long term implications.
To really study work teams you need a lot of field data.
And -- in any study of work teams -- you have to control for a number of factors -- smarts of participants, the type of problem, the interest level of participants, experience, etc.
And any study involving students in a pretend situation is always open to question until the results have been replicated in the real world --- no matter how veridical the laboratory paradigm seems to be, it is difficult to lab situations that have long term implications.
To really study work teams you need a lot of field data.
3
I don't believe that gender has anything to do with it. In the 1950s the US did quite well with an all-men crew.
What this research really measures is the objectivity of criteria. When top jobs go exclusively to the members of a small incrowd quality tends to decrease. Unfortunately Clinton is the ultimate insider. So her rise is not a reason for hope. Rather the opposite.
What this research really measures is the objectivity of criteria. When top jobs go exclusively to the members of a small incrowd quality tends to decrease. Unfortunately Clinton is the ultimate insider. So her rise is not a reason for hope. Rather the opposite.
4
When I go to design meetings with other software teams, and there are women in the room, I know it will be a useful meeting. The Bro's will dial it back and people will listen more. Consequently better decisions will be made.
Sans the shouting, and one upmanship, the meetings will proceed on the presentation of ideas; discussed on the basis of logic and merit. In engineering, and I suspect other professions, the first idea is not always the best. Engineering design is not shooting hoops.
It takes a bit of ego to put your idea out there to be shot down. When women are present the junior engineers will take a chance and express their ideas and opinions. Without women present they sit there quietly, deferring to the big dogs, who are typically talking not thinking.
Sans the shouting, and one upmanship, the meetings will proceed on the presentation of ideas; discussed on the basis of logic and merit. In engineering, and I suspect other professions, the first idea is not always the best. Engineering design is not shooting hoops.
It takes a bit of ego to put your idea out there to be shot down. When women are present the junior engineers will take a chance and express their ideas and opinions. Without women present they sit there quietly, deferring to the big dogs, who are typically talking not thinking.
31
If Hillary, herself, has any kind of a career ceiling it sure is not made of anything visible. Her first position in politics was senator of a very powerful state that she hadn't even lived in? When Obama declared that Hillary is superior to both him and Bill at the convention even I could see the ceiling over women who are not supported by men.
But this whole issue, right now, is just division and diversion by the Democratic party to prevent the masses (irrespective of genes and chromosomes) from uprising. The suffering of the Khan family is another example of the party's political engineering. It's very discouraging that the Democrats are suppressing this very real discontent while even Donald Trump is forcing even the Republican party to listen. Incredible. And all the flag waving and patriotic vitriol coming from the Democratic party - very worrisome. Hillary Clinton - at this pivotal time in our country - seems to be testing the powers of propaganda.
But this whole issue, right now, is just division and diversion by the Democratic party to prevent the masses (irrespective of genes and chromosomes) from uprising. The suffering of the Khan family is another example of the party's political engineering. It's very discouraging that the Democrats are suppressing this very real discontent while even Donald Trump is forcing even the Republican party to listen. Incredible. And all the flag waving and patriotic vitriol coming from the Democratic party - very worrisome. Hillary Clinton - at this pivotal time in our country - seems to be testing the powers of propaganda.
6
The GOP is listening? To whom? Surely not the voters. Have you noticed they are nowhere to be seen the last few months since Trump took over their party? Cowards the lot of them. Afraid to do the right thing, because they've not done such a thing in the last two presidential terms. Doing the right thing sometimes takes some practice, its a muscle that can atrophy when not flexed often...and the GOP hasnt flexed theirs in far too long a time.
No one, or group can suppress discontent, people either are, or not. Discontent is not a political movement, its not an ideology, it has no tenets...its unique to each individual. What you're discontent over is not what bothers me. Trump taps into many forms of it, but most of it centers around a disgruntled white male class who feel they have been robbed of their superiority by political correctness. When they say; "Trump says what he's thinking and I like that" - it translates to; "He gets to be disrespectful of people I want to disrespect again." Racism is not simply being discontent.
No one wins if Trump wins, not even his supporters. Racism and sexism and plain old meanness hurts us all. Especially the children who are watching adults, mostly on the GOP side, behave so badly right now.
Did Mr Khan really looked suppressed to you? He looks like a willing participant and a welcomed one, IMO.
The alleged uprising is but a meme, a meme of the moment. Its propaganda!
No one, or group can suppress discontent, people either are, or not. Discontent is not a political movement, its not an ideology, it has no tenets...its unique to each individual. What you're discontent over is not what bothers me. Trump taps into many forms of it, but most of it centers around a disgruntled white male class who feel they have been robbed of their superiority by political correctness. When they say; "Trump says what he's thinking and I like that" - it translates to; "He gets to be disrespectful of people I want to disrespect again." Racism is not simply being discontent.
No one wins if Trump wins, not even his supporters. Racism and sexism and plain old meanness hurts us all. Especially the children who are watching adults, mostly on the GOP side, behave so badly right now.
Did Mr Khan really looked suppressed to you? He looks like a willing participant and a welcomed one, IMO.
The alleged uprising is but a meme, a meme of the moment. Its propaganda!
7
That's exactly what we Dems believe about Republicans: that the GOP machine has, for 30 years, torn down Hillary's accomplishments and lied about her-- to the point that you all actually believe it. (As if Repetition equaled Truth.) But why do you think she is supported by so many women, African-Americans, Muslims, and other minority groups? We don't feel divided-- that is just more "propaganda" by the divisive GOP machine. We feel unified and clear about her work on behalf of others, for her entire working lifetime, and want to see it continue--partly because it will improve Republicans' lives too.
5
The content of this article is just a drop in the bucket in terms of research that supports the winning effectiveness of female leadership. The uneducated white men voting for Trump may not appreciate this data for whatever reason...Education is the key to the success of our country, we must break through this cycle of ignorance that sneaks up on us and rears it's ugly truthful self like my drunk uncle at Thanksgiving. HRC broke the glass ceiling, now we have to break the moldy concrete floor of ignorance.
29
As a woman, I am offended by this article. Of course, men - or at least, a certain kind of men - lose when women rise. They lose their power over others, their sense of entitlement, their masculine identity rooted in the sense of privilege. And I don't care. I am better than most men at what I do, and it is only fair that I get what I deserve even if it shatters their fragile egos. Incidentally, I am the mother of two sons but neither they nor my husband are so pathetic that they need women to look down at in order to shore up their sense of self-worth.
12
I found nothing offensive in the article. My father was a professor in the medical school at two universities, my mother was a nurse, and my stepmother was an M.D. and a professor in the medical school. In my professional life, I was often the first woman in technology reporting on my team, and I did not experience any overt sexism when single or married (but the men might have been paid more.). I did find sexism when raising my two children, because some men I encountered in technology reporting told me they thought I should stay home instead of work, just as their mothers had done and just as their wives had done -- this was in the 80s and 90s -- because my staying home would be 'better' for the children. Children need food on the table and a stable home. My income was necessary as a substantial supplement to the family income. But I did encounter sexism at that time. A win for women is a win for everybody.
14
Sounds like a series of anecdotes.
You shouldn't vote for a woman just to have a woman president. Are we just going to lurch from one non-standard candidate to another now, simply for the novelty of it?
You shouldn't vote for a woman just to have a woman president. Are we just going to lurch from one non-standard candidate to another now, simply for the novelty of it?
6
Wow. "Non-standard"?
Just wow.
Just wow.
5
the dems have no other way to win -- they have to play on the progressives identity politics platform.
Non-standard? So you mean we should only vote for white men?
5
Patriarchy - men's entitlement to dominance with the collusion of many women conditioned since birth to follow it - is the most ancient, pervasive and resilient tyranny. Its extinction will unleash colossal creative advancement of billions of women, lower excessive human birth rates, and solve every problem under the sun, including the climate crisis. Gender equality is thus the planet's #1 struggle.
34
What if your university studies turn out to be evidence of nothing, and if the real way people feel in America turns out to be everything?
People don't need academic studies that tell them they're not miserable.
What they need are strong leaders who acknowledge problems and grievances and promise to fix them.
This is why Trump will win.
People don't need academic studies that tell them they're not miserable.
What they need are strong leaders who acknowledge problems and grievances and promise to fix them.
This is why Trump will win.
5
What people need is a political process that actually will fix the social and economic situations that give rise to real grievances (not imagined 'discriminations'). That's far different from completely unrealistic promises by someone who makes claims to expertise that have been exposed as totally fictitious, whose only unselfish emotion is hate, and whose assumption that he could exercise unlimited Presidential power ought to be quite frightening to those who want the federal government to be less intrusive. Anyone who has been an adult for more than a few years ought to know that political promises are just sales pitches - reality is usually quite different. If Trump should win, we'll see who loses most. I predict it is the very 'working' people who most support Trump in public (as opposed to the oh-so-united super-rich-citizens bankrolling behind the scene, who will take care of themselves, no matter what, because they actually control both political parties).
7
Sultana arrives in USA is heartening and great news! Great contributions from you Nick! Keep doing more.
7
As you will see among the Comments on this very Column, we still have a Very Long Way to go to elate the grouchy, self-righteous, the mansplainin and grimly petulant -- and I don't just mean Donald Grump.
JFK was shot on my 19th birthday & I've been shoe-leathering for justice, towards which that precious arc, til now. It is a rhapsody/woven song to see dearest bravest Hillary, our lioness, be the First Woman Nominee in herstory. I keep crying. I keep grinning.
I am bonemarrow grateful to be on the ¡We're ALL on the CompañerosDeAlmaSoulFriends Team! So, we gotta mandela, reconcile, and elate, ignite the precious hardwork of tending, tenderly fiercely, hope-in-action -- with our gloriously sensible Hillary and our kind, very practical dreamer Tim Kaine.
As they say in Filipino, galak palagi =>[exhilarated delight always, continually, regularly, siempre, ever, eternally, constantly]. Only the Fate of Earth at stake. No pressure.
JFK was shot on my 19th birthday & I've been shoe-leathering for justice, towards which that precious arc, til now. It is a rhapsody/woven song to see dearest bravest Hillary, our lioness, be the First Woman Nominee in herstory. I keep crying. I keep grinning.
I am bonemarrow grateful to be on the ¡We're ALL on the CompañerosDeAlmaSoulFriends Team! So, we gotta mandela, reconcile, and elate, ignite the precious hardwork of tending, tenderly fiercely, hope-in-action -- with our gloriously sensible Hillary and our kind, very practical dreamer Tim Kaine.
As they say in Filipino, galak palagi =>[exhilarated delight always, continually, regularly, siempre, ever, eternally, constantly]. Only the Fate of Earth at stake. No pressure.
7
"We gotta mandela..." Oh, thank you for this coinage. To use Nelson Mandela as a term in this way just thrills me--one of the world's greats.
1
Thanks again Nick! Right on.
My mom, daughters, sisters, nieces 'n me...all of us are totally thrilled at the prospect of being led by Hillary.
And so are my brothers, son in law, 'n brothers in law. My dad would be over the moon happy for Hillary too, if he was still here.
I am so very grateful not to personally know any Donald supporters, they make my skin crawl.
When a good woman succeeds, we all succeed. When a bad man succeeds, we all get hurt.
My mom, daughters, sisters, nieces 'n me...all of us are totally thrilled at the prospect of being led by Hillary.
And so are my brothers, son in law, 'n brothers in law. My dad would be over the moon happy for Hillary too, if he was still here.
I am so very grateful not to personally know any Donald supporters, they make my skin crawl.
When a good woman succeeds, we all succeed. When a bad man succeeds, we all get hurt.
22
From a parent's standpoint it's not complicated at all. One day, after years of college and internships and finally getting promoted from an entry level position, your son finally takes you out to a nice lunch. Your daughter gets to do this too, maybe sooner if she's smarter and harder working. What's not to like?
Only losers are against equality. I'd like to put it more politely and in a more inclusive way, but sometimes you just have to tell it like it is.
Only losers are against equality. I'd like to put it more politely and in a more inclusive way, but sometimes you just have to tell it like it is.
23
We are not talking about generic men nor generic women.
We are talking about Mr. and Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton aka the Master and Mistress of Mass Incarceration, Welfare Deformation, Corporate Plutocrat Oligarch Welfare and Military-Industrial Complex War Mongering. When these two win everyone unlike them loses.
And we are not talking about some generic nation we are talking about the USA. America is rougly the 60th nation to come to the pinnacle reality of a female head of state/government. Well behind the nations with the most Muslims-Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Margaret Thatcher was bad for men and women. So were Queen Mary I, Queen Isabella, Catherine the Great and Lucrezia Borgia. So is Marie Le Pen.
We are talking about Mr. and Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton aka the Master and Mistress of Mass Incarceration, Welfare Deformation, Corporate Plutocrat Oligarch Welfare and Military-Industrial Complex War Mongering. When these two win everyone unlike them loses.
And we are not talking about some generic nation we are talking about the USA. America is rougly the 60th nation to come to the pinnacle reality of a female head of state/government. Well behind the nations with the most Muslims-Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Margaret Thatcher was bad for men and women. So were Queen Mary I, Queen Isabella, Catherine the Great and Lucrezia Borgia. So is Marie Le Pen.
13
What is your opinion of Trump? If he is elected, I'm sure it will mean more work for Slovenians, like the ones he has already imported with work visas (and I'm not counting wives).
4
The other night on my walk I observed that I felt safer when I saw women out walking too. A neighborhood that is safe for women is safe, period. When life is better for women life is just better.
36
If you mean "safer", than you are correct.
When Hillary wins, nothing will change. President Obama was elected twice but our consitutional system remained in place. There have been many more
Afro-American judges appointed, and high level administrative positions filled,
but the machinery of government grinds on. Hillary is part of the political
establishment and will change nothing.
Afro-American judges appointed, and high level administrative positions filled,
but the machinery of government grinds on. Hillary is part of the political
establishment and will change nothing.
8
Why are men paid, on average, more than women? For ten of the many reasons, see http://worksnewage.blogspot.com/2015/03/yes-pay-gender-gap-is-real-but-i... .
4
Everyone should read these. They are mostly true and might give a little insight into what most people are viewing as a black and white issue, which it is surely not.
Take something like pro tennis. I prefer to watch the ladies matches much more than the mens. They recently raised the money for the ladies winning tournaments to be equal to the men's. I am all for this for I am a big fan of women's tennis. Yet, many will argue that they play only three sets, versus the men's five. The men have to work much harder to win the same pay. How is this fair? It's not. It's the difference between men and women. They are NOT equal in many areas of life.
One of my problems with all this is, (and it applies to other professions), I never heard any of the pro players say they would be happy to play five sets as well as the men to get the same pay. They just fought for equal pay..???
Take something like pro tennis. I prefer to watch the ladies matches much more than the mens. They recently raised the money for the ladies winning tournaments to be equal to the men's. I am all for this for I am a big fan of women's tennis. Yet, many will argue that they play only three sets, versus the men's five. The men have to work much harder to win the same pay. How is this fair? It's not. It's the difference between men and women. They are NOT equal in many areas of life.
One of my problems with all this is, (and it applies to other professions), I never heard any of the pro players say they would be happy to play five sets as well as the men to get the same pay. They just fought for equal pay..???
5
moreover, while I find women's tennis interesting -- how much television time or attendance would Wimbledon or the US Open get if it were only women? Now reverse the question -- say it was only men ---
So what do you think about the American women's soccer team that has won more championships than the men, play on the same size field and for the same length of time but get paid less?
3
congratulationss to Sultana!
9
"i'm thrilled to report that Sultana finally obtained a visa and has just arrived in America."
That is some of the best news I have heard in a while. Our country just improved a little.
That is some of the best news I have heard in a while. Our country just improved a little.
19
I happen to like women a lot and get along with them well. I've notice that some men I know resent this for whatever reason. The comments here against Nicholas Kristof's argument that men benefit when women benefit is lost exactly on these fellows who are afraid of the possibilities of equal platonic relationships with the other 50% of the human population.
All of your comments about the threat that women pose when in power, about their supposed vindictiveness towards men at that moment of capturing the top job, belie a fear of retribution for exactly the reason of your complicity, whether conscious or not, in blocking women unfairly for so long.
Completely lost on you lost boys is the possibility that if you treat a woman well, she will be far less likely to turn "vindictive" when she achieves power than if you continue to prevent her from achieving what she is capable of.
Maybe you joes can ask your wives and girlfriends what they think of your attitude, if you want a real eye-opener. Why don't you start there, gentlemen, before telling Mr. Kristof, and all of the other men far beyond you in accepting a woman's place in the world, that there is a downside to women with power. You want to continue to succeed? Get caught up and stop relying on your gender to sail through. Those days are fading fast.
All of your comments about the threat that women pose when in power, about their supposed vindictiveness towards men at that moment of capturing the top job, belie a fear of retribution for exactly the reason of your complicity, whether conscious or not, in blocking women unfairly for so long.
Completely lost on you lost boys is the possibility that if you treat a woman well, she will be far less likely to turn "vindictive" when she achieves power than if you continue to prevent her from achieving what she is capable of.
Maybe you joes can ask your wives and girlfriends what they think of your attitude, if you want a real eye-opener. Why don't you start there, gentlemen, before telling Mr. Kristof, and all of the other men far beyond you in accepting a woman's place in the world, that there is a downside to women with power. You want to continue to succeed? Get caught up and stop relying on your gender to sail through. Those days are fading fast.
31
I about fell over when I read the last paragraph about Sultana. Your previous article on a courageous, young female really moved me. I really hope to hear further updates on her amazing future.
4
I don't know if any studies have been done to corroborate my feelings, but I believe that if more women headed countries around the world there would have fewer wars. If so, this would, or could have, saved the lives of millions
7
Men v. Women. It is not a zero sum game. We all gain when one component gains.
7
Celebrating Hillary's nomination is great but celebrating a woman being nominated is nothing to be proud of. It's way too far overdue. It's something to be ashamed of that it took this long.
3
Oh please. We've had female CEOs (Mayer, Whitman etc) and female heads of state (Thatcher, Bhutto, Gandhi etc). BTW, except for Thatcher and Merkel, Hillary is like the other female heads of state especially in Asia and Latin America - she is the daughter or the wife of a president.
Nicholas, if you are going to make a case for voting for Hillary, the woman card does not have meat nor substance. Your piece smacks of trickle down effect. The decline of the manufacturing sector, the income inequality, the soaring cost of education ... she needs to address them all. And until now, Hillary has not come up with a plan that voters think will work. Trump was spot-on about the trade deficit between the US and China - and the voters understood it right away.
Vote for me because I'm a woman, that ain't gonna sell.
Nicholas, if you are going to make a case for voting for Hillary, the woman card does not have meat nor substance. Your piece smacks of trickle down effect. The decline of the manufacturing sector, the income inequality, the soaring cost of education ... she needs to address them all. And until now, Hillary has not come up with a plan that voters think will work. Trump was spot-on about the trade deficit between the US and China - and the voters understood it right away.
Vote for me because I'm a woman, that ain't gonna sell.
7
How telling that all of the nasty comments in this article are written by men. If only you could see the advantages you've had in life, boys!
21
Viva Sultana! :)
5
It seems rare for people to vote based on their best interest. Most people give higher preference to (D), (R), religion, gender, skin-color, sexual orientation, faith before they worry about voting based on pure policy.
2
During the time I was a manager at Bell Labs in the 80s and 90s, the company made a major effort to promote more women into management. What I observed was that in general, women managers were more likely to make decisions that were good for the organization, while men were more likely to make decisions that were good for themselves. There were exceptions of course. But today's presidential candidates certainly follow the general pattern. I'll go with the woman.
33
Please keep us posted on Sultana. Marvelous young woman!
4
Another classic Times column/editorial/op-ed piece. What we need now is beyond this.
We're too stuck in "mansplaining" everything.
Here's an idea, instead of explaining it to us, why don't men shut up & listen to what really happened at the convention, especially in Hillary's speech. We (women) see/witnessed an entirely different conversation that doesn't fit w/in the conventional perceptions. Ask us about that! And be seriously interested. Because what Hillary et al. did is what is needed to defeat Trump.
She can do both; provide the policy & facts, as well as appeal to our better selves, souls & emotions.
Stop it w/ the rationale! It's drowning out what's working for Trump.
We're too stuck in "mansplaining" everything.
Here's an idea, instead of explaining it to us, why don't men shut up & listen to what really happened at the convention, especially in Hillary's speech. We (women) see/witnessed an entirely different conversation that doesn't fit w/in the conventional perceptions. Ask us about that! And be seriously interested. Because what Hillary et al. did is what is needed to defeat Trump.
She can do both; provide the policy & facts, as well as appeal to our better selves, souls & emotions.
Stop it w/ the rationale! It's drowning out what's working for Trump.
4
By fully equating women and integrating them into the team we have the largest possible pool of resources to work with; and thus we are much more likely to be able to put the right resource at the right place at the right moment to WIN!
We all like winning....right?
We all like winning....right?
9
I remember well the day, almost 40 years ago, when my husband ( now of nearly 50 years) and I sat on our sunny patio discussing my unhappy, unfulfilled state. As I cried, I shared that I did not want to just cook meals, care for kids, and sIt at the country club pool. His response, which still exhilarates me was, “What makes you think I, too, don’t want to be liberated………from being the single bread winner.” Ah, that was a breakthrough moment. Our lives changed. I got a graduate degree and went on to very fulfilling 22 year career in higher education. We both now are reaping the benefits of that decision.
99
Hillary Clinton herself tried to address men by asking if they want their "mother, wife, sister, or daughter" to be paid equally with men. This is the kind of specificity which will help show men that women's equality is not a threat to them. Men do have mothers, wives, sisters and daughters whom they want to succeed, and the immediacy of these references drives home the point that they deserve a level playing field.
13
I became an advocate for women in the middle 1970's when we started hiring women for sales. I noted in the women I hired, that they were just as smart as men, better organized and less intimidated by peoples with titles such as manager, district manager, Vice President etc. By the time I retired in 91 my three managers were women and 50 % of my salesmen were women.
There are two major efforts that will make this country greater than it has ever been. 1) Solve the racial program that has been with us for over 400 years, and 2) Change the attitude of men and yes, women as well, toward women. You know that Abigail Adams was the equal intellectually and temperamentally with John, yet she couldn't vote and women didn't get the vote until 1920 - 144 years after 1776.
Now that Hillary has the nomination, reflect on the 45 Presidents preceding her and half or more of them were just average. Surely she will do better than average. People who never think of the presidency other than a male domain or "right" will be shocked and enlightened with what she does as President.
There are two major efforts that will make this country greater than it has ever been. 1) Solve the racial program that has been with us for over 400 years, and 2) Change the attitude of men and yes, women as well, toward women. You know that Abigail Adams was the equal intellectually and temperamentally with John, yet she couldn't vote and women didn't get the vote until 1920 - 144 years after 1776.
Now that Hillary has the nomination, reflect on the 45 Presidents preceding her and half or more of them were just average. Surely she will do better than average. People who never think of the presidency other than a male domain or "right" will be shocked and enlightened with what she does as President.
9
An inspiring article Mr. Kristof & my gratitude for going to bat for that
beautiful courageous soul, Sultana,now "home" in the true America.
The obstacle here is as always male bonding & women's upward
focus, not to bond together (sort of like "Harem" politics for want of
a better explanation as women wish to be liked & eventually bow to
male dominance to advance themselves.) Women dominate the
medical field now but will never run a medical institution I was told
by many physicians. Also, these are quotes, men dislike taking
orders from women. Men don't like to lose even in tennis doubles.
Men in general like to wear "the pants" & have had a hard pill to
swallow if the professional woman earns more than he. That IS
changing thank goodness. Still women have more of the housework
& care of children. Believe I've read The Gates Foundation has
problems counting worldwide women as they still define themselves
as primary homemaker. Lots of work still has to be done & having
journalists as you can make it happen. Thank you for trying.
beautiful courageous soul, Sultana,now "home" in the true America.
The obstacle here is as always male bonding & women's upward
focus, not to bond together (sort of like "Harem" politics for want of
a better explanation as women wish to be liked & eventually bow to
male dominance to advance themselves.) Women dominate the
medical field now but will never run a medical institution I was told
by many physicians. Also, these are quotes, men dislike taking
orders from women. Men don't like to lose even in tennis doubles.
Men in general like to wear "the pants" & have had a hard pill to
swallow if the professional woman earns more than he. That IS
changing thank goodness. Still women have more of the housework
& care of children. Believe I've read The Gates Foundation has
problems counting worldwide women as they still define themselves
as primary homemaker. Lots of work still has to be done & having
journalists as you can make it happen. Thank you for trying.
3
It is true that societies benefit when women are involved in policy-making. Women tend to be more cognizant of how proposed actions will affect children, families and society as a whole.
Thank you, Mr. Kristof, for being an advocate for girls and women, and thus for our whole world.
Thank you, Mr. Kristof, for being an advocate for girls and women, and thus for our whole world.
19
It's rather sad that this has to be spelled out for the troglodytes, but thanks for doing it.
Nice work for Sultana!
Nice work for Sultana!
12
Congratulations to Sultana who will no doubt make a great contribution to the USA. Trust Mr K to give us a sensible and pragmatic affirmation of last weeks inspiring events. Like a bracing rinse of mouthwash after Maureen Dowd's curdled fare, two decades past its used-by date.
9
"Donald Trump has a huge lead among white men with no college degree..."
Which is probably why Republicans oppose tuition-free educatio.
Which is probably why Republicans oppose tuition-free educatio.
26
Thank you, Mr. Kristof, for this excellent essay.
But the fact that anyone should even have to "make the case" that women's rights and dignity matter to everyone saddens me.
It's a reminder of the extent to which women's issues have been ghettoized as, well, "women's issues." Those girls always selfishly making demands only for themselves. Sheeesh.
But the fact that anyone should even have to "make the case" that women's rights and dignity matter to everyone saddens me.
It's a reminder of the extent to which women's issues have been ghettoized as, well, "women's issues." Those girls always selfishly making demands only for themselves. Sheeesh.
19
I agree. And Hillary Clinton made it in Beijing: "Women's rights are human rights; human rights are women's rights."
5
I will not be voting for Trump. I do wonder, though, what pundits would be saying if Sarah Palin was the Republican's nominee, running against a man. The glass ceiling would have been broken and history made as well. But would there be the same acclaim?
7
Good points. I've long believed that "a mind is a terrible thing to waste", but you have here provided evidence that merely enabling equality of the sexes has produced benefits.
Having said that, I do not find Mrs. Clinton's achievement to be particularly significant. I, a Republican, will vote for her because I don't do demagogues; have long admired Tim Kaine (and do give Mrs. Clinton points for picking him); and believe she will be competent because Mike Bloomberg and General Allen say so. But Mrs. Clinton is utterly lacking in vision, so I hope her first term will be her last.
Perhaps having a mediocre woman President will provide the nation with better leadership that I expect. But I fear that her mediocrity will be taken as evidence against women in leadership.
Having said that, I do not find Mrs. Clinton's achievement to be particularly significant. I, a Republican, will vote for her because I don't do demagogues; have long admired Tim Kaine (and do give Mrs. Clinton points for picking him); and believe she will be competent because Mike Bloomberg and General Allen say so. But Mrs. Clinton is utterly lacking in vision, so I hope her first term will be her last.
Perhaps having a mediocre woman President will provide the nation with better leadership that I expect. But I fear that her mediocrity will be taken as evidence against women in leadership.
2
Part of the males' angst comes from the total focus on women and nothing on men. This surge to equality is coming at the expense of men, particularly young men. Their college enrollment figures aree down, employment is down, self-esteem is down.
I fully support equality. However, I fear that it is a zero-sum game. Men will suffer to create "equality".
I fully support equality. However, I fear that it is a zero-sum game. Men will suffer to create "equality".
3
" . . . nothing on men." Well, for almost all of human history, everything's been about men. Surely you can budge up a little now. :-)
Men are always welcome to form their own empowering movement as we shift to greater equality (which does feel like oppression to those used to privilege, but is definitely not). And something real and productive, unlike the MRAs.
Men are always welcome to form their own empowering movement as we shift to greater equality (which does feel like oppression to those used to privilege, but is definitely not). And something real and productive, unlike the MRAs.
4
Bravo!
4
Which program and which woman for President is the significant question.
At the Democratic convention “There were …promises of endless war against faceless enemies, and a consistent rhetoric of American exceptionalism that would have seemed too extreme for almost any Republican convention of the pre-Reagan years. … If (the General) wasn’t talking about protecting our vital fluids from Communism, it sure sounded like he was". (from Salon, " Hillary's DNC Win...)
Hillary's hawkishness worries me the most (covered well on the progressive site, OpEd, in the article “Hillary and her War Hawks’). Hillary's ruthlessness is revealed in Clinton Cash, a documentary movie on the methods the Clintons used to amass 2 billion since they left the White House. Hillary, the neoliberal claiming she will promote progressive issues, is revealed as just campaign talk by her choice of Tim Kaine as VP. Then there was her arrogance in feeling above the law. She should have been indicted by the FBI for being "extremely careless" with our nation's secrets in the use of her unauthorized private email server.
Hillary is trying to pander her way to the White House for 16 years of the Clintons by appealing in her campaign rhetoric to progressives, Republicans and her base, neoliberals. She would govern as a war hawkish economic neoliberal.
Jill Stein 2016
At the Democratic convention “There were …promises of endless war against faceless enemies, and a consistent rhetoric of American exceptionalism that would have seemed too extreme for almost any Republican convention of the pre-Reagan years. … If (the General) wasn’t talking about protecting our vital fluids from Communism, it sure sounded like he was". (from Salon, " Hillary's DNC Win...)
Hillary's hawkishness worries me the most (covered well on the progressive site, OpEd, in the article “Hillary and her War Hawks’). Hillary's ruthlessness is revealed in Clinton Cash, a documentary movie on the methods the Clintons used to amass 2 billion since they left the White House. Hillary, the neoliberal claiming she will promote progressive issues, is revealed as just campaign talk by her choice of Tim Kaine as VP. Then there was her arrogance in feeling above the law. She should have been indicted by the FBI for being "extremely careless" with our nation's secrets in the use of her unauthorized private email server.
Hillary is trying to pander her way to the White House for 16 years of the Clintons by appealing in her campaign rhetoric to progressives, Republicans and her base, neoliberals. She would govern as a war hawkish economic neoliberal.
Jill Stein 2016
5
Bravo for all you write on women's worth and achievements and that together we make a better world
4
This is a typically excellent article by the author, and I agree with every paragraph. Currently in medicine 50% of all medical students are female. The glass ceiling is gone. Unfortunately, when these female students begin to practice, they often share one position so they can enjoy life, family and fulfill other responsibilities. Financially, that means that for every 2 physician openings in the real world, two female physicians and one male physician will be required. Put another way, as the future unfolds, the USA will be required to produce 3 certified medical school graduates for every 2 physician openings in the work force . A medical school may
graduate 300 students each year, but due to other time consuming responsibilities, the 300 legitimate graduating physicians equals in reality only 200 full time practicing physicians. The salary of the 2 physicians will depend on the % of work each of the 2 physicians contributes to equal together 100% of a salary of only 1 full time physician employee. The state will pay for the medical education of 300 graduate physicians, but will only receive the work product of only 200 physicians.
graduate 300 students each year, but due to other time consuming responsibilities, the 300 legitimate graduating physicians equals in reality only 200 full time practicing physicians. The salary of the 2 physicians will depend on the % of work each of the 2 physicians contributes to equal together 100% of a salary of only 1 full time physician employee. The state will pay for the medical education of 300 graduate physicians, but will only receive the work product of only 200 physicians.
3
Well, if their husbands step up the way female partners of physicians traditionally have, that problem should disappear, right? Or if male physicians also avail themselves of a life outside of their practice, it will become the new status quo, right?
6
So medical school in Pennsylvania is free? Why is it that women doctors can only work part time because of family commitments etc but male doctors can work full time? Maybe they need different husbands! My grandniece is a full time MD Psychiatrist. Her husband, a youth minister, works part time and takes care of the children.
5
When women win, men win.
But everyone loses if that happens to be someone corrupt and feels entitled, and not those deserving like Dr. Stein, Gabbard, or Warren.
But everyone loses if that happens to be someone corrupt and feels entitled, and not those deserving like Dr. Stein, Gabbard, or Warren.
4
I stopped reading at "many Americans would...welcome a (different) woman in the White House. " No Mr Kristof. They wouldn't. Unless she were Jennifer Garner - at her most pleasant. But most men who make this comment would never vote for the type of woman it takes to climb the ranks of power and be qualified to run for president. To the men who say They'd happily vote for Jill Stein and she's a woman - I say they vote for her because she's "safe" as she has no real chance of winning, but liberal men can pat themselves on the back and say they aren't sexist because they voted for a woman. Men on the right will give you a laundry list of GOP contrived reasons why Ms Clinton isn't the "one" either. But it's all two sides of the same sexist coin. It never ceases to amaze me how few men who hate Ms Clinton can stick to policy based and factual reason why they dislike her.
14
More pandering to Hillary. I'm sick of it. I am a college graduate (NYU), a lifelong Democrat, and the Times' corporate love affair with Hillary, the "tough liberal", is pathetic, and rather suspect. When even Kristof joins the club, you know something's wrong.
5
When even Kristof joins the club, you might want to at least begin to consider that there's no 'club' and no 'pandering.' Just concerted voices who are neither naive nor bought 'n' sold, but convinced she will make a fine President. :-)
5
Thanks for trying Mr. Kristof but none of those white men without degrees read your column and if they do they will dismiss it as PC. They'd rather watch Fox News on wing night and watch the Hooter's girls wrestle with the male anchors.
Hillary Clinton will lose with "poorly educated" males, Donald's term not mine, and frankly I don't think there is anything she can do to sway them.
But there is an upside at least in my opinion, women will vote for her, African Americans will vote for her, Latinos will vote for her, Asians will vote for her and if she wins because of us it will send one heck of a message; change with us or find a cozy spot in the dust bin of history.
Hillary Clinton will lose with "poorly educated" males, Donald's term not mine, and frankly I don't think there is anything she can do to sway them.
But there is an upside at least in my opinion, women will vote for her, African Americans will vote for her, Latinos will vote for her, Asians will vote for her and if she wins because of us it will send one heck of a message; change with us or find a cozy spot in the dust bin of history.
19
Hillary brings a lot of "baggage" that could keep her from the Oval Office. She must still explain the missing emails and her disregard for national security. She must still explain how she has reaped millions in "speaker's fees". Whereas our Congress is still debating her involvement - or lack of it - in the events in Benghazi, I must also insist that the Bush Administration be brought before Congress to explain its negligence that brought about the horrific events of September 11, 2001.
In like fashion, I am also very uncomfortable with the thought that Donald Trump will bankrupt our nation as he did so many of his "ventures".
In like fashion, I am also very uncomfortable with the thought that Donald Trump will bankrupt our nation as he did so many of his "ventures".
1
Lets see the tax returns. Much more important than emails about Chelsea's wedding plans.
3
To borrow from you, Mr. Kristof, living with only male leadership is like living under "half the sky." The glass ceilings have to come down for us all to look up to that sky for our potential as individuals, as a nation, as a world.
6
My grandma became a young widow in the 1930s. A mother of 8 kids. She was a full time school teacher who made ends meet by tutoring girls, before and after school. She refused to borrow from anyone or send her kids away to her brother's. She brought up her kids on her own, with dignity instilling in them qualities of resilience, confidence, independence, self reliance. Back in her days, in colonial times, she shattered the then pervasive glass ceiling that women should be confined to the hearth, pregnant and barefoot. Because of her, her sons respected women, her sons in law respected women, her neighbors respected women and her entire community became her devoted and loyal followers. Did I mention the time was 1930s-40s.
5
Maybe it just goes to show that women are nicer than men and have bigger hearts.
4
Mr. Kristof cites oft-stated polling data, when he says, “Donald Trump has a huge lead among white men with no college degree and that’s the reason the overall polls are close.”
Based on my personal experience (I’m Asian) while working in high-tech (where largely graduate and post-graduate people dominate) at half-a-dozen companies in the past couple decades, I rarely came across a white male, who was sympathetic towards Hillary Clinton (even prior to her so-called email scandal). In fact, they invariably had a visceral dislike of her and some even chastised me when I spoke in support. The only corporate white males, who defied this anti-Hillary trend, were the younger demographic – millennials! But majority of millennials are Bernie bros and also not easily converted to Hillary’s camp. Long story short… this is why the overall polls are close – majority of white men 35+ are not with her! To me it seems like a deep-rooted bias that defies logic, especially when we are faced with a choice between Hillary and Trump, which to any reasonable person should be no contest.
Based on my personal experience (I’m Asian) while working in high-tech (where largely graduate and post-graduate people dominate) at half-a-dozen companies in the past couple decades, I rarely came across a white male, who was sympathetic towards Hillary Clinton (even prior to her so-called email scandal). In fact, they invariably had a visceral dislike of her and some even chastised me when I spoke in support. The only corporate white males, who defied this anti-Hillary trend, were the younger demographic – millennials! But majority of millennials are Bernie bros and also not easily converted to Hillary’s camp. Long story short… this is why the overall polls are close – majority of white men 35+ are not with her! To me it seems like a deep-rooted bias that defies logic, especially when we are faced with a choice between Hillary and Trump, which to any reasonable person should be no contest.
7
You're right, but sadly there are still plenty of men who are convinced that every aspect of life is a zero sum game and if they're not granted unearned privilege and authority, they are losers. And they're voting for Trump.
11
I have no problem with the idea of a woman being president. I acknowledge that there are forces in American society that would feel incredibly threatened by a woman in power. I get that a woman has to work ten times as hard to gain power in America.
Unfortunately none of this means I trust Hillary even an iota more.
Unfortunately none of this means I trust Hillary even an iota more.
2
Isn't it a shame we sort of have to justify a woman becoming a presidential nominee by telling men "hey, men, you might gain something from having a woman take the lead?"
10
MIMA--Everyone will benefit, but frankly, I don't personally care if the women's boat lifts all men. Even after men have benefited, they will find something about which to complain. It's the nature of men.
5
I'm afraid that fear of Hillary's lack of"trustworthiness" and good judgment are just some more evidence of the sexism that just won't go quietly away!
12
Nicholas, care to show just how women, men or children benefitted from the leadership of Margaret Thatcher? Golda Meir? Indira Gandhi?
5
I have the privilege of working in a professional setting with a majority of women. Our office is dedicated, smart, hard-working, efficient, professional and also kind, flexible, and supportive. Truly the best of both words.
10
Behind every successful man, there is a woman. Without the female gender, there would be the lack of a unique perspective on the table. Unlike many men, females do not use their victory or position to prevent the other gender from being able to achieve anything. Instead, they try to better society for both genders, not just themselves. The cases presented in this article prove that.
Furthermore, I am saddened that the idea of HIM vs. HER still exists. By doing so, we are alienating and maintaining a division between the two genders. The reason why women try to do things that were previously forbidden to them is not to wage a gender war against men or to defeat men. It is to empower themselves and ensure that they are treated equally. They are already burdened with trying to constantly prove themselves in every single field. Our society can not claim to have progressed until it stops fearing women as treats against male domination. Women are not here to take away your power; they just want an equal part of it.
Furthermore, I am saddened that the idea of HIM vs. HER still exists. By doing so, we are alienating and maintaining a division between the two genders. The reason why women try to do things that were previously forbidden to them is not to wage a gender war against men or to defeat men. It is to empower themselves and ensure that they are treated equally. They are already burdened with trying to constantly prove themselves in every single field. Our society can not claim to have progressed until it stops fearing women as treats against male domination. Women are not here to take away your power; they just want an equal part of it.
38
Surely Drumpf would have kept women out of universities and jobs in 1976. He barely advocates for it 40 years later. In his "world view" women are judged by age and looks not wisdom and experience. Lets think about that as we vote this year. Do we want to move forward or back to the 1950's.
9
The Civil Rights Act may have made it illegal to discriminate against women in the workplace, but I think the tax "reforms" of the Reagan and Clinton eras stacked the deck in favor of over-privileged white women who benefited from double incomes which were taxed at lower rates than ever. You can see them at the Democratic convention--Nancy Pelosi, for example, with her jewelry and fancy dresses crowing about the glass ceiling which Hillary supposedly is going to break. Good for them, but not for the rest of society.
1
Double incomes, I assume, Ed, mean that the women are working. And that means that, if there's someone else in the household who also works for pay, these women become "over-privileged." Do I have that right?
So you argue that these "over-privileged" working women don't deserve to work? Or shouldn't receive income from work? Or should be taxed at higher rates than men are taxed? Or what?
So you argue that these "over-privileged" working women don't deserve to work? Or shouldn't receive income from work? Or should be taxed at higher rates than men are taxed? Or what?
7
Equal pay for women is also a male asset. Today there are many jobs held almost exclusively by women because the employer knows that they can be paid less and are perceived as more compliant. Equal pay puts everyone on a level field. Women would be more confident and assertive, and men would benefit by increased opportunity.
11
This message is very paternalistic (or should I say maternalistic?), condescending, and devolves at times into concern trolling. The main point is that women and enlightened men like the author know better than those bigoted cavemen what their true interests are.
3
The tax brackets for the rich have to be raised. Usually the Republicans object, but I don't see too many rich Democrats volunteering. We can crow all we want about equal pay for women, but how about a punitive tax rate for the double-income households that are generated by a discriminatory policy which in the name of equalizing pay for women creates even more income inequality between wealthy and poor households?
3
Punitive pay for double households? How would that work with households where three or four young people just starting out in their professional lives, or older adults just sharing living quarters for convenience of one sort or another, bring home several paychecks.
Maybe there should be a special tax for big earners; most likely that's a chimera. But it's nonsensical to say that double- or triple- or even quadruple-income households should suffer loss of earnings in order that poor households enjoy more wealth.
Maybe there should be a special tax for big earners; most likely that's a chimera. But it's nonsensical to say that double- or triple- or even quadruple-income households should suffer loss of earnings in order that poor households enjoy more wealth.
2
It's a luxury to speak of pros and cons to be gained if Hillary wins because the choice we really face is Madam or Madman. It's essential she wins, regardless of the potential degrees of benefits to all in taking this first step to gender equality at the top of politics in America. I wish the first female major party candidate could go up against a more formidable, experienced, and sane opponent so the win would be seen as earned among equals. None the less, happy to have the glass ceiling broken finally.
7
It's always harder to play a game against someone who doesn't know the rules, or cheats.
1
One may want to consider this article which points out all the double standards that we have:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profo...
Pointing to years of opinion data: "So what do we see in this data? What I see is that the public view of Hillary Clinton does not seem to be correlated to “scandals” or issues of character or whether she murdered Vince Foster. No, the one thing that seems to most negatively and consistently affect public perception of Hillary is any attempt by her to seek power. Once she actually has that power her polls go up again. But whenever she asks for it her numbers drop like a manhole cover"
"And in fact I started thinking more about this after reading an article that Sady Doyle wrote for Quartz back in February. The title of the piece was, “America loves women like Hillary Clinton - as long as they’re not asking for a promotion.” "
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profo...
Pointing to years of opinion data: "So what do we see in this data? What I see is that the public view of Hillary Clinton does not seem to be correlated to “scandals” or issues of character or whether she murdered Vince Foster. No, the one thing that seems to most negatively and consistently affect public perception of Hillary is any attempt by her to seek power. Once she actually has that power her polls go up again. But whenever she asks for it her numbers drop like a manhole cover"
"And in fact I started thinking more about this after reading an article that Sady Doyle wrote for Quartz back in February. The title of the piece was, “America loves women like Hillary Clinton - as long as they’re not asking for a promotion.” "
20
In the serially belittling universe of the GOP's Donald Trump, advancement of any demographic becomes by definition the diminution of another. Let us give this perpetually glass-half-empty mindset the minuscule credit it deserves, and celebrate for a moment the virtue of competition so treasured on the right.
Ideally in such a world, the rising competitiveness of women should improve the performance of men as they strive to keep pace with their new competition. Win-win; no zero sum. Such a challenge can come from female empowerment, immigration, regional initiative or wherever people seize initiative and run with it.
Real men rise to the challenge by making themselves better. The Donald's notion of "manliness," on the other hand, scurries fearfully under its damp rock pile in a fearful, angry, too-often abusive pout.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Ideally in such a world, the rising competitiveness of women should improve the performance of men as they strive to keep pace with their new competition. Win-win; no zero sum. Such a challenge can come from female empowerment, immigration, regional initiative or wherever people seize initiative and run with it.
Real men rise to the challenge by making themselves better. The Donald's notion of "manliness," on the other hand, scurries fearfully under its damp rock pile in a fearful, angry, too-often abusive pout.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
12
Scientifically speaking, one study proves nothing, and to state that one thing "may" lead to another is not proof, but conjecture. There are women who have not been of benefit to a man, or who have harmed a man, and the man goes on and succeeds, anyway. We could then say that is proof that men don't need women, using your logical style. All you are doing is using a tidbit to say that Hillary should be Great Mama. Give it up; Sultana lived in a house where her father and brother made her education possible, risking harm to themselves. Who made her visa and immigration possible; Hillary and an all-female tribe of immigration officials?
I'm a female, and really, I need no male apologist to bend over backwards to show how women-loving he is in order to get my vote for Clinton, which, in itself, could be construed as a male attempt to sway the female vote, because we can't think for ourselves. You are the Wolf, not Grandma.
I'm a female, and really, I need no male apologist to bend over backwards to show how women-loving he is in order to get my vote for Clinton, which, in itself, could be construed as a male attempt to sway the female vote, because we can't think for ourselves. You are the Wolf, not Grandma.
1
Men and women or women and men both win when we have an expanding economy that provides good jobs for all.
But NEITHER party supports that type of economic system.
An expanding economy will mean inflation which will decrease the wealth of the rich and the rich control both parties.
Given the real rate of unemployment and especially underemployment why are UNELECTED members of the Federal Reserve thinking of raising interest rates to slow the economy.
But when there are not enough good jobs to go around [because of cruel economic govt. policies] men and women and blacks and whites fight with each other for scarce jobs instead of joining together to fight for an expanding economy.
Yes we should have equality for all but we must at the SAME time have an economy that provides jobs for all.
Then there would be no need for quota systems which is what affirmative action is.
But NEITHER party supports that type of economic system.
An expanding economy will mean inflation which will decrease the wealth of the rich and the rich control both parties.
Given the real rate of unemployment and especially underemployment why are UNELECTED members of the Federal Reserve thinking of raising interest rates to slow the economy.
But when there are not enough good jobs to go around [because of cruel economic govt. policies] men and women and blacks and whites fight with each other for scarce jobs instead of joining together to fight for an expanding economy.
Yes we should have equality for all but we must at the SAME time have an economy that provides jobs for all.
Then there would be no need for quota systems which is what affirmative action is.
2
"Women" are not a single group.
Rich phony women "win" when they exploit poor women.
http://wamc.org/post/dr-vanessa-may-seton-hall-university-labor-law-and-...
"Domestics represented the largest category of women workers before 1940 but were excluded from wage and hour legislation until 1974. In contrast, many women industrial workers were covered by labor laws as early as 1908. By 1938, New Deal labor legislation covered both men and women. How had domestics been left out of these reforms?
In New York, two bills proposed a minimum wage and maximum hours for domestics. Surprisingly, prominent women's organizations, including the YWCA, the Consumers' League, the League of Women Voters, and the Women's City Club, refused to fully support the bills. These groups had lobbied hard for the Fair Labor Standards Act. They had written, campaigned for, and championed much of the progressive legislation that made the New Deal transformative. A bill for domestic labor standards could not pass without their support.
Why were they so reluctant? First, the members of these organizations were middle and upper-class women worried about maintaining access to CHEAP household help. They, like professionals today, depended on domestics to do the housework while they pursued other interests. "
*****
The domestics are predominently women.
Rich phony women "win" when they exploit poor women.
http://wamc.org/post/dr-vanessa-may-seton-hall-university-labor-law-and-...
"Domestics represented the largest category of women workers before 1940 but were excluded from wage and hour legislation until 1974. In contrast, many women industrial workers were covered by labor laws as early as 1908. By 1938, New Deal labor legislation covered both men and women. How had domestics been left out of these reforms?
In New York, two bills proposed a minimum wage and maximum hours for domestics. Surprisingly, prominent women's organizations, including the YWCA, the Consumers' League, the League of Women Voters, and the Women's City Club, refused to fully support the bills. These groups had lobbied hard for the Fair Labor Standards Act. They had written, campaigned for, and championed much of the progressive legislation that made the New Deal transformative. A bill for domestic labor standards could not pass without their support.
Why were they so reluctant? First, the members of these organizations were middle and upper-class women worried about maintaining access to CHEAP household help. They, like professionals today, depended on domestics to do the housework while they pursued other interests. "
*****
The domestics are predominently women.
7
Which men benefit? In the name of equal rights women hitched their fate to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was originally enacted to forbid discrimination in the workplace against blacks, but at the last minute before passage women were added. Since then white middle-class women have made great strides, but blacks have essentially been left behind. In the past women met their husbands in college and after graduation they got married and had children. Now they meet in graduate school, but instead of staying home with the children they hire a nanny, and both combine their incomes. That's great for them, but their double professional incomes contribute to income inequality. In comparison very few blacks have double incomes because often only the woman has a job. She's then lucky if she can afford day care for her children. If there are two working spouses, they are often nonprofessionals earning far less than middle-class families. They also don't live in the same neighborhoods as the whites who typically flee to the well-known bedroom communities where their children receive the best of educations and then go on to the best colleges where they meet their prospective mates, and the cycle of white privilege and greater income continues. In the meantime blacks who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act continue to languish in the ghettos where they must deal with poor schools and high crime rates. Why don't their black lives matter to privileged whites?
7
What world are you from, Stranger, where there are no poor, undereducated whites? If they didn't exist, then who are these white men that Hillary just can't get to vote for her? What I see in your post is an assumption that only educated whites marry, combine income, raise children together, and prosper. Think on that.
5
The converse is also true. When men win, women win also.
When something is done to provide more educational focus on boys-a group that lags behind, both in performance and attention, from grade school through college-then girls (and women) win also.
When we get serious about the murder rate among the urban poor-including black lives matter and more- then the murder victims, 80 % men and boys, then women win too.
When we address the economic and job needs of the "left behind" people, the people who do the hard physical labor that used to provide a living wage-also mostly men-then women win too.
When we provide better education, safety, job training and job prospects for at-risk boys and young men, then young women will find it much easier to find husbands for stable families. Women win too.
And if the otherwise-excellent Mr. Kristof would confront the obvious bias in this and many other of his articles on gender, he would be a much better reporter.
All of these would be advanced much more under a Hillary Clinton administration than under Donald Trump, but not because of her gender. The same would be true about a Joe Biden or Tim Kaine or Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown administration.
Please, please get past this "women are saintly victims/men are privileged louts" attitude that tarnished the feminism of the 1970's and warps the judgment of so many, like Mr. Kristof, who are under its sway.
When something is done to provide more educational focus on boys-a group that lags behind, both in performance and attention, from grade school through college-then girls (and women) win also.
When we get serious about the murder rate among the urban poor-including black lives matter and more- then the murder victims, 80 % men and boys, then women win too.
When we address the economic and job needs of the "left behind" people, the people who do the hard physical labor that used to provide a living wage-also mostly men-then women win too.
When we provide better education, safety, job training and job prospects for at-risk boys and young men, then young women will find it much easier to find husbands for stable families. Women win too.
And if the otherwise-excellent Mr. Kristof would confront the obvious bias in this and many other of his articles on gender, he would be a much better reporter.
All of these would be advanced much more under a Hillary Clinton administration than under Donald Trump, but not because of her gender. The same would be true about a Joe Biden or Tim Kaine or Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown administration.
Please, please get past this "women are saintly victims/men are privileged louts" attitude that tarnished the feminism of the 1970's and warps the judgment of so many, like Mr. Kristof, who are under its sway.
6
The answer is some sample, treat men and women equally then there would be no need for this discussion.
2
I do not understand how you conclude that a woman from an administration that has ridden up close-to 20 trillion debt, and that is responsible for an increase in jobless young black males, could suddenly turn out to be something else.
2
Nick, I hope your editors apologize to you for the headline they've stuck on today's column. It goes beyond silly.
For, if men win when women win, don't women win when men win? If so, then what's the point? If not, then didn't the other gender 'lose?' (I'm pretty sure Bernie Sanders isn't exactly feeling "the thrill of vuctory" these days.)
As a longtime supporter of gender, racial, and other forms of equality, I am especially turned off by the female chauvinism exhibited in many of the appeals to support Hillary Clinton.
When Elizabeth Warren asserts that running for the U.S. Senate is what girls do, It begs the question of what she thinks boys are supposed to do.
Personally, I'm fed up with the sexism that suggests that women need vote for women and the racism that suggests that nonwhite people need to vote for nonwhites. Can't we please just have someone capable enough, for once -- regardless of color, creed, ethnicity, etc. -- to get something done for the 99 percent?
For, if men win when women win, don't women win when men win? If so, then what's the point? If not, then didn't the other gender 'lose?' (I'm pretty sure Bernie Sanders isn't exactly feeling "the thrill of vuctory" these days.)
As a longtime supporter of gender, racial, and other forms of equality, I am especially turned off by the female chauvinism exhibited in many of the appeals to support Hillary Clinton.
When Elizabeth Warren asserts that running for the U.S. Senate is what girls do, It begs the question of what she thinks boys are supposed to do.
Personally, I'm fed up with the sexism that suggests that women need vote for women and the racism that suggests that nonwhite people need to vote for nonwhites. Can't we please just have someone capable enough, for once -- regardless of color, creed, ethnicity, etc. -- to get something done for the 99 percent?
12
OK, it's obvious that if one side "wins," the other side doesn't.
So, this woman -- about to celebrate her 79th birthday -- will continue to fight the fight I've been engaged in all my life. I want women to win. Equality may not be what I'm aiming for, though. Maybe what I really want is superiority; the chance to lord it (lady it?) over men for awhile.
Yes. I want to be the winner.
So, this woman -- about to celebrate her 79th birthday -- will continue to fight the fight I've been engaged in all my life. I want women to win. Equality may not be what I'm aiming for, though. Maybe what I really want is superiority; the chance to lord it (lady it?) over men for awhile.
Yes. I want to be the winner.
3
A Russell Baker column is very revealing.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F50D15FD385F117A93C6AB178CD...
Women and blacks have absorbed a lesson that white males have yet to learn: to wit, that it is easier to make discrimination work for you than it is to eliminate it from American life.
The question no one asks is why the country must have a large supply of people to be
discriminated against. This takes us into dangerous water indeed, for when there are enough jobs to absorb a na¬tion's talents and enough schools to fulfill people's de¬sires for education, the need for discrimination withers away.
The country obviously does not provide enough jobs and schools. Some say It cannot afford to and that trying to do so would destroy a system which, after all, is working pretty well. If not, if have-nots in large supply are an economic necessity, then victims of dis-crimination are a vital part of the system, and the cunning will make sure that the duty of victimhood passes to some¬body else.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F50D15FD385F117A93C6AB178CD...
Women and blacks have absorbed a lesson that white males have yet to learn: to wit, that it is easier to make discrimination work for you than it is to eliminate it from American life.
The question no one asks is why the country must have a large supply of people to be
discriminated against. This takes us into dangerous water indeed, for when there are enough jobs to absorb a na¬tion's talents and enough schools to fulfill people's de¬sires for education, the need for discrimination withers away.
The country obviously does not provide enough jobs and schools. Some say It cannot afford to and that trying to do so would destroy a system which, after all, is working pretty well. If not, if have-nots in large supply are an economic necessity, then victims of dis-crimination are a vital part of the system, and the cunning will make sure that the duty of victimhood passes to some¬body else.
4
Sad to see Kristof relying on risbly bogus, patently dishonest, pseudoscience "studies" alleging that " the groups that make the best decisions are not those with the highest-I.Q. members, but rather those that are more diverse in gender and in other ways" and that the "optimal mix was 55 percent female."
2
This man, 22 years in the military ( active and reserve/guard) has no problem with a female executives. I have worked for many women managers and found that women, like men, range from excellent to lousy. Sadly a lousy female manager will be tolerated a lot longer than a lousy male manager by the higher ups simply because the don't want a gender discrimination suite. I have also found the high up female executives are often as out of touch as their male counterparts regarding what really is happening in the business. Gender or skin tone, religion or physical disability should have no effect on whom we higher or elect( with obvious exceptions, you don't want a blind truck driver or a firefighter in a wheel chair) .
My problem with the election is that many will vote for Hillary simply because she sits to pee. Her history of dishonesty and self promotion won't matter even if people don't fall for the Times led rewriting of her history. I suspect that like the Obama election where people voting against him because of his skin tone where about the same ( IMO) as those who voted for him solely for the same reason we will see "shes a woman" voters cancel each other out. We have a serious , and extremely competent 3rd party candidacy in Gary Johnson/Bill Weld. I hope people disgusted by the two lousy main stream choices look seriously at Johnson and vote for him rather than stay home or spend too much time trying to decide if Trump or Hillary is the lessor of two evils.
My problem with the election is that many will vote for Hillary simply because she sits to pee. Her history of dishonesty and self promotion won't matter even if people don't fall for the Times led rewriting of her history. I suspect that like the Obama election where people voting against him because of his skin tone where about the same ( IMO) as those who voted for him solely for the same reason we will see "shes a woman" voters cancel each other out. We have a serious , and extremely competent 3rd party candidacy in Gary Johnson/Bill Weld. I hope people disgusted by the two lousy main stream choices look seriously at Johnson and vote for him rather than stay home or spend too much time trying to decide if Trump or Hillary is the lessor of two evils.
4
A vote for Gary John is a vote for Trump. A vote for Trump could ruin this country. Please reconsider.
2
Well written post. The Hillary campaign is not able to sell her to the public on her record, so they offer these 3 reasons to vote for her: 1) she's female, 2) she's a victim, 3) Trump is evil. I'm not going to debate anything about Trump here, but will say that they cannot even call up her record in that regard.
2
I've followed Hillary Clinton's history for many years. She is not dishonest; not any more of a self-promoter than any politician on the planet; and has done more good for more people than any Whoosis or Whatsis 3rd party candidate.
What better things have you to do than spend the few seconds it should take to think about whom you should vote for?
What better things have you to do than spend the few seconds it should take to think about whom you should vote for?
3
1.
you are wrong that people would gladly vote a woman into the WH, just not HRC. the vitriol against her is deeply rooted misogyny. period.
2.
it's sad that we feel we need to justify equal treatment by explaining how men or people in general might benefit. equal treatment under the law does not require this.
you are wrong that people would gladly vote a woman into the WH, just not HRC. the vitriol against her is deeply rooted misogyny. period.
2.
it's sad that we feel we need to justify equal treatment by explaining how men or people in general might benefit. equal treatment under the law does not require this.
35
The premise of Nicholas Kristof that putting women into leadership roles benefits men as much as women is certainly true. The various studies cited by Mr. Kristof really do support his premise.
But, this is a national election, and there isn’t enough time left for a re-education of male voters.
The best thing for Democrats to do is Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail, speaking about the specific programs she proposes and how she intends to implement them. Let all voters – male and female – see the benefit to the nation of having Mrs. Clinton as our president.
Let them see the sharp contrast between a logical, experienced leader like Clinton and an ignorant, narcissist like Donald Trump. Allow anyone who cares about good, smart government appreciate a candidate who is able and willing to provide explicit information about how America will deal with its challenges at home and abroad.
The Clinton campaign must resist the temptation to lecture people about the importance of electing our first woman president.
The resentment by some white males of Hillary Clinton exists not because they oppose the idea of a woman president, and not because they oppose everything about Hillary Clinton.
What these men detest is having their duty to elect a woman shoved down their throats.
Conduct a campaign which leads men to support Clinton, but does not order them to do so. Men will decide to vote for Hillary Clinton when they finally feel that it is their decision – not someone else’s.
But, this is a national election, and there isn’t enough time left for a re-education of male voters.
The best thing for Democrats to do is Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail, speaking about the specific programs she proposes and how she intends to implement them. Let all voters – male and female – see the benefit to the nation of having Mrs. Clinton as our president.
Let them see the sharp contrast between a logical, experienced leader like Clinton and an ignorant, narcissist like Donald Trump. Allow anyone who cares about good, smart government appreciate a candidate who is able and willing to provide explicit information about how America will deal with its challenges at home and abroad.
The Clinton campaign must resist the temptation to lecture people about the importance of electing our first woman president.
The resentment by some white males of Hillary Clinton exists not because they oppose the idea of a woman president, and not because they oppose everything about Hillary Clinton.
What these men detest is having their duty to elect a woman shoved down their throats.
Conduct a campaign which leads men to support Clinton, but does not order them to do so. Men will decide to vote for Hillary Clinton when they finally feel that it is their decision – not someone else’s.
3
"The Clinton campaign must resist the temptation to lecture people about the importance of electing our first woman president." Some of her supporters do, but not the campaign itself.
I wasn't aware the Clinton campaign had ever done this, nor did the Obama campaign "lecture" about "the importance" of electing the first black man to be president. Some of his supporters did, but the the campaign itself.
I wasn't aware the Clinton campaign had ever done this, nor did the Obama campaign "lecture" about "the importance" of electing the first black man to be president. Some of his supporters did, but the the campaign itself.
8
Kim, when every rally places the long overdue, historic milestone of electing the nation’s first woman president as the centerpiece of the rally, there are some men who take this as laying guilt on them for never having reached this point much earlier. The men who feel this way are probably those who consider themselves Independents, but I suspect there are some stalwart Democrats also. They take it as a “lecture.”
If the name of the game, for now, is getting more votes for Hillary Clinton in the November election than her opponent, that goal is far more important than harping on a principle of equality and a symbol of progress. Democrats cannot afford to lose any voters with bruised feelings, even if you and I think those feelings are childish and even sexist. We can all celebrate the history later – after the win has been chalked up.
If the name of the game, for now, is getting more votes for Hillary Clinton in the November election than her opponent, that goal is far more important than harping on a principle of equality and a symbol of progress. Democrats cannot afford to lose any voters with bruised feelings, even if you and I think those feelings are childish and even sexist. We can all celebrate the history later – after the win has been chalked up.
1
Well, that may work when you are tempting a cat out of tree with a bit of cat food, but men are not so simple. They are able to examine a candidate's record and think for themselves. I wager that if you read a story that the Trump campaign was using psychological tactics to get women to feel that they were "choosing him themselves" and not being "forced," you'd have one bloody big uproar over it.
More than almost any other situation this election will point out the fear and ignorance of many men. I think Ms Clinton will win in one of the biggest majorities we have ever witnessed in a Presidential election.
I can only hope the same energy will follow her to the states and put many more Democratic and Republican women in office at the Congressional, state, county and municipal levels. Our country needs women's minds as well as hands and I welcome the change.
I can only hope the same energy will follow her to the states and put many more Democratic and Republican women in office at the Congressional, state, county and municipal levels. Our country needs women's minds as well as hands and I welcome the change.
26
I laud the coming of women's rights. I was brought up in an era where women tended the home fires and went to work as a economic necessity. I had to do some serious rethinking as the 60s and 70s brought on equal rights for women. They could serve on warships, captain destroyers and aircraft carriers and make admiral. My grind with women's rights is this: if you insist on rights then be able to take on the responsibilities and the accountability. No more sniveling when the job turns sour, just accept the fact that it comes with the high paying job
1
1
Some men love Trump's swagger, his "confidence", his nose thumbing, his overt racism, his disturbing misogyny, his out-of-control ness. They love the fact that he will always be dominant over women. God forbid, but DT may win this election because he's a very disturbed individual and some men feel very comfortable with this disturbance.
9
I'm in my mid-forties and I've spent my life being lectured by my elders, such as you Mr. Kristol, that we need to learn to accept women in all aspects of society.
Well, here's some news for you.
My high school valedictorian was female. I believe salutatorian as well.
My college classrooms had plenty of women.
Law school presented me with classrooms full of women. Yes, about 50 percent.
At work, about half my bosses were women, many with very senior and powerful positions.
Based upon current trends, when I'm the same age as most Senators and Representatives, nearly half of Congress will be composed of women.
Men of my generation have learned quite well that women can be as good as any man.
We've also learned something that you obviously haven't-- women can be just as bad as any man.
So don't slur men who are killed by their wives as all backward sexists who deserved it. Sexism is no less ugly when it comes from the mouth of a self-righteous moralizer.
Time to look in the mirror and examine why, in a society where women are rapidly being integrated into its highest levels, you insist on an ancient assumption that women are victims to be saved from horrid male brutes.
Being placed on a pedestal is often just as confining as being kept in a kitchen.
Well, here's some news for you.
My high school valedictorian was female. I believe salutatorian as well.
My college classrooms had plenty of women.
Law school presented me with classrooms full of women. Yes, about 50 percent.
At work, about half my bosses were women, many with very senior and powerful positions.
Based upon current trends, when I'm the same age as most Senators and Representatives, nearly half of Congress will be composed of women.
Men of my generation have learned quite well that women can be as good as any man.
We've also learned something that you obviously haven't-- women can be just as bad as any man.
So don't slur men who are killed by their wives as all backward sexists who deserved it. Sexism is no less ugly when it comes from the mouth of a self-righteous moralizer.
Time to look in the mirror and examine why, in a society where women are rapidly being integrated into its highest levels, you insist on an ancient assumption that women are victims to be saved from horrid male brutes.
Being placed on a pedestal is often just as confining as being kept in a kitchen.
12
Women make up 19% of Congress. A study reported in the BBC states recently asserts that the US ranks 96th in the world in terms of the percentage of women in elected office. I don't want a pedestal for my daughters, I just want a fair shot. That does not exist yet. Don't kid yourself based on personal experience and anecdote. Do a little reading. It will open your eyes.
3
Get out here in the women's trenches, Snoop. Where I've spent a long lifetime, and where there are still millions of women not "integrated" into any mid-high levels, much less the highest.
No. You should look into that mirror you mention. And see a man who still today -- after centuries upon centuries -- is considered superior to a woman.
Pedestal? Is that where you believe we're standing? Baloney.
No. You should look into that mirror you mention. And see a man who still today -- after centuries upon centuries -- is considered superior to a woman.
Pedestal? Is that where you believe we're standing? Baloney.
2
Personal experience:
I've had female bosses.
I've had female mentors.
I've had female colleagues and people on my team.
I've had female clients.
This has been going on for 25 years. I never really thought much about it. The good ones helped my career. The worst ones never hurt. In general, it's the exact same experience as working with men.
People go to work to do a job. If you pay them fairly and treat them with respect, everything works out. I can't even imagine why this is still such an issue.
I've had female bosses.
I've had female mentors.
I've had female colleagues and people on my team.
I've had female clients.
This has been going on for 25 years. I never really thought much about it. The good ones helped my career. The worst ones never hurt. In general, it's the exact same experience as working with men.
People go to work to do a job. If you pay them fairly and treat them with respect, everything works out. I can't even imagine why this is still such an issue.
40
"People go to work to do a job" -- when they can get a job. Female people usually don't get that job.
You can't "even imagine why this is still such an issue," Onward? Maybe that's because you've never been discriminated against just because of your sex.
You can't "even imagine why this is still such an issue," Onward? Maybe that's because you've never been discriminated against just because of your sex.
1
What a disingenuous and intellectually dishonest column. Women breaking glass ceilings is certainly good and welcome. But it is also necessary to acknowledge the dislocations it is causing to many men in America. There is nothing wrong in acknowledging that some good things have negative consequences.
It is plainly obvious that if the pool of candidates for a top job, entrance to a top school, doubles going from just men to men + women, getting into that top job or top school becomes harder than before for men.
Not acknowledging that is insulting and demeaning. Including is good. But inclusion while acknowledging and addressing the side effects is even better.
It is plainly obvious that if the pool of candidates for a top job, entrance to a top school, doubles going from just men to men + women, getting into that top job or top school becomes harder than before for men.
Not acknowledging that is insulting and demeaning. Including is good. But inclusion while acknowledging and addressing the side effects is even better.
8
Eliminating half the competition certainly makes it easier to get into top jobs and top schools. For most of our history these opportunities were available only to white men so they effectively eliminated more than half the competition. Bemoaning the loss of this incredible systemic deck stacking and seeking sympathy for your plight is rather rich.
34
White males are admitted to colleges with lesser qualifications than white females in order to achieve gender parity. The one area where this is an exception are engineering fields which are actively seeking women. So don't kid yourself that things are harder than before for men. What was that that you were saying is insulting and demeaning?
2
Yes, many good things have come from the woman's movement and the struggle for equal rights for women. Most of us want our daughters and sons to have the same opportunities and rights, and most of us are opposed to sexist, discriminatory attitudes. However, there is plenty of evidence when women gain power they act just like any other tribe or group, leveraging their advantages, and being utterly indifferent to the fate of the groups they have gained power over. For example: women have gained power over the ownership of children, and there numerous men who have lost the relationships with their children, have been striped of their assets as well as their social reputations, and have realised they have simply been predated upon. Think about schools: women have gained power in the school system, and they have changed in into a system where girls thrive and boys fail. Think about women in management positions, where the first thing they do is hire far more women then men. Think about the service industries, the shops and stores, where women are predominant, and men are simply not wanted. Think about the Universities where about 70 % of the undergraduates are women, and where most humanities courses are "women only" courses, partly because the "white male" is subjected to sustained derision, hostility and contempt in the extreme feminist frame of thinking adopted by the lecturers. The list goes on.
6
Men will have to raise children and be caretakers of children, the elderly, and sick, just as women have been for millenia. Many will be full time. Why not, when caring for children is such a privilege? Of course, caretaking has to be properly rewarded. Hiring more women doesn't mean men are kicked out - it just means the company is bigger.
2
Women who are of citizens of the United States deserve the which are quarantined under the Constitution of the United States. The argument that men benefit from the advancement of women is somewhat condescending and irrelevant, society benefits from having good people in government without regard to their sex. The idea that their is an optimal mix for decision making groups of 55 percent female is both laughable and strangely "sexist", suggesting that all women share certain personalty traits. On a sour note, Hillary Clinton use of a personal email server to store email received by her secretary of state was reckless and irresponsible. If she was ruining against someone other than Donald Trump, the email issue would make me hesitant to vote for her.Clinton also appears not to be too tech savvy . See http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/luddite-president-clinton-trump-te...
4
Are you implying that women don't have the personality traits to make it in government? Otherwise, with women making 50% of the population, why wouldn't a 55% ratio of women in government be a normal and natural state of affairs? The fact they aren't suggests women haters are keeping them out (for the phrase woman hater is far more accurate and psychological
Y revealing than 'misogynist'.)
Y revealing than 'misogynist'.)
2
Kristof's condescending tone goes along well with the false narrative.
So men aren't harmed by women's advocacy groups? You mean like the divorce laws or child custody laws that grotesquely favor women? How about the domestic violence policies that always see men thrown in jail when every serious study shows there is gender parity in domestic violence? How about the "tender years" doctrine promulgated by feminists and made into state practice that gives automatic custody to women even though women are far, far more likely to kill their offspring than men? How about boys and men being systematically driven out of the education system from k-12 to universities with the Title IX law? Completely destroying their futures and potential earning power.
As for Kristof saying I should vote for HRC because she is a women is sexist garbage. Since she used the DNC to backstab and smear her opponent in the primaries basically turning it into her personal election tool. She has no moral ground to stand on. None whatsoever.
Personally I'm not sexist as I think Jill Stein would make an excellent President. Unlike the author and Clinton she has ethical principles.
Kristof, you are wrong. Very, very wrong. Men should be afraid of women in power. Women have shown themselves to be particularly vindictive to the other half of the population in public office and outside of it. Voting against Clinton is not an irrational act at all, for a lot of men it is an act of self-preservation.
So men aren't harmed by women's advocacy groups? You mean like the divorce laws or child custody laws that grotesquely favor women? How about the domestic violence policies that always see men thrown in jail when every serious study shows there is gender parity in domestic violence? How about the "tender years" doctrine promulgated by feminists and made into state practice that gives automatic custody to women even though women are far, far more likely to kill their offspring than men? How about boys and men being systematically driven out of the education system from k-12 to universities with the Title IX law? Completely destroying their futures and potential earning power.
As for Kristof saying I should vote for HRC because she is a women is sexist garbage. Since she used the DNC to backstab and smear her opponent in the primaries basically turning it into her personal election tool. She has no moral ground to stand on. None whatsoever.
Personally I'm not sexist as I think Jill Stein would make an excellent President. Unlike the author and Clinton she has ethical principles.
Kristof, you are wrong. Very, very wrong. Men should be afraid of women in power. Women have shown themselves to be particularly vindictive to the other half of the population in public office and outside of it. Voting against Clinton is not an irrational act at all, for a lot of men it is an act of self-preservation.
7
How the heck does title IX drive males out of education? When I went to college all it took was good SAT scores and school results. Isn't title IX just the legislation that stops men from harassing and women, and sets up women's sports teams? It doesn't abolish education for males right??
5
A profile of Sultana mentioned that "Fight Song'" was one of her favorites, and I was pleasantly reminded of her when this played as Mrs. Clinton took the stage. I would judge any leader, man or woman, based on the ability to voice the hopes of people for whom the very idea of hope may feel almost farcical. Sultana is here because she's extraordinary, yet our dreams are no less worthy for their ordinariness.
28
So the question is that " When a women breaks a glass ceiling and becomes the presidential nominee of a major political party, what should men think?" I believe that they should be more impressed than depressed because we are finally treated as equals. Would you ever predict that a women would be running for president? No, because she is a women!! and although us women are allowed to, no one would actually think a women would do it because of what people would think. Clinton is what is going to help us girls get out of our shell, and become powerful.
29
Put aside your feelings about Hillary Clinton: I understand that many Americans distrust her and would welcome a woman in the White House if it were someone else. But whatever one thinks of Clinton, her nomination is a milestone, and a lesson of history is that when women advance, humanity advances.
I don't have to put them aside,.. I trust her as much or more than any male president thus far in my lifetime and I'm almost 70... Name one as "Trustworthy" with the exception of Obama and perhaps Truman? And name one attacked by a full on nonstop assault by modern conservative media for 30 years. The issue is not with her,..the issue is with men,..terrified of losing one more gender sanctuary and privilige.
I wager Any Democratic Female in her position would be under equal assault
I don't have to put them aside,.. I trust her as much or more than any male president thus far in my lifetime and I'm almost 70... Name one as "Trustworthy" with the exception of Obama and perhaps Truman? And name one attacked by a full on nonstop assault by modern conservative media for 30 years. The issue is not with her,..the issue is with men,..terrified of losing one more gender sanctuary and privilige.
I wager Any Democratic Female in her position would be under equal assault
174
There is still, where it exists, a willingness to heap vitriol on HRC by a significant number of women as well as men. So, I think further study on that is definitely required. That said, I whole-heartedly agree.
4
The issue is the scarcity of good jobs, not, "men terrified of losing one more gender sanctuary and privilege." Let's state a basic fact. If women were not allowed to work, there would be full employment for men, with zero unemployment.
Men and woman compete often for the same job, and another basic fact, women work for less money. If I were running a business and could hire women I would. Lowering salaries by thirty percent is huge! When you factor in the fact that women are well suited for the information age, vs. logging or roofing and siding, they have an amazing generational advantage never seen in human history.
Men and woman compete often for the same job, and another basic fact, women work for less money. If I were running a business and could hire women I would. Lowering salaries by thirty percent is huge! When you factor in the fact that women are well suited for the information age, vs. logging or roofing and siding, they have an amazing generational advantage never seen in human history.
Every time I've asked (without clenched fists) for a reason why he or she "doesn't trust Clinton," there isn't one. Just a vague "she's untrustworthy," or "look at what she did with those emails," or "she's unethical." Sometimes, her husband is the "reason."
Why don't we have a minimum IQ for voters?
Why don't we have a minimum IQ for voters?
4
Mr. Kristof I usually disagree with you on these issues, but for this article you made a very strong case. For this I applaud you. There is no denying that women do have a role outside the home.
I do have a few critiques of your argument and the Women's Movement. Is there anything positive about males or having males in positions of power? And if so what? The trend in this moment is to denigrate any male behavior or accomplishment Denying the contributions of males and their actions in society turns many off, and is patently false. Similarly, the current strain of Feminism elevates being female as the pinnacle of human existence, that they are the core source of good in the world, and any criticism of a woman (the right kind of course) is sexist. This too is ridiculous, women are individuals with their own motivations, feelings, and tendencies to be good/ evil.
You argue that when females win, males win and give a limited number of specific scenarios. I challenge you to justify how the approximately Undergraduate 40% male to 60% female ratio benefits males. This is an disparity and would not be ethically okay either if it was the reverse. We are facing an crisis in the male population: 5x suicide ratio; under education; grossly overrepresentation in the prison system; etc. Are we brave enough to directly allocate resources to improve men or will we only improve the lot of women claiming it benefits males indirectly?
I do have a few critiques of your argument and the Women's Movement. Is there anything positive about males or having males in positions of power? And if so what? The trend in this moment is to denigrate any male behavior or accomplishment Denying the contributions of males and their actions in society turns many off, and is patently false. Similarly, the current strain of Feminism elevates being female as the pinnacle of human existence, that they are the core source of good in the world, and any criticism of a woman (the right kind of course) is sexist. This too is ridiculous, women are individuals with their own motivations, feelings, and tendencies to be good/ evil.
You argue that when females win, males win and give a limited number of specific scenarios. I challenge you to justify how the approximately Undergraduate 40% male to 60% female ratio benefits males. This is an disparity and would not be ethically okay either if it was the reverse. We are facing an crisis in the male population: 5x suicide ratio; under education; grossly overrepresentation in the prison system; etc. Are we brave enough to directly allocate resources to improve men or will we only improve the lot of women claiming it benefits males indirectly?
6
There is no "gross overrepresentation" of males in the prison system. More males are in the prison system because more males (by overwhelming margins) commit violent crimes.
59
@Zubat-That is my point exactly, men are grossly overrepresented in the prison population because they do commit more crime than females. The question is, can we focus on developing social policy and an economy that steers men away from their proclivity to be violent? Clearly, as I stated in my original post, having reduced numbers of men in college does not bode well for our prison population; education has been a strong protective factor from a life of crime for both women and men.
3
And ihey disproportionately fail in life. Why?
1
Wonderful news about Sultana.
And thank you for promoting women's rights around the world, and here at home.
We ARE 'half the sky.'
And thank you for promoting women's rights around the world, and here at home.
We ARE 'half the sky.'
38
A very solid column, whose message some readers have misunderstood. Quite apart from the critically important issue of fairness, any society that uses all its human resources will outperform one that does not. The economy will grow faster, the arts will flourish, and a more humane, democratic culture will develop.
The same argument Kristof uses to defend gender equality of course also applies to the ethnic variety. A racially prejudiced capitalist betrays the principles of his economic faith. A capitalist system thrives when a society uses efficiently the full range of available resources, and denying equal opportunities to minorities violates that core principle of a market system.
Kristof's argument about the societal benefits of gender equality, however, applies to the entire community, not to individual members of it. Richard Luettgen cites the obvious fact that, in every competition, there is a winner and a loser. He implies that this reality somehow undermines Kristof's argument, but it does no such thing.
Kristof's analysis shows how the community as a whole thrives through gender (or ethnic) equality. If the competition is fair, then society benefits through having the superior candidate do the job. The gender or ethnicity of the competitors is irrelevant. No system ever devised can ensure that every individual will achieve his or her goals.
The same argument Kristof uses to defend gender equality of course also applies to the ethnic variety. A racially prejudiced capitalist betrays the principles of his economic faith. A capitalist system thrives when a society uses efficiently the full range of available resources, and denying equal opportunities to minorities violates that core principle of a market system.
Kristof's argument about the societal benefits of gender equality, however, applies to the entire community, not to individual members of it. Richard Luettgen cites the obvious fact that, in every competition, there is a winner and a loser. He implies that this reality somehow undermines Kristof's argument, but it does no such thing.
Kristof's analysis shows how the community as a whole thrives through gender (or ethnic) equality. If the competition is fair, then society benefits through having the superior candidate do the job. The gender or ethnicity of the competitors is irrelevant. No system ever devised can ensure that every individual will achieve his or her goals.
52
Two thoughts. First, if women didn't vote for Trump, this election would not be close. In fact, Trump would lose all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Rather than focus on the men who support Trump, we might really wonder about the many women who will cast the potentially decisive votes for Trump. Why aren't these women lining up behind Clinton?
Second, Kristof traffics in the dated belief that when women get into positions of power within organizations, those organizations behave better and more humanely. This seemed like a reasonable argument 25 years ago, but experience over that time shows that women express equally bad behavior, including outrageous greed, selfishness, and a contempt for anyone perceived to be beneath them. I've seen this up close, and I've seen this from a distance, power, privilege, status, and wealth utterly corrupt regardless of gender.
Second, Kristof traffics in the dated belief that when women get into positions of power within organizations, those organizations behave better and more humanely. This seemed like a reasonable argument 25 years ago, but experience over that time shows that women express equally bad behavior, including outrageous greed, selfishness, and a contempt for anyone perceived to be beneath them. I've seen this up close, and I've seen this from a distance, power, privilege, status, and wealth utterly corrupt regardless of gender.
23
There is about a 50-75 point deficit on the GRE Quantitative section (older scoring scale) for women. This may suggest that they don't have the same mathematical and scientific aptitudes as men. If that type of thinking is valuable in business or government, one may be better off with a man. A number of major corporations recently tried female CEOs, like Lucent, HP and Yahoo, and they did not work out all that well. And this was after these companies were already founded and built by men. Inventing a new product and actually starting a company is infinitely harder than merely becoming CEO of an existing company. There are very few big corporations founded by women. Those who insist on legislating equal pay for equal work might ask themselves if there isn't an easier way. If women have the same aptitude, wouldn't one expect that there would be an equal number of women starting companies, where they are then free to pay themselves whatever they want? It is far easier to go to a company where the men had the ingenuity and did the incredible work to get it going by creating a novel process or invention, and then start complaining, "Hey, I want a turn, running it, too." If women really had the same capacity, they would be starting companies, themselves. While it goes against current liberal thinking which holds that the genders are just a mindset, and we are all one and the same, and can be interchanged at will, but the data simply doesn't support this.
6
This post is a joke, right? People who start companies also need to borrow money from banks/VCs/investors, have the right education, and the role models in their lives, all major factors that women have been deprived of. Yet, look at the heads of state of the U.K., Germany and Taiwan. If anything, women have done it twice as great as men to break the glass ceiling.
16
Orange34, at this point, there is no reason to believe a VC who stands to make much money from helping a female startup would spite him or herself and refuse to do so. As far as education, for a number of generations women have had the same opportunities as men in the USA.
But you may want to take a look at the following statistics, which shows the 32 point gender gap in math SAT scores has persisted for generations. In addition, at the higher end, among those scoring above 700, there is a nearly 2:1 ratio of boys to girls, despite the fact that more girls than boys take the SAT.
https://www.aei.org/publication/2013-sat-test-results-show-that-a-huge-m...
This does not mean we should discourage girls from wanting to be everything they can, and of course there are many exceptional girls, but we must acknowledge that men and women have very real biological differences. We can't entirely ignore data when discussing sensitive issues. My own understanding is that when women are trained to do particular technical tasks, they can do them very well. But in the area of innovating new technologies from scratch, which requires groping in the dark, and figuring things out for the first time, men are better suited. And this would probably carry over to being president, where new situations and reevaluations of current policies always come up. There is no instruction manual.
But you may want to take a look at the following statistics, which shows the 32 point gender gap in math SAT scores has persisted for generations. In addition, at the higher end, among those scoring above 700, there is a nearly 2:1 ratio of boys to girls, despite the fact that more girls than boys take the SAT.
https://www.aei.org/publication/2013-sat-test-results-show-that-a-huge-m...
This does not mean we should discourage girls from wanting to be everything they can, and of course there are many exceptional girls, but we must acknowledge that men and women have very real biological differences. We can't entirely ignore data when discussing sensitive issues. My own understanding is that when women are trained to do particular technical tasks, they can do them very well. But in the area of innovating new technologies from scratch, which requires groping in the dark, and figuring things out for the first time, men are better suited. And this would probably carry over to being president, where new situations and reevaluations of current policies always come up. There is no instruction manual.
5
In reply to Curious of NY
Your response was firm and eloquent and could not be better put. Thank you!
Your response was firm and eloquent and could not be better put. Thank you!
"I understand that many Americans distrust her and would welcome a woman in the White House if it were someone else."
You do huh? I don't. I think, exterior of some supporters of Bernie Sanders this is just coded language for sexism. Just as we had/have coded language for racism this is it's companion. A lot of these people do not ever want to see a woman in the White House. And lest you imagine women can't be sexist, think again. Man of the woman of the Republican Party give voice to that idea. Working class white males don't support HRC because she has baggage. They don't support her because she's not a man.
The landscape is full of people like Phyllis Schlafley and Ann Coulter who don't want to see a woman in the White House ever. The same with Carly Fiorina.
If we are really going to tackle sexism in our society we need to recognize it in all of it's incarnations. Right now it hides in every nook and cranny of our society and by and large gets a pass as just fine. If a person of color or an LGBTQ person ever had the things said about them or were treated the way women are treated quite routinely, there would be an outcry.
Sexism is alive and well and it has it's own very clear dog whistles.
You do huh? I don't. I think, exterior of some supporters of Bernie Sanders this is just coded language for sexism. Just as we had/have coded language for racism this is it's companion. A lot of these people do not ever want to see a woman in the White House. And lest you imagine women can't be sexist, think again. Man of the woman of the Republican Party give voice to that idea. Working class white males don't support HRC because she has baggage. They don't support her because she's not a man.
The landscape is full of people like Phyllis Schlafley and Ann Coulter who don't want to see a woman in the White House ever. The same with Carly Fiorina.
If we are really going to tackle sexism in our society we need to recognize it in all of it's incarnations. Right now it hides in every nook and cranny of our society and by and large gets a pass as just fine. If a person of color or an LGBTQ person ever had the things said about them or were treated the way women are treated quite routinely, there would be an outcry.
Sexism is alive and well and it has it's own very clear dog whistles.
84
Considering that many of Bernie's supporters are debating whether to vote for Jill Stein, myself included, I doubt that sexism plays a major role in this election. What does? The fact we have been at war for 13 years in a country we broke, and a candidate that voted in congress for that said war. You have to give credit where credit is due, and Bernie supporters have proven themselves a lot that is willing to support people based on their issues not their demographics.
7
Wouldn't voting for Ms. Stein effectively mean voting for Donald Trump?
52
It's easy to support Jill Stein because Jill Stein won't win. Jill Stein will never be president. Men love to support female achievement when it's theoretical but not when it's real.
6
"The political conventions are behind us, and I thought there were some great speeches. Both Obamas spoke brilliantly — Michelle Obama offended some people when she noted that the White House was built partly by slaves, ...."
These words from the email introducing your column "blame" Mrs. Obama for some people "choosing" to be offended by her reference to the role of slaves in building the White House. It is inappropriate to put how "some people" felt on her. Each of us hears what we choose to hear from any speech through whatever filters we have and choose to use.
These words from the email introducing your column "blame" Mrs. Obama for some people "choosing" to be offended by her reference to the role of slaves in building the White House. It is inappropriate to put how "some people" felt on her. Each of us hears what we choose to hear from any speech through whatever filters we have and choose to use.
12
I am surprised by the men who seem to interpret equal participation by women as taking away opportunities that otherwise would have gone to deserving men. So that, by expanding rights to women, we are depriving men of something that was formerly theirs; a zero-sum game with men as the losers.
80
There are many women I would have supported, so I may not qualify as one of the men you refer to. However, when it comes to elections. politics IS a zero sum game; if one person wins the others do not. Therefore, they are correct in their assumption, just wrong in believing that the old way was better.
1
@Madeline
But doesn't your objection imply that there is something to which you are entitled that, but for the 'victory' of some nameless male, you might otherwise have received. You see -- You, also, have made it a zero zum game. That's how identity politics 'work' -- in group versus out group; "us" against "them." And the "masters of mankind" (Thanks to Adam Smith via Noam Chomsky) are ever ready to swoop in and vacuum up the leftovers.
But doesn't your objection imply that there is something to which you are entitled that, but for the 'victory' of some nameless male, you might otherwise have received. You see -- You, also, have made it a zero zum game. That's how identity politics 'work' -- in group versus out group; "us" against "them." And the "masters of mankind" (Thanks to Adam Smith via Noam Chomsky) are ever ready to swoop in and vacuum up the leftovers.
2
The problem with the public is they are much too concerned about having a woman president at this time. Eight years ago the same sense of urgency evolved as some people decided they had to immediately have a black president (although Obama is half white and technically not black as he is not 100% black). People felt voting for a black president would ease their conscience and had many hopes never achieved. Fast forward for the future: people will be made to decide they need some other race, sexuality preference or whatever else for a president. We deserve what we get.
11
Wrong, Janis, on two points:
1) Obama is as black as any other African American. There are, in fact, very few African Americans who do not have some white European blood in them. The one heritage that Obama might not share with most other African Americans is an ancestry of slavery, given that his father was a native African, who if a descendant of slaves, they were probably African slaves who never set foot in America. Yet, even this point is moot, as black Africans have long history of European slavery long before the first slave landed in America.
2) It is not that anyone "was made to decide" that they needed a black president when they elected Obama. Many were legitimately inspired by a man who seemed to have all the talent and vision to transform American society for the better, if only he were able to bring along Republican opponents who adamantly opposed him, and who were hardly "made to decide" that they needed a black president.
Finally, it is terribly unfortunate that more people are not inspired by Hillary at a time when an apparent bigot and sociopath is so close to winning the presidency. Ezra Klein has identified why this might be the case (http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadersh..., and the result might well be tragic if Hillary fails to be elected. If that happens, and Trump wins, someday you may remember her failed candidacy with deep regret and pine after another woman or non-white candidate to repair the damage.
1) Obama is as black as any other African American. There are, in fact, very few African Americans who do not have some white European blood in them. The one heritage that Obama might not share with most other African Americans is an ancestry of slavery, given that his father was a native African, who if a descendant of slaves, they were probably African slaves who never set foot in America. Yet, even this point is moot, as black Africans have long history of European slavery long before the first slave landed in America.
2) It is not that anyone "was made to decide" that they needed a black president when they elected Obama. Many were legitimately inspired by a man who seemed to have all the talent and vision to transform American society for the better, if only he were able to bring along Republican opponents who adamantly opposed him, and who were hardly "made to decide" that they needed a black president.
Finally, it is terribly unfortunate that more people are not inspired by Hillary at a time when an apparent bigot and sociopath is so close to winning the presidency. Ezra Klein has identified why this might be the case (http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadersh..., and the result might well be tragic if Hillary fails to be elected. If that happens, and Trump wins, someday you may remember her failed candidacy with deep regret and pine after another woman or non-white candidate to repair the damage.
98
This is nonsense. Rights for women address inequities they have suffered. They are designed to help women, not men. And they generally come at the expense of men. Title IX has added all kinds of women's sports and drastically increased the number of female participants. At the same time, it has diminished the number of men's sports and male participants. Title IX was long overdue -- don't get the idea that I oppose it. But liberals who claim that helping the victims of prejudice likewise helps those who originally had the upper hand are living in la la land. Enforcing equality helps those who have been the subject of discrimination. Those who discriminated in the first place rightfully pay the price. Equality is not a win-win game. The former victims benefit, the former victimizers virtually always lose.
18
Wow, Michjas, the perfect zero-sum argument if there ever was one, perfectly wrong, that is. At its most basic, the cultural elevation of women in any society starts with education, physical education being just one component. Everywhere women are repressed, violence in that society is greater than where women have more freedom and opportunity. Look at present-day, war-torn, Afghanistan, for example, compared to Indonesia, where women are still living comparatively free lives, although both are largely Muslim nations.
The fact is that educated women tend to raise educated children, both girls and boys, and their societies benefit everyone.
The fact is that educated women tend to raise educated children, both girls and boys, and their societies benefit everyone.
125
We are all afraid when the prejudices and privileges we've based our lives on crumble, and we fail to see the opportunity that come from living our lives in more ethical ways in healthier systems, instead of exploiting existing power systems. Take slave owners in the South, for example.
18
Once in awhile I include in an otherwise innocuous comment a gratuitous criticism of liberals. Then, I await replies telling me my comment is off the wall. It never fails. People vehemently oppose innocuous comments because of perceived conservative bent. (I may be the most liberal commenter at this site). Lots of folks think comments are about which side are you on. And the recommenders can't jump in fast enough. Ir's all good guys and bad guys. Third grade stuff or maybe second grade.
1
I was nodding in agreement with this so worthy article until some perverse imp on my shoulder starred rewriting the paragraphs on testosterone and risk taking, mutating it into estrogen cycles and irrational thinking.
Both hormonal references are equally inelegant to the discourse.
And this made the whole article seem more pandering than profound.
Both hormonal references are equally inelegant to the discourse.
And this made the whole article seem more pandering than profound.
9
Evaluated by measurable parameters, such as stock picking in investment clubs, indicates higher success for women, not "irrational" behavior. Testosterone has been associated with some irrational behavior, such as violence. The difference between the hormones is that one is more obviously cyclical and has historically been subject to much more prejudice - as evidenced by your comment.
45
Dr W my comments were to illustrate that discussing gender differences in terms of hormones is to give a scientific veneer to prejudice. In the end the answer is : so what? It really does not advance the discussion to cast mixed gender teams in terms of balancing testicles and ovaries.
6
Nick: First of all, thank you so much for sharing the truly amazing news about Sultana, and her arrival here for further studies! What a ray of sunshine for all of us to know that this extraordinarily courageous young woman has an opportunity to truly move ahead, and I am certain that she will succeed in improving the lives of many others who yearn to follow in her footsteps. Women have already proven themselves to be outstanding listeners, better able to forge consensus in contentious situations, and better able to balance the inevitable need for taking risks with the equally important analysis of the attendant risks in such decisions. In fact, it was Hillary Clinton herself, addressing the UN 4th World Conference on Women, Plenary Session on September 5, 1995, who said it best: "If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights once and for all." We need only contemplate what Sultana might accomplish during her life, and the potential for improving all lives she touches, men and women alike, to recognize how right Secretary Clinton was when she uttered those words.
71
Let's see some data about earning of men in their twenties compared to women. How about percentages of college graduates who are men - both undergraduate and graduate? What about grades in k-12 (especially reading) or even the gender ratio of high school valedictorians? Homeless rates? Serious mental illness and developmental disorders? How about substance abuse rates? How are the life expectancies of men doing in comparison? Suicide rates? How about fairness of child custody laws for fathers? Did you take a look at incarceration rates? Victims of homicide? How about death rates due to employment? What about the differential effect of boys growing up with a single parent compared to girls? I could go on...
We should be helping and empowering girls and women but don't pretend or fall into the false narrative that we can afford to just ignore boys and men either. They'll be more likely vote for the Trumps of the world, which would necessarily harm women. See, works both ways...
We should be helping and empowering girls and women but don't pretend or fall into the false narrative that we can afford to just ignore boys and men either. They'll be more likely vote for the Trumps of the world, which would necessarily harm women. See, works both ways...
28
No one is talking about ignoring boys or men. Women, men, girls and boys:
We are all in the same boat.
A house divided cannot stand.
I am a married woman in an intact family that includes my husband and three children, two girls and one boy. If my husband prospers, the family prospers. If I prosper, the family prospers. I want the same for all my children, my son equal to my daughters, my daughters equal to my son.
How does that harm men and boys?
We are all in the same boat.
A house divided cannot stand.
I am a married woman in an intact family that includes my husband and three children, two girls and one boy. If my husband prospers, the family prospers. If I prosper, the family prospers. I want the same for all my children, my son equal to my daughters, my daughters equal to my son.
How does that harm men and boys?
4
I could write a very funny satirical comment to this transparent pitch of Nick’s to elect our first woman president because, well, ALL men would benefit as well. But I consumed my allotment of mirth for a couple of days in my response to Gail’s Saturday quiz, so I’ll keep this one fairly serious.
I agree and I disagree. I certainly agree that all of society benefits when we fully exploit ALL the talent within it, and historically we’ve denied OURSELVES that benefit when we denied relevance to millions of talented and intelligent women – quite apart from the monumental injustice to those women we perpetrated. Imagine, for instance, what Abigail Adams might have accomplished today – might have given Hillary a serious run for her foundation’s money.
But for every woman who wins a competitive contest for advancement, there’s also a man (or men) who lost; and sometimes, these days, they lose merely because of the presence of that pesky “Y” chromosome when it’s politically expedient to be able to point to a woman who won. Too politically incorrect? Tough: it’s as real as cancer.
The losers have dreams and mortgages and kids to feed, clothe and educate, too. Often, they’re every bit as competent and have performed every bit as well as the winners – perhaps even better.
We reap what our fathers (and mothers) sow. We should remember that every act of prejudice that we tolerate in ourselves likely will be paid back by our children in history’s endless need to balance Yin and Yang.
I agree and I disagree. I certainly agree that all of society benefits when we fully exploit ALL the talent within it, and historically we’ve denied OURSELVES that benefit when we denied relevance to millions of talented and intelligent women – quite apart from the monumental injustice to those women we perpetrated. Imagine, for instance, what Abigail Adams might have accomplished today – might have given Hillary a serious run for her foundation’s money.
But for every woman who wins a competitive contest for advancement, there’s also a man (or men) who lost; and sometimes, these days, they lose merely because of the presence of that pesky “Y” chromosome when it’s politically expedient to be able to point to a woman who won. Too politically incorrect? Tough: it’s as real as cancer.
The losers have dreams and mortgages and kids to feed, clothe and educate, too. Often, they’re every bit as competent and have performed every bit as well as the winners – perhaps even better.
We reap what our fathers (and mothers) sow. We should remember that every act of prejudice that we tolerate in ourselves likely will be paid back by our children in history’s endless need to balance Yin and Yang.
15
Thank you! Thank you for all your advocacy and care in behalf of women and women's issues. Though perhaps a minority, there are certainly feminist men about who care about so-called "women's issues" (often really issues which impact men in some way as well). Other men, though, who are not generally advocates for women, come to care about things like equal pay or girls education when they have their own daughters.
Gender roles are social constructs, which can and should change with time. It does not take any research to see that many women have excellent leadership skills, can excel in math, science, technology, and business. When we block women from any area, we deprive society of their innate gifts and skills. This world needs all that all of humanity has to offer.
Gender roles are social constructs, which can and should change with time. It does not take any research to see that many women have excellent leadership skills, can excel in math, science, technology, and business. When we block women from any area, we deprive society of their innate gifts and skills. This world needs all that all of humanity has to offer.
110
Mr. Kristof you say, "Yet Democratic strategists also worry, rightly I think, that the giddy enthusiasm for gender progress may turn off men." Like every other system in America political strategists use the male-domination model to make decisions. Most are men. This is why women must step up and take one-half the power - to balance the conversation in all segments of society.
The democratic convention was a perfect example of shared power by capable men and women in some of our our top leaders. Think about a really good marriage - both partners have something of value to offer and they respect each others ideas and lives.
We need a partnership society, with shared power by men and women in order to have a more balanced, civil, peaceful society.
It is unfortunate that some men feel threatened by it but women need to simply ignore that and move ahead - because it's what's best for America and the world.
The democratic convention was a perfect example of shared power by capable men and women in some of our our top leaders. Think about a really good marriage - both partners have something of value to offer and they respect each others ideas and lives.
We need a partnership society, with shared power by men and women in order to have a more balanced, civil, peaceful society.
It is unfortunate that some men feel threatened by it but women need to simply ignore that and move ahead - because it's what's best for America and the world.
179
Your article shows when women have power or are accepted in education, industry, police enforcement, politics, etc. we all benefit, men and women. Most important, countries that give women full citizen rights are the most successful countries.
Women power is human power!
Larry Jaffe
Women power is human power!
Larry Jaffe
2
Come to think of it, "thinking about a really good marriage" is inspiring in the abstract but amounts to quite a gaff in this specific case.
Bravo!!
2
We cannot have it both ways.