General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWonkette: Indiana Law Professor Deeply Saddened Democrats Voting For So Many Ladies :(
In a letter to the editors of Bloomingtons Herald Times, Dau-Schmidt explained that the slate of female candidates who had bested male competitors (and even male incumbents) was a very sad achievement because it showed that women were out there just voting for female candidates rather than for the best candidates, because they are sexist jerks who hate men. Or something.
I was very disturbed by the results of the recent Democratic primary. I was glad to see women candidates do well, especially those who were accomplished and who had worked hard. But the fact that all women candidates won, even against accomplished male incumbents, was troubling.
At the state delegate level, combining the citys districts 1 and 2, women candidates averaged 1,779 votes while the men averaged 696. All of the male candidates received less votes than any of their female rivals except the sitting mayor and Alphonso Manns. Clearly, hundreds of Democratic women are voting for female candidates based on their gender and have been encouraged in this regard by the Democratic Womens Caucus. Ann Birch of the League of Women Voters said that the womens success was the result of nurture rather than nature.
I agree that discrimination is an unnatural act and that the Democratic Womens Caucus has taught many Democratic women to discriminate on the basis of gender. What a sad achievement
So sad! But sadder still is that he does not exactly have his facts right. In both instances in which a male incumbent was running for a seat in the House, he won including one instance in which a woman, Sue Spicer, was running against male incumbent André Carson. The only woman who ousted an incumbent male candidate was actually a Republican candidate for state Senate, Linda Rogers.
What are the odds, do you think, that if all the male candidates won their primaries, Mr. Dau-Schmidt would suggest that men had cruelly conspired to vote for men instead of women? What are the odds that he would suggest that those men were less competent than their competitors? I am going to guess that they are not very good.
In fact, he probably would not even notice. It would just be our glorious meritocracy at work!
Now, Im not gonna lie. If a man and a woman are running for office and I like them both equally, Im going with the woman (and if its all men, Im going with the candidate who isnt white). If its a Democratic primary, odds are that is the case. Its not any more insidious than if out of two candidates I liked equally I picked the man. I suppose, in these instances, it is up to male candidates to work to appeal to me more than their female opponents, just as they must try to appeal to me more than other men running for the same office. For what it is worth, fellas, I think Medicare for All, ending at-will employment, unions, and publicly funded college are extremely sexxxy.
https://wonkette.com/634183/indiana-law-professor-deeply-saddened-democrats-voting-for-so-many-ladies
Cha
(295,899 posts)shit thing. It's shows the Females are better candidates.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)When the playing field gets leveled, suddenly sexism matters!
CatMor
(6,212 posts)I'm really surprised he teaches law and yet feels that way. What does he think when it's a female against a male in the court room.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And he doesn't teach criminal law:
Employment Law (B719)
Antitrust Law I (B729)
Employee Benefits Law (B742)
Seminar in Law and Economics (L713)
https://www.law.indiana.edu/about/people/bio.php?name=dau-schmidt-kenneth-g
LiberalFighter
(50,491 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)He is not supposed to side with any.
However, he certainly isn't opposed to voicing biased views.
Glamrock
(11,781 posts)Try to keep in mind not all white male Hoosiers are douche bags. This one considers himself a feminist.
struggle4progress
(118,034 posts)Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)show my Biology students" Inherit the Wind" with Spencer Tracy...about the Scopes trial. And 70 years later we still argue over evolution and of course woman's rights. Thanks for this.
Guilded Lilly
(5,591 posts)knightmaar
(748 posts)*fewer
Mr. Fancy Law Professor.
volstork
(5,394 posts)One of my pet peeves, along with inappropriate apostrophe use.
wryter2000
(46,016 posts)As well as "people that." It's "people who," not "that." Makes me crazy.
volstork
(5,394 posts)Pet peeve, along with inappropriate apostrophe use.
vlyons
(10,252 posts)Dallas TX (TX-33). So there!
Ferrets are Cool
(21,059 posts)KY_EnviroGuy
(14,483 posts)they worked harder to get the votes. More leg work and meetings and better web presence.
A lot of men have been presumptuous about winning and are paying the price.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Of course he is. But he doesn't acknowledge that.
So we will say what he says: It's not about gender. We're voting for the best person for the job. This one happens to be female!
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)through and consider the fear behind his words...he fears a level playing field...and not enjoying his white male privilege anymore.
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)malthaussen
(17,065 posts)... where Mr Dau-Schmidt went to school. Or perhaps he just didn't absorb them.
-- Mal
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)from deplorable male idiots.
You go right ahead and fear them prof. Can't believe a neanderthal like this guy is a law professor.
Grins
(7,132 posts)I have no problem voting for women (and I conceal-carry a penis all the time). It's easy to do - just look for the "D" after their name!
I got on a rant a long time ago with friends around the time the R's in Congress set up a committee on what should be in the health care bill to replace Obamacare. Its composition? Thirteen staunch conservatives and ardent foes of the Affordable Care Act and not one female. Not. One. All of them were male.
If that committee were just majority female and politically balanced, seen from their eyes there there would have been a world of difference on women's health, abortions, contraception, mammograms, pre-natal care, maternity, child care for working people (both M&F), insurance rates and coverage, etc.
And all of that would have flowed down and benefited all Americans and businesses too.
IronLionZion
(45,256 posts)along with a few others. Haters gonna hate.
mercuryblues
(14,491 posts)This letter was supposedly writen by a progressive and feminist? For me, this letter makes it abandantly clear why women would vote for women. They no longer trust the male candidates to protect their rights.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)This is hilarious:
First, Wonkette pointed out it isn't true.
BUT IF IT WERE --
How many times --. No make that how many decades (and millennia for any places where women could vote prior to the early 20th Century, and I know of none off-hand) -- have ALL THE MEN candidates won, even against accomplished better qualified women???????
He's a pitiful creature, sad example of modern manhood.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)the majority of candidates chosen.