Hold on. To replace the influence of interest groups you're saying we should have the members of those groups just be the legislators?


Lawyers dominate legislatures because lawyers know how to draft, or at least read, statutes. Creating statutes is what legislatures do, so it makes perfect sense that a lot of those people will be lawyers. Non-lawyer legislators are actually slightly MORE susceptible to influence by special interest groups and lobbying, since they don't have the peculiar skills a legal education gives a person when it comes to understanding the law and the knock-on effects of changing the law. Not every member needs to be or should be a lawyer, but we don't keep sending lawyers to statehouses and to Congress because of some vast ABA conspiracy. We do it because

The answer isn't token legislators of certain professions. It's a vibrant civil society that holds legislators accountable for their actions and informs them on how best carry out public policy.

*We do it because many of the traits needed to be a good lawyer carry over in to being a good legislator.

Not sure what happened.

"The answer isn't token legislators of certain professions. It's a vibrant civil society that holds legislators accountable for their actions and informs them on how best carry out public policy."

That's better put. I'll sit on that. I don't do metaphor anyway...

"but potentially just as much as you or anyone else does."

Are you kidding? This is symptomatic of the Dr. Google culture we live in. Everybody thinks they're an expert in everything. They're not. Lawyers are professionally trained in the law. They know the law better than anybody else. We should leave governing to those who know what they are doing.

" It's a vibrant civil society that holds legislators accountable for their actions and informs them on how best carry out public policy.""

Our "vibrant civil society" are nothing but a hodgepodge of special interest groups who interfere more than they inform.

Yes okay I made myself look stupid can we go back to this weird thing about women apparently being more apt for political leadership than men....

Where in that sentence does it say I'm talking about the current state of affairs?

Why is it irrational to elect people from a group who commit 1/10th the amount of crime than the other group?

"Why is it irrational to elect people from a group who commit 1/10th the amount of crime than the other group?"

Does this argument extend to black people too?

Then why limit it to gender if crime statistics are so determinative? Why not race? Age? Wealth? If we follow your logic the only people to vote for would be Asian grandmothers.

The statistics are troubling. It's a thorny issue. Harder to ferret out the variables involved But logically, if the statistics hold up when controlling for other factors, yes.

At least you're consistent. Once you latch on to an insane idea you ride it into oblivion.

Nothing combats white male supremacy quite like Asian female supremacy...?

If outcomes are all that matters, as you say, I fail to see why you'd object.

I guess I'm not a hyperrational being like you. I'll talk in the morning.

Do those same statistics hold up when controlling for other factors regarding the split between men and women, though, Putin? I raised the counterfactual with black people in part because it's weighty, but there's a point to it besides making the argument into a gotcha question. Before controlling for other factors, black people are disproportionately more criminal than white people, going by arrest counts (which admittedly is a flawed stat, but the discrepancy is sufficiently wide to address that concern). However, the process of becoming a viable political candidate weeds out the overwhelming majority of people in the process, such that the pool of black political candidates is no longer representative of the entire group. Black political candidates are disproportionately wealthy, disproportionately educated and disproportionately less criminal than black people as an entire group.

The same trend holds for white candidates, female candidates and male candidates. The process of becoming a viable candidate screens out so many people that the pool of candidates is no longer representative of the group from which they came, as far as basic demographic trends are concerned.

Of course I don't mean to argue that black people actually shouldn't be elected because they're disproportionately criminal; nor do I expect you to have to defend that, Putin. I'd simply argue that looking at the prison populations is too simplistic for the argument you're making. A look at why men are in jail would help illuminate why. Men are disproportionately violent criminals; the vast majority of murders, rapes, robberies and batteries are perpetrated by men. You would be very hard-pressed, however, to get elected to office as a murderer, rapist, robber or batterer. This is because we don't elect murderers, rapists, robbers or batterers to office.

There might be an argument pertaining to white collar crime, but that would seem to lead to the curious argument that women make better public officials because structural sexism prevents them from getting into high-up positions in the corporate world and thereby makes them less prone to improprieties assorted with those positions. Furthermore I'm not sure that the actual numbers on white collar crime are disproportionately skewed toward men; I'd imagine at least that corruption in politics isn't disproportionately committed by men (while most cases involve men, that's because most politicians are men).

All this to say that I'm not sure you've controlled for all variables in the men/women public officials argument and that if this argument is to hold, that data would need to be compiled and presented somewhere.

Putin I am surprised by your support of lawyers in government, I would have expected a revolutionary twist to your suggested people in power? Something about being communist, maybe a bit of the General Will, at least an argument for left wing political philosophers/theorists. Just kind of sticking with the status quo is interesting.

And I'm sure when Invictus said a vibrant civil society he meant one enforced by the supreme legislator who embodies the general will ;)

http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/rfisman/papers/fairersex.pdf

I provided this earlier, nobody really bothered to respond to it. It has some interesting findings doing exactly as you say.

On white collar crime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/leah-eichler/women-and-corporate-crime_b_3985784.html

And you rightly point out that the people running for office are not "average" people from their respective social groups. However, studies of criminality among "above average" social classes show that the overwhelming number of perpetrators are men.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6119&context=jclc

At some point we have to accept the data. We can debate where that point is, but considering disproportionate male criminality is one of the few "facts" that criminologists agree on across the board, I think in this case we've reached that point.

https://www.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/Lauritsen_CRIM_09.pdf

"Something about being communist, maybe a bit of the General Will, at least an argument for left wing political philosophers/theorists."

SC, since bourgeois electoral systems are necessarily going to be dominated by professionals, might as well have those professionals be competent in what they're doing. Furthermore, lawyers aren't super friendly to monopoly capitalists, on the whole (which side is promoting tort reform, for example?).

Yeah it's reformist, but I live in the USA. The working class doesn't consider itself working class here. They're all just millionaires-in-waiting having temporary set-backs.

Fair enough, I just thought the conversation was more idealistic than pragmatic. Within the capitalist paradigm perhaps you're right. I always struggle with my opinions on what is right within the system, because you're always choosing between two shitty options, neither of which are what I call 'right'.

I hear you. Believe me, six years of defending Obama has been tiresome.

It's tough, because you really don't want to defend someone like him, but if you don't you concede defeat to people even worse. C'est la vie.

Wawawiwa, that thread HAS gone terribly off topic.. Can't be bothered to read all of the end..

I think it is harder for a newcomer as myself to post because of the very probable making fun of the said post rather than because of sexist talks...

And if we really want to address this kind of problem (the fact that people have different opinions and beliefs) we should also talk about the fact that a lot of the threads in the forum are religious. Those posts really hurt me because I am a convinced atheist (I therefor hate all and every religions).

So if I have to mute the religious threads, why should the feminists here NOT have to mute the sexist threads? that would be unfair and I too have to read about religion in order to decide if I want to mute a thread or not, and I am fine... and I don't get over excited about it...

Now for my little contribution on the main topic - misogyny - I have to say that it is quiet obvious that women and men ARE different... Do they need to be respected ? Yes, of course! But so does everybody else... So if a special rule has to be enforced it would be "Don't be a dick to anybody". Since this rule won't be established because freedom of speech is more important then I don't see why an anti-misogyny rule has to exist. On top of that, this rule would then be a problem in itself because that would mean that women are treated differently from everybody else on this forum, wouldn't it?

"I therefor[e] hate all and every religion"

Therein lies your biggest problem. The coming-up of atheism in the last couple hundred of years has been based upon the idea that one man's lifestyle shouldn't be pushed on another, that Christianity is a choice and not a requirement, and that if you choose to ascribe elsewhere, be it Islam, Judaism, any other religion, or no religion at all, that's okay. Now you and a number of atheists are trying to turn the tables back on religion by forcing them away, which only makes you a hypocrite and a denier of your own history.

"So if I have to mute the religious threads"

There's your next problem. You don't have to mute Mujus' threads. You have the choice to mute them if you don't want to see them. I have them muted but as far as I know, there's plenty of hate spewing in those threads anyway, so much so that I'm convinced Mujus actually enjoys the fight.

"why should the feminists here NOT have to mute the sexist threads?"

There aren't sexist threads here that I'm aware of (the "hot blonde" thing might be depending on where you draw the line), but that's not the issue. The issue is that you seem to be under the impression that you have to mute everything or ignore everything you disagree with. That would make for a seriously boring and anti-intellectual forum. If you're coming here to make suggestions, you first need to understand that that's not what this forum is about.

To your main point, if someone is acting blatantly sexist, or just says something stupid in general, there are people that will point it out and the accused will typically endure endless ridicule for it (I'm looking at you, krellin). There's no need for a rule.

Bo - if you are looking at me, that's only because I'm pointing my finger at you and laughing long and hard. You are the king of saying ridiculous, ill-informed nonsense, and then shurgging your shoulders and saying, "It's not my fault I'm stupid/ignorant/niave...I'm just a kid...blah blah blah....thank god Daddy gives me everything I want...it's fun to be a pampered wanna-be-socialist..."

Man, fuck bitches. Get money.

So, lest you misunderstood - I dont' think there is an adult around here that lives quivering in fear of your judgement, Bo....and I use the term "judgement" *very* loosely...as listening to you parroting the tripe that has been pumped into your head hardly counts for original thought/judgement.

I hope you don't fear my judgment. You shouldn't fear anyone's judgment, nor should anyone fear yours.

Besides, I was referencing your two-year long quest to finally man up and admit that Romney isn't the President. That's your "endless ridicule."