struttin' evil mushroom wrote:big zorb wrote:just ftr i don't at all think anyone in here who is saying "i think it's important to have a female president" is at ALL meaning "literally any woman on earth"
yes they are
the way it tends to come up in warren-centric (harrr) discussions often feels very glib imo. when you're already only taking maybe max 5 candidates seriously and 1 is a woman, referencing that she's a woman doesn't really cut it anymore. In Warren's case, any solid advocacy she represents for Women, I think Bernie's campaign as a whole matches. (late) Squad endorsement even counts to me more than Warren's being a potential first female US pres. I'd love for that to happen. It's not a meaningless benchmark. But if we really wanna get into representation, why settle for a White Harvard Law Professor ?
like, i think the city of chicago was genuinely paralyzed when it had to choose between two black women for mayor. and ultimately i think they still goofed it up ! but that example is actually way more complicated than representation ha. so probably not a good starter case.
anyways anyways, more rants. I think the way people use the word representation really flattens the actual importance of it. That's all.