Mitt Romney for President--Part something

You still don't get it, and it gives me much mirth.

 

No, I get it. Each church decides on its own. But, and let's just argue for the sake of argument, let's say that 99% of churches in the Southern Baptist convention or cabal or coven or whatever those fanatics believe have zero female clergy. Does it matter that they operate independently? No; they'd still be anti-feminist. On the other hand, if you found that 30% of Southern Baptist churches had female clergy topping 10%, and to measure that I suppose you'd do it by sermon or baptism or communion as it was valued by denomination, that would be a "group" of "churches" with "female" "clergy" "exceeding" 10%. Hell, I'll spot you another point - find me ten churches, no matter how geographically or ideologically isolated, and we'll start considering the Southern Baptists as anything but anti-feminist.

WHEN you do not or can not, will you at least stop posting asininity?

I'll even get you started:

http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=228

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/baptists-p...-female-pastor/story?id=10252735#.T2SVQ_WiaSo

http://www.christianpost.com/news/baptist-megachurch-makes-history-electing-woman-to-pulpit-28051/

Ya know, after reading those three articles, those people are worse than the Catholics and LDS - at least those two are open about it.

 

You first.

 

You both.

 

Re: Is there a Santorum thread? OK, here it is!

This is why I post here less and less. Let's see:

1. Grammar smack.
2. Another instance of failure to understand statistical significance.
3. A link dump which once again shows a complete lack of any critical thinking about the issue. (Critical mass in gender research can't draw meaningful conclusions from such tiny differences either.)

And this from someone who claims to be smarter than the average poster.

I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Karl. He at least didn't pretend that by posting things to random links (I suppose we should be thankful it's not high school syllabi anymore) he won arguments.

 

I'm sorry that nicephoras and superdave both feel this way...neither of you are interested in proposing another method to analyze Mitt Romney's experience vis-a-vis female elites or religious denominations, but are perfectly happy to criticize mine. I suppose if that provides you purpose and joy, so be it. Ismitje at least bothered to create an alternate way to measure performance, and there is plenty of merit in that method. Good luck to the both of you, I guess. It still won't matter that Mitt Romney has the worst or second-worst record of modern Massachusetts governors and the amalgamation of Southern Baptists have an insignificant number of female clergy. Facts are still facts. Again, I do not claim, nor have never claimed, to be smarter than the average poster. I happen to know quite a bit about a few fields, and defer gladly to others' expertise when my knowledge falls short; you may search through my postings to find my self-admission of fault.

Again, I wish the best to you both. I'll keep my eyes open for nicephoras' idea to measure female elites in a superior way (btw statistical significance doesn't apply to purely descriptive statistics - I don't claim causality with religion because I don't have a clue what the other religious affiliations of prior Massachusetts governors were. In fact, it may very well be that it was merely a correlation between LDS and lower incidence of female cabinet members) and superdave's analysis of the wide number of Southern Baptist churches that let women deliver sermons, and I'll spot him another bit of info here. Hope you both have wonderful, productive lives.

 

The mormon church lets women give sermons. Plenty of them. They don't, however, let them hold general leadership positions...just group-specific leadership positions.

But yes, the mormon church is sexist. Not just in the explicit way of lack of leadership positions for women. The sexism is cultural, and manifests itself in seemingly benign ways. There is a blog called The Exponent that can tell you everything you need to know.

And while I am 100% sure that Romney has plenty of mormon cultural tendencies, it is ridiculous to think that he would be a road block to the advancement of women. He has no history of it in his professional or political career, and there is nothing about his policy proposals that would suggest otherwise.

 

I have no idea whether or not it is ridiculous to think that - it's just that there is no evidence to think that. Of course, that was my (and Ismitje's) point, but it sailed so far wide.

Ah yes, the "you didn't even try, I at least put forward a solution" argument. Unfortunately, when your analysis is so unbelievably facile, it's not much of a leg to stand on. You don't get to claim the high ground because you've put forth a bad idea. You started with an a priori assumption then tried to find evidence for it. That's awful from every angle and deserves no benefit.

Except that you haven't shown that! He had, for instance, more women in his cabinet than the Democratic FEMALE governor; does that mean she's worse for women than Mitt is? (And no, you can't add her as a woman to the cabinet, because she's the governor. The only way Romney could equal that would be to get a sex change.) First, the differences between the governors in your initial and your subsequent method were far too small to be significant or to draw any conclusions from. Beyond that, did you consider the ratio of Republican women in politics vs. Democratic women in politics? Because if the first is lower (as I believe it is), then Mitt doesn't seem to have done any worse than the other governors, since he wasn't choosing random women.

Performance art now? OK, sure.

Ah, you mean like your continuing attempts to use dicta in Krugman's books to show that a cartel is the same thing as an oligopoly? Or is economics one of the fields that you "know quite a bit about"?

Well, the passive aggressive tone is blinding (must be the fad in academia these days, like, say, Marxism), but don't strain yourself! I don't need to come up with this measurement; I don't care. All I know is that your thinking on this point is beyond facile and based on a priori assumptions. If you spent more time thinking critically and less posting links, you might actually make a decent academic rather than a good proofreader some day.

 

Minor correction - Jane Swift was/is a Republican, but that doesn't make the analysis of the statistcal differences any more relevant.

 

I thought this was funny.

This is a tweet from Michael McKean, who played Lenny, one of the characters in Spinal Tap, and Jamie Lee Curtis' husband.

Well, *I* liked it!

 

So I assume nice has me off ignore now. Cool. Anyway, reading through his rant, I decided to do my better idea and now have a year-by-year chart where you take the proportion of women in the Massachusetts Cabinet and subtract the proportion of women in the Massachusetts State House from 1975-present. Here are the rankings from top to bottom, where Romney is bolded:

1994 Weld: .375 1985 Duka: .195
1995 Weld: .360 1986 Duka: .195
1996 Weld: .360 2008 Patri: .190
1998 Cellu: .325 2004 Romn: .180
1999 Cellu: .300 2005 Romn: .180
2000 Cellu: .300 2003 Romn: .170
1993 Weld: .270 2011 Patri: .155
1997 Weld: .270 2010 Patri: .145
2007 Patri: .255 2009 Patri: .140
1975 Duka: .243 1981 King: .105
1976 Duka: .243 1982 King: .105
1983 Duka: .230 2006 Romn: .105
1984 Duka: .230 1989 Duka: .095
1977 Duka: .229 1987 Duka: .085
1978 Duka: .229 1988 Duka: .085
1992 Weld: .215 2002 Swift: .075
1991 Weld: .210 1990 Duka: .030
2001 Swift: .195 1979 King: .025
1980 King: .025


And then let's show the numbers by administration:

Cellucci: .308
Weld: .294
Patrick: .177
Dukakis: .174
Romney: .159
Swift: .135
King: .065

So Romney has the 7th, 13th, 14th, and 15th worst years out of 38, putting him decidedly below the average on all counts, and has the third-worst average score, behind a guy from the 1980s and the only female governor of Massachusetts. I also checked the partisanship of women in the legislature over this time period and it was 73% Democrat for the 35-year period, and 87% Democrat for Romney's term, so you can assume that he could find enough women to staff his Cabinet from that 13%.

 

Ugh, right you are. It's my pathological hatred of Massachusets liberals, you know.

 

Regardless of how Mittens views women, they certainly don't like him very much:

 

In a governing environment in which the Republican party wasn't dominated by Tea Party freaks and religious wing-nuts, I would not worry that a Romney presidency would necessarily be worse for women than any other random Republican.

Even now, if I compare Romney with his main rival, I'd pick Romney any day.

The composition of his Massachusetts cabinet is almost, but not quite, completely irrelevant.

Romney is comtemptible not because he's Mormon but because he's a slimy lying panderer. I fear him as POTUS because I fear the extent to which the radical forces in his party will control him. There are plenty of reasons to distrust this guy without having to whip out statistics that are only marginally meaningful.


So, speaking as the only person with a vagina who has weighed in so far, of the two current Republican front-runners, I'll take Romney any day. DeadBabyFieldTripDude scares the everloving crap out of me. Mittens can't hold a candle to him when it comes to religious wingnuttery and treatment of women.

 

I have to say, this is brilliant.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE"]Will The Real Mitt Romney Please Stand Up (feat. Eminem) - YouTube[/ame]

 

Romney will take the Chicago suburbs, which usually vote the avaricious wing of the GOP. Santorum will take downstate, which may as well be deep Dixie. Its really creppy down there. Take Effingham for instance (no, no, you can keep it.)



In short, the Illinois GOP is a bunch of half-Mitts.

 

Dear Babs,

Please forward us a sample of the aforementioned crap along w/ a brief description of your last menstrual flow, as we wish to collect your stool samples to monitor your iron intake and its relation to light/medium/heavy flowage. If you are not pregnant, we extend your husband our condolences for your having lost an egg.

Sincerely,
The RNC

 

I don't think she's either, but she's had some pretty detailed fantasies about me.

 

Agreed. She writes a hot PM as well.

 

A Kinsley gaffe.

:15 in, if you're too busy to watch all of a 90 second video.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_A9yhmOd_gA

Governor Etch-a-Sketch. Catchy!

 

We'll see how the Etch-a-Sketch plan works out for Mitt when Obama's campaign starts playing the greatest hits of his Red Meat Pander Tour 2012 in moderate swing states...