What happens when women win elections

[@Vox]

Note: Ayanna Pressley from Massachusetts and Jahana Hayes from Connecticut are the first black women elected to congress from New England. We mistakenly left out Hayes. We regret the oversight.

[@avg_tatetopian7978]

What about Gretchen Whitmer from Michigan

[@cedeonyango2142]

Are you doing this to get laid? 'Cause that's messed up. Any person who panders to women for sex is a monster.

[@dude3278]

How about we start electing people for their policies instead of the race or gender. You know, like we used to do before we all got our feeling hurt.

[@frogwad]

Bobby Hunter Do I really have to explain why that thought isn’t really the best answer?

[@AisuruMirai]

@@dude3278 What evidence do you have that these women were elected because of their sex or race, and not for their policy positions? If a black person's elected, that doesn't mean that she was elected _because_ she's black. If a woman is elected, that doesn't mean she was elected _because_ she's a woman. You're just revealing your prejudices when you speak like that: You automatically assume that women and people of color don't know what they're doing, that if they move up in the world, it's not because of their merits.

[@Patriots_Defender]

I am not voting for someone, because of their gender, race, or age. I am voting for that person, because of their ideas/ beliefs.

[@nw932]

@bongo155 More projection from racist democrats who place sex/race/gender above merit.

[@kk56111]

bongo155 so you’re inferring he supports or is part of the KKK because he he said he votes based off merit rather than sex? Wtf?

[@bostonphotographer20]

@bongo155 That's about the most moronic post I've ever seen.

[@isaacd7454]

@bongo155 wtf is wrong with u

[@dakkarnemo1094]

@bongo155 I see you've been watching MSNBC.

[@TheVav111]

At 1:21 the sign for GREATER than is used instead of LESS than 1%...

[@euriherasme]

I came to the comment section to see if anyone else noticed.

[@stefanadrian1607]

Same. 😂

[@gsvick]

The presentation is overall horrible. Who ever orders years from right to left in a chart?

[@leroy92TX]

Same people who think lithium is good in the water. They are a globalist plant youtube channel to confuse us

[@themathsciencegeek702]

I was JUST about to comment this

[@vladimirlenin9120]

I don’t care if there’s a man, woman or hotdog in charge just as long as they are good at their job

[@yourfavouritenarcissist]

Explain to me how a hotdog can even do a good job in the first place

[@Si-Al-Ti]

Ok.

[@sownheard]

@@yourfavouritenarcissist a hot dog won't pull us out of the climate change deal. And a hot dog would not be bought by big business.

[@vladimirlenin9120]

Uneducated voters, my dude

[@protorreuter1211]

Capitalism bad - Communism good. Stalin did nothing wrong - NPC #938472929 Sequence repeated

[@timesink8947]

"And eventually, a video like this won't even be necessary." Oh honey, it wasn't necessary today.

[@fropps1]

No

[@FreakishSmilePA]

Profile pic checks out with the additude xD

[@VardhanShrivastava]

You're fake news.

[@gungunx9064]

It was but sure

[@dahawk8574]

21% in the House. 19% in the Senate. And they didn't even mention the most obvious: 0% in the White House, EVER. Queen Mary ruled England back in the 1500s. 76 countries have elected women to run their government. 24 are currently in power. The US is WAY behind. The only people who say "it wasn't necessary today" are those who are comfortable with the Patriarchy. Or those in denial of the reality of govt in the USA.

[@temp_name_change_later]

1:21 you said "less than 1%" but the screen said ">1%" which means "greater than 1%"

[@harrymaher9718]

Word, that sign should be flipped. 2/435 is 0.46%.

[@chaostia66t25]

It’s an arrow pointing to the number not a greater than sign.

[@cuponked261]

Chaostia 66t no. But have a good day though

[@pt3419]

ladelame1 You should try saying that about Mariam Mirzakhani (2014 Fields Medalist), Katherine Johnson (whose math helped send astronauts to the moon), Julia Robinson (known for important contributions to computability theory and computational complexity theory), Grace Hopper (pioneer of computer programming), Marie Curie (only person who has noble prizes in two different fields, one of which was physics) and countless other high-achieving women.

[@DEO777]

Women are under-represented in road construction crews. We must have more women in road construction crews otherwise the roads we have won't work anymore, and future roads will never get built. How did the entire transportation system get built the past several thousand years without women? I don't know. How did the U.S. interstate highway system get built over the last several decades without women? I don't know! But we need women to be represented in road construction crews. Did you know women are under-represented in plumbers and electricians and home construction crews? We need more women in all those fields if we are to have a functioning society.

[@alfredwilsbury8397]

Idk why this comment doesn't have a thousand likes

[@SandyTheDesertFox]

I don't think a job and politics are comparable though. The jobs you mention just need a task done. Politicians however have to represent people. Involving people with different perspectives seems good to me when it comes to politics.

[@DEO777]

@@SandyTheDesertFox Why is it good to have different perspectives when it comes to politics? There is only ONE correct and lawful perspective in politics. Any deviation from that perspective is unlawful.

[@alfredwilsbury8397]

@@SandyTheDesertFox It was a joke, a very good joke. He just made a funny and a pretty good point.

[@SandyTheDesertFox]

@@DEO777 my point was that I don't think your joke worked. For example a gay person may feel their interests are better represented than by a straight person, who can only understand being gay through a secondhand experience. Personally though I think it doesn't matter as long as the policy works, but I get that people would like their firsthand experience represented because humans tend to put a lot of weight on public figures. Though again, I think personally this shouldn't be the case.

[@spektr4625]

I judge politicians on how well they do when in office, not their gender or skin color.

[@Raattis]

Then you wouldn't have a problem voting for a qualified woman. Right? Yet, women are still underrepresented in politics.

[@spektr4625]

I don't have a problem voting for a woman. But I'll only vote for someone who I think is the best canditate. I do not understand why there are people who vote based on gender and skin color. Just because I vote for a man doesn't mean I'm sexist, it just means I think they're the best canditate for that position.

[@Raattis]

@@Noah55555 Elaborate.

[@stevesanzari7294]

Then you aren’t a Democrat !

[@francoisdecharette9844]

Oh boy these comments are long

[@edwnx0]

looks like a lot people in the comments just read the title and didn't even bother watching the video…

[@harryy6708]

Oh boy. Here we go in the comments

[@parthgajjar1607]

Don the con is f*cked! There's nothing stopping the ways and means committee now from unearthing his hidden tax returns. 😂😂

[@unplaceableface]

poopy feminist, get rekt

[@unplaceableface]

*dab*

[@azzarrax]

Oh boy. Here we go with the unoriginal comments.

[@Ignacio.Romero]

I'm not Republican (far from it), but there are several studies that show there's no gender inequality

[@just-a-silly-goofy-guy]

*insert grabs popcorn comment here*

[@JameZayer]

No need for the butter, enough salt from the comment section.

[@darthr0xas363]

@@JameZayer More than enough, my yearly sodium intake is fulfilled with one piece of popcorn.

[@xaros1466]

*inserts grabs popcorn comment*

[@leroy92TX]

Insert insertion comment

[@ripaccount-n2x]

kremit the frog what up again! 👋

[@KUNIK..]

Electing someone on the basis of gender is wrong The basis should be : 1) their objectives 2) their achievements 3)their personality 4)their views 5)their resilience 6)how they connect to others And so on Don't focus on weather the person is male or female coz that can lead to the loss of a better candidate

[@banana7tothemax]

This video doesn't say you should vote someone cause they're a woman, it's just analyzing the number of women in the US government over the years

[@SamWeltzin]

Seen through the statistical lens that women who run for elected office win at roughly the same rate that men do, this video really makes it clear that the problem is that women just don't run as often as men. If they did, they'd have roughly the same number of seats. I'm glad more women are running high-profile campaigns. I don't think the increased discussion of those three listed issues is because they're women specifically. The main thing that got women out there more this time (as well as other less-represented portions of the population like scientists and teachers) were populist grassroots campaigns like Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress, which hold those as their agenda. If you looked at the male candidates running through those organizations, you'd see a similar degree of those specific topics. That's not even mentioning that these candidates also ran on universal healthcare and anti-corruption platforms. So yeah. Women can do just as well as men, and it sucks that they perceive themselves as having less of a chance because that's what they keep being told over and over. I wish it were framed in more of a "You're fine. Just go for it" way instead of a "You have the entirety of human history against you" way.

[@nospmohtracso]

how about this crazy idea - a lot of women got voted in because a lot of them actually stood for progressive policies.

[@PhilliesNostalgia]

Most districts that flipped to Democrats in 2018 had a candidate that ran on a moderate platform. Moderate candidates flipped the House not people like AOC or other progressive. Of those people who flipped districts, quite a few were women.

[@asdfjkl3400]

Damn, only if I could virtually sell popcorn in the comment section.

[@mb013962]

asdfjkl; hilarious

[@migvelv]

Honestly, compared to most vox videos on politics, the comments are quite civil (look at the responses)

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

asdfjkl; That’s a cool idea, maybe in the future!

[@kaylandra]

Lmao yessss

[@snow8624]

@@migvelv it's quite civil because most people, at least from what I'm seeing, are agreeing that this video is stupid.

[@blizzyyt2281]

We have a lack of zebras in the senate I’d like to apply Free hay for everyone

[@xanadu8436]

0:22 when even vox doesn't believe elizabeth warren

[@connor5053]

This is pointless. People shouldn't vote based on how many minority points people have. Vote based on what people stand for, and what they have done and plan to do. Whether we have more men or more women elected doesn't matter.

[@dominiquecera3518]

If it doesn't matter, then why do we have what can only be a statistically absurdly small number of women and minorities in government? To say that there's nothing to be said about the topic seems ignorant towards the facts, which would suggest that there indeed is some correlation between identity and the ability to find work in government and win elections. I can't say what the causation would be, though.

[@mm-lh1nt]

I don’t know if this is going to be a shock to you: but lgbt people in politics are more likely to vote on policies that protect the lgbt community than straight people and so one with other minority groups. Why do you care so much that there is now a small proportion of people being represented? Clearly you’ve never had to face discrimination. Saying it’s pointless is just insulting to anyone who actually has and anyone who needs representation in politics.

[@connor5053]

Dominique Cera you bring up a very good point and I agree with you. I am just saying that this video is seemingly saying to vote for women solely because the fact that they are women.

[@connor5053]

mm1996 I think you’re misunderstanding my comment, I’m not saying voting for minorities is pointless, I’m saying this specific video is pointless. I am 100% for electing LGBTQ candidates, and I think that every candidate should make it a priority to vote for policies that protect LGBTQ citizens. I have witnessed close friends of mine being discriminated toward solely because of their sexuality, and it’s not okay. Nobody should support a candidate that is okay with harassment or discrimination towards anyone of ANY group of people. The point I was trying to make is that we shouldn’t vote for someone SOLELY for their race, gender, or sexuality.

[@willhiggins9563]

They’re not saying vote based on sex, they’re just saying under representation is still a issue.

[@hilde2097]

1:23 >1% means more than one percent

[@gabrielneri4761]

It doesn't lol, the opening side of the sign is the bigger amount, 5th grade much??

[@unreallilac5554]

@@gabrielneri4761 yup math is math

[@epicnooo]

It’s not about the color of your skin, it’s about the content of your character- paraphrasing some smart dude.. GET MONEY OUTTA POLITICS!

[@epicnooo]

still think it’s cool more people are getting involved in politics.. but i want free healthcare

[@midgettiger6389]

With all the dislikes on this video, Vox will probably blame it on the idea that the video is about women rather than the fact that people want to hear about actual policies and the political competencies of the candidates. Real voters couldn’t care less about identity-politics, Vox. Thank you

[@sxpreme-2960]

*For everyone mad about Vox wanting diversity in Congress* - It's not about just having more minorities in Congress, or about "getting rid of white cis men". It's just men don't fight for women issues as hard as a woman would. Non LGBTQ+ canidates don't fight hard enough for LGBTQ+ issues. It's about having people in Congress that know about cross sectional issues, rather than only caring about keeping American "American" or about lining thier pockets with wealth from unions.

[@SandyTheDesertFox]

You ever see a title and think 'This comment section will sure be something'

[@easymoney2049]

1:21 Should you really be making these political videos if you cannot distinguish a “less than” from “greater than” sign?

[@scarl2t]

I don’t care if a candidate is a woman I just care if they’re a good candidate

[@thejesuschrist]

glorious!

[@sgnabae]

Jesus! We love you ❤️

[@vamsinallam2622]

yeah j love from an atheist

[@derricka7751]

Ugh, I'm a liberal but this is getting kinda annoying because I hate double standards. I love how they DIRECTLY SAY "Studies show women might even be better lawmakers". Really Vox? Everyone knows if you switched the genders in that statement it would become "sexist". If someone were to say "Studies show men might even be better lawmakers" it would be labeled a sexist statement. The double standard is something I hate.

[@starlightsall]

Brilliant video. All the complainers, if you actually watched the video, you see a chart in 0:54 right? See that spike in the last few decades? That success is thanks to people and media bringing attention to this issue. If we didn't talk about things like this, that line would still be miserably down in the single digits. Because you can't ever solve an existing problem if you don't acknowledge it. And you also see that the chart maxes out at 21%? That means that this issue still HASN'T been solved. There's no point in pretending that women have equal representation now, because they still don't. Centuries of being overlooked as second class, minority, exception doesn't get fixed in one decade. This issue isn't solved until that chart shows around 50% and everyone's being fairly represented. So yes, we STILL need to continue talking about this topic. Thank you Vox.

[@starlightsall]

I think a lot of people missed the point of this video. This video doesn't say "women make better politicians." No, it just says the claim "women are underrepresented only because they're worse at politics" is incorrect. There's a big distinction.

[@marlonmoncrieffe0728]

What is your point with these stats? There are NO legal or even cultural barriers for women to run for office. If more women to run, more could be voted in.

[@vestr161]

I love how lot of people don't even understand the video, but they are really angry about it... Vox is not saying that you should vote based on the fact that they are women, but that people (minorities or majorities) from all over the county should be represented in the senate and house of representatives. And I think that women will better represent women 🤔 or maybe I'm wrong...

[@alienswillcomeAWC]

SOMEBODY gets it ^

[@VyreXP]

No, it's crazy to suggest people in government represent those like themselves. A white man is just as likely to advocate for the issues on the minds of black women as a black woman. It doesn't matter the identity of those you vote in because politicians are non-human blobs who always work for what is objectively best for all and not the interests of those they represent... /s Folks miss that unless you're represented in the government your interests won't be advanced. Do people honestly believe the needs of peasants were represented by the Lords, Baron and Kings of their day? If the government is made up entirely of White Affluent Male Christians policy will benefit White Affluent Male Christians. If the government was made up entirely of Poor Gay Black Women policy will benefit Poor Gay Black Women. We need a mix of different interests to create a government that advances the needs of all as people can only truly advocate for themselves and those with similar issues.

[@vedanthpadmanabhan4235]

Adding more minority representation literally means voting for people based on gender and race

[@VyreXP]

@@vedanthpadmanabhan4235 what it means is voting for people that are qualified and going to advance your interests. There's no lack of qualified minorities. If you're a minority you're best off voting for the candidate who is likely to advance your interests. That person who will advance your interests is likely to share a similar identity to you as their goals likely share in yours. As minorities make up a larger and larger share of the population candidates who represent those minorities have a better shot at a seat as the issues they are passionate about will be shared by a larger chunk of the population. I feel this video is describing what is occuring, that it's good, but still needs to improve so citizens are properly represented.

[@Mica_T]

yes you're wrong. Here's a hypothetical situation. I'm a female. But I also happen to want more policies focused on finance and trade and security rather than education or climate change. According to this video, female politicians tend to focus on policies I'm uninterested in. So how is she representing me despite the fact we're the same gender? Your biology doesn't always determine your believes.

[@hazelenglish9340]

Oh my god people, the video isn't arguing that people should vote based on which minority a candidate represents, but that there should be equal consideration given to people of all minorities to have representation in government. It's about the decline of prejudice why are y'all so defensive.

[@LovedByYou]

Hazel English EXACTLY

[@solarizedtrippin]

Everyone in the comments is missing the point of this video. Yes, you should vote on quality > race, gender, orientation etc... BUT for centuries women have been oppressed in general. This trend toward women being more represented is a victory for everyone.

[@amandachristi1328]

I just came to see who else noticed that Vox doesn't know Nebraska and South Dakota are two different states

[@peterlarry5790]

Hi warm greetings. Hope you're doing great over there?.. I saw your comment in the video. I'd like to be a friend with an amazing person like you if don't mind.I'm a trader in Cryptos, I live in Toronto, but El Salvador is where I reside for business. Where are you from?

[@thevioletskull8158]

I though it didn't matter if the politics where female,why is it such a big deal? I thought woman where equal to men?

[@KyrosX27]

"LGBT women..." I honestly have no problem with that but if we try to find someone who represents everyone to get elected in our government, we wouldn't have any space. I'm a straight, male, Asian-American young adult with anxiety. Also, I wear glasses. I want someone to exactly represent me in the future. Where does it stop? Yeah, my elected officials may not exactly represent me but that's fine. Gerrymandering aside, what people should be looking at is the best person for the job, regardless of race, gender, creed, etc. You know, that stuff employers tell you when you apply for job. The government is a job too - shouldn't they be treated the same? Who cares if you're dem or rep, male or female, white, black, asian, etc. As long as you're honest about your platform and I feel you're a _good enough_ representation of me, go for it. And if you fail, we'll pick a different person. PS. Yes, this is an overt generalization and there are tons of problems, both big and small. I'm just saying pick the right person for the job and stop looking at labels.

[@tldr4422]

The difference is straight male Asian-American's with glasses and anxiety weren't forced into slavery, regarded as property, or discriminated against by law. If historically society did hate that specific demographic for some reason, fighting for representation in congress would be a totally valid struggle.

[@KyrosX27]

@@tldr4422 not sure about slavery, most probably not but there was still discrimination. Chinese immigrants were herded off to work in the railroad, blasting caves etc. after the railroad boom they were herded off, unneeded. the Japanese were thrown into camps because we were at war with Japan and they happened to be Japanese.

[@666Tomato666]

or, if the representatives really represent the people, and the men, women and LGBTQ people are all as able to govern as well as any other group, and voters choose them based on their policies not sexual orientation, we would end up with a higher percentage of both women and LGBTQ people _by chance alone_ not because "identity politics" or however the far-right calls this boogeyman

[@travisprescott9708]

@@tldr4422 All races were slaves to someone at 1 point

[@Rin-qj7zt]

@kyros you miss the point of the video. the video is about sexism going away. it in no way advocates electing women just because they are women. if society wasn't sexist, we would see more women in congress simply because it is a role that women are equally qualified for. what's exciting is that this growing representation means that sexism is becoming less pervasive. That's it.

[@larvitardratini5965]

If women talk more about climate change then I hope 2020 Bernie Sanders is the only male in the government

[@daniellassander]

Please not Bernie Sanders he is a greedy marxist.

[@superninja993]

You suck he is awesome

[@superninja993]

We want a natvie American president and want more natvie Americans to feel good about themselves and you shame us

[@Kai555100]

@@ursoj1235 look at Denmark they are socialist too and there country is great

[@someguy6996]

This video seemed to have rustled a lot of jimmies, people who claim gender doesn't matter but are also overtly defensive about it.

[@FriMon1]

As i saw your high dislike rate, I had to write that you get like 1000 extra likes from me! Then I read a view of the komments and thought that they might have not even seen or listend to the video... Go Vox!

[@NovaFrederick]

Ah the somewhat close like-dislike ratio, in Youtubia that's a synonym for "comment section is a battlefield, welcome to the war son!"

[@sasuke36571]

Society collapse

[@andrewgao606]

0:21 why is South Dakota and Nebraska one state

[@nicholaslowick3381]

Tell me a single reason why they shouldn’t be

[@sppsports2449]

The underlying implication of this video is affirmative action for women in politics. The last place I want merit to be considered *less* than race or sex is in government.

[@Jo_B_art]

A lot of people in the comments are really missing the point of this video :/ nowhere have they said “vote for female candidates just to improve gender balance”. Ideally, institutions with power should equally represent the demographics of the population to ensure all groups voices are heard equally. It’s really harmful when powerful positions are of one demographic because people tend to naturally put their own interests, and what helps people like them, first. Of course policy and competency are what should come first when you select a candidate.

[@salokin3087]

I mean I like representation, but policy substance matters far more and unfortunately some of these women have terrible ideas

[@annmorrow3348]

And some of these men, too?

[@gbay99]

THIS GUY IS PLAGIARIZING MY VOICE

[@philophobia9417]

One like for a youtuber with 460k subs. Feels bad man

[@vernonaw00]

@@philophobia9417 dude he's in the league community

[@nimahanna1709]

Never thought I’d find you here good sir

[@Userre]

Gbay, go home. You're drunk.

[@asdfjkl3400]

How tf did you end up in a Vox video Gbay???

[@lzmunch]

Shout out to the people patting themselves and each other on the back for calling out 'identity politics' like its an insightful critique to begin with and pretending they've given it more than a few minutes of thought beyond that. Theres so much more nuance to the reason we care about identity, and although i wish Vox would go into that more, I also wish people would be more open to giving some credit to things they oppose on a surface level.

[@simpleasliam657]

A video like this will always be necessary because it will always be something to highlight

[@Vid7872]

Women are great in support roles but absolutely do not belong holding political office. You need the ability to negotiate, strategize, compromise, and make executive decisions. You also need to check your emotions at the door and women are not wired to do that. Thank God!

[@jam5533]

So men are automatically 'wired' to do so?

[@kordellswoffer1520]

@@jam5533 well men are generally better strategists and are more competitive so yes I'd say men are better suited to the poltical world.

[@kingace6186]

Your mother would be disappointed in you. Not like you care about a women's opinions anyways.

[@kingace6186]

@@jam5533 Yeah. Men like Donald Trump are very very very "wired", indeed.

[@davismathis845]

INSERT VOX PROPAGANDA AND Scientific looking graphs.

[@blank_3768]

if channel == vox then print "libtard propoganda";

[@CondoStats]

Love this, thank you!

[@hey_bucklebob]

I see a video like this, and I look at the number of dislikes, and I'm like... What the heck is wrong with some Americans? I don't see an issue with the data presented, and it's all very positive, presented in what appears to be a neutral way, not favouring any political view, other than climate change I guess? But on the whole, it's a video presenting information, being pretty positive about it, and discussing the state of American politics. Why is this divisive?

[@justrandomthings319]

Just curious, are you from Europe or something?

[@thatsterroristsbro7855]

Looking through these comments is depressing. Our education system - most of our social institutions - are failing the general public.

[@WriterDreamOfSweden]

Haven't even watched the video yet just gonna guess that the world is a better, more sane, wonderful and productive world when women are elected ❤

[@xalpacazeu1332]

But we all know most care about money and not the people; promises made, but none made

[@eemelilounela1212]

For those complaining about identity politics: Did you actually watch the video? Gender affects policy like they explained in the video.

[@aerojetrocketdyners-2538]

what if i am an pan sexual voting for a tax policy does my gender affect my decision making process for that policy just because i am a pan sexual? no.

[@lilahb.8698]

@@aerojetrocketdyners-2538 I think that they were trying to say that different perspectives are needed. As a woman, I have a different experience than a man. I think it was just worded funny. Gender and sexuality might not have THAT much difference on policy, but it's supposed to be a democracy, for pete's sake. In one form or another, the representatives are at least supposed to somewhat represent the people. Of course, in the end, vote on policy, not whatever gender boxes someone ticks, but we should encourage the different perspectives different people bring.

[@utkarsh4386]

no gender does not affect policy. Party does. And the Dems just have more women in power so women in general vote differently than the average congressmen. Please stop with the identity politics. Causation != Correllation

[@eemelilounela1212]

@@utkarsh4386 Good point and thank you for justifying your opinion unlike many people here! :)

[@eemelilounela1212]

@@aerojetrocketdyners-2538 No it doesn't affect your tax policy, but it might affect your policy on LBTGQ rights. Of course if taxes are all that matter to you as a voter then you should vote only based on tax policy.

[@briantiernan6741]

"That's less than 1%" shows graphic of >1% meaning greater than 1%

[@WaiGee_]

I knew this video's comments are gonna be horrifyingly bad as soon as i saw the title. So lets all just sit down, grab a snack and enjoy the ride

[@TheShadowParliament]

Vox makes the best videos.

[@itspricila]

change takes time

[@SkiDaBird]

The screaming about identity politics from the party who freaks out about people who "aren't like me" in the comments is great.

[@nav8475]

I support Vox in many of their videos, but a lot of these comments are right! Women do not have to be exactly 50% in government, why are we caring about skin color and race, rather than the merits, wether or not they classify as gay or not, it doesn't relate to politics.

[@nav8475]

@bongo155 i dont know if your trying to argue, but Hillary is also white.

[@SuperKing604]

no one is saying have a quota just that it would be good if more women ran then more women would get elected and that might be better for men, women and society as a whole. it's not about exactly 50% just something closer to that. no one is throwing merit out the window. lets ay your picking to nominate someone to the supreme court at that level the merits are the same basically. so why not appoint a black woman which has never happened then say another white man, the qualifications at that point are the same but you do something that hasn't happened.

[@nav8475]

@@SuperKing604 I see what your saying but we should elect people in order to diversify our government, we should elect them based on their qualifications for the role. other wise it would be chaos.

[@eugenetkachev]

Left is racist and seeks to equally enslave everyone.

[@eesdresden]

I would really appreciate it if Vox could at least leave citations for all of their sources. The video description only gives two links for sources, however the video shows more than two. It would help people who actually want to continue researching for themselves so we don't have to just take a video's word for things...

[@peterlarry5790]

You never fail until you stop trying 👍

[@peterlarry5790]

Are you a political scientist?

[@sakuradeva555]

Great video as usual!

[@AplusNerd777]

I love the comment section.

[@Fieroxe]

Just more of the same identity politics drivel. Well done, Vox.

[@666Tomato666]

unlike the politics of "dirty furriners cuming to terk err jobs", "ebonics urban crime" and "women are too emotional to govern", totally not identity politics /s

[@kokonots]

Let's elect someone because she's a woman

[@livewellwitheds6885]

you bring up race [all kinds] and being lgbt... what about disabled and chronically ill women [or men for that matter].... name one disabled politician right now. disabled people can also face barriers like inaccessibility, ableism, and having benefits denied if they are in a public office

[@janetmc4749]

I think it's time to give diversity a chance to be something big.

[@kordellswoffer1520]

No its not. Try an effective and useful Government not one built upon useless diversity.

[@marduk1734]

THEN BEN SHAPIRO ARRIVES

[@baronvonwolf1457]

I wish them luck and hope they will represent their groups and their communities well.

[@sportshighlightcentral4708]

What happened to the idea of individualism in this country? Can't a person just be judged on their merits and accomplishments? Why does it have to be identity based, the dems of course

[@syllogism2034]

Yes, of course. People should be judged on their individual merits. However, if society is the thing stopping women running or being interested in running, they’re at an unfair disadvantage, and at that point we can’t judge the potential women candidates based on their individual merits because society has pressured them to not run in the first place. Women shouldn’t become elected because they’re women, that’s ridiculous. However, society’s affect on women who are smart enough to run is an important factor in my opinion that we have to look at.

[@richardsmart9314]

Or, perhaps, get-rid of the Electoral College?

[@sportshighlightcentral4708]

@@syllogism2034 How are there disadvantages? Whoever get the most votes in races is who wins. A women doesn't just get votes discarded because they are women. Women need to empower themselves to be more successful, not rage against how men are terrible like most SJWs do.

[@syllogism2034]

@@sportshighlightcentral4708 It's not about women getting votes discarded, it's about if society is pressuring women not to run for president. You say women need to empower themselves to be more successful, but do you think that society has fully recovered from the sexist era (just 100 years ago) that's like 2-3 generations. There are still women alive today who weren't allowed to vote. If a lot of society thinks that women are stupid, then that might discourage potentially good women candidates from running. Yes, raging about how terrible men are is not a good thing, but neither is societal sentiment that women are dumb.

[@syllogism2034]

Mathieu Levert if society thinks women are dumb, does that not put women at a disadvantage?

[@johnsanvictores6639]

"...they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

[@erichynes413]

Imagine voting for someone based solely on their sex...

[@corey2232]

As much as I'm for all demographics getting more representation, I'm beginning to see why a lot of conservative people constantly mock liberals & the media for "playing identity politics." From the channels I frequent, to the articles I read and the videos I watch, there's a constant need to always point out someone's skin color, their sexuality, their religion, their gender, etc. Women are becoming elected more & more to serve in public office, awesome! How many were black? How many were Jewish? How many were lesbian? How many were trans? "There's X percent of each in our population, but not X percent in this area (political office for this video), so this country *NEEDS* more!" Why is it just a numbers & labels game? Just because 50% of my household is men, doesn't mean I am equally qualified to do everything my wife does, nor does it mean I even want to. She's also more qualified in certain fields than I am, and that's because she has a passion for it that I do not share. At some point, people's interests, personal investments, personal choices, and goals need to intersect appropriately with the the statistics people throw out there. For example, in the US in 2017, about 77% of all teachers were women, which is actually up from 76% in 2012. Also, 80% of teachers are white, which is a slight decrease from the 82% in 2012. Do we need to champion "more male teachers!" just because they're not accurately "represented," in our educational institutions? Not necessarily, as it shows women have more of an inclination to go into that field. It's not that they're better, nor is it that an unseen force is holding men down, it's that as of right now more women have expressed a desire to become teachers, and more have shown they're better qualified to be one. That's not saying that's how it works in every field everywhere, and I'm not saying men have shown to be better qualified at governing, only that at this point in time there are more men dedicating their career paths to politics. Just going by college majors, nursing & business administration are far and away the most popular fields women pursue. In terms of political science professors, only about 25% are female, and only about 38% of political science majors are female. Men tend to dominate the electrical engineering and computer sciences majors too, with upwards of 85% of those choosing to pursue those paths being male. But does that mean women can't do those things? No, just that currently their interests lie elsewhere. Psychology and communication are offered favored degrees by women, while degrees for criminal justice & corrections, and marketing are pretty evenly split. Point being, not all fields are going to be a perfect representation or split of the nation's demographics. Though 4.5% of the US population identifies as LGBT, that doesn't mean 4.5% of meteorologists will be LGBT, or 4.5% of lawyers will be LGBT, or 4.5% of taxi drivers will be LGBT. Can we do better & have more diversity in politics and other areas? Of course! I want that! But too often lately we just throw out there's ________ % of whatever demographic in the US and only __________% of whatever demographic in whatever field, and just assume it's that simple. It's not, and the other part of the problem is that we are constantly looking at these labels as the only barometer for good vs bad, and even tout a person's labels above their actual qualities as a person. This obsession has spread to everything...Hell, I was reading some review of a WWE event (I know, I was bored) on IGN, and in discussing a match they said "So yeah, Nia Jax took this one, after the final four were her, Ember, Zelina Vega, and Tamina (all women of color, which was also awesome!)" as a remark for a match. Seems innocent enough right? But while watching, I didn't notice that at all, and it had no baring on the actual quality of the event. But because this person was kind enough to identify each person wasn't white, then followed it by saying "awesome," it means they equated their skin color & ethnic background to "positive or negative." Otherwise, why remark "awesome?" He just labeled these real human beings and this moment/match's quality not based on their efforts, their technique, their work ethic, their performance, their characters, etc. but something they had no control over, and were born into. Would it be less "awesome," if only 3 of the 4 were women of color? Would the awesomeness go down based on the number of white people remaining? Does that seem like a good direction for the human mindset? Anyway, I wrote too much for a KZbin comment, and I doubt people will take the time to read it, so I'll just end with I hope the best for everyone and hope society becomes more inclusive & diverse for everyone. Only that we need to dial back the identity politics and pointing out every non-white-straight-male for being a non-white-straight-male each and every time anything happens. These people are more than a non-white-straight-male, and they deserve to be recognized as such.

[@ackashkumar7117]

Agreed.

[@FarmersAreCool]

@@ackashkumar7117 Too many females around young Men. We are different, yet we are being exposed to all females, and weak males who adapt to packs of females.

[@FarmersAreCool]

Inclusivity is degradation. Exclusivity is what we need. Inclusive makes thing lesser.

[@pawepiat6170]

Sooo you will be talking than about underrepresentation of disabled people? I think I can see where all US problems come from /s

[@WheresTheWall]

Women killed it in the House races. Say hello to Speaker Pelosi again 😘👍

[@mathru96]

Thanks for the hope Vox. I needed it.

[@Joseph-cq3ij]

Thousands of people, didn't watch this video all the way through. Thousands more, didn't mull over the information in their minds.

[@gabep.5065]

Yes, because someone's sex indicates whether their going to be a good political figure or not...

[@SuperKing604]

no one is saying have a quota just that it would be good if more women ran then more women would get elected and that might be better for men, women and society as a whole

[@Chill_330]

Women are QUEENS 👑

[@mtrzaska7590]

Oh boy here goes vox again with their "equality" and muliticulturalism. XD

[@leightondawson5447]

Yello, at 1:09 you cite that 'before the 2018 midterms [women of color] accounted for just 7% of congress.' You didn't actually look at the representation after the midterms. Now there are 47 women of color in congress, 37% of all women, meaning among women in congress people of color are fairly adequately represented. This line of argument detracted from the salient point: women in general are underrepresented. I really want to like Vox, but y'all seem to keep using incomplete or misleading statistics to your own ends. If you really wanted to inform us with this video you wouldn't have been telling us only the numbers from before the midterms you're claiming to report on.

[@trev5.566]

So sponsoring *more* bills is what makes a good lawmaker? Really? Wow Vox, how incredibly discerning and wise of you.

[@qweteryFTW]

Civilizations fall when women lead...

[@thecacoph817]

A bunch of comments here are like "I care about policies not gender, etc." This video shows a connection between declared policies and gender in the first two and a half minutes, so watch the whole thing before commenting. I see two valuable discussions that aren't at the top of the comments: why men aren't talking about these policies and why women aren't running, and how to change that.

[@thecacoph817]

+1

[@driver13g27]

Jesus Christ, it's like you've been asking for this comment section to go crazy. "Eventually, a video like this won't even be necessary"? This video hasn't been necessary in the first place

[@666Tomato666]

riiiiight, because congress is 50:50 split between men and women /s

[@alankarjoey258]

sexists are rampant in the comment section with their misconstrued idea of what this video was saying

[@FarmersAreCool]

Society collapses in flames. Anyone else see the fires?

[@CrazyJJB]

Comments in General: People who didn’t watch the video and/or strawmanning what vox is actually saying. Truly shocking.

[@noramlyoutubechannel2233]

Its ironic when this video is voiced by a man

[@bostonphotographer20]

We need a whole video that shows how Vox is wrong since most videos are voiced by men.

[@erics9754]

Correction mangina.

[@eemelilounela1212]

GUYS! WHY DO I HAVE TO KEEP REPEATING THIS! PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO BEFORE COMMENTING OR LIKING/DISLIKING. (sorry for caps)

[@chenqingsspirit]

Can we just elect someone who will help the country and the citizens please ?

[@Theoedgington]

Ffs why am I subscribed to this channel anyway

[@briantime3762]

Some of this was just saying women are better than men

[@richardsmart9314]

Which they tend to be...

[@richardsmart9314]

@@MrDapotpie I don't agree with you - men tend to be much more aggressive than women. And when did you last hear of a woman paying a man to, y'know, urinate on her?

[@BobPapadopoulos]

+Richard Smart. Fun facts: In a mutual domestic abuse scenario, women are decidedly more likely to have initiated physical violence than men. They are also statistically more likely to use a weapon in such a case.

[@dutix800]

1:53 "Women make better law maker" sexism in a video denoucing sexism, classic.

[@Zezeze.]

Even tho i think women might bring more compassion into politics it does not guarantee that 50% female legislators would definitely be better. It is about policy not gender, nor race. I'd vote for an old white rich cis male over any woman if I feel like he would be a better choice even tho i am a woman myself (of a minority group too). Dunno man, I'd rather be taken care of than be represented. Edit: saw many women of my race, religion, age group etc etc mess up

[@MrJasonworkman]

Taxes go up and people loose freedom.

[@M_A79710]

You can't get a congress completely distriduted according to race or sexual orientation. I'm from Lebanon. Our parlaiment is divided according to religion and because of this we have high goverment corruption. Identity politics is the worst.