It is the ideology of "I am always right, righteous, and good, and my opponents are always wrong, wrongful, and evil.". It exists in both sides, though right now it is more amplified and even supported in the left-wing side. The exception IS the rule, or the rule is the rule, changing depending on what the person declares, because they are always right, while their opponent is always wrong. I find this sort of thinking is much more common in those with any level of reach or audience, than the ones with trouble differentiating exceptions and rules.
All that stated, what you identify is for sure a problem. Exceptions exist in almost all things. If someone was sliced in half at the heart and lung level, they are dead. Simple obvious rule. But there are examples of people living several hours after such an event occurring, and obviously you treat living people, even those soon to die, differently than dead people. Even such a clear rule as a bisected human being dead or not has exceptions that must be adhered to.
We live in a world of compromise and adaptive situational acceptance. Should a human kill another human? No. Well, maybe. War, defense, being near the Chicago cop-free-zone, everyone is going to have different limits to the rule, but as a society, we together make and draw a line. And if people cross that line, we make a ruling on a case by case basis.
A woman with psychopathy will be less prone to being passively emotionally manipulated than a woman without. If emotional judgement is your line in the sand for female politicians, then diagnosed psychopathic women should still be allowed in as a clear exception, since they literally can't be subject to it. Conversely, an overemotional man, perhaps through PTSD, clearly should be banned for the same reason. But we can't identify these things with 100% accuracy, so you're calling for a sex-based ban on a "good enough" measure because the rule is the rule, regardless of exceptions. Which... Puts you in the same classification as what you're complaining about. Because unfortunately, reality matters. What you do matters. What you think, doesn't. You can think you're not a killer, if you killed, by reality standards you killed. You can think you're an enlightened centrist, but if you always vote in one direction, by reality's standards you're aligned with that side.
You can think about exceptions all you want, but if your rulings are always about the general case, then you're the exact same as someone who doesn't think about exceptions, and simply auto-rules on the general case, except they're more efficient about it. If the problem of women in politics is many of them can't act in a the right manner, but not all of them, then your issue isn't whether they're women or not, your issue is you're using the wrong filter. Filter the participants right, and wind up with a 90/10 split, or a 95/5 split, or a 60/40 split, or whatever, and accept those results, results that clearly have an uneven distribution based on one arbitrary factor, but based on the factors that actually matter, are all 100/0.
Reality is a machine. It runs VERY smoothly. Math into physics into chemistry into biology into anthropology into sociology into psychology, it all follows very reliable formulas from the top down. You're piloted by electronic pulses in your brain, on and off, 1's and 0's. Your muscles contract or relax on electronic signals, 1's and 0's, too. You're a meat computer, and so is every other living thing, and all those 1's and 0's can be edited or read or predicted just like a computer chip. If you're having large-scale issues in outputs, the issue isn't the output, it's the inputs or how they're processed.
"We have the wrong people in politics, we need this trait, which is rare among this group, so we should ban that group." is weak generalist nonsense. Select for the trait, then! Include it in a series of filters! If you need someone with specifically pale white skin but no other conditionals for some reason like an art project or testing a spray-tan dye, and an albino black man shows up with perfect white skin... He's still in the running, despite his group blatantly being out of that trait in general.
Obviously, exceptions exist: We don't have infinite resources to do infinite filters and selections, so we DO need general-case rules in our day-to-day lives of billions of interactions, but the more important and rare the decision, the more we should be willing to allocate to solve for the solution rather than solve for the general. (EDIT: And "solving" who will be ruling over you, and making judgment upon your life and freedom, as a rules-set one-time instance from now to your death, different occupiers of the role but the role's creation being a one-off... That's both super rare AND super-important, at least, I would think so.)
It is the ideology of "I am always right, righteous, and good, and my opponents are always wrong, wrongful, and evil.". It exists in both sides, though right now it is more amplified and even supported in the left-wing side. The exception IS the rule, or the rule is the rule, changing depending on what the person declares, because they are always right, while their opponent is always wrong. I find this sort of thinking is much more common in those with any level of reach or audience, than the ones with trouble differentiating exceptions and rules.
All that stated, what you identify is for sure a problem. Exceptions exist in almost all things. If someone was sliced in half at the heart and lung level, they are dead. Simple obvious rule. But there are examples of people living several hours after such an event occurring, and obviously you treat living people, even those soon to die, differently than dead people. Even such a clear rule as a bisected human being dead or not has exceptions that must be adhered to.
We live in a world of compromise and adaptive situational acceptance. Should a human kill another human? No. Well, maybe. War, defense, being near the Chicago cop-free-zone, everyone is going to have different limits to the rule, but as a society, we together make and draw a line. And if people cross that line, we make a ruling on a case by case basis.
A woman with psychopathy will be less prone to being passively emotionally manipulated than a woman without. If emotional judgement is your line in the sand for female politicians, then diagnosed psychopathic women should still be allowed in as a clear exception, since they literally can't be subject to it. Conversely, an overemotional man, perhaps through PTSD, clearly should be banned for the same reason. But we can't identify these things with 100% accuracy, so you're calling for a sex-based ban on a "good enough" measure because the rule is the rule, regardless of exceptions. Which... Puts you in the same classification as what you're complaining about. Because unfortunately, reality matters. What you do matters. What you think, doesn't. You can think you're not a killer, if you killed, by reality standards you killed. You can think you're an enlightened centrist, but if you always vote in one direction, by reality's standards you're aligned with that side.
You can think about exceptions all you want, but if your rulings are always about the general case, then you're the exact same as someone who doesn't think about exceptions, and simply auto-rules on the general case, except they're more efficient about it. If the problem of women in politics is many of them can't act in a the right manner, but not all of them, then your issue isn't whether they're women or not, your issue is you're using the wrong filter. Filter the participants right, and wind up with a 90/10 split, or a 95/5 split, or a 60/40 split, or whatever, and accept those results, results that clearly have an uneven distribution based on one arbitrary factor, but based on the factors that actually matter, are all 100/0.
Reality is a machine. It runs VERY smoothly. Math into physics into chemistry into biology into anthropology into sociology into psychology, it all follows very reliable formulas from the top down. You're piloted by electronic pulses in your brain, on and off, 1's and 0's. Your muscles contract or relax on electronic signals, 1's and 0's, too. You're a meat computer, and so is every other living thing, and all those 1's and 0's can be edited or read or predicted just like a computer chip. If you're having large-scale issues in outputs, the issue isn't the output, it's the inputs or how they're processed.
"We have the wrong people in politics, we need this trait, which is rare among this group, so we should ban that group." is weak generalist nonsense. Select for the trait, then! Include it in a series of filters! If you need someone with specifically pale white skin but no other conditionals for some reason like an art project or testing a spray-tan dye, and an albino black man shows up with perfect white skin... He's still in the running, despite his group blatantly being out of that trait in general.
Obviously, exceptions exist: We don't have infinite resources to do infinite filters and selections, so we DO need general-case rules in our day-to-day lives of billions of interactions, but the more important and rare the decision, the more we should be willing to allocate to solve for the solution rather than solve for the general. (EDIT: And "solving" who will be ruling over you, and making judgment upon your life and freedom, as a rules-set one-time instance from now to your death, different occupiers of the role but the role's creation being a one-off... That's both super rare AND super-important, at least, I would think so.)
Nah. Stereotypes work.