Obama: ‘Congress Would Get More Done If There Were More Women’

of one (or more) kids while maintaining a household and maybe also holding down a job makes this statement #1 on the "Duh" Parade. .

And shameful pandering.

They bloviate, block and posture.

Cos we all know that Sharon Angel would have been more willing to compromise than Allen West. The amount of male bashing on this site never seize to amaze me

"male" teabaggers implying they are worse just because they are "male".

on my part. They are just an amorphous mass of ignorance, men and women tea baggers.

get better governance if we had more women president. But I guess Obama made sure that did not happen, a potential women and all her wonderful skills was denied the chance to fix things by ......

Oh never mind, its election time

Men and women communicate in starkly different ways.

Men are more prone to establish less flexible goals and work to define and exaccerbate divisions to win the goal.

Women are much more inclined to discuss issues for hours to find common ground and build consensus.

I am sure that if women were in charge there would be more discussion around the substantive policy issues and less on procedure and party points of view.

Recently I ended up taking up my wife on the road with me and as she is now cut off from her normal community of friends I find her engaging in long conversations she has already with me about issues that I can do nothing about. In order to accomodate her I look at her and nod and just say 'uh huh' and let her continue. I did it as kind of a joke but she goes on and on and I realize that these are the same patterns of 'gossip' and social communication she goes through with her female friends, completely different than the way that I communicate with my male friends or in mixed company.

Now you can disagree with that, but it doesn't mean that it is sexist to understand the differences in the way that men and women communicate.

I absolutely believe that more things would get done if women ran the legislature and there is nothing 'sexist' about it.

What might be sexist is saying that what would be accomplished would be of a better quality.

Now I am not sure about that, but I find it difficult to believe that a woman dominated legislature would have rushed into war with Iraq.

If you look at the AVERAGE American woman, they would be an improvement from the point of view of progressives over most Democrats, let alone Tea Partiers.

If you look at the average female POLITICIAN, it's another matter entirely. But still an improvement.

But if someone carefully collects a bunch of corporate shills who happen to be female and claim that their femaleness overrides the facts of the situation, then they're an idiot and should be treated like one. Obviously a crew of Sarah Palins and Ann Coulters isn't going to help, not even with a couple of Margaret Thatchers thrown in.

OR - another approach...

Arbitrarily stuffing a bunch of females into Congress won't fix anything.
Fixing the systemic problems that lead to only 15% of Congress being female - that's another matter entirely.

Women can be just as petty, cruel and bloody-minded as men. I present Margaret Thatcher as proof.

"This GOP-led Congress seems hell-bent on rolling back the clock and restricting our freedoms. It’s pretty clear that if we replace some of these guys with Democratic women, we’ll make more progress.” - Now THAT I agree with!

They are equal to men in that regard. What leaving women out of the pool causes is a reduction in quality candidates causing some poor male candidates to be taken over favorable female candidates. It also reduces the perspective contributions to a given problem for the same reason.

We dont have to be sexist toward men to support equality and recognize its value.