Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Study: Women lawmakers outperform men

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:32 PM
Original message
Study: Women lawmakers outperform men
Source: Politico

Are women more effective lawmakers than men?

Thats the preliminary conclusion of a study conducted by researchers at Stanford University and the University of Chicago, who say that on average, women in Congress introduce more bills, attract more co-sponsors and bring home more money for their districts than their male counterparts do.

The study, which examined the performance of House members between 1984 and 2004, found that women delivered roughly 9 percent more discretionary spending for their districts than men.

For instance, during Rep. Judy Biggerts first two-year term, Illinoiss 13th District received $382 million in federal funds, $70 million more than it received during the final term of her predecessor, Rep. Harris Fawell.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren delivered around $859 million to her district, compared with $541 million brought in by her predecessor, Rep. Don Edwards, during his final term, the researchers said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27152.html#ix...


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27152.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Just wait till they are the majority for a while...
then they'll get lazy ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bicoastal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well DUH. The average age of a US politician must be around 55...
...who do you THINK is going to have more performance issues?

BA DUM PSSSH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virgogal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. Of course they do----no surprise to me.
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 09:44 PM by virgogal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yup, we ALWAYS work harder
because we know the value of our work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. IMO, we always work harder because we've always had to.
If we really knew the value of our work, we'd be getting paid more than men instead of getting paid less than men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #6
20. And We Don't Have Time to Waste
nor put up with much BS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #6
22. Yeah, but they don't. We work twice as hard for far less pay
I once worked for a major corporation that paid women $25 an hour and men $45 an hour for the EXACT same position. I was given young men to train who were always promoted over me. At the time I was being paid $35 because of my greater expertise than all the men I was working with. My boss actually said "your doing really well here, for a woman"! I demanded equal pay and they finally gave me $40 an hour, but refused to give me full male employee wages, so I left. Suing would get me no where; they have the best lawyers money can buy. This kind of crap still goes on everywhere. Male bosses have actually said to me "Well, you don't need the money; you can just get married!" :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I'm not surprised but
it sure would be interesting to see the comment section had they concluded that men work harder.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems2002 Donating Member (337 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. that's true
You're right -- if they had said the opposite, I would probably have thought that their male colleagues who have a majority of the power, were discriminating against them, rather than that there was something wrong with the women...so guys can't win for losing!

Dems
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #8
24. Guys always win. White, hetero, Christian guys in particular always win
or haven't you noticed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chollybocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yeah, but they spend it all on shoes.
:rofl:





(So sue me.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TygrBright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. DUzy!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. Spend what all on shoes? They're not getting paid any more than their
Edited on Fri Sep-18-09 02:30 AM by No Elephants
male counterparts. And, in private business, they'd probably be making a lot less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
23. And there it is. Misogyny rears it's ugly head on DU once more
Edited on Fri Sep-18-09 10:45 AM by Lorien
and fellow sexists grin with approval.

I won't sue you, but I will tell you to go f*ck yourself, which is something that I've never said to anyone on DU before.

On edit; if the report were about African Americans, would you have said "but they spend it all on watermelon and fried chicken"? No, because that would get you BANNED. DU mods don't protect women against hate the way they protect minority races against hatred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pollo poco Donating Member (286 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
9. k / r n / t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autonomy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
10. This is totally pseudo
You can't objectively compare legislators. More bills introduced is meaningless. More money brought home to districts could be interpreted negatively. This is junk science. Just sayin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. It's not science at all.
Edited on Fri Sep-18-09 02:32 AM by No Elephants
It's simply a fact that women prepare more bills. That's not science. It's counting. (Well, ok, math is a science.) It is also a fact that women get more to their districts. The conclusions that one draws fom the numbers, if any, are a matter of analytical and reasoning ability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autonomy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Yay for semantics
I'm saying the conclusion reached cannot be reasonably reached, and is therefore not reasonable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autonomy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #18
25. On edit:
You're right. I knew someone would object to the word 'scientific' in that context, but I was too lazy to find the right words. My original point stands, but I accept the correction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
11. They don't have a brothel on C Street to distract them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
12. And wise Latina lawmakers ...
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
17. explain kay bailey hutchison, then? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
19. Could it have something to do with consensus building?
That, after all, used to be the main purpose of Congress, at least in theory. Other studies suggest that American women usually work harder to build consensus in groups, and are generally better at it.

However, that article does not break down the study between the two parties. I would be totally unsurprised to learn that female Republicans in Congress are far less successful than female Democratic Members of Congress, for the simple reason that chauvinism is much less well tolerated in Democratic circles. This article could actually be masking how effective female Democrats really are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
21. The criteria are not in themselves good or bad. One needs more information.
More bills introduced? But what are the bills? Often we're better off without them.

I view the term "gridlock" as a neutral description, not automatically an evil; for example I wish there had been nothing but gridlock on the Bush agenda.

More cosponsors? Again, in what cause?

More money for a district? Careful: it matters for what. This is the attitude that celebrates nuclear submarine bases and air-bombing ranges as great things, because they represent "jobs."

Also, this accepts the notion that districts and their representatives should act as individual competitors for access to a money trough, rather than envisioning a good future for the nation and the world as a whole and taking steps toward that.

Regardless, I'd wager that women tend to introduce the worthier bills and get the more "quality" money for their districts, but without exploring that, the statements made in the OP are meaningless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 20th 2014, 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC