If Women were the majority in all 3 branches of Government-----

[trumad]

What would this country be like? Would we be at War? Would we have a deficit? Would there be as much partisanship as there currently is?

Would we be better off?

[gully]

1. Frankly, I think we would be?

But then again, Ann Coulter comes to mind. *

[indepat]

3. And never kinda forget Condi and all of her ilk

[LeftishBrit]

18. And Maggie Thatcher!

[shance]

19. They are women who support the patriarchal/white racist male system

So they aren't appropriate examples of women who have a moral compass.

They are ammoral. The only compass they have is their own privilege and power. They have no interest in trying to correct a broken system. They just want to get what's in it for them.

[MrScorpio]

2. If they were right wingers like the current bunch

There wouldn't be any difference

[SHRED]

4. we might be better off...more than likely...

...however there are lots of fucked up women also.

It depends on what type of "person" is in the position of power and not so much gender oriented, I believe.

[Blackthorn]

47. I agree entirely with your last sentence

As a man, the notion implied in the OP is disgusting. This isn't happening because "men" are in charge. It's happening because a bunch of psychopaths (of both genders) are in charge. Sexism isn't just about women, pal.

[madokie]

5. beings as they don't have a 'little' head to think with

I would say We would be much Better off.

[CorpGovActivist]

6. You Never Call Your Mother, So I've Bugged Your Calls...

... that's what a Mastadon Mothers' Majority would sound like.

LOL.

; )

- Dave

[noamnety]

7. Possibly we wouldn't have all the macho posturing

and tough guy talk. "Bring 'Em On!" comes to mind, and the ridiculous shows of manliness (aircraft carrier landings).

However, the corporate greed issue crosses gender lines, and unless we're willing to tackle the big problems of capitalism in a meaningful way (the rich control the government, the rich get richer), I don't see it being a magic solution to all our problems.

[soothsayer]

8. Since congress won't even let you take a photo showing what that

would look like (remember when some group wanted to take a pic in the halls of congress showing the exact reversal of the then current women/men ratio of congresscritters, and they weren't allowed to?), I fear we're a long way off from finding out.

[Solo_in_MD]

9. Gender driving politics? I dont think so...

Some policies maybe, but not conservative vs liberal. To many Ann Coulters, Condi Rices, and Anita Bryants out there. Lets not forget Marget Thatcher too.

[Skidmore]

17. Gender has driven politics throughout history.

How do you think women were consigned to being chattels for a goodly portion of history. How was it that women were not given the vote and were not allowed to hold political offices at all until recently. Political agendas historically have been the delineated from the male viewpoint. I would argue a large part of that male political agenda is conservative and opposes change to the status quo.

[Frustratedlady]

10. I think it takes a mix of both...

However...

Women would be much less likely to go to war. After all, they know how hard it was to get the kids here...they wouldn't tend to send them to war as easily as men are wont to do. Women are generally more thrifty and find ways to make-do with what they have.

I don't know about partisanship. For the most part, I think they would do whatever it took to get the job done, and get it done on time. Women seem to be more efficient and are multi-tasked. However, they can also be petty and combative between themselves.

If you let them show up on the job in jeans, tees and tennies, you'd have a whirlwind of activity. Talk about cleaning house. None of this "good ol' boy" stuff for women. They'd have them by the ear and to the woodshed before they could say, "I didn't........" (fill in the blank).

Go, ladies!

[porphyrian]

11. Honestly, it wouldn't be very different at all.

It takes a certain kind of person to succeed in politics, and most of those people suck regardless of sex. Stereotypes are still stereotypes when they are positive.

[Poll_Blind]

14. Good point, I agree. n/t

PB

[omega minimo]

21. Listening & cooperating would facilitate the governmental process

Different skill sets

[porphyrian]

26. True, but you don't believe women have cornered that market, do you?

The broad brush always lies. There is something to the argument that men and women receive different social programming, but there are far too many other factors to rely solely on this.

[omega minimo]

30. Do men listen as well as women or what?

[porphyrian]

64. Sex has nothing to do with hearing. Or consideration.

You realize that you're being sexist, right?

[omega minimo]

67. I said Listening, not Hearing

[porphyrian]

70. The act of listening has nothing to do with sex.

Beyond, as I said before, societal programming which assigns expectations to behavior based on sex, there is no correlation between the sex of an individual and their ability to listen or their choice in doing so. Saying women listen better than men is like saying Black people are better atheletes than White people, and it's wrong. It's sexist.

[omega minimo]

75. What about gender?

The answer to your question #26, porphyrian is No.

In the openended context of this OP of an imaginary alternate universe, there's room for considering how women (generally) communicate differently than men (generally) isn't there?

Bringing women into any previously male-dominated situation will change the way people communicate, won't it?

I'm asking. AFAIK there ARE studies on this and there are PLENTY of anecdotal experiences and social cliches about different communication styles/habits/tendencies/brainscans of men and women, right? This is not NEWS to you......................................

Have you ever taken an anthropology class?

[porphyrian]

104. My life's been an anthropology class.

"In the openended context of this OP of an imaginary alternate universe, there's room for considering how women (generally) communicate differently than men (generally) isn't there?"
There's a difference between saying that men and women generally communicate differently and saying that women in charge of politics would listen and be considerate. The first is true and the second, false and sexist. There are many men who communicate quite well and are considerate. There are also many women who don't and aren't. Sex is not the determining factor (nor is gender, smartypants).

"Bringing women into any previously male-dominated situation will change the way people communicate, won't it?"
Any drastic change to a system is likely to cause other changes, but not necessarily, and it's a bad idea to assume otherwise.

"I'm asking. AFAIK there ARE studies on this and there are PLENTY of anecdotal experiences and social cliches about different communication styles/habits/tendencies/brainscans of men and women, right? This is not NEWS to you..."
Yes, physiologically-different bodies operate differently. However, behavior is only partially inhereted, it is also learned. It's bad science to think it's one OR the other. There are a lot of shitheads in politics who are men, but there are plenty of factors other than being male that make them shitheads, and thinking women would act differently in the same situation is an interesting hypothesis, but certainly not a given.

[omega minimo]

105. I love it

Thank you for your reply and continuing the discussion.

I've said what I have to say to the best of my ability and nothing I have said indicates the assumptions (or sexism) you are suggesting. There ARE differences in the ways men and women communicate (in general). If the OP hypothesis existed, the process would function quite differently.

Thank you again for keeping a "considerate" chain going so long and showing it might be safe to explore this subject further.

[porphyrian]

111. I don't agree with your assessment, but OK. - n/t

[omega minimo]

114. If you think

"Sure, I'm generalizing, and generalizations are inherently false (gotcha), so of course this doesn't apply to everyone with ...."

...if you think that "generalizations are inherently false" you may be predisposed to not understand my comments or the ambiguity that allows for exploring these ideas.

If it was safe, which it isn't, I would be more specific about the differences. As it is, ambiguous comments, even with disclaimers attached and careful wording, are too much for those who want to make them something they're not.

You have told me what I meant by with my words, reiterating them to me and asking for defense against your interpretation. I can simply tell you that's not correct.

You "don't agree with your assessment" of my own ideas

Thank you for trying.


on edit:

"There's a difference between saying that men and women generally communicate differently and saying that women in charge of politics would listen and be considerate. The first is true and the second, false and sexist."



I said the first and did not say the second. So we agree.



"Any drastic change to a system is likely to cause other changes, but not necessarily, and it's a bad idea to assume otherwise."

I imagine if the OP supposition happened, it would be the result of gradual change.



"It's bad science to think it's one OR the other."

I never said it was. I think there are other aspects as well.

"...and thinking women would act differently in the same situation is an interesting hypothesis, but certainly not a given."

Never said it was, dear P-- wish we could get away from the Either/Or thinking.

[porphyrian]

115. OK, you know best. - n/t

[omega minimo]

116. It's all in the listening

[porphyrian]

123. Yeah, that's clever. - n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

119. Listening And Cooperating?

Wait. Are you saying that women are more skilled at listening and cooperating? Overall? Seriously?



Ok. Having that said, you'll find that when it comes to listening and cooperation, it is an overwhelmingly individualized trait that varies from person to person, with NEITHER gender having a leg up on the other. But I did find your confindent insinuation that women as a gender are more skilled than men in that arena to be frankly hilarious, since it is a totally false notion that those things have anything to do with gender.

[SharonAnn]

95. Hmmm, Ann Richards comes to mind. Competent, bright, and funny!

[porphyrian]

112. Lawton Chiles was good, too (even if he was a moderate), and a man.

I'm simply saying that sex or gender is not the determining factor in making a good politician and that it's sexist to say that a woman would be better at it than a man based on no other qualifier.

[omega minimo]

118. Who said that?!

"a woman would be better at it than a man based on no other qualifier."

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JerseygirlCT]

12. I think balance has been lacking for a long time, and that

has contributed to our overall priorities being screwy.

I think the best arrangement would be to have our government much more evenly balanced. Then we would get a better representation of views.

It's not a matter of women doing a better job, but that balance is a better thing.

[StraightDope]

13. Then we'd be in one of those crazy alternate worlds...

A la the Twilight Zone, or Sliders.

I'd have no complaints if women were the dominant gender.

[omega minimo]

15. Smoother communication. More listening. Improved cooperation.

toward humanitarian goals

[ComerPerro]

24. Yeah, cause Condi is great at all those things, isn't she?

And listening and cooperating and valuing human life are hallmarks of Republican women, aren't they.

Just look at Barbara Bush

[omega minimo]

35. Republican women are domineered by Republican men

[ComerPerro]

38. So why would anything change, then, if it were just women in politics?

Wouldn't they still be domineered by Republican men (who would apparently rule from behind the scenes)?

So you would have Republican men vs. Democratic women, with Republican men having the majority.

Nothing would be different.

[omega minimo]

42. A lot would change

A lot less domineering all around

[ComerPerro]

43. Why? They would all just be puppets of men

[omega minimo]

46. Nope

[ComerPerro]

48. So then what would change, and why? Educate me

don't just make an overgeneralized assertion without backing it up, and then answer any debate with a single-word denial.

You have made an outrageous claim, and you are going to need some compelling evidence

[omega minimo]

50. "Outrageous"

'You have made an outrageous claim, and you are going to need some compelling evidence"



What we need here is some imagination. The OP threw out a hypothetical, a What If. It doesn't have to be another fucking fight.

[VelmaD]

51. apparently it does...

it's about women and even the theoretical possibility of us attaining even the slightest little bit of power so some people just HAVE to turn it into another fucking fight. Wonder what it is they're so fucking scared of?

[omega minimo]

55. Well, scared of listening fer one thing

"Wonder what it is they're so fucking scared of?"

Then there's this:

from #20 "OMYGODOMYGODOMYGODOMYGOD OMYGODWOMENINPOWERAREGONNADOTOUSWHATWE'VEBEENDOINGTOTHEMALLTHISTIME!!!!!!"

[ComerPerro]

61. point is, your "nope" that you threw out is completely worthless

I caught you contradicting yourself, and you just insist on keeping your delusion.

[omega minimo]

65. IMHO your (or anyone's) belligerance is a discussion killer

[ComerPerro]

68. and in my opinion

you spout a lot of Republican talking points and never really contribute anything other than that to a discussion.

Nowhere above was I belligerent.

I just was hoping that you would be intelligent enough to have a sophisticated level of discourse.

But all you offer is weakly structured and poorly supported arguments.

Oh well.

[omega minimo]

71. Maybe you should listen better

The fact that you now resort to insults and a personal attack that further breaks DU Rules with your lies about "Republican talking points and never really contribute anything other than that to a discussion" proves that you were belligerent and uninterested in "a sophisticated level of discourse."

No one here is obligated to converse with you when you bully. You have impressed on me that you "never really contribute anything other than that to a discussion."

[ComerPerro]

74. Check the transcript, you are the one who insulted first

You really need to work on your critical thinking skills, because your ability to hold an intellectual discussion is really lacking.

How can you not see that you contradicted yourself? You say that GOP women will be controlled by GOP men, and then right after that you say they won't.

And now, rather than try to get the discussion back on track, you just accuse me of being belligerent. That's all you have is accusations.


You say I am belligerent. I say that you are divisive. Even worse, when you make divisive posts, you can't even defend your statements. You just make poorly supported claims and expect them to speak for themselves.

[omega minimo]

78. Yep, you definitely need to listen better

I've told you that no one is obligated to answer your (or anyone elses) demand for a particular response when you bully. See how that works?
And belligerence is a discussion killer.
And it is used frequently in ANY thread that attempts to discuss anything to do with women, to kill discussion.

"And now, rather than try to get the discussion back on track, you just accuse me of being belligerent."

You are the one who shoved the discussion off track.

[ComerPerro]

82. you're worthless. But if this makes you feel important, then keep it up

Just know that you are a hack.

And people who read your posts can see it

[omega minimo]

91. You keep providing examples of

the hostility heaped on women in threads about women. Congratulations! You started with sarcastic smackdowns and devolved from there. I think people who read your posts can judge for themselves.

It may be out of your domineering control, but my reply was complete, if short.

omega minimo (1000+ posts)  Sun Oct-08-06 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. A lot would change
A lot less domineering all around

"A lot would change. A lot less domineering all around." You did not "catch me contradicting yourself."

If you didn't understand or wanted the comment filled out, you could have asked. Instead you came back attacking in #61.

Are your threw being a discredit to your gender now?

[ComerPerro]

92. if reasoned and logical arguments equal belligerence, then

you are by far the most rational and orderly person I have ever met.

You have to understand that your post doesn't even make sense, in or out of context.


You say that Republican women only act the way they do because they are domineered by Republican men. So I say that if they are so easily manipulated, then men will be never be taken out of the picture because the Republican women will still be controlled by men.

Then you say, "there would be less domineering all around".

You don't say how or why. And you never explain your leap, from "Republican women are domineered" to "there will be less domineering".



But I've gone farther into the logic than you probably bothered to.

Your philosophy seems to be: "When you can't back up what you say, then pretend you were attacked".


You accused me of belligerence without any provocation.

[omega minimo]

98. Dear Sweet SuperLogical CP

"You don't say how or why. And you never explain your leap, from "Republican women are domineered" to "there will be less domineering". "

You didn't ask. You told me: "43. Why? They would all just be puppets of men"

Then you ask and I'm "outrageous." A little hard to take seriously.

So I laughed and pointed out

"What we need here is some imagination. The OP threw out a hypothetical, a What If. It doesn't have to be another fucking fight."

"Your philosophy seems to be": When you can't make someone say what you want them to say, the way you want them to say it, then go from sarcasm to personal attack and when bullying doesn't work, try insults and self-righteous unbelievable claims of your original intentions.

Are you done trying to domineer me?

[ComerPerro]

100. So, tell me then, why do you feel that the domineering would stop?

I am still interested to know. If Republican women are controlled by Republican men, what does it matter if its men or women in office? What changes?

[Irreverend IX]

106. Give me a break.

99 politicians out of 100 got where they are by lying, betraying, schmoozing and striving to seize power at all costs. That's what it takes to make it in Washington. You sell your soul to a hundred different devils to get a shot at success, trample anyone who objects to your actions, and take a mile for every inch you're offered. Every once in a great while someone comes through this process with some shred of idealism left; that's where the Wellstone-types come from. But for the most part, the old adage "those who seek power are unfit to have it" is true. It's the same whether you're male or female. Look at Katherine Harris and Ann Coulter. You can't tell me they're oppressed by anybody, they simply want power and influence and are willing to do anything to get it.

[omega minimo]

107. Give yourself a break

The OP presented a fantastic "what if?" IF that happened, there would obviously have to have been a LOT of change to reach that point.

From this end, we ought to be looking at campaign finance reform and free and fair elections for a start. How bout an end to corporate monopoly lobbying and the revolving door?

Some of the most venal and cynical changes in state and federal government are relatively recent. It's a mistake to assume or accept that they will be that way forever.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

120. I Hope You Realize How Blatantly Sexist And Inaccurate That Statement Is.

[Marr]

16. I'm always surprised at the way some people will argue that the sexes

are equal when discussing one subject, then turn around and argue that one sex is superior five minutes later.

But in answer to your question, government would be full of Condoleeza Rice clones. That's the sort of person that thrives in our current system of govenment. It's about cronyism, loyalty, and greed- not gender.

[omega minimo]

20. Did someone say "superior"?

Thanks Marr, that's a perfect example of a big difference right there (and note my reply was about communication and listening). The FIRST thing that comes to mind for you is that this is a THREAT TO MALE SUPERIORITY.

OMYGODOMYGODOMYGODOMYGOD OMYGODWOMENINPOWERAREGONNADOTOUSWHATWE'VEBEENDOINGTOTHEMALLTHISTIME!!!!!!

Don't worry, women in power would never be as malicious and gynocidal toward men as men in power have been toward women.




"But in answer to your question, government would be full of Condoleeza Rice clones. That's the sort of person that thrives in our current system of govenment. It's about cronyism, loyalty, and greed- not gender."


You're right about the "current system" which encourages women to act like men to reach high office. However, in the OP question, if that occurred, the days of the "Good Ole Boys" would be altered by the presence of women; and more women would reach office not having to act like a Rice or a Feinstein.



on edit:

"Don't worry, women in power would never be as malicious and gynocidal toward men as men in power have been toward women."

is a generalized statement and is not an indictment of all the individual men who it is not an indictment of.

[Marr]

22. They don't "act like men"- they act like power-hungry criminals.

And the fact that you define such amorality as distinctly "male" is a perfect example of what I was referring to.

If you want to say women are equal, I will agree with you. If you're going to say they're somehow above things like greed and corruption, even as a trend, then you're advocating the same gender bias you complain about in men- just flipped the other way around. Women are every bit as good as men- and you know what? They can be just as bad, too.

[omega minimo]

29. I am not taking your bait, master marr

Even with the disclaimer in my post, anticipating this sort of mind/word game, you found a way to inject my post with your reversals anyway.

"...is a generalized statement and is not an indictment of all the individual men who it is not an indictment of."

I was agreeing with you:

"You're right about the "current system" which encourages women to act like men to reach high office. However, in the OP question, if that occurred, the days of the "Good Ole Boys" would be altered by the presence of women; and more women would reach office not having to act like a Rice or a Feinstein."

In the context of your post about:

---"Condoleeza Rice clones. That's the sort of person that thrives in our current system of govenment. It's about cronyism, loyalty, and greed- not gender"-----

..........I used the shorthand "Good Ole Boys" (as in GOB Network, which everyone has heard of and experienced in this lifetime)
and "act like men" as in act-like-men-in-the-male-dominated-system-of-government-that-fosters-cronyism-loyalty-and-greed WHICH JUST HAPPENS TO BE WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE. Both Rice and Feinstein have gotten where they are by "acting like men (in politics)" in certain ways to survive in the "Good Ole Boys" network.

So don't put words in my mouth or make false accusations about what I meant. I can't preempt every single mind game or word game with a disclaimer about how a comment is NOT an attack on males or individual men.

"If you're going to say they're somehow above things like greed and corruption
then you're advocating the same gender bias you complain about in men"

I did not say that. I said what I said in this thread very simply and clearly. Once, just ONCE I would like to see DU have a discussion about these issues without having to play these teeny tiny little mind games.

Then we might actually get somewhere.

[Marr]

40. I wasn't playing a mind game with you. But really-

just one post above my own you were saying that women are somehow inherently better at "listening, cooperating, and communicating". And apparently, even the repulsize specimens of femininity are only that way because they're "dominated by their Republican husbands".

I think these types of statements are blatantly sexist, that's all I'm saying.

For the record, I'd love to see more women in government. I'd love to see a majority female government. I just don't think it would improve anything.

[omega minimo]

41. What I said was

"Smoother communication. More listening. Improved cooperation. toward humanitarian goals"



As you may notice on DU, any thread that raises women's issues like this one is immediately latched onto with every sort of Devil's Acvocate, dismissive, smackdown comments that divert and destroy discussion.


Surely we can do better than that.

[ComerPerro]

23. assuming the same Dem/Repig split, we'd be in the same place

just because most of them would be women wouldn't make any difference.

Women can be just as war-mongering and exploitive of the poor and pro-corporation/anti-worker as men can.

Republican women in Congress and Condi Rice prove that every day.


So what's your point?

[Vidar]

25. I will grant the point about women voters, but unfortunately

women politicians are every bit as corruptible as men.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. How did they get there?

For that to happen under the current democratic process, America would *already* have to have undergone very significant social change indeed, to the extent that until you've specified it, arguing about "what would happen next" is meaningless.

Incidentally, I have just two words for those who assume it would *automatically* be an improvement: "Margaret Thatcher".

[bobbolink]

28. same/same

All one has to do is look at Babs Bush's picture one more time...

EEEWWWWWWW!!

[The Straight Story]

31. Worse off (nt)

[Odin2005]

32. Nothing would change.

This notion that everything would be all fine and dandy if women ruled everything is fantasy.

[omega minimo]

34. How do you know?

[Odin2005]

113. Common sense.

The burden of proof is on the ideologues who think women are morally superior to men to PROVE thier assertion.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

33. It would be different, for a while. Women do have different perspectives

than men.

However, once that cold hard cash started talking, they'd be every bit as susceptible as the men. And, they could be susceptible to sexual scandals, as well. (believe that!)

Until the corruption set in, it would be better, though.

MKJ

[madmusic]

36. Absolute power corrupts everyone...

Absolutely.

[Cleita]

37. I think there would be fewer wars. At least they would be

unavoidable wars. There is some historical evidence of this although the women rulers of history were still surrounded by men who influenced their decisions, Hatshepsut, Pharoah of Egypt, Cleopatra of Egypt another Pharoah, of course Queen Elizabeth I. Also, in ancient Britain, there was the Iceni war Queen Boudiccea, who almost succeeded in routing out the occupying Romans, but even she had to have egregious wrongs done to her and her family before she rallied the warring clans to follow her. She was also double-crossed by another Briton Queen who colluded with the Romans.

I don't know if there was ever a nation ruled by half the population who are women and what kind of balance they would bring to the table, although I think women should be equally represented in government by other women since we are half the population.

There is a comment by Julius Caesar about Queen Cleopatra of Egypt in Seutonius's "The Twelve Caesars". Before she became Pharoah, there seemed to be a discussion about her ruling. He said that he saw no reason why a woman couldn't rule. After all the Amazons ruled large nations when they were at the height of their power. It seems he believed that the Amazons were real and maybe since he was closer to their times in history than we are, could it be he possessed information about their rule that we no longer have?

[pitohui]

39. we already know what would happen

any time women move into a field en masse that field loses the respect of society and the compensation for the work drops and the influence of the people in the field drops

if women were in control of all 3 branches of gov't it would only be because the "real" control was coming from somewhere else and women were being humored

i wish the world were otherwise but it ain't

if women were the majority in all 3 branches, there would be a 4th branch where the real power was to be found

[omega minimo]

44. That's not how it works

"any time women move into a field en masse that field loses the respect of society and the compensation for the work drops and the influence of the people in the field drops"

"if women were in control of all 3 branches of gov't it would only be because the "real" control was coming from somewhere else and women were being humored"

That's ridiculous.

[ComerPerro]

49. do you have any idea how insane that sounds?

How bout some evidence to support your assertion/

[pitohui]

58. see post 57

short answr -- only people who are delusional are unaware that women still earn a fraction of what men earn for the same job

if you are a man == and you are or you wouldn't think it insane == you owe me an apology
because i'm a woman and i have to live with the reality of the glass ceiling and reduced income opportunities every day of my life

don't feed me shit and call it chicken salad

[pitohui]

see post 57

short answr -- only people who are delusional are unaware that women still earn a fraction of what men earn for the same job

if you are a man == and you are or you wouldn't think it insane == you owe me an apology
because i'm a woman and i have to live with the reality of the glass ceiling and reduced income opportunities every day of my life

don't feed me shit and call it chicken salad

[ComerPerro]

62. you're completely crazy, you must realize that

you say that whenever a lot of women come to a field, it gets discredited.

So you contend that if politics became women dominated, then it would lose its merit and credibility, and the men would create some kind of 4th branch?

You can't be serious.


And, no, I do not owe you an apology.

I would, in fact, like to see you either offer some hard evidence of women getting paid less for the same job, or apologize to me for calling me delusional and implying that I carry some sort of anti-woman bais.


I gotta tell you, you have a lot of nerve, making a broad claim without any evidence to back it up, and then attacking me for wanting proof.


I have never worked in a company where women were paid less on equal levels. While it may be true that "good ole boy" networks often hinder advancement for women, I have never been in a job interview for a position that paid "X if you are a man, Y if you are a woman".

If you want to help advance women's rights (which is still a noble cause) maybe it would be in your best interest to get your facts straight, get some evidence together, and actually form a coherent argument, rather than your "women good, men bad" BS.

[pitohui]

59. eek delete double posted

no doubt part of the male war on women

[Cleita]

54. Gee, I don't know. Of the five physicians I have seen on and

off for various ailments, three including my primary care are women, and one is a neurologist, a field dominated by men. Other caregivers like therapists and nurses I interact with and some are men, give high marks to my physicians. I don't think these women have in anyway lost respect or compensation in their field.

If you have a study or other stats that say differently from a reliable source, please post the link here.

[pitohui]

57. you're joking right

try adding the sarcasm tag or something, somebody might actually think you were stupid, no offense

as a high functioning autistic certain forms of humor pass over my head -- here i am going to assume that you know, as does every informed person, that the inflation-adjusted income for doctors has crashed in recent years

i'm aware that the freepers try to pretend that women earn what men earn

i wasn't aware that any "progressives" since 1970 were still trying to palm us off with that b.s.

like we don't know that we are still earning a fraction of what men earn

if you are serious, i am just going to say...WOW...and google is your friend, i am not going to do your homework for you because you need to do many years worth and you won't learn by having someone do it for you

[Cleita]

60. It's crashed because all physicians rely on government

programs like Medicare more than they like to admit. It has nothing to with women in the field and everything to do with the Bush administrations efforts to kill all government safety net programs for health care. I suggest you inform yourself with google as well. However, here is a website that has many, many articles in their archives about the subject.

http://www.pnhp.org

It's time for you to inform yourself. I'm still waiting for the links to your outrageous statements, not that I can't google, I just need to know YOUR sources.

[ComerPerro]

69. amazing, isn't it?

Ask for evidence and people get offended.

[Cleita]

73. Yep.

[Selatius]

45. The answer is MOST DEFINITELY NO

Greed, frankly, is an equal opportunity poison. It infects regardless of gender.

If greed dictates there should be war so that somebody can make a load of money on the war, then it's going to happen sooner or later. If greed dictates that laws should be bent in order to increase profit margins, then it will be done. If greed dictates that lobbiest should be ready to finance candidates to win races so that they can return the favor in the form of corporate welfare, it will be done.

If you want real change, then perhaps you should institute true structural reforms such as a public financing mechanism. That'll provide immediate, noticeable change.

[BlooInBloo]

52. Such counterfactuals are meaningless without a story....

... about how their history and how they came to power.

This isn't MS Excel, ya know.

[Hosnon]

53. I don't know but what is the point of this post? It will never happen in

reality so it must be some type of thought experiment aimed at (probably) reaching the conclusion that women are better than men.

[ComerPerro]

77. I think it was a hit and run flamebait. The OP hasn't been back

[Cleita]

56. Men really haven't been running things very well in the last

five thousand years, so I don't know what they are bragging about. Even saying that things would be worse seems to be more projection than anything else. It's time to give women equal say in government. By that I mean half of all government officials elected should be women regardless of party.

[ComerPerro]

76. That's not exactly democratic, though.

It would be nice if we could reach that sort of level. But the problem is, half of all officials elected should be men.

So lets say, in the Senate, for example, you get 50 women in there. Once those 50 are in place, no other woman can run unless they are challenging another woman.

[Cleita]

83. The fact is that 50 of our senators should be elected by other

women exclusively, as should the men be elected by men. We do this in primaries with parties. We should be able to do it in regular elections with gender. We will have a better choice of electing a person that we think might best protect our interests. How about in California if the women had to choose between Feinstein and Boxer, most would choose Boxer. Maybe the guys might like someone different to Feinstein?

[ComerPerro]

85. Thats not progressive, and it just promotes segregation and tension

If women want a political party, then they can start one. But if they don't let men join, don't expect much success.

I would say the same about an all-male political party.

Moreover, 1 male and 1 female in the Senate is easy enough to divide. But how do you reconcile separating out the House?

[Cleita]

86. I kinda threw that out for discussion.

We all know that all legislators are going to have to put their pointed heads together to come up with a solution, not me. I am putting the end result up there. However, that being said, I think if enough of us fems get out there and demand the whole enchilada like complete control of everything, the other half might be willing to negotiate and we might come up with something equitable.

[ComerPerro]

87. Well, when you take over, just remember your buddy CP

Even though I can't hold a position or title, I'm sure I can contribute somehow.

[Cleita]

89. LOL!

[Hosnon]

90. Ugh. I detest this argument. Representative Democracy is built upon the

premise that one person can REPRESENT another.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument reduces representative democracy to simple democracy.

[Cleita]

93. Simple democracy would indicate that all citizens

perform their civic duty and perform X number of years for their country in the Senate or whatever we call it, a legislative body. We would be selected like they select us for jury duty. No one would even have to vote because we all would have our turn. There would have to be provisions for recompensation when we leave our jobs for those X years, something that jury duty hardly covers. I think simple democracy could happen once we kick out all the professional gold diggers into our treasury out of our lives.

[Hosnon]

99. I define simple democracy as everyone voting on everything. I'm all for

representative democracy. I don't think everyone should be bogged down by complex issues to vote on.

[Cleita]

108. That's not the way it works.

What you have is a senate that is composed of citizens who do a mandatory term in office. While they are in office they do the voting not the populace at large. As for the larger government, it's run by bureaucrats who are trained and experienced for their field. It's considered a lifetime career and position. They can be fired for incompetence or corruption by the senate, just like in any business because the citizen's senate has oversight.

When a term is up for a senator, another citizen takes his place. Everyone is required to do a turn in the senate in his/her lifetime just like jury duty or military duty. Then he will concentrate on the issues and educate himself on the various problems that cross the governing body to know how to vote on them. I'm sure there should be a provision to discharge senators, who are not able to fulfill their duty for any number of reason, to be replaced before their term is up.

[JVS]

101. I'm much better off today than I was 5000 years ago!

Reelect the patriarchy!

[Book Lover]

63. There would be no difference

Please. Believe me, I am as power-hungry, angry, nasty, and ruthless as any man.

[Keepontruking]

66. Women at war, in deficit, partisanship

I think it's thought provoking..........women have a role of
reproduction different then men.  Would we send all of our
Young people to war and death so easily?????  Would we find
different solutions? Would we so readily cut off our nose to
spite our face if there was no replacement that could be
trusted????  Would we move more slowly working the sidelines
ever so carefully and delicately just in case we need a
babysitter Friday night ????   and there is that possibility
the project is Due Tues, the dental apt for Joey, Cheer try
outs for Kristi, and the Hubby needs attention so what to do 
use those resources..........yes, we learn how to multi-task
with diplomacy and actually we bond with these people because
women are caretakers by nature.  Would it be better.  LET'S
SEE!!!

Circus Girl

[CatWoman]

72. We'd be hiding in the bushes, watching them

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

79. Gotta K & R this most excellent discussion.

MKJ

[JVS]

80. If they were all women of the propertied class it would suck every bit...

as much as the current situation.

[karynnj]

81. Depends on which women

Women are not all more (or less) peaceful, diplomatic or thrifty than men. Consider Condi - is she or (name good guy of choice of choice) more likely to start a war?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

84. Depends on the women in charge.

Women aren't really all that much different then men. I think, fundamentally we're very similar. The main difference being women who exert their authority are labeled "bitches," or it's said that they're too much like a man. That's basically bullshit used to put down assertive women.

Personally, I think women should be allowed to be "bitches," who act like men, but that's because I'm a realist and I don't feel it should be used as a slam. Women are not delicate flowers and should not act as such.

So basically, I think we could potentially have all the same issues we do now.

[KoKo]

88. Things would be pretty much the same....there's not much difference in

males and females these day...except reproductive organs.

[Cleita]

94. Good point!

And the most intelligent one I have read on this discussion.

[ComerPerro]

97. to be fair, several people, including me, have said that in this thread

doesn't make it any less true, though

[cigsandcoffee]

96. The tone in Washington would be even more brutal. n/t

[omega minimo]

102. The current corporatist regime is destroying the nation and the planet

What could be more brutal than that?

[Skittles]

103. things would be better

but not as good as they could be if men and women shared the power

[treestar]

109. I think if all the countries in the world had female leaders

There wouldn't be any wars. They would meet from time to time and exchange gossip about their problems, talk about what to wear in the meeting location, compare husbands and children stories and lament the inconveniences of the various houses (10 Downing Street is so stuffy, or the White House has such a big lawn and is impossible to air-condition well) - they would never get around to doing anything but they would never get around to a war either.

[verse18]

110. I think there would be more focus on domestic issues.

Issues that help support working single parents and their children.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

117. Who Knows, Maybe, Probably, Definitely, No Reason To Believe So.

Since women aren't better than men or worse than men, I see no reason to believe that the potential for all the things we have now would be any different then.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

121. Consider the great female monarchs of history.

For example: Queen Victoria.

I'd say no.