History of Feminism
Related: About this forumWomen Govern Differently Than Men. Is it finally time for quotas in the US?
On a certain level, gender parity in government is an issue of democratic legitimacy: Women are a majority of the American electorate, and yet we have less female representation in government than most of the planet. (In a recent United Nations study of proportional gender representation in government, the U.S. ranked 78th, tied with Turkmenistan.) But according to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand who has campaigned heavily for other female candidates in this election cycle and is likely to win reelection against a female opponent the lack of skirts in the Senate is more than a symbolic concern. My own experience in Congress is when women are on committees and at hearings, the nature of the discussion is different, and the outcomes are better we reach better solutions, better decisions are made," she said a year ago. But in this election, with only eighteen women competing for seats, theres hardly going to be a longer line at the Senate gallerys ladies room; the House race is more optimistic, with 163 women on the ticket.
...
But defining what constitutes a womens issue can be tricky. For a forthcoming paper on female lawmakers' effectiveness, three political scientists crunched all 138,246 bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives over the past four decades. They found women introduced twice as many bills on civil rights and liberties bills; many more on family concerns; and significantly more on labor, immigration, education, and health. In other words, its about much more than who is paying for my birth control. They note that despite a century of discussion about health-care policy, it took a female speaker of the House to make universal health care happen. Or as Nancy Pelosi herself has said, Its personal for women ... my sisters here in the Congress, this was a big issue for us.
...
The bad news, though, is how rarely female initiatives turn into reality. Womens-issues bills are the ones that see the highest gridlock rates. Overall, only 4 percent of bills become law (I, too, am singing Schoolhouse Rock! in my head, but bear with me), but a mere 2 percent of womens bills ever make it through the process, like Lilly Ledbetter did. Thats only 1 in 50. These are issues that the average member of Congress doesn't see as crucial, the University of Virginia's Craig Volden, an author of the forthcoming paper, told me, underscoring a very real aspect of our democratic legitimacy problem.
...
When you look at the rest of the world, this crisis of confidence is madness. Five of Latin Americas current heads are women. For two decades, Argentina has maintained a quota of 30 percent female representation. Granted, Latin America is hardly a hotbed of gyno-liberalism; most of these female leaders are anti-abortion, line-toting Catholics. So lets consider Europe, where womens organizations met in Strasbourg this week to organize toward 50-50 parity in the next election, as the continents one-third representation is considered an outrage. Its a poignant irony that when the United States helps fledgling governments outline their democracies and develop their constitutions, we emphasize the importance of full female inclusion in government; theres a reason that, despite a close adherence to Islamic sharia, Iraq ranks about 40 slots before us on the U.N. list.
...
The situation in this country should be a huge embarrassment.
I think we might just need to move to quotas to move things forward.
I would love to hear some jackass say 'quotas are wrong, our current system is better'... look at the way this country treats its own citizens as compared to countries with voluntary political party quotas and tell me that our 'merit-based' system is doing a better job.
This is a great site to find out more about quotas: http://www.quotaproject.org/
cloudbase
(5,511 posts)a different opinion a jackass makes you look like, well, a jackass.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)It's not appreciated in the least and you have added absolutely zero to the discussion.
One might question your purpose here.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)not that you are...it's not a personal attack, more like a reflection to the poster.
Peace out!
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Yes, it's a personal attack. And they added nothing to the conversation.
The post squeaked by a jury 3-3. But I will ask the hosts of this group to watch this poster as the intent is very Obvious.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Thanks.
boston bean
(36,219 posts)I blocked because redqueens "jackass" comment was made in general.
The one blocked poster was personally calling RQ a jackass...
And the other blocked poster was agreeing with the first blocked poster.
I'll unblock if others think I should...
redqueen
(115,103 posts)as adults... or whether they were (like so many others) only here to fling poo.
boston bean
(36,219 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)
I unblocked this poster. After some consulting and review.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)you know, the ones with universal healthcare, more access to higher education, higher standards of living, lower infant mortality rates, etc. ... is a jackass.
boston bean
(36,219 posts)Need I say anything more than??
ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)The impulse to come in here simply to cause trouble. I'd say its juvenile, but I have too much respect for our young people.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)I would consider it a badge of honor
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)The districts that elect insane right wing men would switch to electing right wing insane women instead. Instead of Louie Gohmert we'd have another Michelle Bachmann. It would be fairer, but I don't think it would make much difference. I don't even think it would make much of a difference on women's issues. The people right wing areas send are going to be the type that either already hate women, even if they are one, or are willing to throw women under the bus if they think it will get them ahead.
We're pretty much stuck with terrible representation until we fix redistricting so it can't be gamed.
ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)Statistically, Michelle Bachman is a household word only because she's batshit crazy along with being a female in politics.
I'm wondering if gender equity would help form a checks and balance system in corruption in political issues, given what the article states is the bill introduction by women.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)and maybe it could be reframed. Just a thought.
And it doesn't necessarily follow that women govern differently than men...I'm thinking Margaret Thatcher, Madeline Albright, Winnie Mandela...but yes, we do think and reason differently with a somewhat different agenda then men.
I'm thinking about training seminars for women wanting to run for political office. Actually, I would like to help train any Democrat to run for office; but I would like to see more women in office.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Looking at the state of the world, I now think we need to force the issue.
ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)We were talking about the political power women are slowly gaining in many areas of Africa, and she talked about the gender roles expected especially from, and by the African male.
Too many women in too many parts of Africa have picked up the pieces after war or genocide.
A thought experiment; would wars be as common with political gender equity?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)But waiting for changes to occur organically is leaving us behind the rest of the world as far as representation in the halls of power.
In other countries they already have voluntary quotas in politics, and they are now looking at quotas in governing bodies of private corporations.
msongs
(67,366 posts)boston bean
(36,219 posts)The powerbrokers are male. They hold the money and the power.
They also make the messages.
I'm not sure what the answer is, and I'm sure yours is a part of the answer, but not the whole.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It's easy to say 'more women should run for office'... it's not so easy to make the changes necessary in society to enable that to happen.
Age 8 is the peak for girls' leadership ambitions: ww.missrepresentation.org/leadership/cause-and-effect-why-we-need-to-tell-herstory/
hack89
(39,171 posts)will be an interesting political trick - any ideas how to pull that one off? I am not even sure you can get the Democratic party to accept quotas with regards to candidates. I think we should try but it won't be easy.
boston bean
(36,219 posts)Trying to get the party to commit to running so many women candidates and then providing the $$ to make it happen.
Actually, the Democrats shouldn't have to have this suggested to them. You would think it would already be part of the platform. But it's tellling you don't see the men in our party out there talking about getting women elected.
Although, I hear Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and Kirsten Gillibrand and Carolyn Mahoney speak about it all the time, and many more....
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Other countries, countries with much better social safety nets than ours (coincidentally?) have already taken this step.
but I think it must be a bottom up effort. Politicians are good at rationalizing why they are unique and indispensable.
Women are among the most reliable of democratic voters. Those of us who think this trend in other countries is worth following have no small amount of bargaining power.
I am reminded once again of a quote about significant change for the better... that it never comes from the top down. "Leaders" always have to be dragged kicking and screaming forward by the will of forward-thinking people. I wish I could remember who said it... Jim Hightower I think... I would love to find it.
mercuryblues
(14,525 posts)Women in Politics Chair Donna DeWitt says a lot of women are not running for office for the wrong reason. Too many women say they have to many skeletons in the closet, says DeWitt. And Im amazed at that answer from a woman, because its not an issue with men. Its not about skeletons, but about getting the training and confidence you need.
Busting the good ole boy network is not enough if women won't run. I have never heard a woman say she would not vote for so and so because he is a man. On the other hand I have heard some men say they would not vote for a woman. SC elected it's first femal governor in 2010. So at least we have a partial answer. In redder than red state a man will indeed vote for a woman, if she is a republican.
Education has begun, I just it was better advertised.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/education_training/ReadytoRun/RtoR_InTheNews.php
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)It works in the fire house and the police station. Why wouldn't it be effective on Capital Hill to include some version of affirmative action.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)...is a construct of the patriarchal society.
I would like to see more women in leadership positions--Jesus, it's only been 92 years since the 19th amendment so why isn't 1/2 of Congress female?--but when it finally gets to a point where it is no longer a patriarchy, then I do not believe that feminine gender will construct itself as consensus builders as opposed to being authoritarian.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)something I think works very well. We have the caucus system here for parties endorsing candidates, and delegates to regional and state DFL conventions must be chosen with equal numbers of men and women. What that means is that when delegates are elected, there must be gender equality for those selected. It works very well. I've been a delegate to several state senate district and congressional district conventions and the equal numbers at those conventions has created a great environment. The same is true for all party organization officers and board members. Equal numbers are required for both men and women.
I don't know when this policy was adopted. It was in place, though, when I moved to Minnesota in 2004. It helps ensure that candidates for a DFL party endorsement are representative of the population. I like it.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Michelle Bachmann, or Al Franken?
Meg Whitman, or Jerry Brown?
Linda McMahon, or Chris Murphy?
I know I'll be told this is a simplistic way of looking at a larger issue, but there are many women who have absolutely no interest in looking out for other women's best interest. I think the premise of the article is faulty. I do not believe that women govern better. I think that some do, and others are simply awful.
Unless you want to blow up the two party system entirely first....the fact is that the Republicans will be more than happy to run the Sarah Palins and Nikki Haleys of the world who are nothing more than puppets for a far right anti-female, anti-choice, pro religious right agenda.
I also think it's kinda funny they actually included Michelle Bachmann in the photo in the article. Do they even know who she is?