General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Misogyny should not be tolerated on DU [View all]DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)"I'm pretty sure I'm quite straight on the facts"
Well, if you can glide past the fcat there there have been no female presidents, few female congresspeople, few senators, few governors, few CEOS, few heads of large religous demoniminations, etc.
but let's show some facts :
http://history.house.gov/Exhibition-and-Publications/WIC/Women-in-Congress/
"Since 1917, when Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana became the first woman to serve in Congress, a total of 298 women have served as U.S. Representatives or Senators."
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/07/08/2266831/number-of-women-ceos-at-major-companies-jumps-by-4-percent/
"last week, the number of women at the helm of a Fortune 500 company rose by 4 percent, now standing at a grand total of 22."
Let's take your second "point"
"If the women who claim to speak for all women actually did have all women behind them, obtaining power just wouldn't seem that difficult. There's more women than men and not as many men bother to vote or even participate in the political process. "
Ah, but note that CEO figure. You knwo damned well that no one wins in American Polticis without MONEY, and those in pwer do not like to give it to women. Hell
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091027192234AAPb3zx
When women make 70 cents to every man, they cannot compete in terms of MONEY, which is the real power in America. But of course, that fact conflcits with your fact
OK, do the math, all the congress since 1917, plus all the CEOS, a whopping total of 304. Now add in supreme couet justices O connor, SotoMayor, Ginsberg and Kagan, we are at 308. Of course, no presidents.
So, we could not even break 312, even bringing in all the congress and sentors since 1917.