You can't have bi-partisanship with the party of McConnell.
42
The headline suggests that most of us believe women will be nicer. Why is that? First of all, niceness isn't exactly a virtue. Kindness is. Niceness if flat and wimpy. Kindness is action, which doesn't always look nice. Thank god.
We see rampant abuse of power, sexual harassment, ethics scandals, out-of-touch men who run scared from constituents, punching journalists, grifting at taxpayer expense, and on and on. Maybe women will be just as bad but I doubt it.
23
There's No Nice Lady Caucus in Congress! That's Marsha Blackburn all rolled into one! Now she moves from The House to The Senate! Ignorance and Scariness all in one! Must be a follower of Gina Loudon!!!
10
"It’s Washington lore that ... everyone holds hands and sings ‘Kumbaya’"
C'mon. We don't even do that in real life, let alone Washington. This is just more sexist tripe.
25
No nice lady caucus in Congress and not much of one in workplaces outside of Congress either.
It is a known fact that both women and men prefer a male boss over a female one. I'll let you speculate as to why.
I will say I would rather deal with women than men on a personal basis, but that's mainly limited to my wife.
6
Trump loves to attack and demean women who in his 1950 mind set really belong in the kitchen or bedroom. Trump has the delusion that by bravely sending nasty tweets and personally attacking black women reporters he displays his macho manhood. Quite the contrary like most bullies when someone calls them out and has the power to cause them pain they cower in fear. The democrat controlled House, the Mueller report, New York state agencies and our free investigative press will hold this loud mouth blowhard tv president's feet to the fire. Hannity will comfort Trump as he complains how unfair life is to him , the poor little billionaire with a trophy wife and a job he is unfit for. Boohoo!
19
The thread seems to have a fair number of comments by males "explaining" that women and men are alike, except perhaps for biology and a few trivial culturally-conditioned habits.
Perhaps one of those males could please list for us the female mass murderers who used AR-15s or Glocks in a church, in a synagogue, from a Las Vegas hotel room, in a Planned Parenthood clinic, in a country-music bar, in an elementary school, in a junior high school, in a high school, in a college, in a newspaper office, and on and on and on.
More people have been killed in mass shootings in the US in the past 18 years than all the similar killings in the 20th Century. All those 21st Century mass killings were committed by men.
Despite the researchers Susan Chira so gleefully quotes, it's hard to imagine that 100 women legislators could do more harm than 100 of their male counterparts.
42
Nice is a city in France, and a word which basically has no meaning at all. It’s nice that enough political theorists, whose livelihoods depend largely on perpetuating conflict theory, can still be reached for comment to suit the needs of a particular journalist.
“‘We’re still partisan — just better,’ Professor Lawless said of women in Congress.”
Wow, thanks for that helpful bit of information, nice white lady.
3
It is no surprise that women are better at accomplishing goals and working effectively with others to get it done, women have and do this every day in a society that gives them less value, less pay and less respect. Women have to work twice as hard to be heard, make nice with male colleges so that they have the support they need in a room dominated by men.
Corporate America is the same. Work twice as hard, care more about what you are doing because people are looking for you to fail. Don't be to assertive, men will call you a b***h, or other derogatory terms behind your back and with other men, you will be passed over for promotions, men that aren't bad men, but still lack the ability to stand up for women lest they be seen as weak.
Studies have shown that women feel they need to have experience or know that they won't fail before they apply for promotions or special assignments while men feel a sense of entitlement in applying, as if they are somehow always the best candidates.
These women will get things done, it's what they have always done, even in the face of great adversity, and they will get it done, I only fear that some men will look to take the credit.
Here's to the ladies and minorities that will get it done because they have to.
11
There may not be a "nice lady" caucus, but I have a feeling there's going to be a "bada$$ women" caucus, come January. Can't wait until we're (rightly) 51% of Congress!
16
"Women in the Senate gather for a regular dinner, and there is a longstanding bipartisan Women’s Caucus."
Can you imagine what the identity-obsessives at the NYT would say if MEN pulled that stunt?
The Dems use identity like a cudgel in a general election; they'll play up a candidate's sex IF she's a Democrat running against a Republican. But when a "moderate woman" runs as Republican -- e.g. NJ's gubernatorial race -- against a white male socialist, suddenly, her sex counts for nothing.
As was revealed in the Kavanaugh brouhaha, leftists don't consider "moderates" to be real women; they are gender traitors. Only identity-obsessed socialists qualify.
(Doubt that? Google "Young Kim, Congress" and "Ocasio-Cortez, Congress". A "woman of color" is anonymous because she's a Republican. Just like Gillum and Abrams are superstars, because they're Black Democrats, while John James is anonymous, because he's a Black Republican. The left obsesses about identity only insofar as it's a surrogate for socialism.)
The left has read more than half of "white" women out of the sex, because they vote for Republicans. How DARE they think for themselves?!
The numbers will tend to show that women in politics are just like men in politics; impossible to lump together as a group. The conclusion one should draw is that sex is irrelevant; as with OC and Crowley, there wasn't a dime's worth of difference in policy. Which just proves that the obsession with identity is profoundly dumb.
3
So women turn out to be "just more politicians," not "More Just Politicians"?
My brethren haven’t done a lot for me lately... if you count increasing my tax burden, placing xenophobia and sexist racism in the headlines, or allowing anyone who wants a big gun to have a big gun and lots if ammo... as an accomplishment.
Perhaps these sisters will do the same, but I think they won’t come across as blockheaded and stupid as trump does. I’d prefer to be ripped off by someone decent and likeable. Being ripped off by trump or McConnell is like being ripped off by the smarmy pencil mustachioed used car salesman.
7
The underrepresentation of 51% of our population in Congress is a national disgrace. We still have no Equal Rights Amendment -- which indeed must include a parity clause, until the institutionalized gender bias against women at every level of the manarchy (and their epidemic raging-hormone problem - you know which one) is resolved, counterbalanced, cured. Meanwhile, every group in which men outnumber women should be regarded as malignancy. And yes, that includes 'sports', which are indeed the root of all their gang-like, dominance-driven, offensive, 'score'-driven problem behavior.
8
There are sure to be many internecine rivalries among female democrats, as some rise to greater prominence. Unfortunately many women can't create teams and bond around issues, as men do.
Given the same situation, women grasping for position or power, will do the same unethical things to each other that men have done to each other for centuries.
You don't need to quote a political scientist, just ask anybody who has worked in a restaurant.
6
I am a very busy screenwriter who has worked on maybe a half dozen studio pictures in the last few years. It's a fiercely competitive, manipulative, nasty business.
I've noticed no difference between male and female studio executives, producers or directors. The same range of decent to deplorable people and behavior holds throughout both genders in relatively similar percentages.
Once there's an awful lot of money, prestige and career advancement at stake, men and women become remarkably similar.
7
All you have to do is remember that is temperamental make up, value systems and political considerations that propel all members of Congress.
The main difference between men and women in Congress is that the majority of Congress are men.
Women have as many prejudices as do men. So therefore they act accordingly.
It would be lovely if the world of women were as simple as this article implies. The truth is that we are every bit as complex as men. We can be just as power hungry, greedy, myopic and partisan as men. We can be cruel, crass and selfish too.
I have seen this in the late Phyliss Schafly when she ran around the country telling women to stay home with their children, that they should not work. Meanwhile she was the mother of 6 children who did not stay home, but spent her time running to conventions and making TV appearances, leaving her children to be raised by nannies.
I saw it with Hilary Clinton when she partook in the vilifying of Monica Lewinsky when Bill got caught having an affair, instead of pointing the finger at her own husband.
The hypocrisy of both women is no different than the hypocrisy of many men.
Let’s start looking at both men and women capable of both virtues and flaws. It is called being human.
8
I really don't think that actually anyone believes in a "nice lady" caucus in the first place. Cases in point - Susan Collins who voted in Brett Kavanaugh and will pay dearly for her Republican alignment in two years and Lisa Murkowski who sold out the rest of America for drilling rights in Alaska last year. Both of these from the "gentler" sex have demonstrated they are nothing but ruthless conservatives.
6
It's a good thing that more qualified women are choosing public service, and that voters are willing to vote preferences without regard to gender.
Will a female majority in Congress and a commensurate rise in estrogen ensure a kind, collaborative, efficient legislative process? Will they vote prioritizing country, conscience and constituency in that order? Assuming women's focus on the named women's issues, leaving things like international finance, nuclear disarmament and the preservation of democracy to be men's issues, I guess, will there need to be bi-gender coalitions as well as bipartisan?
I look forward to the day when men and women work collaboratively to end gender-based political agendas and join together to improve all our lives and liberties.
5
Moderates who can work across the aisle are being driven out in both parties. Younger women coming into both parties are more towards the extremes.
.
Women only worked together when they felt like strangers within their own party (both old boys clubs), and needed somebody to find some kinship with. As the old boys die off, and with 1/4 of the membership female, that is much less true.
.
Sure, they play softball together, mostly out of habit. Would they create the same league if they started afresh today? Women aren't nicer to other people than men are. There was a point when expectations forced women to be more genteel and restrained in their dealings with everyone. Those days have passed. As anyone who has observed a group of female friends talk about other women not present, women can be cruel and harsh in ways that men would never consider. Women treat their children kindly (more so than men); but not so much the rest of the world. If you don't think women can be harsh and vindictive leaders, go read about Margaret Thatcher, Endira Gandhi, or Golda Meir.
5
"As in other fields, women in politics often feel that they are held to a higher standard than men." The feel it, because it's often true. We can argue all day about how women are either better and/or different from men, but everyone should accept the basic premise that women holding power is an inherent good, which should not be contingent upon any of those things. Women represent over half the population, and since we are supposedly a democracy, the idea that a women should hold elected offices in large numbers should be a no-brainer. Having said that, if you think that women are always inherently more compassionate, understanding, and open to compromise, perhaps you still aren't familiar with Marsha Blackburn who just won a seat in the Senate. Beyond being a Trump sycophant, she voted "No" on all Superstorm Sandy relief, and this was after all politicians (most of them men) throughout the country, and particularly in the Northeast, increased funding for FEMA so as to make sure that all of Nashville and Blackburn's own district received all the relief in needed after the 2010 floods decimated the area.
7
Ah, but isn't there a difference between Republican women, on the one hand, and Democratic women on the other?
"Moderate women have felt increasingly unwelcome in the Republican Party."
Nancy Pelosi is more than certain to win Speaker of the House. Dianne Feinstein glided to victory in the election, despite being to the right of her constituency. Hillary Clinton (after a challenge from the left) won the popular vote by 3 million.Moderate women are "welcome" in the Democratic Party, and Democratic women of every stripe DO know that "collaboration matters."
In fact, Obama and the Democrats tried to get GOP involvement in the ACA, but McConnell, then the minority leader, only wanted to make him a one-term president.
Restoring congeniality may rest entirely on the Democrats' (women and men's) shoulders, for the time being.
16
@SSS Mitch McConnell doesn't do conciliation. He is only good at stonewalling. Bargaining with Mitch McConnell is a zero sum game. I hope the Democrats will do what they were elected to do: help preserve ACA, work to keep The Dreamers in the country, fight opioid addiction, preserve protections for consumers, rebuild infrastructure, and act as checks and balances for a runaway train wreck of a President. If they do that, they will win the trust of the People again.
8
Here's what women do:
When, in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Frances Perkins to become Secretary of Labor and the first woman appointed to the Cabinet, she told him that she would accept if she could advocate a law to put a floor under wages and a ceiling over hours of work and to abolish abuses of child labor.
During her term, Perkins executed many aspects of the New Deal, including the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Public Works Administration and its successor the Federal Works Agency, and the labor portion of the National Industrial Recovery Act. With the Social Security Act she established unemployment benefits, pensions for the many uncovered elderly Americans, and welfare for the poorest Americans. She pushed to reduce workplace accidents and helped craft laws against child labor. Through the Fair Labor Standards Act, she established the first minimum wage and overtime laws for American workers, and defined the standard forty-hour work week. She formed governmental policy for working with labor unions and helped to alleviate strikes by way of the United States Conciliation Service.
55
Some good points here, but let's not forget women only won the vote nearly 100 years ago...so women in Congress have barely made a dent on Congressional myths and mythology. Women voters may turn out to be partisan as any constituencies, but it's really kinda premature for such pronouncements. History, after all, takes a long time...
3
@Chip Lovitt: Enjoyed the ideas in your comment--however, it was not necessary for women to be able to vote for women to hold seats in the U.S. Congress: Jeanette Rankin served in the House after being duly elected to hold that seat to represent Montana in 1916--the first woman to hold office in Congress. However, interestingly, after the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution became law in August 1920 and women could legally vote, during the 1920s alone, twenty-two women were elected to the Congress. So, your point is well taken.
3
When women are the minority within governments, they do adapt with the majority’s tactics or systems to fit in and often have to double down in those survival tactics.
But when their numbers reach a critical mass, that’s when real change begins in areas of social
policy, particularly gendered social polices.
This is what we have seen in many Scandinavian nations whose parliaments have over 1/3 women in power.
19
Isn't it prejudicial to believe that women will act differently than men? There are certain types of personalities that run for office, I suspect more women are running because there are more opportunities for them to run, and that is good. I do not believe that they will be less partisan. I only hope that enough vote to support Nancy Pelosi, who is the most capable legislative leader of our generation.
8
It would be prejudicial to make assumptions about a specific female candidate or office-holder based on generalizations of women in office. But actually analyzing the different behaviors of groups of male and female office-holders is just sociology.
2
While I certainly enjoyed Ms. Chira's well-reasoned perspective on whether or not congresswomen can work in the spirit of bipartisanship or not, I think that the whole historical male culture of the Congress will more than likely continue to determine much of the behavior there.
It's going to take a lot more female presence to shift the tenor of that august body away from the old ways of doing things.
However, that said, it would be truly revolutionary in the political sense if women representatives in both the House and the Senate demonstrate prowess in debates on and passage of legislation when they use the advantages of cooperation rather than competition; compromise instead of an autocratic approach; thinking in non-hierarchical terms that can provide less emphasis on power and more on getting things accomplished.
This article seems to point in the direction of showing just how women are capable of bringing to a large group of disparate ideas those very qualities as mentioned above.
I look forward to finding out if 100 women in Congress can provide a meaningful and refreshing change!
8
Change a slogan for Harry S. Truman to:
Give 'em Hell Ladies!
11
You may be right on some ot the points about women being more partisan but I have a hunch you are wrong on the key aspects of having women in an important position as Congress.
I don't think women have an intense interest in being elected 11 consecutive times like our representative Steve Chabot had, not do I expect women will look forward to 4 decades in the Senate like Orrin Hatch.
The difference between women and men in governing is that men never had the challenges that women faced. Do you think men would have put up with waiting 144 years to get the vote? There are women in congress now who will take aside those women who want to think like men and quietly say "Listen Honey, do you want to go back to the dark old days when men ran everything and in many cases did a lousy job of it: i.e. the Vietnam War?
Why did one of the best senators from Maine, Olympia Snowe retire with the sense that nothing was getting done and she could do more outside of Congress? Hopefully she will run again.
If in 2020, we can get 40 women senators and 180 women in the house you will see what women know about governing that men never seemed to "get it."
11
I have great hope that the newly elected Democratic party women (and men):
a. Have a much stronger Spine than their predecessors and incumbent colleagues.
b. Have greater immunity from K street's corrupting effects upon Congress.
c. Have great ambition to do great and lasting good for the country.
d. Will fight really hard for what is right.
Nearly 4 decades of the core conservative ideology that "government is the problem" and "go ahead make my day" rage has left a train wreck of a mess in America. Passing legislation in the House to strengthen Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, guarantees of equal pay for equal work and family leave, and gun control are all imperative. Trump seems like "wins" - keep that it mind in your strategies. Anything that does not pass the Senate immediately becomes a potential core issue in 2020.
Work like our country's life depends on it - you know it does.
16
Women have the monkey of disadvantage on their backs.
I am amazed at how much more respect is afforded me as a white male compared to the non-white males I work with. The power of positive assumptions follow me. I try because I care; most others care too but are also fueled by a need to prove themselves in a way that seems to have been given to me at birth.
16
@James. Nice.
3
I know my opinion will fall on deaf ears, but I would really like the Democrats to consider Beto O'Rourcke for their next speaker. He would be Trump's worst nightmare. He's the opposite of our psycho leader. Where he sees good, Trump sees bad. Where he sees a future, Trump sees the past. He would plunge a stake through Dracula's heart. And he would do it with a smile.
21
One quarter of Congress made of women is already quite frightening for male representatives, whites, blacks or hispanics. Let's hope there won't be one other ridiculous backlash!
4
@Roland Berger...do you KNOW any women??
1
@Roland Berger. How so scary Mr. Berger? Is it possible that they are just human beings, just as diverse as the male representatives your are hoping to alarm? Why would there be a backlash? Isn't that what you are hoping for? Because your post seems to have two contradictory messages: "beware all males, there's females in the house now," and "gee gosh, I hope this doesn't boomerang against you lovely ladies." Which one is it?
2
Men have been in charge for 100,000 years & look where we are. 2018 the year women take over & get the job done.Yes, we multitask, keep the kids healthy, make decisions based on common sense & understand consequences. We don't need more entitled white men~
21
Although there are exceptions to the rule, I believe women are more down to earth than we men can be, and 'always' seeking cooperation and solidarity to get things done. Women may not always be nice with each other but are respectful and are pragmatic, hence, getting things done effective and efficiently. We men have had many chances to make things work but are, often enough, too competitive to be able to accept compromise, ending in sterile discussions and no deeds. We need more harmony; and women do have the upper hand, at least in my humble experience. The last we need is to belittle our better half 'a la ugly Trump', a most stupid endeavor to pursue..
5
Many women before our time sacrificed mightily to help other women achieve the vote, attend school, address domestic violence, to just function in the world with a smattering of "rights" men have. I hope our growing wave of women leaders acknowledge the women's movement, to look to women who charted brave paths with integrity, as role models. Whatever the politics, Ruth Bader Ginsberg comes to mind: top of class, family, work, commitment and great intellect despite blatant discrimination. These new leaders can do great things if they are smart enough to respect the effort that got us here. We have a ways to go to a Senate that is 50% female, 50% of governors are female and a woman President.
16
@kat perkins I look forward to the day when there is at least rough parity in the house and senate, and when a woman is elected president. But as this article underscores, there is no reason to think this will change much. The party dynamic favors those who get along, and the parties are becoming more polarized. When people get stars in their eyes talking about women in politics, I beg them to focus on Sarah Palin. It is simple justice that offices be open to all, and more, that the parties seek solid candidates without regard to gender. It is mere foolishness to think that women are somehow "better" than men and will usher in a fair and cooperative polity.
4
The real issue here is not gender, but partisanship. And the piece ignores the evils sowed by that partisanship. How many of our elections are decided by an insignificant majority or even plurality of the votes cast? Or in the case of Trump, not even a plurality. And yet when elected, politicians are supposed to follow an agenda pleasing only to their supporters and inimical to the wishes of the other group. How can this ever lead to a functional government? Although it will likely never happen our society would benefit from a more parliamentary system where everybody’s views would have at least some representation and the major parties would need to form coalitions to get anything done. The polarized two-party system is a dangerous anachronism.
10
Interesting. More nuanced than a great deal of public discussion about women in positions of power, for which I'm grateful.
I do have one small curiosity about the content of this essay. I wonder whether women vote in less-partisan ways when the vote is not recorded. I used to work for Common Cause and I'm all for recorded votes.
AND. When the vote is recorded, it's easily available material for a primary challenger, which is where party "loyalties" are most important. We'll never know, but the anecdotes about Reps Roby and Sewell, and others, suggest that there may be more cooperation when the legislative action does not attract quite so much public attention.
1
Let's talk about the health care elephant in the congressional room. These legislators get gold-plated healthcare, while some of the oldest of us use bankruptcy as a prime method to pay our health care bills, and the rest of us are terrified of the never ending rate increases. If legislators had Medicare, they would quickly improve that system. Why should they not be on the nation's health care program? Who will introduce this bill?
32
There is a divide between rich and poor women.
During the 1930's rich phony women opposed including domestic workers [most of whom were poor women] in minimum wage legislation because the rich phony women wanted to preserve a source of cheap labor.
http://wamc.org/post/dr-vanessa-may-seton-hall-university-labor-law-and-domestic-help
Domestics represented the largest category of women workers before 1940 but were excluded from wage and hour legislation until 1974. In contrast, many women industrial workers were covered by labor laws as early as 1908. By 1938, New Deal labor legislation covered both men and women. How had domestics been left out of these reforms?
Surprisingly, prominent women's organizations, including the YWCA, the Consumers' League, the League of Women Voters, and the Women's City Club, refused to fully support the bills. A bill for domestic labor standards could not pass without their support.
Why were they so reluctant? First, the members of these organizations were middle and upper-class women worried about maintaining access to CHEAP household help. They, like professionals today, depended on domestics to do the housework while they pursued other interests.”
If you want to argue that men should share more of household tasks then make that valid argument but do not exploit poor women if men do not agree to share more household tasks.
9
@david Men will take on household work exactly when they will and not before. Pressure in the household to make men - or anyone else - do what they do not want to do will introduce tension and perhaps lead to breakdown, but not to parity. I have witnessed friends fighting over this issue, where the men propose hiring domestic help but the women insisting that no, the husbands must pull their weight. These marriages ended in divorce.
What household tasks men should do is totally separate from the question of whether domestic servants should be paid a decent wage.
As the excerpt I cited shows rich phony women opposed paying their domestic servants even minimum wage.
2
Let's keep going in 2020! When we get to about a third women in Congress, there will be a sea change and the atmosphere and results politically will be quite different.
6
Any dilution of the prevailing testosterone is a very good result. Jaw, jaw, not war, war.
13
No, of course women are not more virtuous or less partisan than men. Letting that be the expectation is just setting women up for failure.
But maybe, when there is a sufficient critical mass of women in Congress, we can hope for a more "feminine" approach to problem-solving and conflict resolution.
9
"They deduced that women feel they must demonstrate more accomplishments than men to stay in office."
Or. . .they actually want to accomplish what they believe will change the country (and world) for the better, for the good of all. Maybe they have actual convictions and beliefs that transcend the craven lust for power we see all to often in the body politic.
30
Well, thank goodness for that! I sure hope the battles for best ideas are fiercely fought regardless of gender. Some of the most ruthless people I know are not male.
8
The greatest fear to the white male establishment that is Congress is the unification of their female counterparts from both sides of the aisle.
Who doesn't start wars? Women.
Who cares deeply about healthcare? Women. They are the Chief Healthcare Officers of the family.
Who were most offended by the treatment of children at the border? Mothers.
Who are the most apt to march in protest against guns? Women.
You can argue it if you will, but the facts are the facts. It's not that men can't be anti-war, etc. It's that women are not driven by testosterone. That makes a huge difference in how they react within society.
41
@Sarah: I enjoyed the important points that you've raised in your comment. However, about testosterone: I'm wondering if the science that brought us the notion that males are more naturally prone to "aggressive" and "dominating" behaviors wasn't biased in its result because the science that we know is generally done by males--wouldn't these "scientific findings" just affirm what men want us to think? I'm doubtful of quite a lot of what we've been led to believe by males.
4
@Cate
Science proceeds primarily by hypothesis formulation and testing, but sometimes failed hypotheses do produce follow-on experiments that refine, even negate the original one. Let me also note that women are much more throughly represented in academia than they typically are politics.
1
These points are well-taken, and this certainly been true thus far. It remains, however, to be seen what happens over time as women assume more powerful roles. There is no real reason to believe that women are less corruptible by the trappings of power than men. We shall see, of course, but I suspect that female political empowerment will eventually prove that women are every bit as corruptible as men.
2
"Indeed, studies have found that women in Congress are highly effective — they steer more federal spending to their districts than male legislators and have higher rates of passage of their sponsored bills, for example, according to Mirya R. Holman, a political scientist at Tulane University. (The only exception is bills on issues affecting women, health, education and social welfare, which may encounter institutional roadblocks).
“We’re still partisan — just better,” Professor Lawless said of women in Congress."
I hope the Congresswomen exhibit a greater degree of modesty than their academic colleague.
But as she states, and as well as Ms. Chira states, these women politicians are not exactly the paragons of bipartisan altruism. They just get their partisan political things done, unless it seems they have do to with women in which they are less efficient.
3
Modern politics, excluding the occasional Margaret Thatcher, does appear to be afflicted by an excess of testosterone despite it's undoubted contribution to tangles with sabre-toothed tigers and such like back in the day.
2
Of course they'll all get along. Because they're mostly one party. Among women in the House, Democrats will outnumber Republicans by better than six to one.
9
"There’s No Nice Lady Caucus in Congress."
Of course not. That's not why we elected our Democratic women. We didn't elect them to compromise with racists. Or get along with traitors. Or toady to wannabe fascists. Or endorse perpetrators of sexual assault.
We did, of course, elect them in order address what is not presently being addressed, namely, just about everything of real actual significance, including issues that affect women disproportionately.
I cannot speak for the Trump Republicans. The president was very fond of the Republican lady candidates who were slavishly fond of him. And the servile Congressional Republicans were, as usual, subservient, mindless, and mum.
71
If the newly elected women are cut from the same self-interested cloth that their male counterparts were, it won't make much of a difference if they are female, trans, or any other historically disenfranchised group, if they have the same ideas that their predecessor have had of lining their pockets and setting up their post officeholder career as lobbyists.
16
@Kevin Indeed. Best comment here.
3
Liberals take note: while more women in Congress is a GOOD thing, that doesn't automatically make them ideal legislators.
Jingoistic bumper-stickers like "well behaved women rarely make history" are great until a woman does something unapproved by the committee up on Mt Olympus who shall then denounce her as "bossy" and not in the approved way.
8
Democratic House should compromise as much as the Republican Congress did with Obama.
34
Partisanship simply means you're willing to stand up for the objectives of the party that represents a certain set of approaches and values. The point here is to take a look at the positions taken by those parties.
Of course there are women out there who are religious fanatics or have an oversized lust for money. We're human and part of the same society as men and were raised in the same culture.
Women are by nature more inclined towards compassion and listening, and especially communicating and cooperating with those who are weaker. I appreciate your opportunity to speak on a wider platform but please look a little deeper at the outcomes being fought over by those two parties that make up this Partisanship. Right now, the male dominated world order has reduced us once again to combat with each other, and until we can stop them from killing us at least figuratively, we'll never get those very different platforms even noticed again.
8
@Entera "Women are by nature more inclined towards compassion and listening"
I don't think that's unequivocally true; if there are women out there who are NOT inclined toward compassion and listening (and we all know that there are) and men who are geared toward these characteristics (again, we know that there are) then this observation about women's "nature" can't be true.
I am of the view that more women in the legislature is a positive development, if only for the relatively narrow reasons set forth below:
"Women in Congress say they bring their perspective to fill yawning gaps and previous blind spots in legislation."
"Indeed, studies have found that women in Congress are highly effective — they steer more federal spending to their districts than male legislators and have higher rates of passage of their sponsored bills"
I am also of the view that any all-male body inevitably drifts towards cruelty and insensitivity, as stereotypically 'male' values place too much emphasis on toughness, raw strength, dominance, and coercion, at the expense of humane-ness and compassion.
28
Redistricting would seem to be the only answer. Representatives are elected to represent their constituencies, and gerrymandered districts ensure that congressional constituencies are overwhelmingly homogenous. Creating competitive districts could go a long way toward reducing toxic partisanship and limit the influence of extreme voices on both the left and right.
11
We might expect a consensus on women's health issues but I would like to see the women in congress be more creative and bipartisan than men on substance.
Health Care: Single payer prescription drugs and nurse practitioner visits to monitor and renew medication. (a/k/a free basic health care for all).
Guns: Mandatory gun insurance priced for the risk of harm of particular weapons and ammunition in the hands of particular persons for particular uses. Private insurance companies would be able to look at any statistically reliable factor to put a price on risk of harm and compensate victims when they guess wrong.
Abortion: Paternal consent may offer something useful to a relationship rather than letting men leave the choice entirely up to the woman. Men who consent should finance the abortion and men who don't should support the child.
Immigration: Funding for a wall would be a small price to pay for a generous path to citizenship and jobs for those seeking to resettle in the U.S.
4
@Eugene Patrick Devany You do understand that your "creative and bipartisan" solution to the abortion consent conundrum merely legally codifies a man's veto power over a woman's choice. Same old same old.
14
The only real differences between male and female genders are the ablity to bear children (and all that that entails) and the general disparity in physical strength. All the rest is just pop psychology. I guess I agree with this op-ed that the influence and effect of female legislators is an unknown. It will take a far greater number and a lot more time to determine the long term effects of feminization.
4
@Septickal, really? You truly believe that women and men are essentially copies of one another except for childbearing? Nothing, absolutely nothing in my 75 years here bares this out. I was a custodial father of three, a girl and two boys, for a long time. The differences between my daughter and sons growing up and as adults in almost every aspect of the their lives could not be more striking.
The differences between the women and men in my current extended family are equally striking. The differences between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scala were voluminous.
The women and men I got to know well during my time in Southeast Asia, in towns and in villages, and elsewhere, were almost as if they were from two different species.
I'd truly like to hear how you arrived at "All the rest is just pop psychology." Please, illuminate us.
18
@LinZhouXi
If you read Septickal's comment carefully, I believe what that comment meant by "long term effects of feminization" refers to most of these differences you're observing. The way brains are wired by environment and culture ("pop psychology") creates real and biological differences over the years. Not to mention the cultural pressures to act differently -- which is more obvious in more traditional societies. So you're both right, but Septickal's comment is more interesting.
1
@Septickal Science has shown that your comments regarding the differences between males and females is just pop psychology is wrong. For example, brain cells are loaded with receptors for the sex hormones (estrogen, testosterone, etc.) and binding of the sex hormones to these receptors greatly alters cellular function. Thus, male and female brains must be different. This is particularly true for females whose hormone levels vary greatly during their cycle. Two examples of this include: (1) during estrus (high estrogen), females sense of direction significantly degrades (studies on the ability of males and females to navigate mazes) and; (2) when males and females are presented with pictures of another female, when the female is in estrus she is rated as more attractive (by both sexes). How the brain is able to alter ones appearance, however, is completely unclear.
1
For years, working in an organization with a majority of women in managerial positions, the one trait that stuck out in meetings and hallway conversations was their readiness to listen---a trait that was often missing from my male counterparts---who, seem programmed to tell. Personally, it took me a while to discipline myself to listen first, then listen again, and then perhaps enter the conversation. Of course, listening is only part of the equation, the next step, is to genuinely hear what the other person is saying. I feel good that perhaps the discourse pattern, at least in Congress, will composed of more listening than telling.
68
This essay suggests that electing women , per se, will not solve any of the problems with our political system. Perhaps we should focus on solving problems rather than electing people who look like us and say what we like to hear.
13
There is nothing wrong with partisanship so long as the partisans stand up for human rights, respect for the minority, universal affordable healthcare, adequate funding for Social Security and Medicare, gun control, renewable non-fossil energy, stopping endless wars that cannot be won militarily. That's the kind of partisanship we need more of. If these new women in office can accomplish that, we are all better off. It's the partisans on the other side of the isle that stand against all of these things which are the problem.
66
How well a member of congress steers “federal spending to their districts” is a measure of how effective they are? That’s an assumption. Others might choose to judge their effectiveness on how well they prevent this kind of pork spending, that the goal of members of congress is to be a voice in federal matters, rather than funding local projects.
17
@Brendan A congressman or woman is elected to represent their district, not the country as a whole. That is their entire purpose for existing; making sure that the people in their district have a voice in Washington. Of course I would want a representative who does things for the district that I live in; if he completely ignored is in favor of broader federal issues, what is the point of being represented by him in the first place?
My congressman doesn't represent the people in Lincoln, Nebraska; he represents people in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Why is it "pork" for him to sponsor and vote for bills that aid people living in Manhattan and Brooklyn? Pork spending is what the DOD does, buying things that they don't need just so that they can say they used their entire budget this year and need a bigger budget next year.
7
Ayanna Pressley and her predecessor, Mr. Capuano have similar political views. We are starting to see an electorate that prefers a candidate who looks like they do. This is the fear of old white men. As an old white man I welcome her and many other women to the political arena. I look forward to the exit of Grassley, McConnell, King and others corrupted by wealthy donors, (Susan Collins comes to mind) As I write this my wife and I are planning to move to Maine just in time to vote against Collins.
110
@Chris: bigotry against "old people"....against white people...against men....is no better, nicer, fairer or more decent than bigotry against the young, black or female.
1
The women who have been elected to Congress in the recent election represent diversity.There will be the first Native American , also more Latino and African American women.They will add their concerns to the agenda, concerns which have long been ignored.They will feel intensely loyal to the people who elected them.I think some studies which have been done to describe women’s behavior as legislators will have to be revised and rewritten.
34
@Janet Michael: over the last 50 years, we've seen the first black Congresspersons....first Native American, first Asian, first Latino, first gay....and of course, the first Black POTUS.
Did it make any substantiative difference to the nation as a whole -- to the DC beltway -- to our laws or institutions?
Nah.
It's the diversity of thought that matters. Women may be no different on average than men, but the distributions will be shifted relative to each other and the overall distribution will produce different results (though thinking about it two dimensionally is also not a great analogy---just that the distributions will be different).
There's research showing that diversity improves a system, particularly complex systems. If we were all the same, there wouldn't be any evolution. So I think the diversity these women bring is valuable, on both sides and in between.
48
I try to believe that women would be somehow better at governing than men. But then I look at all those women's faces in the Trump rally crowds and listen to Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kellyanne Conway. All I can really say about women is they have a different life experience than men and, being 50% of humanity, our government should be informed by and represent that 50%.
101
The women as The Con Don's rallies think they have it made - they made it in a man's world and like their supposed privilege, bigail49.
Wonder how many of them go home to abusive husbands who are "sorry" after they beat the women up?
35
As long as the women vote for subpoenas, they can be as partisan or bi-partisan as they want, as long as they vote for the subpoenas. Same for impeachment.
35
I welcome the new Women Dems,
Selective precious group of femmes,
And I am aware
Many things we share
And I tend to view them as gems.
66
Congress is a whole different beast. It seems to me that those in leadership positions in each parties are the ones that reach across the aisle or not. I want these women to steer their leadership in the right direction and make sure they stay on course. I want them to remind the leadership of why they were elected and that they are there to serve the people who elected them. We already know that the Republican leadership are there for themselves and their benefactors so getting them to cross the "isle" will be tedious work so one would want to leave it to leadership to deal with that.
17
Too many of these women are too angry to be effective leaders. By the time they understand that, their moment will have passed.
3
@caveman007
Ah, caveman, so the women are angry!
As opposed to the men, who are passionate, strong, heartfelt,vehement or forceful.
144
@mancuroc Correct. We are certainly a gift to womankind.
1
@caveman007 There's not really much evidence the new wave of women are particularly angry. There's a lot of feminists talking about rage but they're not the women who just got elected.
4
I worked for a large company, the old Bell labs, for 24 years ending in 2001. For the last 15 years or so of that period, the company made a serious effort to promote women. As a low level manager, I observed that, on average, women were more likely than men to make decisions based on what was good for the group. Men, on the other hand, were more likely to make decisions based on what was good for themselves. I hope we see the same difference in the various governing bodies. We will all be better off.
199
@Dick Windecker
As an old Bell Labs mid level female manager (1979-1995) I appreciate your comment. In those days of active and effective "affirmative action" due to the AT&T Consent Decree which The Labs embraced whole-heartedly, women made huge progress through the ranks. The women managers were usually excellent leaders.
15
Ms. Chira, you miss the main point.
Women and men think differently. Most Socially Conscious Women try to solve problems and come up with everybody-wins solutions.
Men want to destroy/kill something to get rid of the problem or let someone figure it out for them and go along.
It's just a fact that has been bred into men since at least the catholic church led "crusades".
Balance. That is what we will get when Socially Conscious Women share power with men. Women usually put family at the top of their 'what's right" equation. Full participation by Socially Conscious Women will truly help change the world and start writing OUR story.
Certainly there are some women like Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter who fight like men. WE THE PEOPLE do not want them near OUR governments.
92
@njglea A mythological analysis is always helpful.
3
@njglea - Please stop with the caps. As a woman, I do not want it thought that I must yell in order to make a point.
1
The thing about reaching across the aisle is that there have to be people on the other side willing to do likewise. Women are still in the minority politically and they can't alone change the environment. Maybe, down the road, with greater numbers in Congress and a less polarizing president, female leaders can show their true potential.
40