For there to be gender parity, women as a whole will have to see the folly in, and completely reject, the ideas that it shouldn't matter if a candidate is a woman and that one should only vote for whomever is seemingly best qualified for the job. Trump is a case in point that many men vote for men because they are men, regardless of their qualifications, in order to reinforce the patriarchy whenever they think it's threatened. Women are a majority of the electorate and could have a majority representation if they voted accordingly. To me overall gender parity is far more important than whether Joe Shmoe appears more qualified in a particular election.
2
Yes, women should comprise at least fifty percent of political positions! We think differently and work differently. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez already pointed out that interns don't get paid and she will pay her interns.
How can one expect excellent work performance from their employees if they are not paid and why has it been going on all this time?
1
I've noticed that most all of the comments talking about "the right person for the job" instead of looking at someone's gender identification or ethnicity are men of (guessing) European ancestry. Interesting...
4
Good. Women have only had the right to vote for 98 years. Let them all vote. Let them all run for government.
1
More women ought to be in Congress and State Legislatures. But over 50%, or at least 50%, like quota system is unnecessary & unjustified. If more qualified women run for these offices and win, no one should and no more than a few would object. But setting a goal even towards it is unnecessary.
I had serious doubts about Hillary Clinton in 2016, but I was intensely disappointed when she lost in the Primary in 2008. 2008 was her time. But Ted Kennedy et al decided Barack Obama ought to be the candidate and she lost out.
After Obama messed up in Syria & letting Maliki run things in Iraq even after finding that he was making Iraq a vassal state of Iran, I believe she would have handled Iraq & Syria, even Afghanistan far better.
1
I went door to door in 1972 for Democrats. I was 17 years old and not a single woman was running. 1996 I ran a campaign for a man running for Congress. Only women on the ballot statewide was for Insurance Commissioner and Lieutenant Governor. The Lieutenant Governor won, and 8 years later became Governor. Wow. Folks, we need way more women to run for elective office in order to make this country represent our nation.
12
Should be above 50%
2
Give female politicians a fair chance to be as corrupt as male pols.
1
Wonder what all these women would say if there were groups to elect men just because they're men?
Don't forget it's white males of European extraction who created this country and it businesses and leading institutions. Maybe if women would create something they could dominate its control.
3
women! check this man out. this is exactly why we need to run.
3
There’s no need to form special groups to promote men’s empowerment if the entire culture is already built around the idea.
Like a fish who doesn’t believe there’s such a thing as water, too many people fail to recognize the rampant misogyny and sexism in our culture because it’s just considered the normal order of things.
6
This focus on identity politics needs to stop. It's what resulted in Trump, when working class whites suddenly had a leader who told them they, too, were a distinct demographic group worth preserving. The very same people who deplore Trump's rhetoric demonizing immigrants feel perfectly entitled to say things like "We don't want more white men in Washington D.C.". It's utter hypocrisy on both sides. If one side is going to treat gender as a credential, then expect the other side to treat the other gender as a credential. If one side is going to treat race as a credential, then expect the other side to treat race as a credential. Do people actually think a focus on demographic qualities will serve only their side? Do people actually think only THEIR identity will be marketable? Get off the identity train and join the meritocracy train, and no more of the victimhood culture that substitutes personal woe for a platform. In the end, candidates, it's really not about you. It's about the people you claim you want to serve.
2
If only they had the same passion for parity in engineering, science, and math. Oh, well, for another day, I suppose, when they can pass a law requiring universities to grant degrees by demographics--almost there. No merit required.
3
No need. All that was needed was to remove the existing barriers that kept women from excelling in ‘male’ fields and we took off. Remember when girls weren’t allowed to take shop classes, but had to take home-ec? When women weren’t allowed to be pilots ‘cuz their uteruses/hormones? We already earn more college degrees than men.
2
women are already 60% of college graduates. at my college women are 50% of the math majors. without affirmative action the percentage of men in college would be even lower. you're thinking of a different time. don't worry love. you're going to get the merit based outcomes you so desire.
7
With equal opportunity at the polls, if women wanted more women elected, more would be. The majority of white women voted FOR Donald Trump instead of a vastly more qualified woman. Women are angry that more women aren’t elected? They need to buy a mirror.
4
Women are an oppressed MAJORITY and should hold more than 50% of elected offices. The notion that we should be represented by the most competent leaders regardless of gender does nothing to dispel this idea. From what I've seen there are far more thoughtful and responsible women in America than there are men.
6
Goals:
50 % women in Congress.
67% whites (more half of them female) in the NBA, and about 20% Hispanic.
Lots fewer Asians in the Ivy League.
Sound idiotic? It is. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
And if women go up to 75 % in Congress and we get a female president, so be it. The country would probably be better off, and I write that as a man. I'd vote for any random woman at the grocery store over the evil bozo we have in the White House now.
2
Shouldn't people be more concerned about the right person for the job? I don't care about their ethnicity or gender so long as they're good at what they do.
Or as a bumper sticker I saw recently, "Any Functioning Adult 2020"
21
Women are more likely to have higher affect - a more complex neural network resulting in the desire to serve and a more developed access to the executive functions of the brain, including forethought, organizational skills, higher ordered values, reason and emotional regulation. The people we elect are public servants.
No matter what gender or sexuality, what is needed are critical thinking skills.
So let's ignite a peer based, volunteer driven, prosocial, macrolevel community resiliency building movement thru public spaces, like coffee shops - and dive bars! The way we accomplish this is by replicating a critical reflection practice from a college resiliency building program, wrapped around community service. We come together in small groups of 5 to 10 folks, and we use the critical reflection practice to tell stories in a manner that helps us practice objectively, observing our subjective experience. If it reminds you of meditation, it is like a talking meditation. It also generates a sense of belonging, builds critical thinking skills, broadens world views, and is more fun that cards against humanity - because it matters. The way to launch this peer practice is to call on the thousands from San Francisco State who have internalized the skills. San Francisco State is a quiet innovator in education, and has the most diverse population of first generation students, many from immigrant families, which is what prompts the institution to offer resilience building.
3
Great advertising!
3
When you suggest that views should reflect the country are you suggesting that all women have identical views? It sure sounds like it. I would call this pure unadulterated sexism.
4
@confused If that wasn’t the intention you just gave them a new idea to advocate
1
Considering there are few Republican Congress members, to reach 50% women the GOP share of seats would have to drop to about 10%. Fortunately, with Trump leading Republicans that is quite attainable.
50% when 60% of all college graduates are women? when this country is literally falling off a cliff that the men have gladly walked us to? what if we aren't qualified?! are the current fools running this country qualified? no. we'll take 100%. many men on here have made it clear that representation isn't important. so 100% female leadership shouldn't be a problem.
5
I am amazed that any women can support the republicans. Unfortunately women can't seem to agree on the several key issues that they need to focus on.
3
We do have a crisis of the democratic rule: the dream of the "natural aristocracy" ended up being just a dream. We did get a version of hereditary aristocracy, especially in state politics, but also in the Bush and Kennedy clans, going all the way to the top. More importantly we got a primitive version of representative democracy, where the House of Representatives isn't that different of the regular populace in terms of ability, education, enlightenment if you will. Enlightened electorate being stillborn, its representative bring the to the halls of power your basic mediocrity, prejudice, religiosity, and the capacity for corruption. This being the case, I am all for going for gender equality representation - from the current entrenched frat bummery is can only get better. Yes, ideally the representatives should run on merit (and then there'd be plenty of women elected on merit alone), but they ain't. So lets just shake up that pathetic impotent patriarchy using identity politics. Like us said - how can it get worse? Nazi sympathizers are mostly males, mass shooters are mostly males - you see a them developin'?
1
This white male son of immigrants want women to take control of Congress, because it's historically and hysterically clear that real (or so they hope) men have just not proven their manliness. Radical change for the better!
9
Wouldn’t more women have to run? Wouldn’t the women who run have to be the best candidate for the job? Don’t women make up the largest portion of the electorate?
3
Once the legacy of discrimination washes through, I see women, being more likely to be people-persons, making up the majority our elected representatives, while technocratic men will dominate the bureaucracy.
Couple of questions come to mind...
What percentage of Democratic Congress member are Women?
How many women actually ran and what % won? Hard to claim bias if you don't enter the race...
1
My heavens! There are so many White Conservative Males (commentiing and/ or patronizing (criticizing?) women in these comments. I'm curious to know how many are Republicans posing as "Equal Opportunists" (NOT).
Men, get off your high horse! There are very competent women who are equivalent, if not more competent, to hold political positions compared to white males! And no, it is highly unlikely that a male is Not going to relate to women in all manners, like child birth, equal salaries, family time, etc.
11
Down with white males!
Don’t think a male has suggested to understand child birth...
Kinda like, males don’t expect women to know what it’s like to be on the front lines in hand to hand combat in a war
Think you need to leave your Silicon Valley bubble and see how the real folks live.
5
Actually, soldiers can be either gender and, ah, ask any service member and they won’t expect any civilian to know what it’s like. Being a man does not equal combat experience by virtue of existing. Being a woman does equal experience with what it is to be in a woman’s body by virtue of existence.
6
Agree, soldiers can be both male and or female. That’s why I was very specific in my wording...”front lines”
How many women stormed the beaches of Normandy and or ran through the jungles of Vietnam?
I beg to differ, men were born to defend, protect their families while women raised a family.
2
Women will add stability and balance, humanity and tolerance plus other good qualities to the work place. The good old boys place, full of competition, arrogance and testosterone will be at least diluted somewhat.
9
What caught my attention was the use of competition in your response. Completion is essential for extracting the very best from an individual. I’m afraid women like you don’t want to teach completion and that you should resist the urge to beat, win, impose your will over an opponent.
This brand of thinking will makes us less sharp and complacent...both of which are very bad traits when making decisions for the American people.
We want people who want to WIN for the people who voted them in.
Not everyone is the same, not everyone deserves a slap on the back.
2
@joyce
You've obviously never worked in an organization dominated by women. I have. Trust me, it's not all rainbows and lollipops. They're every bit as bad as men, and sometimes worse.
1
Women should hold 50% of elective offices. Hmmm. But then they would have to get “elected”. With over 50% of the voting population being women, whats so hard about that? You all have the numbers right?
Ps. How happy are progressive women with Betsy DeVoss over at the Dept of Education? Or Sarah Huckabee Sanders? They’re women right? Must be good...
4
Is it just my imagination, or are the majority of naysayers about gender equality in the body politic of the male persuasion?
What's the matter boys, can't handle the competition?
8
If you have read any of these threads you will realize we embrace completion. Completion breeds greatness while appointing people based on sex, like the article suggests without merit, we then have any issues.
2
Competition? For public office? That would be called “elections”. Only 24% of candidates for the 2018 House primaries were women. Only 28% were nominees. How in the world can u demand equal female representation when women are only putting up about a third the candidates as men. You cant win unless you run. Or in your words, step up and “handle the competition”.
1
The main issue facing this country, and has been for several decades, is the obesity epidemic, which is driving up healthcare costs in this country, which drives up the federal debt, the federal deficit, and state government budgets. Total healthcare spending this past year in 2017, was $4.5 trillion, with 1 out of every 5 dollars spent on healthcare. The fact that few are home anymore cooking from scratch, so that families eat healthy like they did over 5 decades ago, won't matter if there are 24% or 75% of the members of Congress, who are female, because in the end, if our healthcare costs continue to rise because of the diet people eat at home, or don't eat at home, because they are basically eating out all the time, there will be little money left for these female lawmakers to spend on anything else in government. The fact that 40% of the homes are single parent, mostly women, says everything about the diet they are feeding their children.
2
How does gender identity matter in this case? Should not Americans want the most qualified legislators we can find to represent us? Does it really matter what color, sex, race, or creed they are? The Constitution and Lady Justice are blind to these criteria. This seems to be another ploy aimed at socially-engineered outcomes and not merit. Nevertheless, if it is the "Will of the People," then so be it, but not just because it sounds like a good idea to some.
8
It's a great idea to make this effort to elect more women (and hopefully, people of color?) to be a bipartisan effort! I think a lot more Republican men will pay attn to it if they see Republican women involved.
6
I want Congress to reflect the country. 50% plus for women's representation reflects the electorate; sounds right to me.
12
Unlike progressives who judge people by their gender, skin color, race, etc., I am only concerned with people's opinions and values when it comes to represent me in government.
I would be much happier if 100% of Congress were women and happened to be moderate than if they were men and happened to be progressive. Not that gender matters at all to me of course, it is that they share my moderate values.
7
Sadly, this article promotes another 'Us vs. Them' which is eating, or completely eaten, the ability of congress to get things done. I'd gladly have a responsive and effective congress even if it was almost entirely of either gender.
8
I applaud the imagination that some of you displayed by following this to its "logical conclusion" -- racial quotas for Congress, women flocking to the lumber industry, men being conscripted to teach elementary school.
It's not about packing Congress with 222 women regardless of their qualifications; it's about access and opportunity. Encouraging young women to pursue education in STEM fields isn't about filling a quota; it's about changing the belief that boys are inherently better at math and science. Encouraging women to think beyond being just a voter -- or an organizer, or an activist -- to running for office doesn't imply that elections will be reduced to voting based solely on the candidate's gender. It implies that we believe women can be capable, intelligent leaders.
6
It’s been more than twenty years since garrison Keillor said let women take over, but slowly so they don’t suspect anything.. yes. You have a lot to learn, ladies...
1
Most of the dudes who are running things now should be in jail, so I'd be happy to see all women running government for a few decades--I'd even let them deny US men the vote for the duration. My bet is that life would be much better.
7
Why stop at "parity" of 50%? White men have run the country for the first two hundred years. Let women have a go at it for the next 200. It can't possibly be worse than where we are now.
10
This is really eye-wateringly stupid. 50% females in Congress? What if they were all Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachmann? Would they be happy with that. And on a day when elsewhere in the news Theresa May had to delay the Brexit vote, we see women are just as capable as men in making a mess of things. What we need are smart, compassionate people in Congress, not some quota system that makes the Congress diverse and useless.
7
@Danny I don't think anyone is talking about quotas, rather they are asking for equal opportunity.
People can no longer be discounted simply because they are not male.
6
@CAHolt In what ways do women not have equal opportunity to run for elected office?
3
@CAHolt
Anyone can run for office. Who is stopping women from doing that? It seems you're confusing opportunity with outcome.
1
here's something that i learnt recently and it was an utter shock to find out, its a bit of secret so lets try to keep it quiet, get this..women actually make up about 50% of the population...crazy isn't it? who would have thought hat?
2
@Bob Tonnor actually, I believe the percentage is a little bit higher than 50% and has been for many years. 'who would have thought? Every woman who votes!
1
@CAHolt
And yet more women still vote for men. Who would have thought that?
If you want to see the Republicans fight something more than Hillary, this is it. The misogynistic cult of white men (poorly-educated, I might add) has every reason to fear strong women who can expose their shortcomings.
YOU GO GIRL! Just do it right!
8
A lot of people seem to be commenting that “we should just elect the best person,” which begs the question “what are qualities/experiences of “the best person?” For all of my adult life the US has been governed by the qualities/experiences of old wealthy white men, most of whom grew up privileged. That’s not the “experience” I want in my political leaders. As a 49 year old I’m pretty tired of seeing wealthy, doddering septuagenarians leading a country through challenges they clearly don’t understand.
I’d like to see more women elected because they will bring women’s life experiences to governance. The same is true for young, minority, and lower-income people.
9
@Josh Wilson
Sheryl Sandberg 2020.
This is precisely the issue that so many people hate. No one is receptive to the idea of putting women or minorities in power just because they are female or part of a minority. When I see it in media I shut down, I hate to see a female character purely be a symbol (kind of like Rey from Star Wars). I love to see a real female character on screen, whether they need male help or not isn’t central to the plot, it’s just a reversal of the female love interest for the male hero (though the reversal is often handled quite poorly just to push the female hero further ahead because she’s female). We need to stop this ‘vote female because she’s a female’ pointlessness and really understand that no one really cares about gender superiority these days - at least not where is matters. Of course there are pockets of misogynists everywhere, but they are hardly the majority.
7
How simplistic to advocate for a gender-specific government. It’s about your politics not your gender. I’m a man for a constitutional amendment giving women the right to an abortion. Millions of women disagree. Millions of women agree. And there are equal amount of men on both sides. That’s about politics not gender.
But the idea that women would be better
in government just because of their gender is ludicrous. I do not support Pelosi as House Speaker because of her lousy so-called “centrist” record. I worked for the election of NY State Senator Stewart- Cousins but would never support her again because of her record on passing lame watered-down legislation on harassment laws that was to protect women against violence. What a sham that was.
And her kissing-up to, and sharing power
with, the IDC. She is also all for a huge pay raise for herself and friends. And let’s not forget about the Republican Sue Collins. What a phony she turned out to be. We can all thank her for denying women protection from predators and abuse. Then there is
Hillary Clinton who can’t keep her politics straight and changed her stance on so many political subjects that she had a credibility problem and that gave us Trump. (Yes. I blame her and the ego maniac Sanders who gladly played the straw-man to help get H.C the nomination.)
The list of bad actresses in government over time is long and sad. Let’s have an electorate that votes for “anyone” based on their mind and politics not their gender.
6
I am waiting for the day that all major sports teams also have at least 50% women. Most sports facilities are taxpayer supported.
We should also be demanding equal representation in sports! I mean why not?
10
@Rob
Completely agree with you. And this concept is as idiotic as the radio stations that have banned the playing of, "Baby It's Cold Outside."
4
so we are advocating voting for women just because they are women? if someone said we need to vote for men to keep the women out, wouldn't we scream that is sexist? now I realize women don't make up 50% but isn't advocating for women just because they are women gender identity politics? and as liberals, don't we say we're not supposed to identify based on gender identity? so are we really saying conservatives can't identify that way but when we feel it serves our purposes it's ok? no wonder conservatives feel liberals/progressives are hypocrites.
shouldn't the goal be to have the "best" representatives elected, regardless of gender, race, religion or any other identifying factor? isn't that what as liberals/progressives we are always advocating, no identity politics? and as such, don't we need to adhere to the rules we keep touting?
yes I'd love to see as equal representation as possible for everyone. but I should be voting for the best "person", not voting based on their identity. that by definition is discrimination.
7
Great point and applaud the honest assessment of the Democratic Party.
This is why neither party can afford to vote democratic socialism...if we truly want to right this ship, both Rep/Dems will need to find a middle ground.
The extreme position on BOTH sides will undue this nation.
5
Sounds like some on the left want a quota system. How about the best person wins? Identity politics strikes again.
5
Many commenters are protesting that focusing on electing women to office is undemocratic and counter-productive. That argument only holds weight in an already-equal society. Electing women for the sake of electing women only becomes discriminatory once women hold 50% of seats. Until then, it is progress.
8
That logic doesn’t really make sense. Almost everyone is willing to vote for the best candidate- Hillary won the popular vote for president! This is something many of these ‘feminists’ try to gloss over- sure there may be under-representation if certain groups in certain fields, and some of that is due to gender roles. But saying we need 50% women in legislature just because we need 50% women to fulfill some quota isn’t the way to introduce parity. Many women won seats this year, but it’s also because many more women ran, chances are if overwhelming numbers of women run for seats for 20 years, we will have an almost 100% female legislature. Then I imagine the cry will not be ‘we need 50% men in legislature!’ In the end we vote for the people we think are the best suited for the job.
2
AJ,
Does your theory only hold true for only the political system or should we be looking at elementary school teachers and how males under index versus the pop? Guess you could argue school teachers help shape kids options/beliefs and maybe kids don’t have enough male influence in their lives at an early stage.
2
Why not shoot for 100% qualified female congress members? Congress was 100% male, or close to it, for over 200 years. Why do women always have to settle for less than the men have received?
11
I’d also like to see nine women on the Supreme Court.
5
Ok, why?
2
@Linda
Be careful what you wish for. Sandra Day O'Connor help (s)elect Dubya.
1
I wholeheartedly agree that more women should run for office. But be forewarned that these women will be politicians who are also sneaky and two faced just like all the male politicians.
Politicians are all the same. Doesn't matter what color, gender or sexual orientation, while they are kissing babies they are also stealing their candy from their cribs.
7
I have found women tend to not want other women to have what they have. However, I think this new generation will be different and so is their audience. There is strength in numbers, something congressional women have never had.
2
It is much needed progress. But the next needed front is more women in the Senate and the White house
5
It would be great if more women ran for office, were qualified, and won more seats. But this line of thought leading to controlling outcomes is dangerous and stupid. Focus on opportunity and fair treatment instead.
Are you going to vote for a Republican woman over a Democratic candidate who happens to be a man because of her gender? Should we elect fewer Jews if they're "over-represented?" (No!).
What demographic characteristics do we prioritize? What happens when women are over-represented in a state assembly... do we then need to rebalance with more men? (No!). What if someone transitions to a different gender? Then what are the rules?
6
If Republicans did their share, there would be more women in Congress. As always, it is not wishing that brigs about results. If you want more women, first, run and second, get elected. There is no other way. Republican male politicians will choke on their PAC money before relinquishing their seats. Push them aside!
2
50 percent women. Absolutely.
I also want to reduce the number of Jews to 1.73 percent and carefully monitor the number of Mormons to make sure it's exactly in line with the national demographic
I've noticed the African American numbers is approaching the requisite 12.1 percent but there are ALOT of African Americans gearing up to run in 2020! We need to crunch the numbers on that and make sure we don't have TOO MANY in the next Congress!
7
i.e. Leftist activists demand more identity-politics-based quotas.
5
To all those who say it's more important to have the best legislators than it is to have women legislators, just keep this in mind: we Americans once overthrew our colonial government and kicked the king's troops out because we were not OK with unequal representation. The British had what was at the time considered one of the best groups of legislators in the world. After all, they were responsible for managing a vast, world-encircling empire, but we Americans didn't want 'good' legislators. All we wanted were American legislators.
How is that different from a woman wanting to be represented by women legislators?
5
@Mr. Adams
I find your comparison a little awkward. The young United States was looking to form a meritocracy based on democratic principles against the monarchy system of the British. So yes, "best" was favored, howbeit they were picking from white male Americans, but still quite evolved for it's time. Also, the US was anti-imperialistic and certainly would not need or want legislators skilled in the art of world empire.
Finally, while it's true there was a strong complaint about "taxation without representation", the slogan served much better as a rallying cry than a call for actual action. Had the British parliament actually given the colonies a seat the last thing it would have meant was equal representation. Far from it. They would have been a tiny minority with no power quickly overruled any time their interests clashed with the old world.
It's supposed to be the "best man" for the job, in the old saying, meaning best person. But if you insist on 50% you won't get that. And, oh by the way, 50% is *all* you get.
The real challenge, that the position in the article conveniently ignores, is the other word in the phrase, "best". If voters voted for the best people things would be a lot better, regardless of the particular qualities of the person.
Anyway, I thought that it wasn't proper liberal dogma to consider gender and ethnicity in voting?
1
Some people, like RBG, think the right number of women on the Supreme Court is 7.
2
@BlueskyOregon
I think she means, the "left" number on the supreme court.
2
I'm a Democrat and this news is all positive to me. More Democrats are organizing and working to get more elected at the local, state, and federal level. So what if their women, all the more power to them.
It's still the voter that decides, so why wouldn't we what as many candidates as possible to run? Better choices can be made.
6
While I welcome increased membership of women in political circles, I do think this focus on identity and representation misses the mark in a number of ways. Is the New York Times concerned about the number of female trash collectors, and the lack of male kindergarten teachers?
Let's take prison populations, for example. Prison populations are overwhelmingly male. By the logic of the New York Times, there is a huge problem here that needs to be rectified. We should either release a huge number of male prisoners, or we need to start arresting far more women. The disparity is a problem we can't just ignore, right?
If you believe in science, these disparities are explained by millions of years of evolution which reward males for more risk-taking behavior. The result is that you see men succeeding in large numbers, but you also see them failing dramatically as well. People consumed by identity politics and the cult of intersectionality simply don't want to grapple with the scientific basis for many of these societal outcomes.
8
The gender gap begins in the home. Women raise the children and run the household. Men's roles in both are secondary. The way to political equality starts with getting rid of stereotypical gender roles. As long as women stay at home for years, they will not be running things in Washington. I imagine that many women think that their husbands can't cook and clean and care for the kids. But these are false stereotypes just like men's beliefs that women can't run the country. If there is going to be equality, it has to be on all grounds. As long as men and women think they have separate areas of expertise, they will have separate roles and they will remain fundamentally unequal.
3
I do want to see more women in Congress. I would have no problem if well over half of the Congress were women. But I must confess, I find the identity politics exhausting.
5
Do you think men have done a very good ot very poor job of addressing "women's" issues? I think they have never taken "women's" issues very seriously, except for our right to choose, which has been a convenient cudgel to make many women feel guilty and divide us, thus diminishing our voice. Why do you think that four republican administration's have just chipped away rather than overturn Roe? What would they do without Roe?
Did you find it wonderful to watch that circus regarding Ford vs. Kavanaugh? I'm pretty sure Lindsey Graham was pretty shrill and hysterical by the end. Talk about dramatic license. For whom exactly was he yelling?Imagine if Kavensugh had bern confronted by a room full of women instead of a few sprinkled among those old, old men. He might have realized he should admit to being a stupid 18 year old boorish bully and apologized to Ford instead of whining about how horrible it was for his wife and daughters. An apology would have gone a long way and set an example for future Supreme Court wannabes. Clearly he was going to get the job anyway.
More women will mean we are off the bench and calling the plays...we are the majority and are treated as another minority...women are women regardless of color, religion, or sexual preference. 100 More in 2020!. We will have different opinions about what the changes should be but we might actually get some action. I can hear Mitch McConnell wretching at the thought.
3
Kudos to those would encourage ALL eligible voters to exercise that right. As in equal opportunity in employment, however, let us make certain that this does not degenerate into some late-show, old movie type battle of the sexes. Let's leave that stereotype to the off hours on the boob tube.
2
24% is a very low number. It would be nice for the writer to provide some insights on the main cause(s). For example, if we consider a seat with a newly elected representative, what fraction are women, and what fraction of people running for the seat were women (looking all the way back to the primaries)? Answers to these questions could reveal whether we're moving along a path where the gender discrepancy is likely to dissipate, or if reaching parity would require greater interest by women in running for political office.
2
Congress is "Representative," eh?
4
Good. I will only vote for Democratic women for now on--as one they make far better leaders, and two, to upset all of the snowflake males in this country who are dumb as rocks.
8
@Daniel
As long as you don't run for anything, I'm good.
3
Fair enough - my four sons and I will only vote for men. After all, if you can boast of being a misandrist and discriminating based on gender, so can we.
3
Who gave women the right to vote anyway? Oh yeah, a 100% male electorate did. Make one wonder about that entire “powerless” narrative if you think about it.
5
@KBronson As I stated on another comment, you make it sound like the men did it willingly when in fact, it came down to one tie-breaking vote. And that young man bucked the trend because his MOTHER asked him to vote in favor of women's rights to vote. Also, please read up on your history or see the movie Iron-Jawed Angels about US Suffrage or even Suffragette about the UK. You'll notice that the powers that be -- mostly men -- did not give the vote willingly and instead fought, jailed, and tortured suffragettes. Some women even died. Power is never given easily to women or any other disadvantaged group. Only people in a position of privilege can ignorantly or intentionally afford to forget that advances were often made with struggles and yes, violence. It's hardly kumbaya.
2
If you want more women in elected office all you have to do is have women vote for them. Women only make up 1% more of the population than men, but they vote at a 15% higher rate. Which means every single election can be totally controlled by women. But then you need to figure out why the majority of white women voted for the crazy criminal.
6
Wow... most of the men who posted comments really seem to be clueless on what works in power & politics. Sadly, clueless.
10
I was watching the Capital Rotunda after they brought GHWB there, as people were filing in for the ceremony. At one point a steady stream of men, white men, followed one after another thru the door. After what seemed like dozens of white men in a row I realized it was the Republican Congressional delegation. They stood out as the most homogenized group in a crowd full of women and POC. FWIW.
10
If we want equality of outcome, why not enforce that in colleges which are more than 50% female? Or do we only care when it's less than 50% female?
Most auto body shop workers are men. Shouldn't we be demanding more women? Or do we only care when it's an upper class job?
Finally, why not make this part of the Democrat's platform? "Social Justice Demands Quotas!" Of course, it will be righteous leftists who determine the categories.
5
I cast my votes based on a candidate's platform, not their platform shoes...
7
I am all for equality in the Congress, but there is no proof that things will be any better with women in charge. The feckless and hapless Theresa May is not exactly a shining example nor is the hopefully soon to be departed Angela Merkel- darling of Neoliberals everywhere.
Over here Hillary had a rigged Primary process and a Billion Dollars and could not beat a two bit NYC grifter who played a Billionaire on TV (Trumpov). This from someone who was supposed to be so smart and so savvy and so well prepared for the job. When you have 100% name recognition, the endorsement of the sitting President, the endorsement of almost every media outlet not owned by Rupert Murdoch and a Billion Dollars, her failure shows how inept she really was and is.
On the good side, Ms Pelosi was and should again be a great Speaker of the House. Until she went stupid and took Trump's bait on the Pocahontas thing, Sen Warren looked like a strong candidate- but now is damaged goods. Rep Tulsi Gabbard seem to have a bright future if the House Democrats will give her a chance to shine. Senator Harris shows great promise but maybe should wait a term before running for President.
1
Global gender equality is the next stage of human evolution.
And in politics, it helps that women are better leaders.
Patriarchy will die hard, but it is dying.
7
I am pleased by the increase in women entering congress. They represent the growing recognition that we need all voices heard in order to truly achieve fair and balanced governance. Gender should be viewed as an interesting fact about any individual, not as a feature that defines their ability to perform a job. Let's just hope that women will use their political power justly, unlike their male counterparts.
6
The logic behind this is dangerous, if you follow it to its conclusion. And its pretty clear none of the activists--or the the journalist--have. Has it occurred to anyone that fewer women want to serve as elected representatives than men? And that this is not a reflection of structural misogyny? Men and women are not the same.
If you disagree, let's then also seek gender parity in the dangerous and often underpaid professions that men do overwhelmingly--like construction, logging, mining. Any takers on that?
11
@Anthony “Men and woman are not the same.” Are you sure this is politically correct? Watch for the blowback from that statement!
1
@Anthony. Most men aren't in logging or mining either. I do know women who work in construction though.
@Cal Yes, of course. But most men aren't representatives in congress either. The problem in demanding perfect parity is that it has to be applied fairly and leads to some weird consequences. Alas, I've seen no evidence that any real understanding of fairness--at a deeper human level--motivates these demands.
I've worked at a large company that bragged about it's close to 60% female employment. The laws of numbers states there must be discrimination when the population is 50/50
When your boss is a woman, your boss's boss is a woman, you star to see women in positions promoted by other women. One VP down 2 offices would just hire from her womens professional group, even after she had 95% turnover, no one would fire her because, she's a woman in a high level position.
I've had my boss insult me, belittle me and her boss not care, because she checks all the right boxes, even with other complaints about her being under qualified for the job and being moved from senior management job to senior management job. It is quite funny.
It's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
6
@Scott
OK, so this is different from men, in what way?
For me, all this means is that white collar workers should have unions to fairly represent their interests, (as corporation HR is an extension of management) ... which is a pipe dream...
6
@Scott Yeah, I agree with Gratis. Everything you mention has also been done similarly by men and has been for CENTURIES. You only notice it now because the person taking advantage of others and the people benefitting are not male.
My point is the push for more women is ultimately for a better government. On my part, I don't necessarily think that, on average, women are more fair, more intelligent, more moral, etc. than men. BUT there are a lot of INDIVIDUAL women (like men) who ARE and they deserve the support and structure men have enjoyed to run for and win an office.
As Warren Buffet used to say, when people praised him as the financial "Wizard of Omaha", he only had to compete with 50% of the world's population. Women weren't allow or given the chances in this youth the same opportunities men were. So by not supporting women running for or remaining in office, we are essentially casting aside the 50% of US citizens from which we could draw some very talented politicians who could help solve problems we all face.
9
When women got the vote in this country, many theorized that this would mark the end of our involvement in wars as mothers would never vote to send their sons off to fight.
Obviously this was wrong. It may be a laudable goal to have more women in elective office but those that run and are elected will be politicians and behave like male politicians have for centuries.
And for those who believe that one should vote for a candidate based on their gender, then why not based on their race, religion, or national heritage?
7
There is a saying used in Alcoholics Anonymous - “Progress, not perfection.”
I’m encouraged by the 24% number. That’s still a long way of being representative of the population, and yet it’s a move in the right direction.
8
As a woman, I have issues with parity for parity's sake.
I want the most qualified person to represent me.
But, if the best candidate happens to be a woman - then yes, she will get my vote.
15
Half the Senate would be good, too.
7
@Canary In Coalmine
Still OK if they're all Republicans?
3
@DaveD
Doubt they would be.
1
@Canary In Coalmine
So, no, then. You're not voting for women but rather your party of choice.
1
Radical campaign finance reform will do more to level the playing field than almost anything else. Once in Congress, a typical representative currently spends half their time schmoozing big donors and dialing for dollars. Reducing the influence of big-money is the most effective legislative key to cultivating a far broader slate of candidates from all genders, races and economic backgrounds. Now is the time.
8
This is a great step for America. As a 61-year-old male I am delighted that women are increasing their numbers in Congress, and in state houses. We've come a long way from the ratification of a Constitution that essentially cast women aside as property of men. Yet, they are, on average, far better people than us men. Good luck to them. May their numbers increase again in 2020, especially in the Senate and the Oval Office.
6
Don't be too loud or republicans will start gerrymandering women too!!
It's not revolutionary to suggest that representative democracy should fairly represent the different sections of the society. A part of the reason viagra is paid for by insurance, but women's common procedures are not is that men control the structures of power, so yes such wrongs can be corrected only be a fairer representation. Those claiming that increased female representation to be against merit are likely just looking at the issues from their tinted self-interest glasses. They may wanna check their biases, if they are capable of self-reflection that is ...
3
Survival of our democracy has going for it women, people of color, academicians and legal scholars who are demanding the equality guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and our laws. Trying to take that away from us is much of the Republican Party (e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/09/opinion/wisconsin-republicans-walgreens-campaign-finance.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage).
2
Perhaps we should amend the Constitution, so that instead of voting by states or geographical areas, we vote by identities. We mandate a certain percentage of whites, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, men, women, LGBTQ, etc. (obviously there'd be some overlap), to conform with the latest census. Would that make everyone happy?
5
Query: if we want a country in which 50% of Congress is female, do we also want one in which the body accurately reflects the number of left-handed people? What about a Congress in which the number of people of Irish ancestry matches their numbers in the population? Are short(er) people sufficiently represented? What about gingers; do we have enough red-heads? Does the percentage of cat owners versus guinea pig afficionados track?
Identity politics is poison. On the issues, Crowley and Ocasio-Cortez were essentially indistinguishable, although he clearly pushed the Krell meter substantially higher. She owes her election to her tint and her plumbing. And THAT is profoundly dangerous, as well as patently unAmerican. The whole point of being an American is that we assess you on what you think and what you do, not on what you are. If that changes – and stories like this demonstrate that it is – the inescapable conclusion will be that someone who doesn’t look like me can’t represent me. Which will work the destruction of the country. Already, we see the Dems saying, in effect, identity is destiny, that what comes before the hyphen is more important than that follows it.
This. Must. Stop.
Put simply, if you care about your MC’s plumbing, you’re part of the problem, and should scurry back to grade school to review what it means to be an American.
50
@Michael
Your query misses the point.
For me, I want a country where a woman can have a 50-50 chance of running for office.
19
@Michael: thank you, you spared me time by more or less typing what I wanted to type.
6
@Michael
So, in your opinion, the fact that women have historically had less than 10% representation in congress, or whatever the actual number is-- is because they're not as smart, capable, ambitious or whatever enough for politics?
Can you explain why the numbers are so skewed in favor of men? And more specifically, white men?
And can you explain it without prophesying fire and brimstone and the demise of our great Republic?
19
If women were actually more competent I would support them being way more than 50%, that their gender is the only advantage they have strikes me as foolish discrimination. Just as having males, or any other criteria other than competence to select employees.
3
@vulcanalex We've had 10,000 years of male only rule. It's been nothing but war, greed and pollution. How about we try 200 years of women only and see if they do as bad? Because I don't think they could do worse.
7
@vulcanalex And yet for centuries all around the world, simply being male was enough to qualify any man over any woman for just about any position. Your first sentence betrays you still believe that.
6
I’d say we created one heck of a great country.
But don’t take my work for it.
The country created by those old white guys is so great that people of color leave their homes, risk their lives, and spend every dime get have just for the chance to live in the country and enjoy the culture and benefits of our country and culture.
Seems those folks think those old white guys did pretty darn good !
There are sort of two issues here: voting methods and the issue of women in power. There appears to be an assumption that more women means more Democrats. That's not always true.
1
Women need to have more places at the table, but I'll still vote for a Democratic man rather than a Republican woman.
30
This man agrees. Although we should have the right people for any job, there are no doubts that there are millions of women who could fill those roles. We can only hope they will be more responsible.
2
I really believe if the world were run by competent women, it would be a more peaceful, loving, and compassionate world.
10
@Tom Perhaps but if our country is the only one we might be run by say Putin or Chi.
What SHOULD anything be? If I support economic justice and those who feel the same way wear red tennis shoes, I'll promote men and women who wear red tennis shoes. If I only promoted women, about half of them may not support economic justice.
4
@Marty Rowland, Ph.D., P.E. I support economic justice, that is best obtained through a fair and free market, not through a lot of government.
1
@vulcanalex:
Nah. Tennessee is a taker state; as such, you actually do like government interference.
The nature of being elected conflates with the need to be competitive (and very thick skin). Those who wish to participate in the government need to get involved to get elected.
Unless we change congress to appointments, the election process and competitive process will have to suffice for now.
The last time we appointed people to the government (the US Senate) the country found it so repulsive, the country passed a constitutional amendment to change it to an electoral process.
1
The identity obsessives want more women in office -- right up until the woman is a Republican. Then, suddenly, voting for the white male socialist becomes more important than identity. Republican woman runs for Governor of NJ? The white male socialist gets all the votes of the people who contend that there should be more women in office. Mia Love, woman of color, seeks reelection? The white male socialist gets the votes of people who purport to care about identity. Young Kim, woman of color, runs; every leftist supports the socialist man running against her.
Let's be clear: essentially every voice demanding more women in office believes that Republican women don't count. (Look at their reaction to women supporting Kavanaugh or Trump) These folks passionately believe that women MUST be socialists to merit support, and they will NEVER vote for a Republican woman over a Democratic man.
Hypocrisy would be far too kind a descriptive.
15
@Brenda Very well said.
3
@Brenda You know very well that being a democrat is not the same as being a socialist. And you are correct, I will vote for a democratic man over a republican woman any day. It makes complete sense, because I disagree with republicans on just about everything, so why would I vote for one? Anyway, republican women are becoming an endangered species and that doesn't look likely to change any time soon.
7
@Brenda Your post actually proves that many Democrats, women, liberals, progressives, etc. ARE NOT as identity-obssessed as the Right or the Left (or perhaps even you) view them to be.
As a liberal, minority woman, you are absolutely right that I would never vote for Mia Love or Young Kim. I don't care about their skin color or plumbing because I see their policies as not helpful and even harmful.
And I see my views as entirely coherent, non-contradictory. My first priority are policies and stance. Then the candidate's personal background. If two candidates were equally or nearly equal regarding the former, then yes, I would cast my vote for the woman or minority over the male, white candidate.
(One could also ask the same question of Republican women: would they ever vote for a Democratic or independent-party woman running for office? Or is the presumption is that they don't support women/ care about women being in office as much so the question doesn't even need to be asked? Or is it they are so "Party-obsessed" that voting Republican every time trumps everything else?)
4
I'm missing the part where gender proportional representation is more important than other forms of citizen demographic.
5
Women govern differently from men.
We listen, build consensus and deliver results when given the opportunity. No backdoor meetings with lobbyist who have corporate interest only.
6
@Carole They do?? I seem to remember some females running the UK and Israel who were not as you indicate, they were similar to what men would do in their circumstances. I have seen this president in meetings listening carefully, and doing some things very unexpected by progressives.
3
@Carole
You've never heard of Hillary Clinton, apparently.
3
So if vote against someone because she's a woman (which I never have, and never will), I'm a sexist. But if I vote for someone because she's a woman, I'm a proponent of gender equality. Have I got that about right?
12
I think Douglas Macarthur, when asked about his support for suffrage in post-WWII Japan, said female representation in government cuts down on militarism and unnecessary wars. New blood in Congress will also be good too. Through these lens, i support this push.
5
If you believe in the principal of affirmative action, as I do, the case for more women in Congress is pretty simple. Obviously, no one wants to have a woman as their representative regardless of competence. That is not the issue. The issue is that, because our present is not cut off from our past, every woman who runs for office or thinks about it does not enjoy the same platform of cultural support as men who are running for office.
For the foreseeable future, given a choice between a qualified man and a qualified woman candidate, each with values I support, I plan to vote for the woman.
49
Women make up 51% of the population. we should be represented in our government as such. We need to consistently support women candidates who reflect our views, and the men in office need to appoint women to key positions to reflect the gender percentages of our population. This is hardly a radical concept. It has been tried and works in other countries which flourish under gender representative equality.
9
In this time of addiction to instant gratification, the desire for more women in office right away may not be immediately satisfied. Persistence and reasoned patience might be necessary, however frustrating to some. In time we will learn whether increasing women in politics is subject to the same issues of money, power, corruption, arrogance we have found in the male-dominated situation so long the norm. The discontent of desire: unexpected consequences.
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
7
Why Thank you Doug for man’splaining this to all of us. Patience is exactly what the suffragettes were told for 50 years while trying to secure our voting rights Also, I am sure that we need to see if women make any difference before voting them out, yes? Good lord, and this is starred by the NYT???
10
@Catherine
Well, Catherine. Thank you for your response. My comment ("mansplaining" because I guess I'm male), used the qualifying words "may not be" and "might be necessary." Perhaps there will be no need for "persistence and reasoned patience." Your certainty (and, I'm sure, the certainty of others) may be correct. However, just as there is resistance to Trumpism, so there may be resistance to electing more women to office. (My mother was an early feminist who voted the first time women could vote.)
It does seem probable that as more women are elected, we will learn more about whatever differences they make. And I said nothing about "voting them out."
Among things for which we can be certain: Uncertainty. It, along with the Unexpected or the Unforeseen, will bring surprises. I do not claim to know what those surprises will be.
Women, since they are human beings, may be subject to the same flaws (and positives) as are men. We'll know more once the future is present and then past.
DG
1
I know! Let's institute a quota!
12
Hell yes! I want more than 50% of our election officials to be women. We deserve a voice in how our country is run, and how women are treated.
16
@J casmina You have a voice. It's called voting.
5
Parity of membership in Congress based on gender is not democracy. It's great that more women are coming forward to serve the public. But we can't choose our Representatives based on their gender. We should choose them only on their qualifications for office, and gender is not one of those.
26
@Max Dither
"We should choose them only on their qualifications for office...".
And yet, we have Trump.
11
@Max Dither
Um, I think the presidential election of 2016 showed that there are no qualifications for office.
What made Michelle Bachmann qualified for office? Steve King from Iowa? A random person from page 23 of the phone book would be a better rep than these two examples.
17
Our democracy will survive gender equality, dear. You, however, may not, but that's up to you.
6
Organizations focused solely on electing women, whether Republican or Democrat. In other words, we don't care what you think or what policies your will advance, we just care that you look like us.
What could possible go wrong?
5
“Some” think this? That congress should reflect the population it represents?
6
Women are half of our society and for too long they have had to adapt to the male created world in most facets of life. This is bunk. As half the population, it is their right - nay, their responsibility - to be half the voices that outline how our society works, what it values, what rules we make for ourselves, etc. Sure, there are plenty of issues where there is no "female perspective"; however, there are plenty of issues where growing up in the male created world will generate perspectives that need to be brought to the fore on at minimum an equal footing to the experiences of the dominators.
This older white male says "More power to you, women!".
10
Yes! I hope Democrats find a woman presidential candidate.
I like Sen. Amy Klobuchar She has accomplished great things, and she seems to me, to be very smart and also humble.
If may be that the only way to fight the ultimate macho Trump is with women leaders. Fake news, fake leadership and fake democracy must be resisted, with women and men, together.
Thanks so much for this story, Kare Zernike.
=================================
2
Some interesting tats on there. Not sure violent felons are exactly who you want to be representing you.
Also, I am beginning to wonder if women would not just like to have a completed segregated women only society where they can have all the seats, and CEO titles, and even though the STEM department will be an order of magnitude smaller than the Early Childhood Education one, it can still be 100% female!!!!!!!!!!!
Rainbows, smiles, flowers, sunshine cookies, and risk aversion.
Also I wonder since women pay way less taxes then men why we should be entitled to equal representation. I mean taxes+representation is one of the founding tenets of this country.
4
@Emily
then why non-citizen foreigners get to pay tax but don't have the right to vote?
@Emily Why do you assume the STEM departments will be smaller? Part of the reason why women are less in STEM is because of societal attitudes that they are not good at STEM. It is a self-perpetuating process but studies of women in all-girls/ all-women school as well as non-US countries show that the numbers/ percentages interested are not necessarily lower.
As for taxes, maybe YOU pay lower taxes than the average US male but I do not.
5
@Emily There are plenty of women in IT and engineering (I am one, and the teams I've worked on have been mainly 50 - 50). None of my friends are teachers.
Only one party is making this possible. Its the Democratic party. So only people benefiting from the current system are advancing the notion that "both parties" are equally "bad" or "corporate owned"
1
I am all for it; women should make up 50 percent of Congress, after all, females make nearly 51 percent of our total population. So yes, lets hope the effort to elect more women, D's or R's works.
1
Seems completely reasonable to want a government led by people who represent the makeup of the country. Men have proven over and over again that they do not understand the issues of women. They act as if they are not critical issues and at times decide that they know what to do better than women. But, the proof is in the governing. The United States government and the world is falling apart primarily because of the greedy, power hungry men who want to maintain the male control of power. They are not working together and do not seem to care about the plight of the majority of humans. Let's give more women a chance.
45
I am so tired of statistics as a basis for everything. Just because women represent 51% (or whatever ) of the population doesn't mean that Congress should reflect that. The same argument is used to justify ratios of minority students in colleges, minority participation as CEO's and a multitude of other areas.
Why can't we just say the best people should be in regardless of their group? Maybe there aren't many more women qualified AND interested in politics. Or running a corporation. Or attending Harvard. Let's get past the interest groups and see people as people.
6
@Richard Fleishman We can "say that the best people should be in regardless of their group", but we need some force (laws and punishment) to make it happen. The recent Harvard scandal is a perfect example. More qualified Asian students were systematically denied entry in favor of whites. This is not about being qualified. The current model is about entitlement and based more on sex, race and wealth than quality.
5
@Richard Fleishman
The problem is that many powerful white men don't look at them as "people", they see them as only women.
2
Good.
It's about time women had the opportunity to show how it's really done.
Go get it, girlfriends.
30
Valerie: go get them girl as in Sandburg of Facebook? Your comment is shallow and not rooted in reality. Voting because of a person's sex is foolish and dangerous. I won't even mention how sexist this is.
4
@Paulie:
"It's about time women had the opportunity to show how it's really done" is sexist? What?
And Sandberg - she spells it with an "e" - is representative of all women?
How is that 'logic' NOT shallow?
Have a look at who objects the most. Odd how men immediately leap in to claim that gender parity isn't important in governing. Almost makes one think that they have a stake in ensuring that gender parity is never achieved...
61
@Allison This discussion brings to mind the saying, that a fish doesn't know it's in water. The general population perceives the domination of our key hierarchies - political groups, organized religion, business - by white men, since the nation was founded, as 'normal' and without needing any justification.
2
I am all for women's rights and empowerment. However, there are some voices in the progressive movement that need to be watched carefully. They are losing sense of moderation and common sense. Extremism from right, left, or any ism is not a virtue.
11
How about this for a concept? Vote for the individual you feel will be the best for the job as opposed to whether they're a man or woman.
I don't care if you're a woman, a man, black, white, or purple. I do care if you're not conforming to democratic principles. I do care when you take the voting result out of the hands of the people and perversely change it within your own halls of power.
Let's keep our eye on people who want to do the job correctly. Forget about the rest of it. We already know both sexes handle the position so who cares what sex you are. We already know your color has little to do with your job skills. This diversity thing has gone far enough. The real name of the game is to do your job properly.
49
@Billy Walker
That is not necessarily the problem. The problem. is getting a woman to the point where she is actually on the ballot.
7
@Billy Walker Great. Sure. But the powers in the party present us with who THEY want, and shield the voters, via funding and endorsement, other possibilities. And surprise, they are usually the ol' boys who are up for their turn, whether the best or not. Look what happened with the midterms. Women ran, women won. BTW, most of the country did not view Trump as the 'best candidate,' and we are stuck with him anyway.
3
Bill Brown asks, in the most favored comment, "Will having women politicians in proportion to the population make this a better nation?"
YES. Yes, it will, Mr. Brown. Don't be intimidated. You will like the sustainable, relatively peaceful, prosperous world we live in when Socially Conscious Women and men share power and govern for 99.9% of us.
32
100 More in 2♀️2♀️
We don't care if your red or blue,
As long as what you say is true.
Don't take money from the NRA,
Or use fake fears to win the day.
We will give our vote to you,
Regardless if you're red or blue.
A few good women is all it will take
To fix the rancor and partisan break
So we can have a better tomorrow
We need honest budgets and less borrow,
Love, not hate, and informed debate
Will determine Democracy's fate.
We don't care if your red or blue,
Green, Independent, you're in too!
To turn the swamp into a bubble bath
It's time to take a different path.
Females of any age, size, and race
You can wear camouflage, suits, or lace.
The finish line is just two years away.
33 Senate seats will be in play.
The entire House is open to the brave few.
We really don't care if you're red or blue!
6
The well intentioned women's and black movements (e.g. MeToo, Black Lives Matter) are at a cross road. Their apparent power is being diluted by followers and leaders expanding their focus beyond the original goals of drawing attention and remediation to the too long history of discrimination against and abuse of women.
As some of their leaders and followers draw into their root focus issues relating to foreign policy and embracing other groups that embrace religious hatreds, these women's organizations estrange other followers and ultimately will lose direction and fail.
With this new power comes responsibility to remain focused on the original goal - equality.
1
Women are over one-half the population of OUR United States of America and the world.
The very idea that there is a "year of the woman" is ludicrous. Must have been made up by the same men who have been trying to suppress women for centuries.
Today's movement by Socially Conscious Women who are refusing to let anyone tell them how to live their lives and what to do with their own bodies is here to stay. Strong, courageous, smart Socially Conscious Women are stepping up to take one-half the power in every segment of society to put an end to the male power-over model that dominates OUR lives.
HIStory is one of hate-anger-fear-Lies,Lies,Lies- death-destruction - WAR- rape,pillage,plunder and repeat. It is time for it to end. It is time for OUR story, written by Socially Conscious Women and men who share power, of relative peace and prosperity for ALL human beings.
NOW and forever.
8
Women don't make the "same proportion among lawmakers that they do in the general population"?
So what? They make up more than half of voters. In a democracy the right proportion of our elected representatives is whatever (mostly women) voters choose.
Do we really want to go down this road? Let's see. Asians are a larger proportion of undergraduates at Harvard then they do in the general population.
Back in the bad old 1930s, under the policy known as numerus clausus, Ivy League schools restricted the proportion of Jewish undergraduates. Still they were around 8 times their proportion of the population.
Men are disproportionately represented among chess grandmasters, scrabble champions, contributors to Wikipedia and Nobel prize winners.
Does Zernike support quotas (or what hypocrites call "goals," as if it makes a difference) to "correct" these shocking imbalances? Does she retrospectively endorse the Jewish and (current) Asian quotas at Ivy League schools? That is the road she is beckoning us down.
13
The presence of African-American players in the NBA and NFL far exceeds their percentage of the Nation (recall what those N's stand for). When will the NYT call for this prejudicial imbalance to be rectified? I want to see the best athletes, hire the best plumber, get my kids to the best dentist. Not the best Amish plumber or lesbian dentist or Chilean athlete. Only to the far-left is this particular political issue a problematic injustice.
23
Randy: seems like you’re trolling, but I’ll answer your question. First, none of the professions you mentioned make laws or decide the fate of our country. Second, the life experiences of football players and plumbers don’t affect their jobs, because their job is not to “decide how Americans will experience their lives.” The life experiences of political leaders DO affect how they govern, and so should be taken into consideration.
@Josh Wilson
Got it. Politics is too important a profession to permit the risky ideal of letting the best person win. We must encourage, promote, and demand sexist practices to ensure the "right" person wins.
1
These statements sound hollow, declaring with so much fanfare 'the year of the woman', and yet keeping all the trappings of a 'macho' society in place. It reminds me of Bolivia having a 'day of the child' where he/she is treated regally...and the very next day treated with the parental and school's abuse as usual. Why not treat everybody well all of the time? I know, we must be enlightened for that, right? And that is the rub, the need to treat each other with respect and dignity since childhood, and prevent all the abuse we see far too often that we have become numb to it. To our loss. And adding to society's ills.
1
It seems to me that women hold undiscovered power in their own hands. They are fully half of our voting population. While in the past they have felt unempowered and oppressed, in the culture and age we have now embarked upon, it will no longer need to be 30 years before a woman feels safe enough to accuse an abuser, it will be now. It will no longer be a hard decision whether to go to work or have children, it will no longer be a choice as to have children or run for office when both are welcoming. Certainly there will be setbacks, as per the backlash from Wallstreet where men are now frightened to death to be alone with a woman lest selacious fingers be pointed, but all that is part of the defining moment of monumental readjustment to the new reality, not a permanent roadblock. The tipping point is behind us.
1
Women have only really had significant access to power for about 40 years. Men have had it for about forever. I really don't appreciate the juvenile gimme aspect of the current thirst for power.
Just because it is female, that power should not be denied.
On the other hand, who exactly says that women will make the world a better place for all of us. They've been right there the whole time backing up the human history of pain, suffering and conflict.
6
Whether or not the number of Congresswomen reflects the general population means nothing and isn't important. The real questions are: does it reflect the *political* population, and is this simply a result of different career preferences on the part of men and women (the simplest and likeliest explanation)? Because if so, there's really nothing to 'fight for' at all.
12
The underlying idea in this article is that we must strive for equality of outcome of groups no matter that it takes an individual to run for office.
I subscribe to equality of opportunity instead. As we saw with this election season, more women ran for office and more women were elected than usual.
Bigger the pipeline of women, the more women get elected. It's not complicated. It also goes against the narrative that somehow rampant sexism is the reason there's an imbalance in Congress.
I don't choose to run for elected office and I'm male. Individual choice, individual outcome. Society didn't make me not do it.
23
Every year since at least 1990 has been called Year of the Woman by the media. That's 28 years and counting. Could be that the constant repetition of the same designation is causing a sort of fatigue.
Maybe give one year to some other group then go back to "YoW" the year after. Just a brief break, a sliver of diversity however perfunctory, might be enough to restore public interest.
4
I live in a district of New Jersey where women were discouraged from running by a Democratic party boss who is now a favored lawmaker of NJ's Governor (he displaced a moderate woman). Mr. Murphy is under review for his hiring practices, handling of sexual assault and harassment claims, not to mention his overall management and judgment. Mr. Murphy was just named to lead the Democratic Governors Association. I didn't hear a peep out of Ms. Sherill or any of NJ's democratic lawmakers, female or otherwise, asking why there are no non-implicated candidates for the DGA post? Nor have I heard any of our new female lawmakers talk about the increasing sexual violence and oppression of women, its impact on healthcare, our economy and overall economic and personal autonomy. Daily transparency of destroyed evidence, abuse of prosecutorial discretion, suppressed claims. Mostly by women against men or entities controlled by men. But no calls for a Civil Rights Investigation into any of those breaches. What does it say about the advancement of women this year, as men like Phil Murphy, accused of turning a blind eye to assault, are promoted? A NJ lawmaker telling women not to run, oppressing their voice, elected to office with record margin. Are we empowering women? Or are we empowering women who will continue empowering powerful men who will continue to marginalize, oppress and abuse women? If Ms. Sherill is representative of New Jersey's new female leadership, I'm scared for New Jersey.
3
Perhaps the groper in Chief has motivated women more than anything - to join forces and prove him wrong, to right the tainted government policies run by old men, to fight for women’s issues, and children’s issues, and environmental issues, and educational issues.
How does it go? Something about the three wise men having been women instead? They would have arrived on time, helped deliver the baby, brought food for everyone, and more.
Move over men. We’re at work.....
16
Congrats to all the women who are breaking through barriers and taking on positions that were unimaginable; I applaud you and may the best candidate win!
However, not sure the “move over Men” is the tag line I’d choose. Let’s continue to encourage women but not at the expense of males. Young men have been ignored and statist shows, they are severely lacking in developing skill sets for the real world.
We want our sons to become good husbands, dads, brother, uncles, etc.
Let’s do it together...
4
@Paul
You’re right - it’s the old ones that I was thinking of. Although Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s husband sounded like a gem and ahead of his times! Thanks for the comment, Paul.
MIMA.
5
I am all for women in congress. I don't like the idea the same percentages in the populations be the same in congress or corporate boards. This means stupid and uneducated people would also be represented.
12
@joegiul
I think you’re right, but not in the way you mean it.
Looking at so many of the current corporate board members and leaders and of course politicians I’d say we’ve more than scraped the bottom of the barrel of white men.
14
@JoeGiul
The ‘stupid and uneducated’ are well represented in Congress.
An entire political party and a so-called President are religiously devoted to their collapsed IQs.
13
Uneducated people are not necessarily stupid and vice versa.
1
Don't we want the best candidates in office whether they be Republican or Democrat regardless of gender? Will having women politicians in proportion to the population make this a better nation? I don't think so. This bizarre obsession for absolute representation is unhealthy & counter productive. It sometimes borders on racism & bigotry. We are at the point that Democrats are seriously talking about the wisdom of running a white male for President in 2020 because they think he won't be able to talk to African American voters. Ridiculous. The absurd notion of forced diversity is so entrenched in progressive culture that we accept ideas like this as reasonable. By this twisted logic 12.6% of elected officials should be African-American, 5.2% Asian, 0.8% Aboriginal,0.3% transgender etc. This is politically disastrous & just plays into the hands of Fox News. And progressives still can't figure out why their ideas never get traction in this country. This is why. We desperately need,the most intelligent, the most thoughtful, most experienced people running our country ...gender, ethnicity & sexual orientation should be irrelevant. How can we and why should we accept anything less. We're focusing on the wrong things. This kind of thinking is toxic and will eventually blow up in our face. Correction it already did. When HRC ran in 2016 part of the reason was "it's a woman's turn". That didn't work out too well did it? Imagine where we would be now if we had ran the best candidate.
70
@Bill Brown-Your comment is the most relevant I’ve seen here. Of course it is great that we have more progressive individual’s elected, but the Left’s obsession with the gender or race of candidates is racism and sexism pure and simple. Equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity, seems to be prized most by the social justice movement. For the more moderate or independent voters among us, the left’s position on racial and gender ‘justice’ is abhorrent as it demonstrates clear biases. Until the Democratic Party acknowledges this, they can plan on continuing to struggle in national elections as was demonstrated in 2016.
31
unless you are a racist, sexist, homophobic and essentially believe that people of different race, ethnic, gender, sex, sexual orientation backgrounds are actually different in their capabilities, it must stand that differences in outcome reflects differences in opportunities.
11
by definition diversity of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation will bring different viewpoints created through different lived experiences. the idea that a majority male legislature will create anything of real value for women is ridiculous. white men cannot and have not ever represented anyone other than white men. it's time for a changing of the guards.
16
Let's not conflate the two parties. Democrats have 104 women out of 234 heading to Congress in Jan, which is 44%. There is still room for improvement but the party of the people is doing well in nominating and electing women.
Why would any self-respecting woman be a member of the Republican party when they continually demonstrate that they do not value the thoughts, opinions and welfare of women?
64
@Woody Guthrie Yes, you make a good point. While the Democrats have room for improvement, they are not doing too badly when it comes to women in Congress. The Republicans, on the other hand, are in dire straits. They are a party that caters almost exclusively to the white male and it shows.
6
Woman had a remarkable couple of years in politics
Now with record numbers in the congress and going back to the woman’s movement
The biggest single impact woman have had on the next generation of women was their support of Trump.
If even a small percentage of the 53% of white women voters who selected Trump had voted for Hillary- or even stayed home - the Supreme Court would not be poised to unravel hard earned gains for women.
37
@Blue, But women overall voted against Trump. He had the biggest gender gap in votes for president ever, as the article mentions. And among white women specifically, he won a smaller percentage than Romney did four years prior. Don't try to pin Trump's installation on women. It won't fly. Clinton won 54 percent of the women's vote. 53 percent of men voted for Trump.
1