Republicans are winning the war on women...

[Ogre Mage]

Governorships are one area where we could improve.  Not many have stepped up since Napolitano & Sebelius got tapped for the cabinet and Gregoire & Perdue retired.

But overall, the Democratic Party has far greater gender diversity in their elected officials than the GOP and I argue this has significantly impacted policy.  Remember in 2011 when the House tried to defund Planned Parenthood?  That measure was defeated in part because of a joint effort by Senate Democratic women:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ3_ZqkunjU

[Beet]

Governorships are one area where we could improve.  Not many have stepped up since Napolitano & Sebelius got tapped for the cabinet and Gregoire & Perdue retired.

But overall, the Democratic Party as far greater gender diversity in their elected officials than the GOP and I argue this has significantly impacted policy.  Remember in 2011 when the House tried to defund Planned Parenthood?  That measure was defeated in part because of a joint effort by Senate Democratic women:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ3_ZqkunjU

True, but it has stalled out.

The percentage of women elected officials has not increased appreciably since the late 1990s.

Sebelius, Napolitano, Gregoire, Perdue and even our prospects for this cycle like Schwartz and Sink were all born in the 1940s or 1950s. They're old. No one from the new generation is coming up.

Part of it is that the political culture turned masculine after 9/11 and the Iraq war and its taking a long, long time to come back around. However, major issues like abortion thrust back onto the table by the Republican War on Women could encourage more women to get back in the game.

[free my dawg]

You people believe this stuff? The "war on women" is propaganda designed to rouse the rabble.

Republicans have mothers, wives, and daughters they care about. They're people too, believe it or not.

There is a reason why so few female politicians are Republican.  In state legislatures in 2013, for instance, Democratic women outnumber GOP women 1037D-632R.

In Congress, Democratic women outnumber their Republican counterparts 16D-4R in the U.S. Senate and 59D-19R in the House.

And the GOP, the party which has few women in it, is the one which is tone-deaf or hostile to women's rights on everything from reproductive health care to violence against women to equal pay to family leave.

Perhaps you see no connection between these policies and the lack of women in your ranks.  I think otherwise.

632 is just a few?

Yes.  How would you explain the fact that Democratic women greatly outnumber their Republican counterparts?  In the U.S. Senate, which represents high-level political office, only 20% of the female senators are Republican.  Republican women senators make up 9% of the GOP Senate caucus.  In the House, Republican women make up 8% of their caucus.

Democratic women are 29% of their caucus in the House and Senate.

It's interesting that you omitted governor's mansions.

I've never seen someone so proud of 13% in my life.

It's interesting that you omit the companion number to that figure.

Oh, wait, it's not.

krazen has half a point for once. The relevant number would be 80%: 4 of the 5 female Governors are Republican (although this includes virulently anti-women ones like Mary Fallin)

It's also a much smaller set than Senators etc, though.

That stat's irrelevant and completely misses my point. 1/20 may be pretty shameful, but when you put the fact that there are 30 GOP governors now into context, having 4 be women really isn't something to hang your hat on. Trumpeting the fact that around one of eight of your governors are female is a joke of a talking point and you're a fool if you believe this rebukes any of the gender gap.

[The Free North]

That stat's irrelevant and completely misses my point. 1/20 may be pretty shameful, but when you put the fact that there are 30 GOP governors now into context, having 4 be women really isn't something to hang your hat on. Trumpeting the fact that around one of eight of your governors are female is a joke of a talking point and you're a fool if you believe this rebukes any of the gender gap.

I hate how people judge a group based on their 'diversity'.


Who gives a flying crap if they have 100% males or 100% females. I thought we lived in a country where 'whats on the inside' is what really matters. Its how and what they do, not who they are.....

[krazen1211]

That stat's irrelevant and completely misses my point. 1/20 may be pretty shameful, but when you put the fact that there are 30 GOP governors now into context, having 4 be women really isn't something to hang your hat on. Trumpeting the fact that around one of eight of your governors are female is a joke of a talking point and you're a fool if you believe this rebukes any of the gender gap.

I did no such thing. I merely pointed out facts which you intentionally omitted to make yourself feel better.

Quotas are for idiots.

[free my dawg]

whoosh

[krazen1211]

That stat's irrelevant and completely misses my point. 1/20 may be pretty shameful, but when you put the fact that there are 30 GOP governors now into context, having 4 be women really isn't something to hang your hat on. Trumpeting the fact that around one of eight of your governors are female is a joke of a talking point and you're a fool if you believe this rebukes any of the gender gap.

I hate how people judge a group based on their 'diversity'.


Who gives a flying crap if they have 100% males or 100% females. I thought we lived in a country where 'whats on the inside' is what really matters. Its how and what they do, not who they are.....

The New England congressional delegation is a white dominated zone. Diversity is just something that they talk about.

[Link]

I hate how people judge a group based on their 'diversity'.

Who gives a flying crap if they have 100% males or 100% females. I thought we lived in a country where 'whats on the inside' is what really matters. Its how and what they do, not who they are.....

You're not serious are you?  Two things.

1) On average are Republican lawmakers more qualified or more competent than Democratic law makers?

2)  If you say they are equally competent do you think it is just statistical chance that overall there are more females represented in the Democratic law making ranks or do you think there is an issue within the Republican party that needs to be addressed.

When you see that big of a disparity I think you common sense demands that you examine why it exists.  It could just be random chance, but you still need to look at it.

[barfbag]

I hate how people judge a group based on their 'diversity'.

Who gives a flying crap if they have 100% males or 100% females. I thought we lived in a country where 'whats on the inside' is what really matters. Its how and what they do, not who they are.....

You're not serious are you?  Two things.

1) On average are Republican lawmakers more qualified or more competent than Democratic law makers?

2)  If you say they are equally competent do you think it is just statistical chance that overall there are more females represented in the Democratic law making ranks or do you think there is an issue within the Republican party that needs to be addressed.

When you see that big of a disparity I think you common sense demands that you examine why it exists.  It could just be random chance, but you still need to look at it.

All he's saying is we live in a country where it's the inside that matters. Whether or not someone is male or female shouldn't determine whether or not they are hired for a position or elected to office. It doesn't mean that voters don't like women, but that they have thought men were better suited for governorships in recent years. You mentioned females being more Democratic, but what about males being more Republican? There are two genders to be represented. Are you saying Democrats should also look at why more men tend to vote Republican or just Republicans need to look at why more women vote Democrat? Common sense should then dictate that both parties need to look at why they do poorly with one gender or another.

[Beet]

All he's saying is we live in a country where it's the inside that matters. Whether or not someone is male or female shouldn't determine whether or not they are hired for a position or elected to office. It doesn't mean that voters don't like women, but that they have thought men were better suited for governorships in recent years.

Uh, it is not by chance that men control 45 out of the 50 governor-ships. It's not because voters "thought men were better suited." Women still face systematic disadvantages to getting elected to office just as with all other positions of power.

I agree gender alone shouldn't decide why someone should be hired, but I don't believe anyone has said that it should. However, I believe there are cultural factors, in the Democratic party at least, that would make political activism more hospital and welcoming to women, and having more women in elected positions would do a lot to push those factors. Also, women do tend to be stronger when it comes to women's issues because they speak from experience.

[Ogre Mage]

That stat's irrelevant and completely misses my point. 1/20 may be pretty shameful, but when you put the fact that there are 30 GOP governors now into context, having 4 be women really isn't something to hang your hat on. Trumpeting the fact that around one of eight of your governors are female is a joke of a talking point and you're a fool if you believe this rebukes any of the gender gap.

I hate how people judge a group based on their 'diversity'.


Who gives a flying crap if they have 100% males or 100% females. I thought we lived in a country where 'whats on the inside' is what really matters. Its how and what they do, not who they are.....

There was a time when the U.S. Congress was 100% male.  And under that 100% male Congress, women did not even have the right to vote!  Do you really think that is a coincidence?

[barfbag]

All he's saying is we live in a country where it's the inside that matters. Whether or not someone is male or female shouldn't determine whether or not they are hired for a position or elected to office. It doesn't mean that voters don't like women, but that they have thought men were better suited for governorships in recent years.

Uh, it is not by chance that men control 45 out of the 50 governor-ships. It's not because voters "thought men were better suited." Women still face systematic disadvantages to getting elected to office just as with all other positions of power.

I agree gender alone shouldn't decide why someone should be hired, but I don't believe anyone has said that it should. However, I believe there are cultural factors, in the Democratic party at least, that would make political activism more hospital and welcoming to women, and having more women in elected positions would do a lot to push those factors. Also, women do tend to be stronger when it comes to women's issues because they speak from experience.

So you know exactly what the voters were thinking? I have news, the Democrats just want your vote. The "war on women" is nothing more than a strawman. Politicians do want votes believer it or not. What about men speaking about men's issues? Is there such a thing? Why not? Just because the Democrats wouldn't like a man speaking about "men's issues" doesn't mean we should be censored from it. I'm sorry to come off so strong but I feel very strongly against Democrats using women as strawmen in order to get elected to office. It's not right and only us Republicans seem smart enough to realize it because if Democrats realized the strawman, then there wouldn't be "war on women" talking points.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

That stat's irrelevant and completely misses my point. 1/20 may be pretty shameful, but when you put the fact that there are 30 GOP governors now into context, having 4 be women really isn't something to hang your hat on. Trumpeting the fact that around one of eight of your governors are female is a joke of a talking point and you're a fool if you believe this rebukes any of the gender gap.

I hate how people judge a group based on their 'diversity'.


Who gives a flying crap if they have 100% males or 100% females. I thought we lived in a country where 'whats on the inside' is what really matters. Its how and what they do, not who they are.....

The New England congressional delegation is a white dominated zone. Diversity is just something that they talk about.

New England as a whole is very white, bru.

[Person Man]

This is pretty extreme but at the end of the day, most of this will be struck down because these laws are extreme enough to challenge Roe v. Wade.

Quite a bit of the country, maybe a majority of states, have laws that would be unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade, but not under Casey v. Planned Parenthood or Gonzales v. Carhart.

Yes, but still in those cases the court holds some sort of heightened level of constitutional scrutiny (more than a level of scrutiny where the court basically takes the government's word)  of  abortion control legislation. There is a difference between discouraging 10% or banning 1% of abortion and banning or discouraging 60-90% of them (fetal heartbeat laws, forcing abortion clinics to be more like hospitals etc..)

[The Free North]

I hate how people judge a group based on their 'diversity'.

Who gives a flying crap if they have 100% males or 100% females. I thought we lived in a country where 'whats on the inside' is what really matters. Its how and what they do, not who they are.....

You're not serious are you?  Two things.

1) On average are Republican lawmakers more qualified or more competent than Democratic law makers?

2)  If you say they are equally competent do you think it is just statistical chance that overall there are more females represented in the Democratic law making ranks or do you think there is an issue within the Republican party that needs to be addressed.

When you see that big of a disparity I think you common sense demands that you examine why it exists.  It could just be random chance, but you still need to look at it.

1) 'More qualified' is something that is different for every person. I dislike both political parties, they are both incompetent IMO, but thats not a view shared by many

2) This is the problem, youre missing the point completely. Its not that the democrats have too many women or that the republicans have too few, its that people have the conversation at all.

We should elect the best people, and stop worrying about who has a certain number of what group. Views like that are incredibly stupid and only help to perpetrate divisiveness in our society. I believe that you judge a political party, or a delegation by their actions, regardless of if there 100% male or 100% female.

Why cant we stop viewing people with nasty collectivists ideas, after the civil rights era, I thought we were over judging people based on their race/sex.

[Beet]

barfbag,

I don't disagree that the "war on women" meme is too partisan. I consider Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to be bigger supporters of women than Tim Kaine, since they side with rape victims' advocates over the military industrial complex, while Kaine does the opposite. Sure, Kaine is pro choice while Cruz and Paul are pro life, but abortion rights aren't up for a vote in the Senate. Kaine's on the Armed Services committee and he could make a bigger difference on how the military handles sexual assault, but he chooses not to.

CTRattlesnake,
It's a bit naive to say we're at a point in society where we no longer consider gender while 75-80% of Congress is just naturally male by chance. We still socialize politics as a "man's game" (just look at this forum) so it's a good thing when we get more women elected to office. It's not about male vs. female per se as justice. If men were underrepresented it would be a huge problem too, just from the other perspective.

[barfbag]

barfbag,

I don't disagree that the "war on women" meme is too partisan. I consider Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to be bigger supporters of women than Tim Kaine, since they side with rape victims' advocates over the military industrial complex, while Kaine does the opposite. Sure, Kaine is pro choice while Cruz and Paul are pro life, but abortion rights aren't up for a vote in the Senate. Kaine's on the Armed Services committee and he could make a bigger difference on how the military handles sexual assault, but he chooses not to.

CTRattlesnake,
It's a bit naive to say we're at a point in society where we no longer consider gender while 75-80% of Congress is just naturally male by chance. We still socialize politics as a "man's game" (just look at this forum) so it's a good thing when we get more women elected to office. It's not about male vs. female per se as justice. If men were underrepresented it would be a huge problem too, just from the other perspective.

Men and women are equal under the law and have equal representation in office. Congress is supposed to be fair to all. If not, then it's up to the voters to elect someone else. The nature of politics does play into things that men tend to be stronger on such as making deals and being slick. There's issues in politics that women are stronger on too such as reaching out to people and listening to others, but by nature government just plays into what men are stronger at more than women. Men and women are not identical but both are equal.

[Beet]

Men are not "better at making deals and being slick" and women are not better at "reaching out to people and listening to others." These are social skills that are learned, not an inherent part of a person's DNA. Even more so is the proportion of men and women in powerful positions is a function of how society and culture are organized and not innate biological differences. It's no coincidence that in the 30 years after the feminist movement, the proportion of women in elected bodies in this country jumped from about nil to about 20 percent. Human biology didn't change, the organization of society did.

Men and women are not equal today. Men dominate the most powerful positions in society, earn more almost across the board for their work, and are more likely to be paid for their work, period. You say Congress should be fair to all. I agree. How is a Congress that is 78 percent male when we are only 49 percent of the population fair? Even when we men are well intentioned, even when we identify with women's rights like I do, we're going to miss a sh**tload of insight because we don't live in this world as women. It's a very different life experience.

It's no coincidence that women senators are taking the lead on sexual assault in the military. Or that it took a woman legislator (Wendy Davis) to galvanize the filibuster restricting women's reproductive rights. Or that Hillary Clinton was a women's right activist in the 1990's and still talks about it. All of us naturally see more clearly what touches them. That's why it's necessary (not sufficient, but necessary) to have people who's perspectives represent the issue at hand.

[Badger]

Anyone who buys into the "war on women" is a stupid assclown who must believe every single thing they hear from every single person. If there's one type of person not to be trusted it's politicians and the "war on women" was made up of Democratic politicians to win in 2012. It's nothing more than a strawman. I hope those of you who fall for the war on terror also bought into the terror alert color charts and WMD intelligence. Or is it just when the Democratic Party says something that you fall head over heals for their talking points? Either way you guys are complete morons with nothing better to do than quote what your party wants you to or you're just totally stupid.

Stop posting. Just stop. Entirely. In your brief sojourn here you have yet to post a single not trollish semi-lucid thought. Ever.

You are an utter waste of bandwidth. Go away. DIAF. Disappear. Begone. Go.