Newsweek: 'Why Female Politicians Are More Effective'

Submitted by Broadsword on Tue, 2011-01-25 00:37

Article here. Excerpt:

'Some dubbed it "The Year of the Woman." But despite "mama grizzly" talk and a crop of high-profile female candidates, last year's elections resulted in no net additions to the female ranks of the Senate and, for the first time since 1978, a net loss in the House. In fact, more than 90 years after the first woman was elected to Congress, female politicians still hold less than a fifth of all national seats, and do only slightly better at the state level. But that's more than just a blow for diversity and equality, according to a forthcoming study in the American Journal of Political Science—because women also rank as the most effective lawmakers in the land.

The research is the first to compare the performance of male and female politicians nationally, and it finds that female members of the House rout their male counterparts in both pulling pork and shaping policy. Between 1984 and 2004, women won their home districts an average of $49 million more per year than their male counterparts (a finding that held regardless of party, geography, committee position, tenure in office, or margin of victory). The spending jump was found within districts, too, when women moved into seats previously occupied by men, and the cash was for projects across the spectrum, not just "women's issues."'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Women are accustomed to spending other people's money. It's what they do.

If only they paid their fair share of taxes.

When the country goes broke funding pork, we'll know who to blame.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Tue, 2011-01-25 04:04

So, when they say women "won" $49 million more per district compared to their male counterparts, they are really saying women SPENT $49 million more compared to male politicians, right?

The reason they give for this is because women also sponsored more bills compared to the men. The $49 million is to pay for these additional government bills and programs.

However, bigger government does not equate to effective government. And taxpayer money is not free as the term 'winning' implies.

The article suggests that it was regardless of political party, but most women are democrats so I am not sure how they came to the determination that political party was not an influence.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Tue, 2011-01-25 05:01

"The reason they give for this is because women also sponsored more bills compared to the men. The $49 million is to pay for these additional government bills and programs."

Lol, and the author wonders why female politicians lost ground.

I saw this article before and ignored it. I didn't realize just how moronic and unfitting the title was. Should only read female politicians spend more.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by fondueguy on Tue, 2011-01-25 16:58

I'm not sure sponsoring more bills is such a good thing. I'm a believer the government should do their best to stay out of our business.

Also, it seems the new method of empowering women is to tell them they're better than men. Of course, never insinuate men are better at anything. We all know that's defined as misogyny.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by anthony on Tue, 2011-01-25 18:04

This article is equivalent to a person that shops all day and then brags about how hard they worked based on how much money and time they spent.

PS- This economy is not the time for spending. I hope the women were replaced with conservatives. I don't care what gender they are as long as they understand finances, interest rates, profits, ect.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Tue, 2011-01-25 23:36