A Gillibrand Campaign: More Women in Politics

... toward her male colleagues, that's for sure. Yet we don't see them making such brash sexist generalizations in public now do we?

The comment is true and I agree they had to appear more male in the past, now they don't have to be. Women do bring a more conciliatory attitude to the table. They would rather discuss than debate, they would rather share than take, respect rather than shame and speak the truth rather than hide behind it.

When have we been called conciliatory as a general comment about men?

I think it's a mistake to idealize women and to make the kind of generalizations about women that feminists and chivalrous males tend to make. I've been around long enough to see how women in power and in elective office behave with one another and with men. Don't tell me women don't use shame, or that they're not petty and manipulative, or that they're not competitive and opportunistic. Please...stop with the women-are-morally-superior nonsense. Like men, they bring strengths and weaknesses to the table. They're no better or worse.

The comment is true and I agree they had to appear more male in the past, now they don't have to be. Women do bring a more conciliatory attitude to the table. They would rather discuss than debate, they would rather share than take, respect rather than shame and speak the truth rather than hide behind it.

I don't believe this is true. Can you give us some examples?

What has been noted is that with women, conflict tends to go round and round. Men resolve conflict a lot more quickly then women.

Bobwoolsey wrote:" They would rather discuss than debate, they would rather share than take, respect rather than shame and speak the truth rather than hide behind it."

The feminists do not discuss; they dictate the terms of the debate so they always win. They do not share; they take. The NOW website is a list of demands, with nothing given in return except a vote. They do not respect; they use shame, calling anyone who disagrees with them a "misogynist." And they do not speak the truth about many subjects, such as domestic violence or rape. Feminist "research" pushes an agenda, not the truth.

And the feminists claim to speak for all women. If what you say is true, they obviously do not--yet another example of a lie used by women who "speak the truth."

There is no evidence that women are more conciliatory than men, that they would rather share than take, would rather respect rather than debate, or that they speak the truth rather than hide behind it. This is particularly true for women politicians, because they can say most anything and get away with it. They can harass men and they can make sexually offensive comments. A woman politician in California commented on the penis size of men (politicians). No one cared.

Give me a break. Women don't use shame? Women learn very early to use shame against men. They do it all the time. Same with share vs take. Men give to women. Women take it.

But none of this is my point. People are always telling us that women are better than men at everything, including politics, but we never hear anyone in power telling us about the traits men have that make them better than women. In fact, Larry Summers was fired at Harvard for having the audacity to simply say that men and women were different in science. He didn't say that one group was better than the other. Just different.

So Bob, what non-physical traits do men have that are superior to women?

"Women do bring a more conciliatory attitude to the table. They would rather discuss than debate, they would rather share than take, respect rather than shame and speak the truth rather than hide behind it."

That's not my experience when discussing anything to do with feminism, DV, Family Law, gender wage gap, education or even just leveling out the gender ministries within government. The very first thing any woman does during such conversations is try to shame me into silence. This is the experience of virtually any man who speaks on these subjects in a male-positive (rather then anti-male) perspective.

I have asked the simple question "why is there a woman's minister, complete with a gender biased agenda and a budget to accomplish those tasks, but not a minister or budget for men's issues?" (in which I then listed off a large number of examples, including government links showing them as men's issues). I got called a misogynist, hateful of women, a desperate loser and any number of other things. Not a single woman wanted to discuss what I had written (or debate for that matter), they did not like the idea of a shared gender ministry, they had no respect for me, my goal or men in general and choose instead to shame me, and not a one spoke acknowledged the truth's provided by my government statistics links (but did claim I was using a biased source when I posted a link to an article to demonstrate an "example" of something (rather then a statistic). IE, a direct contradiction to each and every claim you made of women, and this happens consistently.

And what do you mean "hide behind the truth"?

Overall, that's a rather female chauvinistic (IE, sexist) view. And when the Dean of Harvard made a similar comment, he got trashed as a sexist. Gendered double standards abound.

I think the comment that bothers me the most is the following:

"Beyond that, Ms. Gillibrand contends, it should be a source of concern to women that the issues that are important to them — like workplace discrimination and access to child care — are being decided by lawmakers who are almost exclusively male. "

It implies that men are incapable of making those decisions in a manner that will be favorable to women, even when woman are involved (just not to the same degree), despite the women constituents confidence in him when he was voted in. I honestly need to ask, is a group of 3 woman and 7 men going to come to a different conclusion then a group of 5 women and 5 men? Or is she going to keep complaining until the group deciding woman's issues is entirely women (like Canada's Ministry for the status of women is already doing)? I'm sure though, she would be vastly opposed to men's issues being decided entirely by men (my suggestion for a minister for the status of men is routinely opposed).

And is a statement like this really not considered confrontational? I'll admit, it's subtle, but it is very much confrontational.

I'd like to ask the same question regarding resolving conflicts from men. It seems wars drag on forever.

In the Vietnam war, we spent months arguing over the damn shape of the table. There was the 100 year war, etc., etc.

I can give you a few examples of what is going on in the world right now. In Africa for example the female roles are changing and has been doing since the 1990s, women leadership is causing drastic changes, the Sudan has 30% of the leadership women and the Congo where the require 30% of the leadership to be women in some areas it exceeds 80%.

In these areas -- the changes are occurring phenomenally. Aids/HIV spreading is reduced. Women are involved in the economy more. Violence is down significantly, education has improved, employment is on the rise, the beginnings are there. Tons of information on this is available there.

So the results speak louder than me lauding them. Such agencies as NATO, United Nations and the countries themselves. Nations which were on the brink are now coming back into the 3rd world with better economies than before and the main cause is attributed to women being a part of the process.

Wouldn't we all want to live in a world where we all prospered? Also regarding your question/statement about men resolving issues quickly -- is that a good thing? Is there a time in your life when you said I should have acted quicker? I can think back to tons of mine and I think damn if I had just taken a second to think about that, I wouldn't be in this situation. It certainly was that way when I was in struggle. The other side of the coin is this -- do we really resolve them or are we just reacting to the situation at hand and have to deal with other issues down the road?

Would you want 80% of the female population making rules for you?

When I speak to women I get listened to and heard. When I speak in front of "feminists" and that's what they get called, I get trashed, because they don't hear, hell they don't even listen. Kratch you seem like a reasonable man and want to further the cause of human kind.
I'm on that side to -- I have a dream where we elect our leaders because they are white, black, brown, german, jewish, male or female but because they are good leaders. We won't judge Sarah Pailin on the fact she is a female but she just doesn't make good sense.
I'm a filmmaker, a good one but not a great one. While attending a NOW conference and I do attend men conferences and am here to listen as well as talk. I was shouted down in the following manner. I hope this gives you some insight into me just a little.
Being a movie guy, I attended the seminar on Pornography and Violence.
The discussion was about how violence in pornography was increasing towards women and thus a major problem.
Being the debater I was in college, I usually have a substantial number of statistics on hand.
Well, I sat there through and entire hour of two women ranting and raving, both from Harvard (like that was supposed to impress me) telling how much violence in pornography has risen and then because of that drew an extrapolation saying there was an increase in the degree of violence in sexual crimes.
I pointed out that wasn't the case, though violence in sexual crimes had increased in number but not in percentage, the degree of violence had actually dropped.
I also pointed out the Japanese watch some of the worst violence in their media (games, television and movies) and for first world nation has one of the least amount of violent crimes, saying they get their angry out in the virtual world not the real world (some really great studies on this).
I then said the problem with women in the media was we needed more mainstream female directors. (Only 7% of the directors are female and they make 63% of the entertainment decisions).
This is what they said and I was shocked -- Women directors in pornography are worse than men.
Wow-doesn't that just defeat your whole statements. I wasn't well liked and was looked on kind of strangely.

They didn't hear what I said, they heard what they wanted to hear.

Here's what they heard and I quote a woman who approached me after and we had a great discussion.

You're a man so you don't like women, I was told this by a woman after the talks, she then made a great statement and I will use it forever.

I was a feminist until I became a woman.

We quit hearing with the labels and only see the label. Feminist, man, woman, chauvinist, war monger, hippie. When we just stop for that one second and hear, hear what the other person has to say without heaping all the other stuff on top of it, it may have some validity.

So, though I try and sometimes I succeed I still sometime screw it up and get it wrong do label and do not hear and don't listen, but I'm working on it.

See below. Let's do away with the damn labels and start solving some problems, we got enough of them to go around saying these guys and those guys and them and they. Let's figure out what the hell to do.

Feminists don't speak the truth they speak "their" truth. There is only one truth--"The Truth".

Let's quit pointing fingers and get some stuff done.

I'd like to ask the same question regarding resolving conflicts from men. It seems wars drag on forever.

In the Vietnam war, we spent months arguing over the damn shape of the table. There was the 100 year war, etc., etc.

Take a look at the struggle spectrum sometime. (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/comm440-540/struggle.htm) War is the final stage of a conflict. Conflicts don't necessarily need to be resolved with war when they can be resolved in the political process or in the courts. The problem with resolving a conflict with war is that one side must display enough physical power to win. Otherwise a war can last until nobody knows what started it in the first place.

One thing about women is that when girls hit puberty they tend towards relational violence while boys tend to physical violence. See "Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls" by Rachel Simmons. The consequence of this is that women don't have to accept losing -- they can fake submission and stab the winner in the back later. The same goes for victory -- women can pretend to accept victory and stab the loser in the back later. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Feminists for the last 40+ years have been waging an eternal war against men in the political and legal arenas. They never stop -- give them everything they want and they'll come up with a list of demands twice as long that must be fulfilled before there will be peace.

As for the rest of what you mentioned, without some citations and logical structure I'm not going to see that as anything more than feminist propagandistic babbling.

"I'd like to ask the same question regarding resolving conflicts from men. It seems wars drag on forever."

Which question are you referring to? Also keep in mind, the only one claiming one gender is superior to another is you. pointing out that some wars have lasted a long time in the past says nothing about people today.

I also note that you equate some developments to woman that are far more likely the results of improved technology and general worldly understanding and shifts in attitudes. IE, Aids spreading reductions have little to do with who's in charge and far more to do with a greater understanding of how it's spread and educating people of precautions. Just because this education andn understanding happened to happen at the same time as woman started entering the political field doesn't mean it was woman specifically who made it happen. Same with women in the economy... The same thing that increased women's involvement in the economy increased their involvment in politics, IE, an aceptance of women in these roles. You are establishing false correlations. You claim to be a paralegal, you should know better.

I also have to note you don't seem to have a problem, instead, you herald as a good thing the 80% female government. I guess you don't believe in equality, but rather, female supremacy, and you take offense when called a female chauvinist?

"the main cause is attributed to women being a part of the process."

You'll have to provide proof of this, rather then the extremely circumstantial claim that these changes and women entering the field happened at the same time (after all, western nations got where we are with just men in charge)

"Wouldn't we all want to live in a world where we all prospered?"

It's a shame that's not what you are heralding. you would have us living in a world where women dominated with 80+% of the leadership roles, because of your blind devotion to the female gender.

"I'm on that side to"

But we believe that can be accomplished in very different ways. You would have us give up everything and become second class citizen's, with 80+% female governments. You seem to believe that women are superior to men (and have yet to answer the earlier question about what non-physical traits men have that are superior to women).

"This is what they said and I was shocked -- Women directors in pornography are worse than men.
Wow-doesn't that just defeat your whole statements. I wasn't well liked and was looked on kind of strangely."

If you're referring to my statement about you being a female chauvinist, no. The "conscious men", a true epitome of female chauvinistic men, have themselves been trashed by women as "creepy". Just because some women don't happen to like you, and that some women disagree with you, doesn't mean you don't still put women as being superior to men, which you have repeatedly done (and continue to do). I will however, note that is defeats you're claims of women being more willing to discuss then debate (sorta, it shows women refusing to do ether), unless you define discussion as telling you how it is and you damn well better accept it, but then I wouldn't describe that as a good thing as you did. Not to mention your other claims of "respect rather than shame" (you'rea man so you don't like women seems like a shaming tactic to me) and "speak the truth rather than hide behind it."

And yet, despite this, you would come here and tell us women are better then men for all these reasons you yourself have experienced not to be true. Women are people, and people can be good or bad on an individual basis. You have demonstrated yourself to be sexist by ignoring that fact and presuming women to be inherently superior.

Let me put it this way, I'll stop labeling you female chauvinist when you stop labeling women as superior.

Did I say women were superior -- I don't -- I say different and they bring different things to the table. Show me specifically where I have said women are superior -- just once.

Second it's not me that says the above it the United Nations saying the reason for the change is more female involvement. We don't need 50/50, that's impossible to get. But because women are more involved there is more consensus and agreement because it's their lives too.

Now with regard to one question and everyone seems to avoid this question -- Would you like to be told what to do by the leaders of the world if 80% of them were women?

Again, you put words in my mouth -- I'm sure you would stop me from doing the same.

Please don't do that, it offends me. You want to label me. You like referring me to read stuff here's one for you, study done about 15 years ago on a tribe called the Bonobos.

Then let me know what you think.

"Would you like to be told what to do by the leaders of the world if 80% of them were women?"

There is a distinct difference between being told what to do and having decisions made on my behalf. The later I wouldn't care what gender made them, so long as they considered my interests (which men clearly do for women, given VAWA, family court policies, etc.), the former again, I wouldn't like, regardless of which gender did it.

"Show me specifically where I have said women are superior -- just once."

You do realize saying women should be in government because they do a whole bunch of things, is a direct implication that men don't do those things (or there wouldn't be a need to get women in government to do those things, but rather, for other reasons). When those things are the reasonable, rational things to do, such as sharing not taking, respecting not shaming, you are putting women above men on the moral scale. When you fail to even acknowledge that men bring anything positive, but instead point to the failings of individual men, you further disparage men. You haven't outright said women are superior to men, but you have made it crystal clear where your opinion lies.

I notice you still haven't answered Shawn's question about what men bring to the table. You keep claiming you don't like being called a female chauvinist, but time after time, when given the chance to prove your not, you pass it by. You claim that I don't know you, and you're right, I don't know you, but I know enough to draw an opinion about this one attribute, and I have yet to see anything that proves me wrong.