Sworn-in female senators declare (again) that so much will be better as more women take office

Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2013-01-03 15:39

Story here. Yes, indeed. All the same issues that male pols deal with such as electoral pressure, special-interest meddling, internal personality conflicts and interest-clashes, will somehow be mitigated, just because the players are female. Tell me, anyone ever watch a women's soccer or basketball game? Did you walk away thinking women were any less competitive than men? Didn't think so. Thought experiment: The Congress (both houses) are 90+% female and we have a female president, too. Now what has really changed? The deficit is gone? Voters will stop threatening to toss them out if they raise taxes too much or reduce Social Security? Our various Middle East problems will all be solved? Social problems of all kinds will be solved or disappear? What do you think? Excerpt:

'But the women also admit that they believe having more women in the room would help in fierce negotiations, compromise, and legislating on Capitol Hill, traits they say do not come as naturally to their male colleagues in the Senate. That sentiment enjoys bipartisan support among the women of the Senate.

"What I find is with all due deference to our male colleagues, that women's styles tend to be more collaborative," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said by nature women are "less confrontational." Sen-elect Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, says that women are "problem solvers."'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

More sexism from those who cry they are victims of it left and right.

So if it's true that "women are problem-solvers", and by implication better ones than men, then pray tell why has it taken them so long to start running for political offices and succeed hugely? If it's a problem to get elected (i.e., it represents a challenge to be overcome), then why didn't they succeed decades ago once it became a priority for women to run for office?

Famous male problem-solvers I'd like to acquaint Sen. McCaskill with:

Albert Eienstein (thank him for the basis for creating nuclear energy and the co-founding of modern physics)
Isaac Newton (thank him for codifying calculus and finding countless ways to apply it)
Alexander Fleming (thank him for penicillin, w/out which many of us would not be here)
Michael Faraday (thank him for modern electrical distribution systems)
Mahandas Ghandi (thank him for finding a largely-peaceful solution to India's problem of having been colonized by the UK)
Thomas Edison (thank him for numerous inventions which still exist in many forms that make life very much worth living)

and the beat goes on. I wouldn't expect many ppl though to think of such things these days. They've been trained to ignore the fact that men created civilization as we know it and instead spend all their time praising and supporting women as a class regardless of anything they've actually done as individuals.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2013-01-03 15:58

A whole 'gaggle' of WHITE MEN formed the United States, generation after generation. The Congress and Senate - the very institution that these ladies say they are so proud of and worked so hard to be elected in, maybe they are secretly attempting to be part of the evil 'white man' scheme to rule the universe, and more specifically women. (sarcasm, of course). It seems the problems in America started when 'women favored' legislation became trendy - No fault divorce, VAWA, abortion rights, the facade of the equal pay for women act. There is no mistaking that taking women out of the home to care for the children has been a detriment to society. This isn't misogynistic. This is the way God tended it to be. What's more important to care for, legislation about weights of tractor trailers on the highway or raising your kid to have morals, values, learning love and having respect- all of these attributes are waning from our society in our youth. For one reason and one reason only. Less women are staying home to care for their children.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by usfspa2012 on Fri, 2013-01-04 02:34

My observation is that women simply don't tolerant dissent. The feminists certainly don't. Anyone who disagrees with a feminist is called nasty names. Until such time as the feminist changes her mind, of course, at which time the dissenter is expected to agree with her.

I suspect that if women ever do gain most leadership positions, the results will be good for women but not so good for men and children. For example, if you visit the NOW web site, you will find a list of demands for rights and entitlements. You will find nothing designed to help either men or children. In fact, NOW opposes fathers' rights, irregardless of the effect the absence of a father might have on children. Feminists simply cannot accept that fathers might have a beneficial effect on children; fathers are supposed to shut up and pay child support. Why? Because that's best for women.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but when that paragon of female leadership known as Hilary Clinton says women are the primary victims of war (not the men who died), well, Houston, we have a problem.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Sat, 2013-01-05 14:15