Another Twit Thinks Discrimination Makes Right
In the wake of Charlotte Allen's piece in The Washington Post, Debra Howell, ombudsman of the paper, wrote of the complaints. I took special note of this paragraph:
Outlook editors sought rebuttals for washingtonpost.com and in print. Writer Katha Pollitt did one for the Web site. In it, she said, "Misogyny is the last acceptable prejudice, and nowhere more so than in our nation's clueless and overwhelmingly white-male-controlled media. . . . Maybe there's another thing women can do besides fluff up their husbands' pillows: Fill more important jobs at The Washington Post. We should be half the assigning editors, half the writers and half the regular columnists, too (current roster of op-ed columnists: 16 men, two women)."
I dunno about you, but I want smart and talented editors, not editors with vaginas.
And the fact remains, women are much less interested in polictics, as a group, than men are.
Sound outrageous? See how many women are much more interested in Britney's doings than Cheney's.
I haven't taken a poll, but that's my experience.
As somebody who doesn't use her oven, let alone get to the grocery store, and who has zero desire to have children (although I do have six who I care very much about in my life), I found Charlotte's piece over the top and the shrillness of it a sign that she had maybe a week or two where she really came unhinged.
That said, many, many women do seek to have lives that are more home-and-hearth based. Even women with high-powered jobs and educations. Many eventually chuck it for "what's important." And how great when people who have children see it as the obligation it really is.
I had dinner with a friend last night, who works part-time (in a job where you make piles of money), and drives an old car and doesn't have a lot of luxuries in her life because everything she and her husband earn goes to their daughter. (The daughter goes to an expensive private school, where she just took her SAT's a year early, and ranked in the 99th percentile, and she seems happy and well-adjusted -- a real feat for a private school kid in Los Angeles, let alone kids anywhere in America these days).
Anyway, I do generally find more men than women to be rigorous thinkers and to have "real" jobs -- to do the hard stuff, whether it's construction work or science stuff, rather than taking those some man will eventually pick me up on his white charger and pay for me jobs in P.R..
Men have to have real jobs or they'll never score chicks. Data shows they're more interested than ever in women who pull their weight in the career department, but men will go for women who are work-world helpless in a way that women you don't see women going for men.
Why not? Well, probably because men evolved to care very much about a woman's looks, and women evolved to care very much about a man being a provider. Guys who have jobs in, say, retail, are going to be out of the running for a whole lot of women. A girl who works in Macy's is going to have an easier time with a whole lot of men.
This isn't to say there aren't women -- like me, in fact -- whose job not only means more to them than building a home and family, but who, like me, really couldn't care less about that.
Women do have biology that drives them to reproduce and nurture. I guess I got the thinking bitch gene, what can I say? (The truth is, I take care of people in my life -- I just find children annoying on more than a part-time, entertainment basis, and in that case, only select children.)
But, coming back to Allen and Pollitt, while I think Allen came a bit unhinged, I'm not going to shriek that it's misogny to state your opinion that women are, as a rule, the lighter sex (calling it misogny is kind of a discussion ender, anyway, as I think feminists intend it to be). I'm just going to disagree with this bit from Allen's piece as a blanket statement for and about all women:
"So I don't understand why more women don't relax . . . and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home. . . . Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and . . . not mind the fact that way down deep, we can be . . . kind of dim."
That last paragraph - that you quoted - is indeed a rather weird end to an otherwise good article.
Basically, she seems to mean: each person should do what they are good at. And no one should try to enforce a 50-50 quota where there are real differences in ability between the sexes. Really, quite a good article all in all...
bradley13 at March 12, 2008 7:14 AM
Personally, I would love to "revel" in the hearth and home...at some point. We're planning on children, but don't have them yet. Why? Because we're waiting until we have the money to be able to comfortably afford to live on a single income so I can raise the children myself without the help of a daycare center. I don't call that dim, I call that planning to take responsiblity for. Anyone who thinks it's a cakewalk to properly raise a child is misled--if it were easy, we probably wouldn't see as many poorly raised children as we do. Maybe that's the problem--too many people don't want to admit that being a parent changes one's life in a huge way; it's not all play dates and designer strollers, and it requires at least 18 years of 24-hour responsibility for the life of another. That sounds HARD, not weak or dim.
There's not a lot of room for selfish, shallow behavior if you're trying to raise a well-adjusted, happy child. Anyway, I'm not the swooning type.
Eva at March 12, 2008 7:20 AM
Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and . . . not mind the fact that way down deep, we can be . . . kind of dim."
Ah, no. I refuse to be seen as "dim"! WTF?? I have a full time, outside-of-the-home job; I am a full time mom, and a full time woman. Why would I ever want to be seen as "dim"?? I work hard, and I know a lot of stuff, and I can take care of myself and my daughters, thank you very much, without the help of a man. I love my BF very much, but I don't need him, or any other man, for that matter. But having BF around is a lot of fun, which is as it should be.
And I don't recall, at any age, ever, shrieking and/or swooning, and the gossip, well, I tend to keep that to a minimum, simply because there's enough going around without me having to add to it! I consider myself lucky that I grew up with 3 brothers, because I learned to do a lot of the same things they did, as far as car and yard maintenance, as well as my mom teaching me how to cook and run a household. And oh my goodness, I can run an office, too, imagine that! And I'm plenty relaxed (unless the Raiders are playing, and then I'm on the edge of my seat, biting my nails, as they lose yet another damn game. YMMV
Flynne at March 12, 2008 7:24 AM
"So I don't understand why more women don't relax . . . and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home. . . . Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and . . . not mind the fact that way down deep, we can be . . . kind of dim."
So much here I'm going to take pot shots at. While as a general rule about tenderness towards children and some of the swooning shrieking etc. I can see the rest is utter crap.
Most women (men too) are tender towards kids, in the sense that we do not punt them when they are annoying no matter how much we want to. Most guys given time and a necessity can quickly learn to take care of kids. Women are not inherently good at caring for kids they are (or were) trained from a young age to do so.
Tenderness towards men? Holy crap I almost spit water on the keyboard on that one. Most of the women I know see us as fundamentally utilitarian. Like a quality gardening tool, and a hoe at times as well. I don't know about the other guys here but I don't get home cooked meals unless I'm home early and in an apron (I have one with a Dessert Eagle on it so I feel better), do my own laundry and hers, dishes about 75% of the time, all home repair and all cleaning.
"Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and" Ok this looks like a 50/50. Some do some don't.
"way down deep, we can be . . . kind of dim." Oh hell no. The only time I have ever seen any women/girl/granny appear dim is when one of my kind was about to get screwed, badly. Human females can be many things to many people at many time but seeing them (any of them) as dim is like playing Russian Roulette with a Auto. It will go off and you will be staring down the barrel when it does. This is not to say that all (or even most) women play dim to get what they want, but if she looks dim your probably missing something. She could easily just be playing coy and want nothing more then a hot night of fun, then why play dim. Evolution shows that dim women did not usually have offspring the survived. Dim men just had to be able to throw that spear further then the smart ones and it tended to even out in the long run.
vlad at March 12, 2008 7:31 AM
That Allen article really pissed me off. Not that I'm surprised that the president of an antifeminist group would write such a thing. But I really don't see how it was appropriate for the post to publish it.
The driving study she cited actually made me laugh out loud at how stupid she is. I'm not surprised she can't do much but add 2 + 2. She essentially proved that men were in significantly more fatal driving accidents every year, and yet women are worse drivers? Uhh... Oooookay. (They drive 74% more and their car accidents are 2/3 more likely to be fatal. That 12% increase in overall incidents/million miles looks pretty small by comparison to me.)
I totally agree that everyone should find what they want out of life and do that. I don't think women should be forced into the work place any more than I think men should be forced to stay home with the kids. But that's not what this article said. It essentially said "Quit pretending your good at math and go home and decorate your house like you're supposed to want to."
And y'know what, I dont have a problem with people wanting to decorate, but I'm really bad at it. I'm much better at math. But I have a vagina, so I can't do that anymore? Y'know, since I'm so dim... because of my vagina.
Shinobi at March 12, 2008 7:51 AM
"In between, Allen quoted studies she thought showed that women get into more car accidents, have trouble with navigation and spatial awareness, and have smaller brains. It was breathtaking. And insulting. " .... and true?
Next thing you know saying women have bigger breasts than men and on average are shorter than men is going to be breathtaking. And insulting.
Scott at March 12, 2008 7:55 AM
Men take far more risks than women, and not just as drivers, and die more frequently because of that. A line that encapsulates this well is "Why Men Are Society's Dice," a chapter title in Howard Bloom's The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History.
And why?
In short, to get chicks.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2008 8:01 AM
Also, Scott, I believe the brain size study has already been discredited, as it has been used against oppressed groups like jews and black people since time immemorial.
And driving, (if we're going to argue that the slight increase in non fatal incidents for women REALLY DOES make them worse drivers) is a skill. It is not surprising to me at all that a group of people who drive 74% less would have an increase in overall accidents. This is why many states now have an hour or mile requirement on supervised driving before new drivers can be licensed, and why car insurance is more expensive for younger people.
If you practice a skill less, you are going to be less good at it. (This is also true of Math.) We could argue that this was evidence of "innate ability" would be if both groups practiced the skill the same amount and one group was still significantly better at it. But that is not the case in this instance.
Shinobi at March 12, 2008 8:02 AM
Even the author said it was a joke. She said something that was controversial and now everyone has pissed their britches. I thought the rule was you can make fun of your self. Just like a white comedian (like that ass from Seinfeld) uses certain words he gets in deep shit. Chris Rock uses the same word and almost the same way and it's funny. A women does the same thing and now she's evil? Wouldn't this be that evil double standard everyone is crying about?
vlad at March 12, 2008 8:11 AM
I've had some contact with Charlotte, via e-mail. She was a friend of Cathy Seipp's, and put out some feelers at National Review when I e-mailed her about the possibility of their publishing some of Cathy's work. I don't see eye to eye with her on a number of issues, but I feel warmly toward her based on our contact.
Anyway, I'm all for humor, but this piece had an edge that wasn't funny, and I mean in what it suggested about whatever that was going on in Charlotte's life, not about the subject matter.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2008 8:32 AM
...(calling it misogny is kind of a discussion ender, anyway, as I think feminists intend it to be).
Excellent point. I've witnessed this and it's always an indication that the person's mind is made up and no amount of additional facts or refining of principles will be allowed in the discussion. That may be emotionally satisfying but it's intellectually dishonest.
I think the same applies to invocations of patriarchy.
Tony at March 12, 2008 8:37 AM
Shinobi,
From what I understand the spacial thing is true. My specific point wasn't whether or not what she said was true but just the overall point that if you even suggest women and men are innately different in a way that can be construed as being offensive to women you'll be vilified for it. If this article was about men you think it'd have 1/3rd of the backlash?
I actually agree with this statement in part for men and women.
"So I don't understand why more women don't relax . . . and revel in the things most important to life..."
Although, I think things most important to life should be determined on an individual basis.
Scott at March 12, 2008 8:43 AM
I think it's more market-play than misogyny that more women aren't working for The Post. If, as you say Amy, women tend to be less interested in politics then so be it.
Having more women reporting and opining over politics won't necessarily get other women to be interested. If these female newbies are getting jobs because of their vaginas and not on merit the quality will probably go down b/c those women aren't up to par or as interested - therefore not as interesting (P.S: spell check underlined vaginas. I had to add that shit. It didn't underline penises, maybe Charlotte should write about *that*; it's funnier.)
Why aren't women more involved in politics? Why do they care less? That's worth exploring - but Charlotte needs to keep the finger pointing to a minimum.
Gretchen at March 12, 2008 8:57 AM
Here is my semi on-topic question.
I was watching The Soup last weekend and one of the clips was of the guy who eats weird stuff. This particular clip focused on when the guy was eating different kinds of penis (e.g. snake, yak, something else weird). So between the clip and Joel McHale, "penis" was said at least 10 times. And it was funny.
Then on Best Week Ever, I don't even remember the premise, but one of the female panelists said "vagina." And it was bleeped.
I don't understand why you can say "penis" 10 times and "vagina" not at all. I know Katha Pollitt would say that it is another example of the "accepted prejudice of misogyny." Would she be wrong? I'm female, so maybe I'm just too dim to understand.
Amy K at March 12, 2008 9:25 AM
Per my comment about Dr. Laura being wrong in assuming that the wife was at fault, a link to a piece by ev psych David Barash, co-author of The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People, in today's LAT:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-barash12mar12,0,7173677.story
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2008 9:57 AM
No idea, Amy. I think network people are understandably squeamish about things in a knee-jerk way, and maybe it was the context? Who knows. When there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines involved in airing "questionable" material (anything that suggests men and women aren't built/sexually functioning like Ken and Barbie, with plastic non penises and vaginas) I think they're a bit quick on the bleep button.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2008 10:14 AM
Thanks posting that. I think what he's written aludes to some of the stuff I've been hinting at. Only, that I don't think it's limited to political power, money, and the like.
J.d. at March 12, 2008 10:20 AM
"Who is't that to woman's beauty would submit,
And yet refuse the fetters of their wit?"
Aphra Behn
Yeah, I never heard of him either, until I read this quote on MSN.com this morning! o_O
Flynne at March 12, 2008 11:16 AM
Scott,
I don't really think it is valid to compare an article disparaging the capabilities of a historically oppressed group with a similar article about a not oppressed group. Of course it wouldn't have as much backlash if it were about men, men have no need to defend their intelligence as they are apparently the standard to be compared against.
Men don't have to defend their math skills or their driving skills, though if they are straight they may, unfortunately, have to defend their decorating skills. All men, by virtue of their having a penis, (or owning property) have been considered intelligent enough to vote, run countries, own property, drive, run businesses, publish books, for most of history.
Women haven't even been able to vote in this country for a whole century. I'm sorry if we're a little sensitive when people tell us we are just too dumb and should go home and start dinner.
Shinobi at March 12, 2008 11:33 AM
Flynn,
The Aphra Behn you quote is a woman. I've never actually read her but she was incredibly prolific (mid to late 17th century) and is usually automatically tagged "the first woman to earn her living from creative writing" or something similar.
Jody Tresidder at March 12, 2008 12:22 PM
Thank you Jody. You know, I should have guessed that by the 'a' at the end of her first name, that usually indicates feminine, yes?
Flynne at March 12, 2008 12:29 PM
if you even suggest women and men are innately different in a way that can be construed as being offensive to women you'll be vilified for it.
Actually, I experience this again and again.
And I find that my most humorless readers, by far, are women.
Also, when a guy writes me some rude, snide, critical e-mail, and then I bitchslap him back and explain in detail, some of it biting, why he's wrong, more often than not, I'll get back an e-mail like I did yesterday, with "Thanks - grin - The Angry Nerd." And with a note about how they plan to take my advice.
And regarding how men don't feel a need to defend their skills, I think if you feel secure about your skills, and who you are, you're not easily offended.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2008 12:45 PM
Half of all criminals should be women.
I also think women are underepresented among fathers.
Surely we can get a law passed to fix this.
austin at March 12, 2008 1:31 PM
I know this might be hard to take with all the feminist articles to the contrary out there but women don't have it all that bad here in the U.S. If someone writes something disparaging about you, you can 1. Shrug it off 2. Prove them wrong or 3. write a letter about how the big mean white man is oppressing you (I know a woman wrote this article but everyone knows the only reason she wrote it is because the patriarchy brainwashed her). I would personally suggest going with #1 or #2.
scott at March 12, 2008 3:06 PM
The truth hurts, doesn't it, ladies?
The more Allen pissed you off, the more you know, deep inside, that she is right on the mark.
Jay R at March 12, 2008 3:08 PM
Careful, there, Jay R, your misogyny is showing, not deep at all, but very, very shallow.
Flynne at March 12, 2008 3:49 PM
"And the fact remains, women are much less interested in polictics, as a group, than men are."
Are you kidding me? Have you done extensive research on this? What evidence do you have of this "fact" unless you mean to point out that women were denied the right to vote (and thus to have an opinion apart from their male relatives) until 1920, because they just weren't interested in politics before then. Following from this there hasn't been a female president yet because women just aren't interested in being national leaders. And women only make up 15% of congress because the overwhelming majority of women (75%) are inherently disinterested in political issues and holding a political office.
You might want to take a look at some European countries and ask if women are really less interested in politics. Countries like Finland, Denmark and Sweden have upwards of 40% women serving in parliament and up through the executive (cabinet) level of government. And remarkably, the social democratic countries with the highest proportion of women legislators tend to have child-care policies that encourage dual parenting in the way of maternity and paternity leave for new parents, government subsized child-care or, or "in-home" child care allowances for parents raising children at home.
What has happened to the idea that socialization influences the different aptitudes and interestes of males and females, as well as the options for happiness and fulfillment that are available?
I love it when female intellectuals make the argument that the mass of women reading People and Cosmo are evidence of the deficiency of the female intellect, while there own success is just some fluke of nature. As if only 2% of women are intellectually gifted enough to be successful writers and editors, so they must be part of the elite 2%.
I dunno about you, but I want smart and talented editors, not editors (and legislators, doctors, lawyers, professors and CEOs) with penises.
mwade at March 13, 2008 12:06 AM
I'm talking about women here.
As for blaming "socialization," I grew up in suburban Detroit, where all the kids watched TV all the time, and I managed to read books and read the newspaper -- two of them, everyday, and three or four on some days -- every day of my life growing up. We have massive public libraries in this country. You can take out laundry baskets of books for free, which I did.
As for where my opinion comes from: I'm nosy. Or friendly. I talk to men, women, children, and sometimes pets. And I get hundreds of e-mail a week from strangers, and not only asking for advice, but commenting on politics and sending me links about political goings on. A handful of women do. Many, many more men do. This is my experience.
If your opinion varies, don't tell me about Sweden, discuss the issue: American women who show little interest in politics.
European women I know or have met know much more about our history and politics than many Americans I meet. A woman I knew just a little in France begged me to bring her back an American history book for young readers so she could make out the English. How many Americans know who's vice-president, let alone show an interest in the history of other countries? And if you took a poll -- and I'm guessing somebody has -- ask a question of 1,000 men and 1,000 women (something political) and see how it turns out. I can guess.
And wanting women to turn out to be as interested as men in politics isn't the same as women actually turning out to be that way.
As for women versus men in professions -- as a woman who is not interested in children and does not have her relationship as her primary source of happiness and self, my career comes first. Before anything. And I work seven days a week, and some pretty brutal hours. How many women can you say that about, and how many men can you say that about?
Whether you think it's a good thing, it's about time, energy and interest in a certain kind of investment. And if you invest in your career on that level, you're going to be a different kind of thinker and worker than somebody of the same intelligence and aptitude who funnels the lion's share of their time and energy into raising moppets. (Not that I don't appreciate parents who actually parent.)
Amy Alkon at March 13, 2008 12:39 AM
"Denmark and Sweden have upwards of 40% women serving in parliament" mwade
"If your opinion varies, don't tell me about Sweden, discuss the issue: American women who show little interest in politics." AA
OK, so I'll sharpen that stick a little bit, mwade. How is it that you explain there are only about 75 female members of Congress out of 535? Blaming that on the patriarchy? Remembering, of course, that blaming anything outside of women themselves gives all their internal power away.
I believe that if women wanted to, they would be 50/50 in Congress. Heck, they could push that number as high as they were willing to go. So why is it they don't bother?
" the social democratic countries with the highest proportion of women legislators tend to have child-care policies that encourage dual parenting in the way of maternity and paternity leave for new parents, government subsized child-care or, or "in-home" child care allowances for parents raising children at home." mwade
Those countries also quite small, have very low birthrates, are very homogeneous, and have extremely high taxes. Finland, Sweden, and Norway have about the same combined population of New York Metro [NY combined statistical area] roughly 21million. It's a tad easier to make social programs happen on the small scale, in a single small geographically similar area.
This leads us right back to the question: If this is just a question of women having more power equals better social programs, then why don't women do that?
My wager is that the questions are not that simple, and the very size and diversity of the US make it a bigger challenge. That does not preclude anyone from stepping up to the plate and making it happen...
SwissArmyD at March 13, 2008 6:28 AM
"This leads us right back to the question: If this is just a question of women having more power equals better social programs, then why don't women do that?"
I would agree that in countries where women have attained more [political power] there are subsequently better social programs for women as workers, mothers, wives, and independent entities.
But your belief that "if women wanted to, they would be 50/50 in Congress" is unsupported by anything more than your hunch that American women are disintered in politics. Perhans they prefer the nonprofit route to social change, which isn't such a bad thing. But there are institutional constraints to women attaining parity with men in American politics that are beyond geography or population size and that I would not dismiss as a result of patriarchy so much as the result of our electoral system and the two parties which have arisen from it. Extensive research has shown that female candidates fare better in systems of proportional representation than in single member district purality (winner-take-all) elections. This is because the political parties, which remain the gatekeepers to electoral contests, are happier to nominate female candidates on a party list in a proportional system because it allows them to appeal to female voters and express a dedication to gender equality without worrying about alienating the remaining members of the old boys club who might not want to vote for a lone woman above a man. There are also party rules that are adopted at the behest of women's wings of the parties that encourage the nomination of anywhere between 30 to 50 % female candidates on part lists. Amazingly, the women that are sought to fill these spots don't just have vaginas, they are politically knowledgeable and interested as well. And as more women have entered the political field they have worked to recruit and train future generations of aspirant female politicians to further increase the pool of qualified available applicants.
The nature of the political system in the United States, as in most winner-take-all systems stunts the ambitions of female politicians for a couple of reasons. First theres the old belief that women aren't electable so they aren't chosen to run in single-member district races against men. But the issue in American politics especially is that hardly anyone is electable against an incumbent whose chance of reelection is about 98%. Money and the resources of incumbents factor largely into this, and these are institutional factors that cannot be willed away because women just really really want to enter into politics. The people that make the rules don't want to see them changed because they benefit from the process. This is the same reason that 3rd parties cannot gain any traction in American politics, despite growing distaste for the major parties. Check out http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm and ask yourself why the United States ranks 71st in world (with 16 - 16.8%) for the number of women in the national legislature and tell me if you think this is a matter of inate interest.
mwade at March 13, 2008 11:58 AM
Oh and about your comment that more women are interested in Brittany than Cheney. Maybe if there were more female role models in positions of leadership like Mr. Cheney's rather than as movie actresses, pop singers and models you would see more interest from women in their political leaders. And I'd venture to argue that there are a WHOLE lote more women interested in Oprah than Brittany.
mwade at March 13, 2008 12:03 PM
Oh, please. I'm perfectly capable of judging leaders without them being my race or sex, and without them having come from my hometown.
Should we force women who aren't interested in physics to become physicists just to balance out the numbers? And force men who don't have great verbal skills to become therapists? Where does the idiocy end?
Lots of people have things stacked against them. Oprah Winfrey, for example, who managed to make something of herself anyway.
Newsflash: Life isn't fair. It's easier to get elected if you come from a rich, powerful family, but Bill Clinton managed to do pretty well for himself despite his poor redneck origins.
Amy Alkon at March 13, 2008 12:31 PM
"tell me if you think this is a matter of inate interest. " mwade
I dunno if it's a matter of innate interest. But how do you think suffragettes got the vote?They had to work their tush's off and overcome a stunning number of roadblocks. But, it was THEY who had to do that. Nobody at the time nationally would have given it to them. They started out getting the states. [Colorado was second in 1893, I am proud to say] Essentially it took 50 years for them to make it happen.
So are you telling me after all that, that women are unable to make changes in their own poloitical parties? They aren't trying to change the Constitution, they aren't trying to say down is up. Sure, it won't be an overnight sensation. Nothing is going to change magically. Rules about how primaries are done, about what counts for what and so on can be changed, if the determination to change them is there.
"The people that make the rules don't want to see them changed because they benefit from the process."
When you forget that those "People" are the same as US people, then yes, you have given away your ability to effect change, you have given control away.
I don't think it's instructive if I go point by point... but when you phrase things:
"But the issue in American politics especially is that hardly anyone is electable against an incumbent whose chance of reelection is about 98%."
you are thinking about that in a certain way. Yes IT IS an issue, but who elects those incumbents? Does somebody hold a gun to someones head? No, people continue to vote a certain way for people they are comefortable with. If another person comes along who The People would be MORE comefortable with, then that person will get elected.
So the question would be, what do you have to do to make that happen? NOT! "it'll never happen because it's too hard."
Here is the most important point. The gender is less important than the ability of the person running for office. PART of that ability is the ability to work their way up through a political party, and various elected posts, to become the person their party wants to see in a seat. You get that ability by having broad support, and being the better person for the job.
Regardless if you are a woman or a man.
IMHO, there is quite the difference between saying it's unfair, and noting it's unfair, and then deciding it needs to be changed. That decision makes you powerful, because your next question is: "what do I have to do to make that happen."
Carpe Diem or whatever platitude you want. If women keep asking why the numbers of elected women officials are low, but never move to make it change, then guess what?
do something, and something happens. do nothing and nothing happens.
I don't know about innate political interest. AND WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Any change tomorrow will entail making a decision today.
But be very careful. What IF the best person for a job is guy? That IS a possibility. Are you going to get upset over that?
SwissArmyD at March 13, 2008 3:14 PM
Leave a comment