Once again, the US shows its leadership on human rights…

Interesting–I am not sure what you are saying though Craig.  Do you think we should do that here?

Hell, yes! Women comprise more than half the electorate, they should have at least half the seats.
I think it would benefit us all because I think women are a bit more sane than men as a rule.

This is one of the craziest ideas I have ever heard.The problem is not about having enough women in congress with intelligence but rather the perception by men, of the women. Palin is a case in point. Once this attitude changes, there will be more and more qualified women willing to step forward and assume leadership roles.

When we can look to India as a leader of democracy, then we really are done for. Let’s just sit back while dear leader fiddles and his people burn the framework of our democratic society to the ground. I really thought it would never come to this. But, here we are.

Iraq’s just voted and 25% must be women.

We got a long way to go with these knuckleheads in office.

How about Hillary meeting with the outgoing female President of Chile?

>:o

Oh, wouldn’t that be fun! Here in the US we’ve got barely 17% representation and we are planning to pick those women off one by one as we hold them accountable for the Obama administration.

There would be more women in office if they: A) Ran for office. and B) They won their elections.

Concerning India, I was surprised this still goes on there even after having female prime ministers.
I think for our country we are (or should be) long past quotas of any kind. I don’t know anyone who would not vote for a qualified woman for office. Maybe I’m just in the wrong circles.
Also, maybe women have better things to do then run for political office – like make tangible contributions in business and society – and make money.
A better measure is how many corporate officers are women today when compared to 20 years ago? The same with any minority.

Where should we stop????

Women…………50.7%
White………….. 75.1%
Black…………..12.3%
American Indian….0.9%
Asian………………..3.6%
Hispanic or Latino…12.5%

We are only picking off the corrupt, lying creeps.

There are actually Women out there that have made contributions that put them into the category of “qualified” to run something based on real “numbers” vs. ideology.

I would vote for Palin, Fiorina, and Whitman any day of the week.  None were given their positions based on sex or race.

:*

Well, I don’t like the idea of quota systems for elected office in general.  If you have quotas based on gender, how much easier would it be to institute quotas for race?  For age?  How about gender challenges like they have in the Olympics?  Egads . . .

I was a fresh-faced 20-something when Pat Schroeder of Denver made this press conference about why she was getting out of the presidential race.  I cried, too.  Deep down inside I knew she was right about the “process” and how it discourages anyone with less than a steel-plated exterior from running for that office.  It takes a very special person who is able to deflect the “process” yet not at the same time become tone deaf to the very people who made it possible.  My sense of it is that women would like to have an atmosphere in DC that approaches something that feels more relational than the constant adversarial deadlock that marks politics and government.  This is why I think HRC was more adept at building coalitions and support in the senate.  Pelosi, on the other hand, has bought into the idea that in order to be successful a woman has to act like our expectation of men.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/29/us/schroeder-assailing-the-system-decides-not-to-run-for-president.html?pagewanted=1

I don’t want to start any fights here over sexist stereotyping (I used to believe there were absolutely no differences between men and women, but living and working has changed my mind about that).

Interesting, Craig.

But I gave up on India when I saw a news program showing that some older widows in India are considered useless and a burden by their families – usually their sons. They are cast out and end up gravitating to a small city that is filled with others like them, where they live together and try to help each other.

This may have been on 60 minutes or CNN but it filled me with such horror that I have not been able to get it out of my mind. It came about after a business trip to China where i and  my husband (both active Medicare folks) were treated with enormous kindness respect because of our age.

Coming back, when pitched for business by companies in both India and China, guess where our business goes?

As for India – frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.

Well, here are the percentages as they stand now:

Afircan American 42 7.85% Hispanic 24 4.49% Asian 5 0.93% Amerind 1 0.19% Women 73 13.64%

What do you think?

Well here are the percentages now:

African American     42   7.85%

Hispanic                 24  4.49%

Asian                       5  0.93%

Amerind                    1  0.19%

Women                    73  13.64%

What do you think?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/05/damon.india.widows/index.html

This isn’t religion – it’s “tradition”.
Don’t give me any lectures about human rights in India.

signed,

Angry Old Broad

PS – I still love you, Craig

Yes, all candidates will be required to be exposed to a bank of sex screening tests. Of course, the downside to this could be the revelation that half of the men now serving in Congress, have no balls.

So how would this work? A large percentage of voters in a certain district prefer Bob, but they can`t have him because Jane has to run in that district to balance out the overall percentage. Welcome to Socialism.

I think that mandating race and gender minimums in our representation is a Procrustean approach to the issue.

Welcome to Affirmative Action.  

But…….but……….Bob is so articulate, clean, and he only uses a Negro dialect when he wants to………………..

Whoa–Procrustean–got me on that one, Onofre’s arm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes

moral: don’t ever spend the night at Procrustes’ house.

OK, EllenD, I’ll stipulate that things are not great for women in India – burning young wives to death in kitchen fire ‘accidents’ when their dowries are gone, despicable caste-based treatment, suttee, etc. Yet, even with their gender woes, they’ve been able to elect a woman Prime Minister and are now pushing for more equal representation for all women – I can’t imagine that won’t begin to help resolve their gender issues.
Whereas, we here in the ‘shining city on the hill’ just can’t seem to generate much respect for ‘the better half’.
As for China, I’m glad you got respect there but I can’t help but recall that they have a population imbalance problem: too many men, not enough women – because they have a habit of throwing 1 in 10 female babies down the well. You mght want to take that into your business considerations.

I’m not promoting India or China as beacons of gender equality, I’m just pissed that we pay a lot of lip service to this issue yet never seem to do much about it (wither ERA?). We’re starting to lose credibility in the world community and that inhibits our ability to promote our idea of human rights everywhere.

Not disagreeing with you on quotas, but
–I do know some people who would “have a hard time” (as they put it) voting for a woman
–why can’t we have women in politics and women in business? It’s not either /or. With the mess in Wahington today, we could use more honest talent.

I use the word advisedly, but it sure beats having to write out “forced conformity through brutal methods”, every time I wish to express that thought. 

Oh my….someone is watching O`Reilly way to much.

So, your answer is: do nothing? That’s not working out so well for us right now so far as I can see.
In fact, and believe me I hate saying this, it looks like the boys’ clubs in the major political parties are making pretty sure the girls don’t get the secret password.

So, not welcome to Socialism – welcome to the Patriarchy.

BTW, I’m not saying women are more honest. I was meaning that the type of person who does not want to be involved in politics is maybe exactly the kind of person we need in politics.

Lynn – regarding the people who still won’t vote for a woman, I never had much use for those kind of people. You’re much more tolerant than me.
Why not business and/or politics – of course. It’s just that business pays more and is tougher to achieve. In politics you need a large ego/connections/lots of money – in business you need brains and talent.

I agree a quota system causes problems.  However, IIRC, this is how the Scandinavian countires achieved high levels (record %s)  of women in their governments.  It would be interesting to see a chart of % women in gov’t around the world and what was the path to getting there. Is this the only way that has worked? Once it works do they do away with the quotas or do they remain?

I assume that this may also be the etymology of the directive “You made the bed, YOU sleep in it”, which ironically was Procrustes’ fate.

And no, Harp, I didn’t get this from O’Reilly, Procrustes has been one of my favorites from Greek mythology since I was in high school, a loooong time ago.

I hate the argument that we mustn’t elect women because we might risk getting a bad one. Pray tell, when has that fear ever stopped us from electing bad men? Eww, we better not elect that man, he might be unqualified or incompetent. We’ve been electing crappy, unqualified men for a couple of hundred years. And in the process we’ve been depriving ourselves of the talents of the other half of the human race. It’s simple numbers, broaden the resource pool, you’ll broaden the quality of talent available.

After 8 years of George Bush and now President Obama, anybody who tries to tell me we mustn’t elect a woman unless she’s really, really qualified, can simply KMA.

Craig: quotas are discriminatory, period.  And would you apply this principle racially as well.  And how about religious group.  If we extend your principle to the limits of its logic then it will become the criterion for public office.  If the women are as qualified as Hillary I say let then the number should be 100%.  But if you run it by quotas you will end up with beasts like McCaskill who are right out of the love scene in Deliverance. who have no business in public office.  Quotas are un-American/

I’m between a rock and hard place on this issue.  I generally dislike the notion of quotas but the disparity in representation in the US between men and women is absolutely appalling, downright embarrassing for a country that has always touted itself as a champion of human rights.  We’ve certainly been tarnished in that arena of late, and the gender imbalance makes it all the worse.

But then, as several have mentioned, life for women is hardly hunky-dory in India or China or Iraq, etc.

Still, it’s an interesting idea.  Could a temporary quota begin to crack the endless sexist stereotyping that women have experienced–seen, heard, smelled, touched, even have repeated themselves? 

Maybe.  And that “maybe” would make me lean on the side of: give it a try.  But then, be prepared for the Great Howling.   

So–if we have a quota system forcing more women into Congress–how do we implement it?  Do women candidates get a vote bonus, say 30% over what male candidates receive?  Are male candidates just disqualified if they win?  How will this work?

Craig – Please understand that politics – particularly inside the beltway – is the most lagging indicator of anything that is going on. Focus on what is going on in the boardrooms and executive offices of major corporations and compare now to 20 years ago whether it has to do with women or people of color. By your implication you make politics as the pinnacle of success – it isn’t.

Of course, the upside would be the revelation that some of the women in Congress DO have balls.

Believe me, I would love to see more women in power. I just disagree that affirmative action is the way to go. The media are the ones who are denigrating women and this attitude just carries over to the general population. Maybe the pigs like Matthews and Schuster should be the place to start.

How about letting the woman candidate run the opposing male candidate’s campaign? Wouldn’t THAT be fun? I’m just beginning to imagine the possibilities, and believe me, I can barely type from laughing so hard.

Well, I remember how Hillary’s delegates were given to Thee One . . . it’s hard to imagine any electoral quota system that doesn’t disenfranchise a block of voters . . . This strikes at the heart of democracy . . .

There needs to be a non-political women’s group that monitors the media. These groups that exist now have been taken over by the Democrats and are just used as a political arm of the party.

You get two Senators for every state. Tell each state they need to find one female candidate to elect to represent them.

And congress???

These are socialist societies. So if you are a young white guy, ambitious and hard working,,, that’s just one more job you can’t have now. Because some old white guy before you already had your job for you, This is really un-American the whole idea of quotas. Jobs need to go to the most qualified period. But, I know that will never probably happen again. Tribalism is winning as we are turning into some country ruled by tribes and clans based on religion, skin color and whether you were born a sexual innie or outie. This is really damn stupid of us all.

I don’t pretend to know how it would work, oowawa.  How will India implement the system?  Not sure.  But I do know that as an “advanced” country, we certainly have lagged behind in giving women voice and representation in national affairs. As was quite apparent in the 2008 primary and GE, sexist stereotyping is alive and well and exceedingly vicious in the US.

Quotas are inherently unfair, inequitable.  But as a stopgap measure to address a broader social inequity, quotas can begin to shift things into more balanced proportions.

I think it’s an interesting consideration. Besides, it’s not like the men have done a crack-up job.

Yes, but the problem is the Left believes all the right wing women are lying corrupt creeps and the Right believes all the left wing women are lying corrupt creeps. Add the Obama influence of tossing women from his own party under the bus, and the end result is that you will have no women at all left standing in congress.

If we want to sweep congress and start over, we should be able to find some female candidates to replace them with. More then 300 seats are up for election. I’m asking for 17% representation and people are whining about how we’re going to elect unqualified women in sme sort of affirmative action plan. BS.

Well, just be honest about it and tell the young white males in high schools that they can’t grow up to be anything they want because old white guys before them had it too good and so they will have to pay for that with their own hopes, dreams and livelihoods. Social justice and all that comes with it. Quit candy coating it and sell it for what it is.

And so either the Republicans or the Democrats must have a female candidate on the ticket?  And if that happens, and the male candidate wins, his win is nullified?  Still can’t picture it being implemented.  Somewhere along the line, you are still going to be throwing out votes because of gender.  I do not want my vote to be thrown out because I voted for the politically incorrect gender . . .

Or, if a state has a male Senator, then BOTH the Democrat and Republican in the election for the other seat must be female . . . Or, if the state has a female seated in the Senate, in the election for the other seat, both the Democrat and Repulican candidates must be male . . . am I getting warmer as to how this is going to work?

Voters just have to stop donations to the “Party” and instead donate to women with ideas to help the country.  It does not seem to me that the parties do much for women running anyway. If enough people donate to individiuals that are running they maybe able to be more independent and remember who brung them to the dance.

WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

“Tell” them they need to find one female candidate? Why not just tell them who they have to vote for? Mandated quotas in elections completely strips individuals of the very important right to vote for whomever they chose. This whole ludicrous idea is in direct conflict of our basic right to vote for OUR choice, even if it’s just a write-in.

How about give points for “diversity” of representatives. Not enough points and you lose your federal highway money. But, however this went down it wouldn’t make any damn sense. There is no good way to be un-American. I don’t know why people can’t see that.

Okay, Peggy Sue, I’m still trying to visualize it.  It would be like every seat in Congress would have a “boys” or a “girls” stamped on it, and anybody who wanted to compete for that seat would have to be of the appropriate gender.  Elections for a specific seat would be all-girl candidates or all-boys candidates.  Or?

How about, if the male candidate wins, he should be forced to go through sexual re-assignment surgery. Yeah……..that’s the ticket.

Why not just make the seats color coded? Pink and blue seats in congress. Nobody can sit in the wrong color seat. Now how to handle the race thing? We want all the little children to be the same.

That would certainly break up the Snowe/Collins, Boxer/Feinstein, and Murray/Cantwell tag teams.

I have a better one, do away with paries altogether and automatically enroll people in new parties based on their color and sex. Because we all know that like colored and like sexed people all want the same things anyway… right? So just make it easy. No more democrat or republican. Just male party, female party, white party. black party and so on. enrollment is mandatory and since we all know how the vote will go, we can just automate that as well. No need to vote or count because everybody who matches wants the same things. Your wove will be half based on your race and half based on your sex. Just computerize it all and make it simple. That way we are all the same.

I guess my bottom line on this is that I want to see a more balanced gender distribution in Congress but quotas are not the way to go about achieving this goal

I have a better one, do away with paries altogether and automatically enroll people in new parties based on their color and sex. Because we all know that like colored and like sexed people all want the same things anyway… right? So just make it easy. No more democrat or republican. Just male party, female party, white party. black party and so on. enrollment is mandatory and since we all know how the vote will go, we can just automate that as well. No need to vote or count because everybody who matches wants the same things. Your vote will be half based on your race and half based on your sex. Just computerize it all and make it simple. That way we are all the same.

Had to look that one up. Reminds me of what Obama is currently doing with health care. He has an end goal in mind and “fits” information and statistics to satisfy  the end. Anything in his way, he discards, mutilates, corrupts, etc.

Good word.

Can we have an old folks party?  Seniortude cuts across gender and racial lines . . .

“It’s my party, and I’ll cry if I want to,
cry if I want to,
cry if I want to.
You would cry to, if it happened to you.”

What you do for the race thing is create some leadership, rally the country around the idea of electing one black senator. Let people know they need to comb their communities, find somebody qualified. Make it like a race or a competion. Out of 100 senators you would think we could elect one black person. The fact that we don’t have a single one means we haven’t looked hard enough.

The situation is similar with women. I hate all this talk of affirmative action as if we’re giving unfair advantages. When you have no representation, zero, zip, you’re already giving an unfair advantage to somebody else. Even the playing field. In the case of women, how about we stop attacking their children, stop using sexism against them, stop taking away their delegates and giving them to the other guy?

And C) If the guy they ran against didn’t cheat to win.

Thank you for this post Craig!

Well, we had a black senator, but he’s gone now . . . wasn’t there very long . . .

The media plays a big role in bashing women. It should be off limits to talk about a woman”s hair, lipstick, dress, children, husband, etc.. Just the facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!Ma’am, Just the facts!!!!!!!

Alas poor Procrustes, he was left with only Gumby for a friend.

Believe me WhatNow, it had occurred to me to use that word regarding Obamascare.

“It’s my party, and I’ll cry if I want to, 
cry if I want to, 
cry if I want to. 
You would cry to, if it happened to you.”

With Senator Byrd alone, the seniors are already over represented.

It certainly seems to have stirred up some conversation, doesn’t it? I love to see the ideas fly around – in the words of Hercule Poirot: “It gives one, furiously, to think.”

Why not musical chairs…….when “Hail to the Chief” stops playing, the last one to sit down loses.

Sure, I see I was short sighted. We also need an age party and religion parties. But instead of us putting our own weight on what matters most to us, it can be automated. Because we have the tendency to vote outside if our advantage for silly reasons. People in corporate America who write the software can decide for us how much weight goes to age and how much goes to sex and how much for race etc. The computers can just tell us who should represent us. Heck, the machines can just vote for the representatives based on what the constituents want based on all the data. This could go worldwide.

Sure, I see I was short sighted. We also need an age party and religion parties. But instead of us putting our own weight on what matters most to us, it can be automated. Because we have the tendency to vote outside if our advantage for silly reasons. People in corporate America who write the software can decide for us how much weight goes to age and how much goes to sex and how much for race etc. The computers can just tell us who should represent us. Heck, the machines can just vote for the representatives based on what the constituents want based on all the data. This could go worldwide. What could go wrong? Look at how well computerized acceleration is working out for Toyota.

Hokma, I’m not more tolerant, I just meet a lot of diverse people at a university & a community college.  One older lady was for Hillary because “being President is hard for a woman, but Bill would help her,”  some religeous students truly believed a woman should stay at home, so although they liked Palin, they were uncomfortable with her on the ticket, and there were a 2-3 other male students who scoffed at a woman’s ability to Pres.  It was a small percent of students who said those things, but it does exist, unfortunately. Very few students said they would not vote for a woman, most were like what has been detailed here at NQ. They say they would vote for a woman, but Hillary’s too bitchy, Sarah’s a bimbo, etc etc. 

Create some leadership… yes, and maybe some real hope. Poverty pimps kill hope in the inner cities. These kids grow up thinking they can’t because… Not true, but that belief transfers power from those people who believe they can’t and onto the poverty pimps. Come to think of it poverty pimps are a lot like the current political parties.

sorry for the triple post, I only hit the button once

Yttik writes: “Even the playing field.”  The paradox about “affirmative action” is this: How do we even the playing field by making it uneven?  Somebody who is not guilty is going to be penalized by being forced to play on an uneven field . . .

You misunderstand my China remark, Craig – I respect the Chinese on their treatment of older people, not their gender imbalance in children.
And India has the same problem with no one wanting female babies and there being a giant gender imbalance. Except, apparently they knock off older women as well.

BTW – a lot of the Chinese girl babies have been adopted in the U.S. Our next generation of State Department reps that will be confronting China? A lovely thought.
Shades of Hillary

As an aside – most of the business I have done in China has involved women who owned and controlled the companies. There is a great deal of business equality. I’m afraid I cannot say the same for Japan.

I appreciate what you are saying about the U.S., but with Rwanda having women as 48.8 percent of its legislature, we lost our credibility on that score a long time ago. Only Sweden is close to that. And (whispering) don’t tell anyone but they are socialists.

I do appreciate your diary even though I certainly don’t want any MORE affirmative action for ANYONE.

But I’ll take the ERA if you can get it. Thanks for raising that again!

Well, I’d ask you, oowawa and everyone else who is so aghast at this idea, cries foul, or complains about how undemocratic and unfair a temporary quota might be: Where is the outrage at the male monopoly of power in this country?  Or at the sexism that exists, that we all see and know but about which women are routinely ridiculed or told to stop whining about? Some of the comments, pink and blue seats, for instance trivialize the issue.  That’s standard fare when the subject is gender politics.

Any wonder why women get pissed off?

Women represent 51% of the population, and yet our representation in the halls of power are barely a blip on the radar.

In my mind and as a female myself, that is clearly undemocratic. Quotas may not be the perfect solution, but it’s one way of getting there.   

I was not suggesting we mirror them, and I don’t believe India is socialist.  I was posing a general question, what is the percent of woman in gov. around the world. I believe I have seen that covered here on NQ. I think the US did not fare well on that list. I believe the Scand. countries did impose quotas. Has every country that increased women in gov done the same? Is it the only thing that increases access to power or are there alternatives? If quotas are imposed are they rescinded after parity is achieved?  I am just curious. I doubt the quota is the only path ever taken. 

Good idea, Doc, about getting some really powerful fast computers to run this stupid election stuff for us.  I hear Goldman Sachs has some really fast super-computers parked right near the NYSE.  They probably wouldn’t mind handling a few election chores in the national interest.  We can trust them.

And I’ll bring dozens of whoopie cushions!

aaaggghhh! I hate the whole pink is for girls, blue is for boys thing!!!

Well, I personally think “pink” is a very flattering color . . .

It seems that the issue is how to incorporate a group (women) into a system (US government) that is inequitable to said group and shows no sign of self correcting. The “please sir, may I have some more” strategy does not seem to be working.

Peggy Sue, my two senators are both female.  I think the injection of quotas into the electoral process would be the death of democracy, and it’s already sick.  This isn’t trivial stuff, though the idea of implementing quotas in elections is hard to take seriously when you get down to the nuts and bolts of how it is to be accomplished . . .

Lynn – I agree that unfortunately the world will never completely change but who wouldhave thought 20 years ago that 2008 would have an african american and a woman as the 2 leading contenders for the Democratic Party ticket? And the world didn’t even end!
I have come across people who are intolerant and I’ve just been intolerant of them. I can see older people have well entrenched beliefs going back to the 1950′s but young kids with the same belief is rare as your said.

That’s exactly what the issue is, Diana.  And what India is proposing is one way of correcting the inequities within their own system.  Is it a perfect solution?  No.  But it will certainly push change forward and give women a place and a voice at the table.

With a lot of kicking and screaming, of course. 

Craig – can always count on your posts be very thoughtful and evoking a lot of thinking.

You guys suck there also. from
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/57119/women-ceos-india-inc-beats.html

The number of women CEOs in India is nearly four times that of the United States.

According to a survey of 240 mid and large domestic and foreign companies in India by international executive research firm, EMA Partners, nearly 11 per cent of the CEOs in Indian companies are women, compared to three percent among U.S. Fortune 500 companies.

A Procrustean bed is an arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced. Sometimes the term is applied to the pan and scan process of cropping motion pictures for television and home video.

Thank you Onofre! I never heard of it used for pan and scan but it fits perfectly.

Yes, but politics is where the rubber meets the road insofar as Americans having any effect on the world around them. The only reason coporations get involved in politics is to find out where the feedbag is – not blaming them for that, it’s just the way it is.
And to preempt another likely argument (hobby horse alert): let’s not talk about charitable donations or companies working for the common good, every time that subject comes up, I start laughing… and then I look for my wallet. 

Peggy Sue,
I think you make good points. I do not like the idea of a quota system, but you are right. Where is the outrage at 52% of the population has 12% representation!? The parties should address this pro-actively, so that a quota is not needed or wanted, but that won’t happen. 

As to the fear of unqualified candidates, look at congress! Tell me who is qualified?

Craig, I admire your stand on this issue. Good on ya! And personally, I am very encouraged that India is making this step forward.

If quotas are problematic for some- that is understandable… But I think the gains forward towards decent lives for women around the world outweighs any concerns that quotas cause. There is no perfect tool to turn around gender inequity… Holding bakesales just doesn’t cut it… And we can’t even get crazed misogynists off the airwaves— not one… Furiously write letters, call MSM all you want… They are not listening.
You want a change in society towards fair and equal treatment of women?
Just how do you think that’s going to happen? No Era still…..
Seriously, if you have a better idea than quotas then share it…

How about we let these guys figure out apportionment:

Skip to 4:30 if you don’t want to watch the whole thing

I read that a majority of Americans think that picking people from a phonebook would give better results than congress right now, so how’s about that for a solution? Do away with the parties, and pick a representational number of people from the census to go to Washington

Hee,Hee, you’re welcome EllenD. I wonder if NQ could ever have a Greek mythology thread?

Hee,Hee, you’re welcome EllenD. I wonder if NQ could ever have a Greek mythology thread?

Oh, and “…it fits perfectly”? Well done EllenD

Peggy Sue, lol…

Lynn, there is a delete button for your posts.

Sure if we can’t trust Goldman Sachs then we can’t trust anything anymore. They being one of the lone surviving pillars of our society now.

Sure we had white presidents for the fiirst 200 something years. Let’s just keep “Hopey” for 30 years or so to level things out a bit. Sounds fair.

I absolutely want to see more women in political leadership. But, quotas are not the way to get there.

It was not much more than a generation ago that the first Women were accepted into the Military Academys. Maybe as more women officers leave or retire from the military, they will make political service a career choice.

There is still a perception among males in my generation, and more so in my older generations that women are not good leaders.

But, there are already enough qualified ladies in corporate and govermental leadership to show the other ladies that it is possible.

The trend has already started to tip, and the road is being paved by Women like Clinton and Palin. For the rest, just get out there and do it. 

The male monopoly you’re complaining about didn’t just happen accidentally or randomly. The power you should consider, is the power of the voters. The dominance of men in power, is a direct result of the majority of votes they received, and since the majority of voters are women, the men in power actually represent the power of women voters. Would you arbitrarily strip American women voters of their power to choose who they want to represent them Peggy Sue? With mandate or quotas, you would in effect diminish the rights of ALL women, by limiting their choices.

Boooo!!

I had to look that up too. I have not been up with the Greek Mythologies since I was 12.

Since then, I forgot a lot. I thought maybe Procrusty had something to do with The Simpsons clown character.

Docelder, just for the heck of it, use your clever mind to argue for women’s equity in politics. I can argue against quotas as easily as you can… Can you come up with idea better than quotas? Come on…

So did Barbie’s Ken. Because of Eddie Murphy’s routine it’s now called salmon.

i do not see a delete button. This is the first time I have commented since the changover to the new system.  i see “flag like reply”.  am i missing something?

The people that still havea need for that kind of “News” can always watch The View.

The good old boy’s network really is entrenched in the two parties. If you don’t want to wait a another generation or two for female representatives, it’s another good reason for a new party. One that does not come with the network pre-entenched. 

When you post a comment, the Reply button becomes Delete button on your comment, and the Flag button disappears.  The choices on your comment are Like – Reply – Delete.

Mine does anyway…

Thanks, I saw the delete button right after that last comment but not on my others. I do not have cookies enabled, so I think each time I come back here I look like a new person to the software. 

Or Letterman! Or Olbermann! Or Matthews! Or…………….

Well originally only white males had the right to hold office or vote, so it did start out imbalanced. As far as the present, so far at the highest levels there has been a different campaign ran against women, we saw it with Palin and with Clinton.  The media and the Beltway in full attack. So I would like to see a presedential race of Palin vs Clinton so that America can weigh each on her abilities, and not on her shade of lipstick or ankle size.

Doesn’t India already have “caste based” political parties that are protecting the majority of lower caste people of India ? If this law would give a proportion of their voting strength in Parliament to women than it does sound like a terrible idea.

So that instead of addressing to the economic inequality which is at the root of all India’s problems, short-cuts like “quotas” will only sharpen the inequality. The political class will only manage to divert the real problem of ensuring “equality” in real economic sense. The more one tries to do it by laws, the real spirit of the law would vanish. The law will remain only on paper.

I have a good idea, Diana . . . why don’t women go out and vote for women candidates?  That way, when joined with the men who are voting for women candidates, the women will win.  Why isn’t this happening?  Fixing this “why” is the solution to the problem–not mandating quotas . . . First the “why” must be defined . . .

And why did so many Democratic women vote for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton?

Nice one JMM!

Thanks Craig. This is a major accomplishment and a major step forward for the empowerment of Indian women. They fought for this for nearly 14 years. And many men fought alongside with them too. It still has to pass the lower house which is going to be even harder. I am surprised and very disappointed to see how a majority of the commenters here are making light of it, simply dismissing it and even making fun of it. 

For those who don’t understand how this will be implemented… it is very simple. 33% of the constituencies (like what we call congressional districts in the USA) will be allocated as women-only. Only women can be nominated in those constituencies and only women candidates will be on the ballot. No matter which party wins it will be a woman going to the Parliament or the State Assembly.

The mechanism for women to sweep ALL elections is already in place Diana, if they wanted to do it. The “Why” oowawa ponders is “Why don’t more qualified women desire to get into politics?” 

Sarah Palin didn’t start out her adult life with ambitions in politics, she sort of got recruited. But just imagine how much more powerful and credible as leader she would be right now if she HAD gone immediately into politics. Women who are career politicians actually do quite well in the competition, there are just far fewer of them than male career politicians. The disparity between men and women in politics exists more from choice than prejudice.

Interesting implementation, I’ll be great to see how it works out. India is the largest democracy in the world, perhaps they have something to teach us.

I want my decoder ring.

Both my Senators are female. My State senator is female. My State rep is female.
The only one who isn’t is my Congressman. Waxman, and I think he’d look terrible in a dress.

Living with others like them is better than being thrown on the funeral pyre of their husbands…

I divide the piece, you get first choice.

Thanks for further info Gypsy Anklet.

It is my understanding that part of CEDAW had provision for signatories to reach approx. 30% women representatives in government. Not sure if India is signatory. The United States remains only major western country to fail to sign…
We are not doing well with women’s rights.

Gypsy Anklet, I hope that nobody here has been making light or making fun of the progress women are making in India.  The discussion on this board has been primarily about applying a gender quota system to the USA and our political elections.  The situations in India and the USA are not the same.

“Only women can be nominated in those constituencies and only women candidates will be on the ballot.”

Does this sound fair to you Gypsy? Is it fair to qualified male candidates living in those districts? Doesn’t this completely disfranchise thousands of voters? Isn’t this forcing the pendulum much too far in the opposite direction? Don’t you think that forcefully reducing the candidate pool by half might create some resentment? Does this seem like a solution that Americans will ever accept? 

I described this method as “Procrustean” upthread, and I’ll stand by that assessment.

There is no way to “install” women (or an Obama, for that matter.)  We need to work on the climate in politics so that women would want to participate.
Right now any woman or man who would want to go to DC and play with the snakes is just asking to be bitten.

Obama’s doing B+ work down there, doncha know?

How long have we been waiting for ERA to be fully ratified?

Perhaps, they do Craig.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  And btw, I second Diana’s comment: I admire the stand you’re taking on this. 

Well done! 

Oowawa, short answer: I don’t know how anyone could have voted for Obama. He was no friend to AA community, no friend to women orlgbt communities, he was a Daley-made empty suit, crooked pol, no friend to workng class, no experience, no resume.

Hokma said :- In politics you need a large ego/connections/lots of money – in business you need brains and talent.

Yes thats why we have so many failed business men running for goverment!

Yes we are so forward yet so far behind the rest of the world in many aspects. This is one area that stands out!

Of course, the downside to this could be the revelation that half of the men now serving in Congress, have no balls.

or Brains for that matter.

CDP, know what you have done?  You have managed to split the opinions of some of my ‘touchstone’ commenters!  I think the divide runs along the lines of those who like the idea of ensuring a percentage of female representation in government and those who dislike the proposed means to establish such representation.  But one aspect of Indian politics that deserves mention is this:  there are 9 (nine) national parties and around 20 (twenty) state parties.  Here, we have 2 (two).  And unless a candidate is fronted by one of these parties, s/he is unlikely to win either a state or national election.  In fact, these 2 parties are merely clubs, to which the states have  granted operating privileges, the most sought after of which is getting the state to print the name of its candidates on the ballot.  So, maybe we can ensure that these club candidates will better reflect the gender mix of the constituents by mandating, in order to maintain its privileged status viz a viz the state electoral process; the club has to recruit and promote female candidates.

Onofre’s arm,
okay, let’s start where I think we all agree: more women representatives in our government would be a good thing.

–and I think we all can agree that Hillary Clinton and Sarah palin were treated beyond all rules of decency… The misogyny directed towards them was epic. Ludicrous. And both women were attacked by their own party elites.

The democratic party threw out their own rules to take the nomination from Hillary. The republican party took out their best chance to win when they began to attack their own v.p. candidate.

The republicans never attacked Quayle like they did Palin. Why?

Easy, obvious answer: good old misogyny at work

The disparity between men and women exists more from choice than from prejudice?

Uh no.

Can we still talk about Obama’s purple lipstick?

Or make cheese out of your wife’s breast milk..
http://www.vancouversun.com/Cheese+made+from+human+breast+milk+causes+trouble+York+chef/2667518/story.html

Not exactly…white women live longest. It’s bound to end up uneven.

In a free country, shouldn’t clubs be allowed to make their own rules jbjd?

That district would be ripe for gerrymandering

guest: Good try but that’s like comparing apples and avocados.

You’re comparing the U.S. Fortune 500 (which starts with Wal-mart and Exxon @ over $370 billion in revenue and ends with companies like PetSmart and Chiquita @ almost $5 billion) to the India top companies (large and medium). India’s top company is @ $18 billion and its #10 company Tata Motors is at $5 billion – which would be about #500 in the U.S.

If you did a fair comparison of companies of large and medium revenue levels in both countries I think you’ll see a lot more American women as CEOs than India’s women.

Also, what was the percentage of female CEO’s 20 years ago among the Fortune 500 in the U.S.?

Also I said women executive offices and board members – not just CEOs.

You’re on a roll, Diana.  It pains me to read some of these responses. 

You’ve come a long way, baby?

Hummmm.  Not so much. 

Does anyone realize that the arguments: Death to Democracy, the End of the Republic are the very same slogans used by the anti-sufferage movement?

The more things change . . .

You get my drift. 

Harp, not sure what yer giving the “boo” too. If it’s my comment I guess the counterpoint could only be
Um…. Yay!!!!?

Oa, straw dogs. I proposed that, in order to achieve greater gender equity in our elected officials, we the people qua state could enact laws that only extend the privilege of state sponsorship of club candidates – printing the names of club candidates on state ballots, for example – to those clubs whose candidates more accurately reflect the gender composition of the electorate. 

No the Booo was for thirty years of Hopey.

You don’t believe that if more women were to flood the political world, by their “choice”, that there would be more women politicians? There are by far more female nurses than male nurses, not because they are any better at it, or because Hospitals intentionally hire more nurses, but because more young women decide to pursue careers in nursing than men do. Should there be an effort to compel parity in the nursing field?

Far more men than women choose careers in politics, it’s a fundamental fact. If you want to change this fact, inspire more women to move into politics. How much more simple could it be?

How about if every seat in the House or Senate had to have a male and a female.

So, for example, on the California State Democratic Primary ballot, there would have to be both a male and a female candidate?

I agree there is misogyny at work Diana, but what can you do about that,  when it boils down to the stupidity of individuals like David Letterman? Systemic misogyny should be identified and crushed, but that won’t necessarily change the minds of idiots like Letterman, and no matter how stupid they are, they still vote. There are also neo-Nazis, communists, anarchists, and any number of slimeballs that I disagree with, who vote according to their warped beliefs. But the majority of voters should always overwhelm such creeps, just as the majority of voters are NOT misogynists, and will vote for a woman candidate as long as she’s more qualified than her male opponent. I think that the contest between Hillary and Obama was influenced more by race than by sex, even though sex was unfortunately an issue. And I use the word “more” instead of only, because there is ALWAYS going to be a certain percentage in any election that vote on irrelevant issues issues like race, gender, good looks, etc.

Bottom line, more women candidates, more women politicians. But forcing the issue with compulsion will NOT work, and could possibly result in some whiplash if it is attempted. 

If there was a national election question put to American voters on the next major ballot, along the lines of what is taking place in India’s parliament, I sincerely doubt it would get a majority of the vote, despite the fact that women slightly outnumber men.  I think the result would be virtually the same percentage among both genders; that is, I doubt that a majority of women would vote for a law like this.  I see no evidence to the contrary in our country.  In fact, it would not surprise me at all if the majority of men voted for it, only to be defeated by the majority of women.

The “straw man” I see in this whole debate is the unsubstantiated supposition that the majority of men are against it and the majority of women are for it.  I think the opposite is more likely.

oo, I am not drafting model legislation here.  But let’s figure this out.  Each state has its own rules about who can participate in the club primary.  In some states, like AZ, candidates enter the club primary by submitting an application to the state election official, the SoS.  In SC, the club must certify its primary candidates to the Board of Elections, not only naming these candidates but also swearing they are eligible for the job.  I would focus gender requirements on the election.  Looking at overall offices, both state and federal, I would mandate that, the percentage of female candidates whose names the club submits to be printed next to the club designation on the state ballot; must approximate the percentage of the female population of the state.

At one time women could only be teachers or nurses outside of the home, and teachers had to quit when they were married. In the 1950′s married women couldn’t work for IBM.

Forcing the pendulum much too far? Giving 52% of the population 30% of the representation, up from maybe 10%, that is going to much too far?

do you disagree with the way its being done or that its being done at all? I said I do not agree with quotas, and then questioned what other ways a country could reach parity, which was not answered, BUT I believe something closer to parity needs to exist. 

As I said earlier, each seat in Congress would have a male and a female component. Voters choose one from list A(male)and one from list B (female)…. 

Well, you’re late to the party Steve in KC–about time you showed up to draw some fire!

Lynn, I don’t understand your calculus with the, “52% of the population has 12% representation. That 52% I assume means all women, but all of these women have 100% representation, the representation THEY helped to send to the government with their vote. Are you going to make the dubious claim that only women can represent women, or for that matter, only blacks can represent blacks, and so on? Where the hell will THAT end?

As I said earlier, each seat in Congress would have a male and a female component. Voters choose one from list A(male)and one from list B (female)…. 

jbjd, and so if the parties met that stipulation, and in the final election all the males won anyway, there wouldn’t be any subsequent quota to enforce?

Some people, they like to go out dancing
And ther peoples, they have to work (just watch me now)

Too few hours in the day anymore, and they seem to go by faster than ever!

Yes sowsear, look how far we’ve come, how many women were in Congress back then? And yes, we still have far to go, but the journey doesn’t happen overnight, and if you try to take giant shortcuts on your trip, you’ll likely end up lost in the boonies.

Then…….why stop with gender? Why not also factor in race, religion, occupation, and any other of a number of considerations that guide peoples choices, and it will provide representation that most accurately reflects the complexion of the constituency? 

Also jbjd, who would decide which “club” most accurately reflects gender parity? Isn’t this a blade that cuts both ways? If one club had far more women, would they be compelled to recruit more men?

So what is your point? American women are not good enough to run your high value fortune 500 companies? India’s top companies are top of the line there (there is only so many to run and it is run by more women than the top companies in America are.)

We’ll likely end up lost in the boonies . . .

And you know we’re not going to stop and ask for directions either!

I love this film and I absolutely love this part.

Onofre, no, I am not making that claim.  But I am questioning why we still have a political system that is dominated by men and not representative of the US.  I found a statistic that said the US is 84 in the world for women in gov, behind places like Pakistan & China. Why? Why when I vote are there so few women to vote for? When women do run, why is there so much venom against them, like Palin and Clinton? The quota system worked in higher ed, and now women are 50% of the workforce.  I can only hope that now provides the pool from which CEOs and such can be drawn.  However, I agree with your comment downstream concerning backlash. But there appears to be systemic problems in our political system regarding the treatment of women, and both parties should try to remedy it.

Also jbjd, wouldn’t your plan cause willing and able candidates to be turned away based solely on their gender? As our system operates now, anyone who’s eligible can throw their hat in the ring, and they won’t be turned away until after the caucuses or primaries determine that they must be. If parity is reached early on, will the club have to slam it’s doors on late comers? Won’t this cause a mad rush of candidates toward the door, and only the folks who get through the door first, regardless of their qualifications, will be allowed to proceed.
Will these political clubs need to hire bouncers, like Club 54, to only let in the most glamorous? More to think about.

I agree. 
I agree.
I agree.

OK and with my 2nd triple post I’ll just kick myself off of here… I need to get some work done and I have been procrastinating all day, as evidenced by all my posts.  so, good evening to you all.

What’s really scary, is that I know practically EVERY actor in the movie, and my kids recognized none of them, but they still loved the movie anyway.

Damn straight!

Make that a strong B+. Professor Obama graded himself. He can do that, because, because, because, because…. because of all the wonderful things he does.

Actually “Hopey Dopey” Maybe it will stick. Wouldn’t it be cool to define that one?

Onofre’s arm, the problem isn’t a lack of viable women candidates– the problem is the channel through which a person interested in puruing a career as an elected official must pass. That channel is the two party system. There isn’t a lack of will on the part of women– it is a lack of opportunity. To run for office (in almost every case- unless you have some strong source of income to run as an independent) a candidate has to have the backing of one of the parties. The parties are choosing to back men- the overwhelming majority of the time.

You also face the issue of incumbancy– a party will nearly always back it’s incumbant– who just happen to mostly be men.

Then throw on the burden of the inequity of how men and women are treated by the media… Scott brown nekked no big deal… Woman senatorial candidate nekked?– ferget about it.

So I respectfully submit, women have the will, those in power have something of a hold on the means.

Run out of gas first, brother..

More strong women TV anchors, not eye candy, who are allowed to voice their views.

Right now we’re trying to find a solution for gender inequality in politics. Didn’t we just elect the first black president instead of the first women president?

He has an end goal in mind and “fits” information and statistics to satisfy  the endWhat’s on your mind…

Oh, for a second I thought you were talking about how those climate change scientists have started doing their work…  (!)

He has an end goal in mind and “fits” information and statistics to satisfy  the end….
 
Oh, for a second I thought you were talking about how those climate change scientists have started doing their work…  (!)

I’ve not yet decided on how I feel about quotas….  but I have to say that when women are the majority and have only a paltry representation, AND we’ve BEEN HERE since DAY ONE of the county!, it makes me think something should be done. 

oowawa, let’s “do politics” over a nice lunch.  You’ll let women have at least half of elected offices, and for YOUR quota, I’ll let there be one spot reserved on the man’s side for a humorous guy who wears bunny slippers! 

Interesting thread. I actually dreamed up a novel solution:

Introducing: “The principle of pair-bonded leadership”
http://bit.ly/czPNmY

Hope this opens some minds.
I actually live this solution, sharing leadership of my blog community with my beloved pair-bonded spouse.

Oa, I have no idea what you are talking about.  Assume anyone who wants, can enter a party primary.  (As I said before, this is not true in real life.)  Then, suppose state wide, 8 men and 2 women win party primaries for 10 offices, state and federal.  If the state make-up is 50% men/women then, the party cannot use state ballots to posts these candidates.  But let’s say, women came in second in some of these contests.  The club could choose to run these women.  (Remember, the primaries are only a club means to choose club candidates to run in the regular election.)  If the party cannot come up with enough female candidates then, it needs to recruit more actively to maintain a spot on the ballot.

HRC won the D Corporation primary for President but the D’s put BO’s name on the ballot.  And people still voted for him, evidencing they preferred a President from the D club than the R club. 

oowawa – you know how on ballots it will have one section for the presidential (+ Obama   ) candidates, one for the your congressional choices, one for your senatorial choices, etc….? 

There are only 100 senators, two from each state, so that’s easy.  For senators, it would say “vote for 1 below” with a list of female candidates, and “vote for 1″ with a list of male candidates.  Each list could have the different parties represented, so you could pick a republican female and a republican male, or a dem female and a dem male, or mix it up.  You’d end up with one female and one male senator in each state.  And if a party wanted to do everything they could to get both senators elected to be from their own party, they’d have to start a pipeline for grooming future female politicians, much as they already do for men.  Otherwise, they could never win the 2nd slot, if they weren’t running women in it from their party.

Congress would be tougher, because the number elected varies by size of state, doesn’t it?  Maybe the boxes will be split in two (and let’s say they need 10 elected) and on one side it would say something like “vote for 5 in the list below” and the other side would say “vote for 5 in the list below”, but the first list would contain female names, and the second, male names.  And again, all the parties running would be in both lists.  And again, if they want to get as much representation from their party as possible, they’d have to start grooming the women, as they do men.

And during the primaries, all the female and male candidates would run against each other as is now – there wouldn’t be gender-protected campaigns, or anything like that.  If women could see that they actually had a chance to win, AND since there would be plenty of female spots so that the women wouldn’t be such sitting ducks for the MSM, I think a lot more women would run. 

And since I’m making up a fantasy world here, I’m also going to pass a law for term limits, so even if goofy/incompetent/pedophiles get in, they’ll be back out in the real world in short order anyway!

My real fantasy would be for us to adopt a system they use in some other countries where you vote for TWO primary presidential candidates.  If your first choice isn’t viable, then the next one is used.  That way you can vote “your heart” (just in case a lot of people also do, and the long shot wins!), but not be throwing away your vote.

Hmmmm…. presidential general election is tricky – since you’ve only got two final candidates, and you’re only going to give one person the job.  Don’t know how to work that one out…..  alternate terms by gender, regardless of party….?       

“ But let’s say, women came in second in some of these contests.  The club could choose to run these women.”

This is even worse than I imagined jbjd. Are you saying that the party (club) would have to turn away the male winners of primaries in order to satisfy a gender quota? There would be riots in the streets! The internal squabbling in the club would tear it apart! Your remedy for gender parity makes Procrustes ( I doubt anyone will forget him NOW)  look like Mr Rogers.  

But we’d need vegan/vegetarian options, too, and what about agnostics?   Maybe we should just cut to the chase and let the lobbyists “be” the legislators!  

But OA, the cultural training for women (and for men’s attitudes towards those same women) starts early and is reinforced every day of her life.  Changing how elections are run (at least temporarily until the majority is truly represented in politics) would be WAY easier than changing culture overnight.

Yes, the phrase “the club could choose” should wave a great big red flag in everybody’s face.  This is very similar to what we’ve all just endured: the club just chose Thee One.  The club cannot be allowed to “just choose.”  The choices must reflect actual votes, or democracy becomes a sham.

True, oowawa, they’re not the same situations.  *We’re* in worse shape!  Maybe we need *tougher* changes than they do!!!! 

How about – everyone elected must be a woman (since we are the majority), but we will have a small quota FOR THE MEN!! (since they are a minority)

hehehehe

wouldn’t your plan cause willing and able candidates to be turned away based solely on their gender

Well…..  that basically already happens….. to female hopefuls…

Lorac, thanks for taking the time to think this up.  I still don’t think gender quotas are workable or desirable, but this is a genuine attempt to come up with something plausible.  Good job!

When it comes to the primaries, the club chooses. Make no mistake about that. It is not one man, one vote and the winner becomes the party candidate.

In Wa state, the Dems run a whole primary election and people go out to the polls to vote. but not one single vote is counted towards who becomes the candidate, that’s all done in the caucuses. You can vote all you want for a Dem primary candidate but it has absolutely no influence on the outcome. On the Republican side, they take half their influence from the caucus and the other half from the votes. So when you cast a Republican vote, it counts as half a vote.

The rules vary from state to state, but it is always the two parties who hold the cards and determine how and who will be selected.

Let us wait for another century for the patriarchy to turn around and correct its course all on its own about all the disenfranchised women for centuries.

Yes, Yttik. IMHO, the caucus system has to go.  The primary election system is indeed a big undemocratic mess.

Good one lorac, But we females don’t count in the grand scheme of human existence.

It goes much deeper than culture lorac. There are huge differences between the sexes that are almost hardwired into us by millions of years of evolution. Some of this hardwired programming may be the reason that fewer women seek careers in politics, this should be studied. But crafting new election practices that are heavily geared toward forcing more women into office, whether the electorate wants that or not, drastically reduces our right to vote for whoever we please, and it is similar to a Hobson’s Choice.

why? easy, centuries and centuries of conditioning, patriarchy. A problem of this proportion requires unorthodox solutions, like perhaps a temporary quota to lift them, make examples of them, eliminate the stereotype and eradicate the prejudice. You have problems with afformative action?

I absolutely disagree. If you don’t want to choose the club candidates, don’t join the club!  These primaries are only mechanisms to choose your club candidate to appear on the state ballot.  The club could make a rule, we will pick the highest scoring male and female candidates…

The Constitution says nothing about political parties.  We created them and gave them this exaggerated power over us.  If we don’t like the way they operate, we don’t have to join them OR let them use our state ballots.  Without violating any civil or Constitutional rights. 

The sooner you realize their only only power derives from the power voluntarily handed over by the states; the sooner you can stem that power.

I absolutely disagree. If you don’t want to choose the club candidates, don’t join the club!  These primaries are only mechanisms to choose your club candidate to appear on the state ballot.  The club could make a rule, we will pick the highest scoring male and female candidates…  
 
The Constitution says nothing about political parties.  We created them and gave them this exaggerated power over us.  If we don’t like the way they operate, we don’t have to join them OR let them use our state ballots.  Without violating any civil or Constitutional rights.   
 
The sooner you realize the only power held by clubs called political parties as opposed to, say, the Rotary Club or 4-H, derives from the power voluntarily handed over by the states; the sooner you can stem that power.

(All of this is covered on my blog.  Try reading, CLUBS RULE )

oo, the clubs DO choose.  That is why they are called clubs!  Their sole mission is to get club candidates onto state ballots.  They are not inherently undemocratic; it all depends on their internal rules.  When the D Corporation violated its constitution – note the small c – people within the club tried to impact the club decision.  Others left the club, in protest.  But in most states, that’s all anyone could do.  After the election, did citizens try to amend their laws in relation to the operation of political parties in their states?  No?  Why not?

Agreed about caucuses. And I’m beginning to repeat myself with this particular subject, I’ve laid out my position. But I’ve got to get some rest.

jdjd said:

“HRC won the D Corporation primary for President but the D’s put BO’s name on the ballot”.

That’s the entire argument,  In one simple sentence.  Hillary R. Clinton won the primary.  BUT, the D’s put BO’s name on the ballot.

Hello!!! 

All the arguments of more women running for office, of putting their names out there, of working harder, of letting time to slowly rectify the situation is totally bashed by the simple truth: a woman by the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton won the Democratic primary, undeniably took the popular vote, undeniably was the most qualified for the job, but  she was denied the nomination.

Why? 

Well, I would suggrest one reason is because she was a woman.  Oh yes, there are many excuses to bring to the fore, many that we’ve all heard and puked on. She was controversial, she ran a lousy campaign and worse, she was a hardass, a bitch with a voice that sounded like everyone’s ex-wife.  She was reviled by Dems and Republicans alike.

Well, how do all like the alternative???

Please, I do not want to hear another word about Democracy lost or the Republic in jeopardy.  We had the best candidate in a generation.  And she was kicked to the curb.  Because she was a woman.

How dare she think she could be POTUS?  Again, I ask everyone here:

How do you like the alternative, the choice of the “boy’s club?” 

And we really need to argue about whether sexism rules the day in this country?  Or that India’s idea of using quotas is some sort of horrendous abomination?

I’m beyond words!

http://www.dunk2u.com Nike Dunk
 http://www.dunk2u.com Nike Men Dunk
 http://www.dunk2u.com Air Dunk
 http://www.dunk2u.com Nike Sb
 http://www.dunk2u.com Nike Dunk shoes
 http://www.dunk2u.com Dunk shoes
 http://www.dunk2u.com/Nike_Dunk_1_Piece_High__Low.html Nike Dunk 1 Piece High Low
 http://www.dunk2u.com/Nike_Men__Women_Air_Zoom_Dunkesto.html Nike Men Women Air Zoom Dunkesto
 http://www.dunk2u.com/Nike_Men_Dunk_High.html Nike Men Dunk High
 http://www.dunk2u.com/Nike_Men_Dunk_Low.html Nike Men Dunk Low
 http://www.dunk2u.com/Nike_Men_Dunk_Mid.html Nike Men Dunk Mid
 http://www.dunk2u.com/Nike_Women_Dunk_Low.html Nike Women Dunk Low
 http://www.dunk2u.com/Nike_Men_Dunk_SB__Special_Ed.html Nike Men Dunk SB Special Ed
 http://www.dunk2u.com/Nike_Trainer_Dunk.html Nike Trainer Dunk
 http://www.dunk2u.com/Nike_Women_Dunk_Low_Mid__High.html Nike Women Dunk Low Mid High
 http://www.dunk2u.com/Nike_Dunk_Women.html Nike Dunk Women

 http://www.jerseys-buy.com/soccer-jersey/Shop-by-Country/USA.html USA jersey
 http://www.jerseys-buy.com/soccer-jersey/Shop-by-Country/USA.html USA jerseys
 http://www.jerseys-buy.com/soccer-jersey/Shop-by-Country/Austria.html Austria jersey
 http://www.jerseys-buy.com/soccer-jersey/Shop-by-Country.html Shop by Country jersey
 http://www.jerseys-buy.com/soccer-jersey/Shop-by-Country/Argentina.html Argentina jersey
 http://www.jerseys-buy.com/soccer-jersey/Shop-by-Country/Australia.html Australia jersey
 http://www.jerseys-buy.com/soccer-jersey/Shop-by-Country/Bolivia.html Bolivia jersey

Shouldn’t one club hold paramount the idea that they are trying to select candidates who can defeat the other club’s candidates?

Here’s a conundrum to consider: If the gender of equally qualified individuals is irrelevant to their job performance, (I’m sure most people here would agree to this statement) then it should be irrelevant which sex is chosen to do the job. Which, by extension, would mean that it is irrelevant whether one sex is more heavily represented in a certain field, if job performance is the criterion. This would render the desire of the less represented sex to have numeric parity to be a matter of vanity, and not necessarily a desire for better job performance, since we’ve already established that gender in this example is not relative to performance. In other words, just because parity may be desired, this does not constitute a valid reason to alter the situation, especially if improvement of performance is the goal.  

Put more bluntly: Simply wanting more women in politics doesn’t make it necessary or more effective.

PS, I would go one step further.  I would ask not only why the D Corporation (club) chose him over her, even though she won according to club rules (before the club implemented different rules); but why did people both inside of and outside of the club allow them to get away with this?  Because HRC is a woman.  (Oa, where are those “riots in the streets”?)