Why are women in such a minority in Government?

deanhills · May 12, 2009

Women make up 51% of the total population in the United States, yet they are only 10% of the House and GOP. Why is this?

I read the following article and thought this could make for an interesting thread?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090511/pl_politico/22342

DodgeFB · May 12, 2009

First let me say there needs to be one less. Olympia Snowe needs to change parties or get out. I hope that is taken care of next time she runs.

Some women are just not given the opportunity. And most have too much going on in their real world. And some may be just too smart to sell out.

GekiDan · May 12, 2009

Think about this very reason, "Men rule the world". I think that's why there are only a few women who engaged in politics. But there are women who rules a certain country, like the President of the Philippines, Pres. Gloria Arroyo and the former Pres. Cory Aquino.

DodgeFB · May 13, 2009

GekiDan said:
Think about this very reason, "Men rule the world". I think that's why there are only a few women who engaged in politics. But there are women who rules a certain country, like the President of the Philippines, Pres. Gloria Arroyo and the former Pres. Cory Aquino.

True. But do women really need to be involved in politics? Aren't the men doing a great job on their own?

Dirk · May 13, 2009

DodgeFB said:
True. But do women really need to be involved in politics? Aren't the men doing a great job on their own?

Hell, i hope that was meant sarcastically.

DodgeFB · May 13, 2009

Dirk said:
Hell, i hope that was meant sarcastically.

It was!

deanhills · May 14, 2009

Dirk said:
Hell, i hope that was meant sarcastically.

What a relief! I was really getting worried as I was reading through the comments until I got to your comment. I genuinely think that women could be excellent material for political posts and can't understand why they are hiding away in the United States. Women in general are very good with administration and since they have to work so hard to find their place in politics (harder than men) those who make it into the limelight are generally tougher too. I have a great admiration for Angela Merkel, the current Chancellor of State in Germany for example and cannot understand that she does not have at least a number of counterparts in the United States.

Dirk · May 14, 2009

deanhills said:
What a relief! I was really getting worried as I was reading through the comments until I got to your comment. I genuinely think that women could be excellent material for political posts and can't understand why they are hiding away in the United States. Women in general are very good with administration and since they have to work so hard to find their place in politics (harder than men) those who make it into the limelight are generally tougher too. I have a great admiration for Angela Merkel, the current Chancellor of State in Germany for example and cannot understand that she does not have at least a number of counterparts in the United States.

She's not terrible. But she has her downsides. None of them have to do with her gender (i see people as people, not as males/females/coloureds/christians/atheists/whites/muslims/Germans/Brits etc). It's her party i have an issue with. I'd much rather see Oskar Lafontaine in power.

curious · May 15, 2009

The point of the article was that there is a far lower percentage of womem politicians in the Republican Party than there are in the Democratic Party, not the general absence of women in politics.

While I would like to say that there are many more Democratic senators and members of Congress that are women because women are generally too intelligent to be Republicans, I'll refrain.

The answer is simply that there has been greater discrimination against women in the Republican Party. Well through the Reagan era the GOP's position was that women's liberation was a passing fancy and that we would soon return to our aprons, our frying pans, and our true place in the world, leaving the nast worlds of business and politics behind.

This did not make for a fertile ground for developing female politicians. That left the Republican Party behind. Like all such changes, a critical mass of qualified experienced people must collect at a lower level before a meaningful move can be made to the next level. The Republicans are twenty years behind in building that critical mass.

DodgeFB · May 15, 2009

curious said:
The point of the article was that there is a far lower percentage of womem politicians in the Republican Party than there are in the Democratic Party, not the general absence of women in politics.

While I would like to say that there are many more Democratic senators and members of Congress that are women because women are generally too intelligent to be Republicans, I'll refrain.

The answer is simply that there has been greater discrimination against women in the Republican Party. Well through the Reagan era the GOP's position was that women's liberation was a passing fancy and that we would soon return to our aprons, our frying pans, and our true place in the world, leaving the nast worlds of business and politics behind.

This did not make for a fertile ground for developing female politicians. That left the Republican Party behind. Like all such changes, a critical mass of qualified experienced people must collect at a lower level before a meaningful move can be made to the next level. The Republicans are twenty years behind in building that critical mass.

Yeah the Republicans missed out on Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi ! We sure regret that.

The Republicans just need to shut up and wait. The overreaching has already began. Bush did it too. We all know how that worked.

We don't need "democrat lite".

Dirk · May 15, 2009

curious said:
The point of the article was that there is a far lower percentage of womem politicians in the Republican Party than there are in the Democratic Party, not the general absence of women in politics.

Hmm... telling that.

curious said:
While I would like to say that there are many more Democratic senators and members of Congress that are women because women are generally too intelligent to be Republicans, I'll refrain.

Well, i've gathered the Republicans are very conservative but are you implying that they're against gender equality?

Intrepid237 · May 15, 2009

Women

In general, women (especially single women) are more liberal than men. They are usually pro-choice and pro-gay marriage with exception to the religious right of the gender. I guess it's because women are more empathetic to the uninsured or gay than men.

But in regards to why there aren't more of them in congress, the same could be said for blacks. I don't really know why.

curious · May 16, 2009

Intrepid237 said:
In general, women (especially single women) are more liberal than men. They are usually pro-choice and pro-gay marriage with exception to the religious right of the gender. I guess it's because women are more empathetic to the uninsured or gay than men.

But in regards to why there aren't more of them in congress, the same could be said for blacks. I don't really know why.

It's called bigotry. That's why.

And to overcome bigotry at high levels, you have to have a pool of people to draw from. And it takes time to get that pool. And until very recently, women and minorities were not allowed on even the fringes of power except for one or two tokens.

And yes, until recently the Republican Party's official position was that women belonged in the home. They have made a remarkable turnabout in that arena. For this I have to give credit to George Bush, who put women in positions of power and listened to them. Clinton put Janet Reno in a powerful position, then marginalized her. His womanizing trivialized his appointments, too. But Bush had always had women as close advisors, a remarkable thing for a male of my generation, raised in Texas.

Yeah, that's me, praising Bush. Miracles do happen.

deanhills · May 17, 2009

Dirk said:
She's not terrible. But she has her downsides. None of them have to do with her gender (i see people as people, not as males/females/coloureds/christians/atheists/whites/muslims/Germans/Brits etc). It's her party i have an issue with. I'd much rather see Oskar Lafontaine in power.

Lafontaine looks like an interesting character, but I can understand your support for him, given his political affiliation with socialism. When I first saw his photo in Wikipedia, he reminded me of my grand father who has long passed on. The eyes are strikingly similar. Also impressed with his background in physics, and then finance in a BIG way. Has to be substance in this guy. Do you think he still stands a chance though as he looks almost ready for retirement?
I thought the following titbits in Wikipedia were interesting about the guy:

In contrast to his public socialist political ideology, Lafontaine lives in a manor like house, commonly known as the "palace of social justice" (Palast der sozialen Gerechtigkeit).

Education and private life
He has a twin brother called Hans after their father Hans Lafontaine, who was a baker and died in World War II before their birth. He and his brother grew up in extreme poverty. He studied physics at the University of Bonn and the Saarland University from 1962 to 1969.
Lafontaine is married to Christa M?ller who leads a campaign against genital mutiliation in Africa. They have a son, Carl Maurice, born 1997. Oskar Lafontaine is a Roman Catholic.

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

Dirk · May 18, 2009

deanhills said:
Lafontaine looks like an interesting character, but I can understand your support for him, given his political affiliation with socialism. When I first saw his photo in Wikipedia, he reminded me of my grand father who has long passed on. The eyes are strikingly similar. Also impressed with his background in physics, and then finance in a BIG way. Has to be substance in this guy. Do you think he still stands a chance though as he looks almost ready for retirement?
I thought the following titbits in Wikipedia were interesting about the guy:

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

He was very popular when he was in the SDP, so as a person, he is often supported in the Bundestag by SDP members.

In Germany, we see the capitalists as the exploiters, so there's strong support for left-wing parties. Same in France. In Germany, however, Oskar Lafontaine unified the entire left wing into one party "Die Linke". That means "the left".

This unified stance gets them the votes of all the people that usually vote for leftist parties. Also, many people in the past didn't vote for the left because it was so fracturous. Now they do, since it isn't.

He's got a much bigger chance than say, the US socialist party. (www.sp-usa.com). That's because Germany has a much fairer voting system than America. It's called Proportional Representation. This means minority parties get a much more realistic proportion of the seats in the Bundestag.

We have coalition Governments in Germany, partially thanks to PR. Last election, Die Linke got 13% of the vote, compared to only 11% by Die Gruenen (The Greens). Die Gruenen used to be in Government in the Grand Coalition, with the SDP. Unfortunately, FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei) always allies itself with CDU (Christliche Demokratische Union).

So Die Linke has a chance to get into Government in a coalition - probably with SDP. I support both Die Linke and Die Gruenen. Lafontaine has a chance, much greater chance than a socialist party in America or Britain would. My personal feeling is no, he won't. We can but hope he will.

(Oskar Lafontaine was one of the big reasons i became fascinated with economics some time ago).

deanhills · May 18, 2009

Dirk said:
He was very popular when he was in the SDP, so as a person, he is often supported in the Bundestag by SDP members.

In Germany, we see the capitalists as the exploiters, so there's strong support for left-wing parties. Same in France. In Germany, however, Oskar Lafontaine unified the entire left wing into one party "Die Linke". That means "the left".

This unified stance gets them the votes of all the people that usually vote for leftist parties. Also, many people in the past didn't vote for the left because it was so fracturous. Now they do, since it isn't.

He's got a much bigger chance than say, the US socialist party. (www.sp-usa.com). That's because Germany has a much fairer voting system than America. It's called Proportional Representation. This means minority parties get a much more realistic proportion of the seats in the Bundestag.

We have coalition Governments in Germany, partially thanks to PR. Last election, Die Linke got 13% of the vote, compared to only 11% by Die Gruenen (The Greens). Die Gruenen used to be in Government in the Grand Coalition, with the SDP. Unfortunately, FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei) always allies itself with CDU (Christliche Demokratische Union).

So Die Linke has a chance to get into Government in a coalition - probably with SDP. I support both Die Linke and Die Gruenen. Lafontaine has a chance, much greater chance than a socialist party in America or Britain would. My personal feeling is no, he won't. We can but hope he will.

(Oskar Lafontaine was one of the big reasons i became fascinated with economics some time ago).

This is a bit off topic, but when will you be having your next election in Germany? Also while we are off topic, what does zombie mean when you identify the Brits with it? :>)

GekiDan · May 18, 2009

deanhills said:
what does zombie mean when you identify the Brits with it? :>)

Yeah. I'm a bit curious about it when I saw the location on your profile. What does that really meant and why are you called zombies? Did it mean you are following rules against your freewill?

Glee · May 19, 2009

While I do think the majority of sexism is gone from America, I think a bit still lingers, and this is on both sides. Simply put, women of the political age were raised in "Father knows best" homes, and its only now that more modern women are started to emerge into the political scene. I don't think you can just blame "the man" for bring women down, as I think that the mentality of ladies were like "well politics is a man's thing" for a long time. Kinda like how my mom (who is as liberal as can be) still says taking out the trash is a man's job. It just a mind-set that we're starting to get out of. Once the older generation start to retire and the newer ones become more ambitious then I think you'll see more girls on the scene.
(Through, if we treat all of them like the media treated Sarah Palin, then I think they'll be a reluctance for more women to throw their hats in)

Dirk · May 20, 2009

deanhills said:
This is a bit off topic, but when will you be having your next election in Germany? Also while we are off topic, what does zombie mean when you identify the Brits with it? :>)

GekiDan said:
Yeah. I'm a bit curious about it when I saw the location on your profile. What does that really meant and why are you called zombies? Did it mean you are following rules against your freewill?

It means the people follow blindly the Government without questioning the very reasons of why authority should exist. The illusion of democracy, as well, giving people the choice between candidates that barely differ and making sure anyone that could do some good is completely discredited.

And of course i'm following rules against my free will. Hell, following rules is against my free will.

It's not just Britain, though - go and listen to the System of a Down song "Prison". In fact, listen to any, they're all really good.

Glee said:
While I do think the majority of sexism is gone from America...

Do you? I don't.

deanhills · May 20, 2009

Glee said:
(Through, if we treat all of them like the media treated Sarah Palin, then I think they'll be a reluctance for more women to throw their hats in)

I believe this was a two-way street and that the media was actually complimentary about her given her limitations. I found her to completely lack in substance and definitely not the kind of role model of a politician that other serious professional women would like to emulate. She made so many mistakes in interviews indicating her lack of general knowledge about the history in the United States and insight in Government. I admire Hilary Clinton, as well as Michelle Obama. Just a pity that Michelle has chosen to play the role of Betty Crocker happy housewife and mother right now. Hopefully she will get her teeth into more serious programmes later. I find her actually much more impressive than her husband.

Why are women in such a minority in Government?

Similar threads