General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSomething else was demonstrated: women should be in charge
While I don't care for either Susan Collins or Kelly Ayotte, it is said that these Republicans worked to chill out their testosterone-charged counterparts and get the deal done. They were the least rotten of the apples, and may have staved off disaster.
I am convinced - and have been for years - that women ought to be running the show, and that soon they will. They're more prone to think with their brains, and work for the common good. Even warrior queens like Hillary are a damned sight more level headed then their warloving male counterparts. And in a world where we can blow each other to cinders at the push of a button, levelheaded is particularly appealing.
Even FDR was FDR only, in my opinion, because of Eleanor and Frances Perkins. Without those two he would have been a flinty Conservadem.
Mars has run its course; Venus is ascendent.
Does this make me sexist? I guess. But with the best of intentions, please understand.
Cheers.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I would agree with you, but as Bachmann, Palin, Schalfy and others illustrate, we are all truly equal, in our capability to produce people that in any gender, deserve to be called assholes.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)But, on whole, I believe that women have a temperament that's better suited for governing these days.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)on a different topic.
So a balance is always welcome
Jennifer Jones Austin, leukemia survivor
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)-snip-
Following weeks of stagnation, The New York Times reported on Monday that a bipartisan group of women senators was playing a crucial role in opening discussions between Republicans and Democrats over how to move forward and reopen the government. Out of the 14 senators on the bipartisan committee that laid the framework for the debt deal, six were women. Susan Collins (R-Maine) started the group, and Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) took part in negotiations.
-snip-
Full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/16/shutdown-women_n_4110268.html
Also, see the post regarding Women in the Senate, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251332110
pacalo
(24,721 posts)Thank you, teabaggers!
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)... the one where she ended up being a 'write-in' candidate, she has been voting with the Democrats quite often - especially on women's issues.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)Note my sig line.
I changed it the night that Sen. Levin cut the legs out from under Senator Gillibrand in the Armed Services committe hearings on her effort to get sexual violence in the military out from under the chain of command.
He was just a sexist old fart. I am glad he is retiring.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)That women would have hammered it out in no time without all the ego.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)It would probably have to be a constitutional amendment though because poor men would whine about how it hurts their free speech rights or some shit.
Also, I think earmarks need to come back. I think the earmark adding was what really pushed this through.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Do you think it remotely makes sense for me to say, "wow, after over 200 years of white guys, the black president proves blacks should be in charge."
That would be weird. Identity politics instead of judging individuals by their own actions.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)We should be in charge.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)She and Lisa Murkowski get a pass because they're women and thus honorary democrats?
And yes - Webster says sexist.
Although we'll have to remember this as the attacks on Hillary ramp up. She's a double-democrat and thus untouchable.
pitbullgirl1965
(564 posts)I don't think women are the better sex, the kinder, gentler sex. That's gender essentialist thinking and the flip side of it is men are supposed to be tough, aren't capable of nurturing et al.
GaYellowDawg
(4,446 posts)Unless you're talking about Michelle Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, Ann Wagner, Jackie Walorski, Martha Roby, Kristi Noem, Vicki Hartzler, Renee Ellmers, Cynthia Lummis, Virginia Foxx, Candace Miller, or Kay Granger, all of whom voted to burn down the world with the Tea Party. Or unless it's Nikki Haley and Mary Fallin, both governors who are refusing to expand Medicaid under the ACA. Or psycho-gov Jan Brewer in Arizona. Or Sarah Palin. You can't accuse too many of them of thinking with their brains. Although I wouldn't presume to name which part is doing the thinking. Perhaps no part at all. As for warrior queens, Margaret Thatcher didn't hesitate to attack Argentina over the Falklands, nor did Hillary hesitate to vote W the authority to wage war in Iraq.
Having two X chromosomes doesn't exclude someone from being a complete shithead. I'm glad someone stepped up to be relatively reasonable, and I don't care whether they had a vagina or not.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)sad but true
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)IronLionZion
(45,433 posts)they might even have lunches together to talk it out. As for warrior queens, I wonder if some of the more murderous female leaders in the world felt the need to "prove something". Oh, a man executed someone? A woman can execute 100!
I love how everyone is equal but some people are more equal than others.
While it probably started with something good like women's lunch meetings, it's a stretch to extrapolate some sort of bigoted bullshit from this. People have a tendency to single out one thing and blow it up into a mountain of faulty conclusions. A better conclusion may be to have more discussions and build relationships over lunch meetings.
We shouldn't dismiss the efforts of right wing women and liberal men involved in this. I'm not sure why I didn't say tea bagging women.
Obama is one of the most collaborative level-headed leaders this country has had in a very long time.
And something that I posted about in history of feminism, is that physical gender might be less meaningful than gender as personality traits. Many bloggers have written about Obama being our "first woman president" as both a positive and negative in the way he governs.
I like lunches and talking about stuff and listening instead of screaming, and I am a high testosterone straight male.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I also believe his handicap was a big part of the picture that was FDR too
I was a grown man before I found out he was a victim of Polio. It was never mentioned in any of our history books and I never seen him in a wheel chair.
If ever there was a great President FDR was the man.
Our first African American President isn't too shabby either
In a lot of ways being black in todays USA is a handicap too when it comes right down to it.
President Obama stands mighty fucking tall, head and shoulders about those around him in our government thats for sure.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)your "3rd Way" waywardness, you do say some really, really intelligent things.
Women will save this sorry old world yet!
cali
(114,904 posts)I don't doubt your intentions for a minute, but I don't buy your premise.
Of course Eleanor impacted FDR. We are influenced by people around us, particularly those we respect.
How on earth is Hillary more level headed than any male who supports the Military Industrial Complex and turns far too quickly to military solutions? She is not.
Gender is not the determining factor. Who someone is regardless of their sex, is what I look at.
I mean c'mon, who would you prefer, Bernie or Hillary?
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Let us say rather than more women ought to be running things, and work for a civilization wise and courageous enough to allow them to share power. And that one day "allow" will no longer be an operative term.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Everybody has something to offer, and everybody has flaws. A balance of power, as far as gender goes, would allow strengths to be supported, and flaws to be compensated for.
I agree that we are out of balance; the world has been male-dominated for too long. I don't want to diminish men, though; I just want to empower women and see them equal in power and leadership to the boys. That's what it will take; a societal, cultural, and economic acknowledgment of imbalance, and honest correction.
As a middle school teacher and the mother of grown sons, I can tell you that you don't want a female-dominated society any more than a male. While, fortunately, most of us grow out of adolescent social ills, there's nothing, NOTHING, more vicious than an adolescent girl, unless it's a pack of them.
We're all a mixed bag.
As a woman myself, I know my capacity for unconditional love, for empathy, for nurturing, for patience, for helping, is endless.
I also know my capacity for eviscerating anything that interferes with me or mine, without a second thought, without looking back, without all of the posturing, the display, and the chest beating the men engage in.
I know exactly how limited my capacity is for negotiating with ignorance, with greed, with hate, with fear, with power-mongers, with poliltics: VERY. I'm likely to cut someone off mid-stream, tell them they're an idiot, and leave them out of the process entirely.
Efficient. That's us.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)You don't need a Y chromosome to be crazy.
randome
(34,845 posts)If women want to take charge, they need to take charge. It's as simple as that.
Absent the mindless patriarchal obstacles, of course.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]