Obama: ‘Congress Would Get More Done If There Were More Women’

[ProSense]

Obama: ‘Congress Would Get More Done If There Were More Women’

By Annie-Rose Strasser

President Obama spoke at a forum on women and the economy today, following the White House release of a 65-page report (PDF) on the same topic this morning. In a speech that played on the public arguments about a GOP’s “war on women,” the President took the opportunity to argue in front of the largely-female audience that Congress would be more productive if there were more women legislators.

“Fewer than 20 percent of the seats in Congress are occupied by women. Is it possible that Congress would get more done if there were more women in congress?” he asked. “I think it’s fair to say: That is almost guaranteed.” Watch it:

&feature=colike

President Obama’s suggestion isn’t new, but it is valid. Women account for only a small fraction — about 15 percent — of Congress, though they make up more than half of the population.



In a response to the speech, Jess McIntosh, a spokesperson for the Democratic advocacy group EMILY’s List, told ThinkProgress that the group agrees with the President on the necessity of more women legislators. “Democratic women are known for getting things done,” McIntosh said. “They’re effective legislators who focus on the things that matter, work well with others, and put women and families first. This GOP-led Congress seems hell-bent on rolling back the clock and restricting our freedoms. It’s pretty clear that if we replace some of these guys with Democratic women, we’ll make more progress.”

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/06/459475/obama-congress-more-women/

[badtoworse]

1. And this isn't a sexist argument?

[ProSense]

2. So you

"And this isn't a sexist argument?"

...think the "sexist argument" is pointing out that women are underrepresented in corporate America (3 percent of CEOs) and in Congress (20 percent) when they represent half the population?

[Dokkie]

3. Hmm

Lets assume you are right. Now lets consider that the majority of eligible US voters are women so we can all blame women for giving us crappy male politicians. Also women in the US have more spending power than men, so again we can conclude from this stat that the make up of CEO gender is made possible my the very powerful groups(women) support or lack of action or concern.

We men are at their mercy, so now you know who to blame for our govt problems and disproportional make up of corporate CEO members.

[ProSense]

4. It's a

Lets assume you are right. Now lets consider that the majority of eligible US voters are women so we can all blame women for giving us crappy male politicians. Also women in the US have more spending power than men, so again we can conclude from this stat that the make up of CEO gender is made possible my the very powerful groups(women) support or lack of action or concern.

We men are at their mercy, so now you know who to blame for our govt problems and disproportional make up of corporate CEO members.

...matter of choice. The parties control who they put their support behind. Now, what about CEOs? Or is that a luck of the draw, like hiring women?

[Dokkie]

7. Bull

More women would run primary challenges 1st if they were serious of changing anything but how many of em even enter the political arena. My guess is that women have a higher success rate than men in politics but because not enough of em enter the political arena, so few end up in govt even with this higher success rate.

Also CEO picks are not a luck of the draw, consumer has enough power and clout to change the CEO and behaviours of large corporation,s so collectively they can but choose not to do anything and thats a big shame

[ProSense]

9. What?

More women would run primary challenges 1st if they were serious of changing anything but how many of em even enter the political arena. My guess is that women have a higher success rate than men in politics but because not enough of em enter the political arena, so few end up in govt even with this higher success rate.

What the hell do you think party support is, do you think it's limited to the GE?

Also CEO picks are not a luck of the draw, consumer has enough power and clout to change the CEO and behaviours of large corporation,s so collectively they can but choose not to do anything and thats a big shame

And that's a ridiculous argument in the context of the point being made.

[Dokkie]

11. But

they still have to declare their intention to primary challenge an incumbent 1st. And if they are continously denied support by their respective parties, then I suggest they do some protesting but that is if they do actually care to enact really change

[robinlynne]

15. We have more spending power? how's that?

[BlueCaliDem]

27. That's what I'd like to know, too. eom

[Dokkie]

38. This is what am talking about

85% of purchases and purchase influence are made by women
60% of all personal wealth in the US is held by women
Of all stock ownership in the US, women control 51% of it
80% of healthcare decision in the US are made by women
68% of new car purchase the US are made by women
85% of all consumer purchases in the US are made by women.

That is power that can be harnessed for good if there was a will to do something on the part of this powerful gender.

[TriMera]

76. You got a link for that? n/t

[robinlynne]

80. 60% of personal wealth, 51% of stocks. I seriously doubt that. Oprah may scew the statistics

somewhat, but not enough to balnace the wealth held by men. I simply do not believe that is possible.

[mathematic]

90. I'm all about the data, so I'd like to see a link too nevertheless...

You dismiss the idea out of hand, which seems like a strange reaction to me.

Why can't it be possible? Furthermore, if these numbers are true, what does that say about the narrative framework in which you analyze these issues?

Here are three quick reasons why it seems to me that these numbers are easily possible:
1) Women's annual unemployment rate has been less than men's annual unemployment rate since 2000.
2) In nearly every marriage, assets are held jointly (50/50).
3) Women live longer than men so those assets that were jointly held are now held 100% by a woman.

[robinlynne]

97. Let's look at one statistic, new cars bought.

There are many different ways you can define that: number of cars bought, or amount spent on cars by men vs dollar amount spent by women, or percentage of cars bought by women (and then men) which are new, as a percentage of all cars bought by women (and men).
each stat will give you a different result. this article isn't even using a statistic. It says that women make the decision of which new Car to buy more often then men. Every marriage is different. Every household is different. This is saying that when two people go together to buy a new car, if they are one man and one woman, that more often than not the woman chooses the car. I do not believe that. How many new car buyers do you think were interviewed to get this statistic? it is not information you can find without a specific study. When people buy cars, we do not know from the paperwork who made the decision to buy the car. But, in my opinion, buying new cars is not a decision most men would stay out of. In my opinion cars is something men tend to be more interested in than women, as a group. T

When they say women buy more cosmetics than men, I believe it. Food I believe because women are the heads of more households than men, new cars I do not.
that women buy more cars than men is possible. new cars, i do not believe it. i think that if you take all the car dealers' paperwork, there will be more men's signatures than women's. and the dollar amount spent by men will be higher than the dollar amount spent by women as well. On new cars. not that many women buy mazerattis and mercedes as men. This article says more women do.

[mathematic]

110. I'm not talking about cars and neither were you.

We were talking about personal wealth and stock ownership and you said you did not believe it was possible for woman to have more than men. Not simply that you didn't believe it but that you didn't even believe it was possible!

And while neither you nor I were talking about cars you did manage to communicate your faith in old fashioned stereotypes real well. You've already decided to reject the statistics without even seeing how they were figured. Stephen Colbert coined a word for this sort of thing: truthiness.

Why is it so unbelievable that women could make most purchasing (including big ticket items) decisions? Why is it so unbelievable that most personal wealth and stocks are owned by women? We don't live in 13th century france, or the 1960s, or even 1990! It's 2012 and things HAVE changed.

Aren't you at the very least concerned that a thing you believe to be impossible may actually be true? I know something like that would ruin my week.

[robinlynne]

113. the article talks cleafrly about cars. The so called statistics. Most stocks are not owned by women

Most personal wealth is not owned by women.
Yes, we can vote. Yes, we can work. But w do not own most of the personal wealth of the united States.
That is ridiculous..

[robinlynne]

114. Here is the "stat" quoted on new cars: 68% of new car purchase the US are made by women

from the same site which makes all the other claims, sans back-up.

And I'm sure there are hundreds of studies done on this subject.

[Dokkie]

28. I think I meant to say

purchasing power. And there are so many data showing that consumer spending is overwhelmingly dominated by women. Women buy most of the items from malls, grocery stores, car dealerships etc etc by the sheer fact that they outnumber men, out earn men and in relationships are the decision makers when it comes to deciding what to buy.

I cant find my bookmark on the data but try going a little search on google.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

36. Women 'out earn' men?

Hell no they do not, not when they make only 77 cents to a man's every dollar.

[Dokkie]

39. This is a recent development in the US

Check out March edition of TIME magazine who did the data crunching and have indeed declared women as the richer sex. Also have to consider that the recession wiped out a lot of male dominated industries so that probably had an effect on the finding

[uppityperson]

77. 10 women working @ minimum wage make more than 1 unemployed man who used to make $200,000/yr?

But that does not mean women outearn men in any manner.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. Do you want to rephrase this?

You seem to be suggesting that since the unemployed guy used to make more than the currently employed woman currently does, the math is irrelevant.

Don't let damn facts get in the way of a good stereotype.

[uppityperson]

103. No, I don't. Do you want to look again and think again? If a woman makes 10% of what a man makes,

the woman does not "out earn" the man. That is what I saying.

I am not richer than someone making 10 times what I do. If on unemployment, an unemployed woman still makes less than what the previously higher paid unemployed man makes.

"Don't let damn facts get in the way of a good stereotype."

[robinlynne]

81. Women do not out earn men. Purchaisng at the mall is not wealth. buying real estate, stocks, and cor

corporations are wealth. That is mostly a man game. There are a few rare women who enter into that world.

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. Women make 91% of real estate decisions.

http://www.she-conomy.com/report/marketing-to-women-quick-facts

Women account for 85% of all consumer purchases including everything from autos to health care
91% of New Homes
66% PCs
92% Vacations
80% Healthcare
65% New Cars
89% Bank Accounts
93% Food
93 % OTC Pharmaceuticals
American women spend about $5 trillion annually…Over half of the U.S. GDP**
*Marketing to Women Conference

And where did you get the idea that buying stocks is "spending"? The only kind of "spending" which is relevant to this discussion is the consumer kind.

• Over the next decade, women will control two thirds of consumer wealth in the United States and be the beneficiaries of the largest transference of wealth in our country’s history. Estimates range from $12 to $40 trillion. Many Boomer women will experience a double inheritance windfall, from both parents and husband. The Boomer woman is a consumer that luxury brands want to resonate with. – Claire Behar, Senior Partner and Director, New Business Development, Fleishman-Hillard New York

[robinlynne]

88. Women do not buy 91% of new homes. That is just plain inaccurate.

[robinlynne]

89. I think this conference had a clear agenda, and uses wrong/misleading statistics to prove a point.

It is saying women amke most of the fmaily decisions. that is extremely debatable. And it is not the same hing as having the purchasing power.

This is a cpnclusion, where they created some facts to prove their conclusion. These are not real facts.

The idea that women buy 65% of new cars is ridiculous.

Women making more food choices than men; believable.

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. It was considered a useful set of stats to push a Limbaugh boycott.

I wish I could get these memos. "Use these statistics for agenda A, but not agenda B."

[Zalatix]

34. Dokkie said it wrong.

If women went John Galt and declared a massive economic boycott of someone, that someone gets wiped out, utterly.

Start with boycotting every corporation that donates campaign money to the GOP. Every last one of them.

[Zalatix]

19. A more logical argument would be that

We want women like Elizabeth Warren elected, and not women like Meg Whitman.

[Dokkie]

30. By the same token

if we elected more men like Bernie Sanders and Kucinich instead of Joe Lieberman and John McCain, this country would be in a much rosier condition. Just trying to point out that it is not a gender problem

[Zalatix]

31. Ayup. Agreed.

[ProSense]

35. See that's

By the same token

if we elected more men like Bernie Sanders and Kucinich instead of Joe Lieberman and John McCain, this country would be in a much rosier condition. Just trying to point out that it is not a gender problem

...the problem and a really lacking mentality. Why bother electing women when men will do?

Kucinich was once pro-life.

I mean, why not keep the the SCOTUS all white male as long as they're liberal?

[Zalatix]

37. Not really.

The point is to eliminate the Bachmann's and McCain's and replace them with more like Warren and Sanders. Not replace them ALL with men, liberal or otherwise.

Gender doesn't matter, this I totally agree with - but that's not an excuse for maintaining this huge imbalance.

[ProSense]

40. Actually,

The point is to eliminate the Bachmann's and McCain's and replace them with more like Warren and Sanders. Not replace them ALL with men, liberal or otherwise.

Gender doesn't matter, this I totally agree with - but that's not an excuse for maintaining this huge imbalance.

...that is the point. If gender didn't "matter" the "huge imbalance" wouldn't exist.

Congress, in particular the Senate, could also use a few more minorities.

[Zalatix]

42. Indeed, Republicans aren't very diverse anyway.

[Dokkie]

41. You asked

why not keep the the SCOTUS all white male as long as they're liberal?

I dunno, god knows I don't have a problem with it just as long as they uphold the constitution of the US. As a black man, do you think the presence of Clarence Thomas in the SC has done anything to improve my life? We got to start judge this people by the content of their character not the color of their skins.

[Zalatix]

43. That's taking things too far.

[ProSense]

44. Well,

You asked

why not keep the the SCOTUS all white male as long as they're liberal?

I dunno, god knows I don't have a problem with it just as long as they uphold the constitution of the US. As a black man, do you think the presence of Clarence Thomas in the SC has done anything to improve my life? We got to start judge this people by the content of their character not the color of their skins.

...there are people to this day who don't believe Clarence Thomas is qualified. I mean, I don't think Herman Cain should be an elected official at any level. Hacks aside, increasing Congress', the Court's and the corporate hierachy's diversity is an asset, not a detriment.

There was a reason why this hearing sparked outrage


http://www.democraticunderground.com/101453029

[Kath1]

52. Agreed!

A few more like Lynn Woolsey would be nice, too, IMO.

[Zalatix]

53. There are countries that guarantee a certain number of women in office.

So far I haven't seen anything go wrong with that idea.

[Kath1]

55. I wouldn't have any problem with that.

None at all.

[badtoworse]

5. The assumption that more women would translate to greater productivity strikes me as sexist.

The fact that women are underrepresented in Congress does not establish causation. There is no reason to believe Congress would be more productive if there were more women were in office. In my opinion, it wouldn't make any difference. If you disagree, tell me why.

[ProSense]

6. Well,

"The assumption that more women would translate to greater productivity strikes me as sexist."

...given that Congress is completely dysfunctional, that its filled with a bunch of men who are attacking women's rights, not only would it be more productive, but it also would likely be more fair.

[Dokkie]

10. I will ask you a question I asked to another DUer

Do you think having more Sharon Angels/Sarah Palins/ would make any difference to the contraception issue in congress?

[ProSense]

12. Well

"Do you think having more Sharon Angels/Sarah Palins/ would make any difference to the contraception issue in congress?"

...you never know. On that issue they could fall somewhere between Blunt and Snowe or Collins and Rubio.

Sure these women are hypocrites, but when they speak up, it's more than their male counterparts ever do.

There are a few good women running for Senate, including Elizabeth Warren.

[Zalatix]

20. Um, just answer "no" to her post and be honest.

But yeah, we need more Warren's, and fewer Bachmann's.

[ProSense]

23. Please

"Um, just answer "no" to her post and be honest."

...speak for yourself. My response was clear, and I meant every damn word of it.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

84. at the end of the excerpt, he specifies, "democratic women"

women tend to think more about care and relationship, considering the effects of a decision on the actual people and relationships involved.

Men tend to think abstractly and ideologically, favoring an abstracted ideas of justice when making decisions on proper/best actions, which doesn't necessarily take into account the repercussions on actual people.

This is the main premise in Carol Gilligan's moral development theory

Carol Gilligan (born November 28, 1936) is an American feminist, ethicist, and psychologist best known for her work with and against Lawrence Kohlberg on ethical community and ethical relationships, and certain subject-object problems in ethics. She is currently a Professor at New York University and a Visiting Professor at the University of Cambridge. She is best known for her 1982 work, In a Different Voice. Wikipedia

Carol Gilligan was the first to consider gender differences in her research with the mental processes of males and females in their moral development. In general, Gilligan noted differences between girls and boys in their feelings towards caring, relationships, and connections with other people. More specifically Gilligan noted that girls are more concerned with care, relationships, and connections with other people than boys (Lefton, 2000). Thus, Gilligan hypothesized that as younger children girls are more inclined towards caring, and boys are more inclined towards justice (Lefton, 2000). Gilligan suggests this difference is due to gender and the child’s relationship with the mother (Lefton, 2000). http://www.psychology.sbc.edu/Gilligan.htm

[badtoworse]

16. You're speculating. Maybe you're right, maybe not

In my opinion, ideology trumps sex, so assuming the ideological makeup of Congress is the same, having more women would not make a difference.

[ProSense]

17. I think

"In my opinion, ideology trumps sex, so assuming the ideological makeup of Congress is the same, having more women would not make a difference."

...you have no idea what you're talking about. Women of across the ideological spectrum have come out against the GOP's war on women. It's why Republicans are losing support among women.

Still, see my point here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=535275

[badtoworse]

18. I think the "war on women" is not a good measure of Congress' productivity

There are a lot more important issues for Congress to deal with than whether church sponsored health insurance has to pay for birth control. Jobs, energy policy, environmental issues, budget priorities, trade policy, etc. are the issues that will determine quality of life for us and our kids and our grandkids. I don't believe women would be any better dealing with those things than men.

[ProSense]

22. Thanks for

There are a lot more important issues for Congress to deal with than whether church sponsored health insurance has to pay for birth control. Jobs, energy policy, environmental issues, budget priorities, trade policy, etc. are the issues that will determine quality of life for us and our kids and our grandkids. I don't believe women would be any better dealing with those things than men.

...confirming that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you think the "war on women" refers only to birth control, then you are completely underinformed. Your dismissal of women's rights is disgusting.

[badtoworse]

58. I'm not dismissing women's rights

They occupy a different position on my list of Congressional priorities than they do on yours.

[ProSense]

62. Actually,

"I'm not dismissing women's rights

They occupy a different position on my list of Congressional priorities than they do on yours."

...you are, and I can tell that you're hiding a "me-first" attitude behind a laundry list (Jobs, energy policy, environmental issues, budget priorities, trade policy, etc.).

I mean, "etc." before women's rights.

[badtoworse]

63. and I can tell that women's rights are the only item on your list.

This is a waste of time - we're not going to find any common ground.

[ProSense]

64. That's

and I can tell that women's rights are the only item on your list.

This is a waste of time - we're not going to find any common ground.

...simply absurd. I'm not the one who created a list that put any issue behind "etc."

[robinlynne]

98. i actually agree with you. but to play devil's advocate I do want to note

that in more primitive, self governing communities, and in communities here as well, women are more often than not the leaders in many ways. I spent some time in a small village in the Amazon,
not indigenous, but stemming from indigenous. there is a community council which makes all decisions, such as whose land to till on what day. they are highly organized. they have a system whereby once a week the entire village works on one person's land together. the council is entirely run by women. That is true throughout that particular region. I was amazed. This is a society with no links (like roads) to the rest of the world. The people did not understand the notion of "
countries", for example. the women rocked! And it was absolutely accepted and normal to them that the women should make the decisions of the community.

if you look at church groups, volunteer community groups, i think you will see a lot of women step up to the plate in the community to make thing s happen. I don't know statistically, but just from personal observation, I would guess that women are more "community organizers" than men, if one sex does it more than the other. .

[veganlush]

8. are you

stupid?

[badtoworse]

13. No.

[Skittles]

14. I BEG TO DIFFER

[Zalatix]

21. Are you attacking the poster and not their arguments?

I think so.

[ProSense]

24. Did

you enter the thread to play police?

I notice that you're defending the one person who is completely dismissive of women's rights.

[vaberella]

32. Actually I read it as sexist as well.

I then was thinking about the current argument running around against women by politician in office currently and I had to say that maybe yes; maybe if there were more women in politics then this current war on women would have ended in Congress. They'd currently be working than threatening women. However, over all the comment doesn't sit too well with me.

[ProSense]

33. What I find

I then was thinking about the current argument running around against women by politician in office currently and I had to say that maybe yes; maybe if there were more women in politics then this current war on women would have ended in Congress. They'd currently be working than threatening women. However, over all the comment doesn't sit too well with me.

...interesting is the focus on the title of the piece and not the larger point or context of the President's statement.

[vaberella]

100. Prosense I understood the context of the President.

However I was commenting to the poster above and if the sentence is taken singularly it can be viewed as sexist.

[joshcryer]

105. No.

[RZM]

25. Women are underrepresented in Congress. That's a fact.

Though I question whether Congress would be appreciably different with more women in it. I don't see any evidence that the current crop of female Congresspeople behave appreciably different from the males. Things would probably be largely as they are today if there were more women there. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be . . . I think there should. But that doesn't mean that Congress would be much different if there were. Maybe it would - but I kind of doubt it.

[ProSense]

26. Well,

Women are underrepresented in Congress. That's a fact.

Though I question whether Congress would be appreciably different with more women in it. I don't see any evidence that the current crop of female Congresspeople behave appreciably different from the males. Things would probably be largely as they are today if there were more women there. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be . . . I think there should. But that doesn't mean that Congress would be much different if there were. Maybe it would - but I kind of doubt it.

...when Congress passes a law for insurance companies to provide free Viagra to men and then attack birth controls and the Violence Against Women Act, I'd say that there would be an "appreciably different with more women in it."

Whether it's a Democratic or Republican woman certainly matters: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=535275

[RZM]

91. It would only be different if those new women Congresspeople were mostly from one party

I see no reason to think that more women in Congress would mean more Democrats or more support for women's rights etc. Women do break for Democrats, but not in large enough numbers to make a difference when you're talking about a body of 535 out of a population of over 300 million. There are more than enough politically ambitious conservative women who would the party line.

[joshcryer]

109. It would have to appreciably different, simply because Congress would represent the population more.

As it stands now the biggest failing of Congress is that it is unrepresentative of the population as a whole.

[Initech]

29. Congress would get more done if get money out of it, and quit electing religious fundamentalists.

[zappaman]

45. After watching the behavior of the women in the feminist forum

and being summoned to jury numerous times on posts in that forum, I would have to disagree.

[ProSense]

48. Well, that settles it. n/t

[DonCoquixote]

46. Yes, but

We do have to keep in mind that being a woman does not always equal smart, as Ann Coulter illustrates.

[ProSense]

49. Thanks for

"We do have to keep in mind that being a woman does not always equal smart, as Ann Coulter illustrates."

...the reminder. President Obama is no Alan Keyes either.

[Angleae]

47. Women like Sarah Palin & Michelle Bachman?

[ProSense]

50. No

"Women like Sarah Palin & Michelle Bachman?"

...like Elizabeth Warren. Still, the attempt to obfuscate by focusing on the most extreme examples is telling.

I mean, let's try that logic: We need more liberals in Congress. You mean liberals like Ron Wyden?

[MadHound]

54. Do we need more women in Congress, yes.

Will more get done in Congress if there were more women? No, and the very notion is pretty sexist.

The fact of the matter is that Congress was originally designed to accomplish things only after great deliberation, not get things done quickly. In the intervening years, that original intent has only been slowed down even further. Adding more women to the mix won't change a thing.

[ProSense]

56. You know

Do we need more women in Congress, yes.

Will more get done in Congress if there were more women? No, and the very notion is pretty sexist.

...this is a fairly absurd point: Yes we need more, but saying so and offering an off-the-cuff reason is "sexist."

Why do we need more? Present your argument in support of that point.

Like I said up thread, I find it interesting that the focus is on the title of the piece and not the larger point or context of the President's statement.

[MadHound]

57. So you have a sexist title headlining this piece,

But attack others who criticize that title(and point) as absurd for focusing on it.

Alrighty then. Sorry, I've got better things to do than play stupid games with you.

[ProSense]

59. Nonsense

So you have a sexist title headlining this piece,

But attack others who criticize that title(and point) as absurd for focusing on it.

I in no way implied that the title is sexist. You did.

Still, what's your rationale for this: "Do we need more women in Congress, yes."

I mean, by some of the arguments being made here, your statement is sexist.

[Dokkie]

60. Wait a minute here

You answered yes to the question asking if we needed more women in congress but never gave any reason why. This is especially confusing since you believe we still wouldn't get more done if we had more women representatives.

Curious minds would like to know why then do we need more women in congress? maybe diversity for the sake of it?

[redqueen]

61. Let the misogynists cry about it if they want...

the world will move right along regardless.

Are women better leaders than men?

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/03/a_study_in_leadership_women_do.html

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. This is a valid argument for the same reason that "there should be more male teachers" is.

As the poster above observes about "women being better leaders", men are better teachers.

http://busyteacher.org/7608-why-men-are-better-at-teaching-than-women.html

And the misandrists can cry about it if they want.

[redqueen]

66. LOL

Yes, why wait for any actual boohooing right?

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. No. You have a point.

You're right: It's not sexism if your gender really is better at the task in question (and it helps that the view is impossible to refute due to your gender's underrepresentation).

Any cursory examination of education should make obvious that they exhibit the same failings as congress.

Affirmative action time: School superintendents should be instructed to hire men and voters should be instructed to hire women until parity is reached.

[redqueen]

70. Notice the difference in phrasing...

one questions while the other asserts ("Are women...?" vs. "Men are...&quot . Seems rather typical, sadly.

Also you mean sex, not gender.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. a) The op doesn't question, it asserts

b) I'm a better judge of what I mean than you.

[redqueen]

74. The OP is one person's opinion....

not something offered up as scientific fact.

Nuance....

[redqueen]

79. LOL

The information at the link is presented differently but I suppose spin is what's really important. Point scoring is what really matters, right?

As for the difference between sex and gender, that's science, not opinion.

[DevonRex]

68. I really loved my first male teacher.

It was fourth grade. It was because it was a different experience. I benefited from it, as did all the students. I think a mix is definitely beneficial to all kids, at all levels of education. One of my sons teaches and is really good at it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. Although I do think more men should teach

My post is a little tongue-in-cheek. The belief that men are better than women is "sexism". The belief that women are better than men is "conventional wisdom".

[DevonRex]

72. I know it was.

I must say you do have a way with you. Anyway, that's why I responded seriously, in saying there is definite value in more men joining the teaching profession at all levels.

[redqueen]

73. Oh, the drama...

As sociologist Allan Johnson notes, "misandry" has no place in a male-identified, male-centered world. Moreover, Johnson states: “And it takes almost no criticism at all in order for men to feel "bashed," like it's "open season on men." In fact, just saying "male privilege" or "patriarchy" can start eyes rolling and evoke that exasperated sense of "Here we go again.” (Allan Johnson, “Privilege, power and difference,” p. 197) "Accusations of male bashing and man hating work to discredit feminism because people often confuse men as individuals with men as a dominant and privileged category of people. Given the reality of women's oppression, male privilege, and some men's enforcement of both, it's hardly surprising that EVERY woman should have moments when she resents or even "hates" men.” (Allan Johnson, "The gender knot," p. 107

[joshcryer]

106. The President is not saying women are better than men.

He's saying Congress would get more done if Congress represented the population demographics.

This is uncontroversial.

[bart95]

75. are we color/gender blind, or not?

you want to unravel color/gender equality?

then keep pushing the 'it's different, when WE do it' line

(males have their mitt romneys, females have their carley fiorinas - you cant judge a politician by their gender)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

78. We would like the female vote this election

in fact all of it would do nicely and more men too!

[KamaAina]

82. That's my President!

[hughee99]

83. Says the guy who defeated the woman with the first realistic chance

to become president.

[Beacool]

87. My same thoughts.........

He's pandering to women, he needs their vote and the Republicans are making it very easy for him. I'm sooooo tired of all these politicians. Bunch of phonies.

[ProSense]

93. .

[Beacool]

101. Laugh all you want, but there are plenty of people fed up with the whole lot of them.

And some of them won't even bother voting in November.

[ProSense]

102. Yes

"Laugh all you want, but there are plenty of people fed up with the whole lot of them."

...there are people with issues.

[ProSense]

92. Yeah,

"Says the guy who defeated the woman with the first realistic chance to become president."

...how many black Senators, male of female, are there?

I mean, Michelle Obama is the first black First Lady.

[hughee99]

94. If he's suggesting that the problem is there's not enough women,

then which Democrats should give up their seats for female candidates? If he's suggesting that female democrats should take repuke seats, then of course. Hell, if male Democrats took repuke seats, more would get done too.

In this case, he's not talking about black vs. white, just male vs. female elected officials, so I'm not sure what the first black first lady has to do with it.

[ProSense]

95. Where

If he's suggesting that the problem is there's not enough women,

then which Democrats should give up their seats for female candidates? If he's suggesting that female democrats should take repuke seats, then of course. Hell, if male Democrats took repuke seats, more would get done too.

...did the President say that anyone "should give up their seats for female candidates"?

In this case, he's not talking about black vs. white, just male vs. female elected officials, so I'm not sure what the first black first lady has to do with it.

Didn't you just blame the President for winning the election? Does it make a difference?

[hughee99]

99. My mistake, he's not suggesting anything...

He outlined a problem that he knew the people in the crowd would agree with, and then offered no solution.

“Fewer than 20 percent of the seats in Congress are occupied by women. Is it possible that Congress would get more done if there were more women in congress?” he asked. “I think it’s fair to say: That is almost guaranteed.”

Now the logical question, which I moved on to, but admittedly, the president did not address, is if there should be more women in congress, and the size of congress isn't going to change, then some of the people there will have to go in favor of women. Since he's suggesting that having more women in congress is better, is he suggesting that Democratic women replace Democratic men? If he's suggesting that Democratic women take repuke seats, then I'm all for that, but I'm all for Democratic men taking repuke seats as well.

I don't fault him at all for winning the election, but if he's suggesting that things run better with women in positions of power, he had a chance to help the first women get elected and chose to run against her because he felt he could do a better job.

Please don't misunderstand me, I have no issues with him running in the primary (although I neither voted for him nor Clinton), I'm glad he's the president, but this speech, what I've heard of it, is nothing more than just "playing to the crowd". He can do better.

[ProSense]

104. There

I don't fault him at all for winning the election, but if he's suggesting that things run better with women in positions of power, he had a chance to help the first women get elected and chose to run against her because he felt he could do a better job.

...is really some flawed logic at work here. I mean, had Hillary won, would anyone be justified in blaming her for not helping to elect the first black President?

By your logic, everyone should have stepped aside so that Hillary could win. That is not the point of the statement.

[hughee99]

107. The point is,

If you think people are better off with more female public officials, then to make that happen, either incumbent men are going to have to make way for more women, or you're going to have to win more repuke seats (and I'm all for ANY Democrat winning a repuke seat, regardless of gender). Should the DNC send more money to female candidates because they are female, or should they target their money towards those with the best chance to win, regardless of gender. I'm all for having more women in congress, but the logistics of actually making that happen can be tricky. As I said, this statement was just "playing to the audience".

[joshcryer]

108. Relevance? He's talking about Congress not the Presidency.

[Beacool]

111. Of course he is.

It's an election year. Time to pander to women, Hispanics, AAs and the union folks. While Republicans pander to the extreme right kooks. Aren't elections fun?

[joshcryer]

112. That does not make the statement untrue.