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

[babylonsister]

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

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

By Annie-Rose Strasser on Apr 6, 2012 at 12:20 pm


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 @ link~

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.”

[annabanana]

1. The multi tasking required to be the primary caregiver

of one (or more) kids while maintaining a household and maybe also holding down a job makes this statement #1 on the "Duh" Parade. .

[babylonsister]

2. I hear you, but the gop doesn't. nt

[DavidDvorkin]

3. Sexist claptrap

And shameful pandering.

[emulatorloo]

4. Democratic women Sens and Reps do get more done than obstructionist Teabag Male Republicans

They bloviate, block and posture.

[Dokkie]

6. Oh my

Cos we all know that Sharon Angel would have been more willing to compromise than Allen West. The amount of male bashing on this site never seize to amaze me

[emulatorloo]

9. Note I said "Democratic Women". Sharon Angle is a Republican Tea-Bagger.

[Dokkie]

11. You said

"male" teabaggers implying they are worse just because they are "male".

[emulatorloo]

13. i would guess the male ones are more into transvaginal ultrasounds. But that's speculation

on my part. They are just an amorphous mass of ignorance, men and women tea baggers.

[Dokkie]

5. I guess we could also

get better governance if we had more women president. But I guess Obama made sure that did not happen, a potential women and all her wonderful skills was denied the chance to fix things by ......

Oh never mind, its election time

[grantcart]

10. lol really?

Men and women communicate in starkly different ways.

Men are more prone to establish less flexible goals and work to define and exaccerbate divisions to win the goal.

Women are much more inclined to discuss issues for hours to find common ground and build consensus.

I am sure that if women were in charge there would be more discussion around the substantive policy issues and less on procedure and party points of view.

Recently I ended up taking up my wife on the road with me and as she is now cut off from her normal community of friends I find her engaging in long conversations she has already with me about issues that I can do nothing about. In order to accomodate her I look at her and nod and just say 'uh huh' and let her continue. I did it as kind of a joke but she goes on and on and I realize that these are the same patterns of 'gossip' and social communication she goes through with her female friends, completely different than the way that I communicate with my male friends or in mixed company.

Now you can disagree with that, but it doesn't mean that it is sexist to understand the differences in the way that men and women communicate.

I absolutely believe that more things would get done if women ran the legislature and there is nothing 'sexist' about it.

What might be sexist is saying that what would be accomplished would be of a better quality.

Now I am not sure about that, but I find it difficult to believe that a woman dominated legislature would have rushed into war with Iraq.

[saras]

7. It's always dangerous to generalize, but the statistics support him, sort of

If you look at the AVERAGE American woman, they would be an improvement from the point of view of progressives over most Democrats, let alone Tea Partiers.

If you look at the average female POLITICIAN, it's another matter entirely. But still an improvement.

But if someone carefully collects a bunch of corporate shills who happen to be female and claim that their femaleness overrides the facts of the situation, then they're an idiot and should be treated like one. Obviously a crew of Sarah Palins and Ann Coulters isn't going to help, not even with a couple of Margaret Thatchers thrown in.

OR - another approach...

Arbitrarily stuffing a bunch of females into Congress won't fix anything.
Fixing the systemic problems that lead to only 15% of Congress being female - that's another matter entirely.

[Prophet 451]

8. Not sure that's true

Women can be just as petty, cruel and bloody-minded as men. I present Margaret Thatcher as proof.

[Jamaal510]

14. And Sarah Failin.

[bemildred]

12. Pressing the advantage so kindly handed him by the Pubbies. nt

[Kath1]

15. Tahnks, babylonsister

"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.” - Now THAT I agree with!

[mkultra]

16. women dont make better decisions or work more effectivley.

They are equal to men in that regard. What leaving women out of the pool causes is a reduction in quality candidates causing some poor male candidates to be taken over favorable female candidates. It also reduces the perspective contributions to a given problem for the same reason.

We dont have to be sexist toward men to support equality and recognize its value.