If 51% of elected federal officeholders were women, would we still be a warmongering nation?

[Union Yes]

If women actually were represented proportionately.

Women make up 51% of the population.

Yet they've never came close to making up 51% of federally elected officeholders in any congressional class.

It's 2010, to me that's a fucking disgrace.

In my opinion, if more women ran America we would be a more peaceful nation. I might get hammered for making that statement, but I'll make no apology for it.

The DNC, DCCC, DSCC should be ashamed of the fact that they have a consistent recent history of turning their back on progressive Democratic women candidates. Time and time again, a progressive woman candidate is basically on her own regarding party backing and party financial help.

If the Dem party cared as much about electing women, especially progressive women as they cared about electing conservative DLC'ers this may not be as much of an issue.

I'm a guy. I'm tired of watching men fuck up almost everything they touch regarding policy and lawmaking.

We need more women officeholders at ALL levels of government.

In 2009 The Lilly Ledbetter Act passed, BARELY. I salute all who made it happen. Including the President for pushing for it and signing it into law.

But the fact that it barely passed in 2010 shows just how much we need more elected women.

I just want to add, I'm a gay guy so this ain't some lame attempt to score points with DU women.

[ixion]

1. yes n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

2. Because elected women are always good? Five words: Michelle Bachman and Marsha Blackburn

[Drunken Irishman]

3. Marge Thatcher.

[comrade snarky]

35. I love to bring her up when someone tells me

How women are inherently more peaceful than nasty, nasty men.

The only thing that's better is when I'm told how she isn't a real woman because real women wouldn't act like that.

[timeforpeace]

45. Hillary Clinton likes her some war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[lunatica]

10. Yeah, but there's rumors that they're a little crazy too

So I wouldn't hold them up as typical women.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. I know many women who are pretty hard-up for war.

Maybe not as zealous as men, but pretty darn close.

Even if they take a softer and gentler approach to world affairs, it doesn't change the fact that a good number still could be considered 'warmongers'.

I mean, 48% of American women voted for Bush. That means 48% supported a candidate who was unbashidly pro-war. Kerry, who is no pacifist, won 51% of the woman vote in 2004.

I think you'd be surprised at just how many women out there aren't much different than men when it comes to war.

They're certainly not all like Sally Field...who believe if women ruled the world there would be no war.

I disagree. I think there are enough pro-war or at least non-pacifist women out there to suggest warmongering would continue under their leadership.

[951-Riverside]

25. You forgot Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina, and Susan Smith

...Don't like the looks or your penis fool you.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zC7oTLJEqEE/SRXCNzh67oI/AAAAAAAADgI/tfW2F39r9SQ/s400/Susan+Smith+2007.jpg

[SemiCharmedQuark]

30. Ugh! Sarah Palin! How could I have forgotten her!

[SoCalDem]

74. and Meg Whitman..ugh

[Whisp]

66. no kidding. sheesh. like all women are good and saintly and all men are evil and eviler.

I hate this bullshit.

fact is, many 'powerful' women gt up the ladder the same way men do, and must do it the same crappy way - its the only way to do it. so they end up sticking to the status quo when they do get in power positions.

Change the meaning of power and worth and all tht stuff then I think that some good women with a different perspective can make a huge and beneficial change. but not under the system that exists - hardly possible.

[Echo In Light]

4. Difficult to speculate on. Historically, every govt's primary enemy is its own populace

... so within that context it's tough to suggest how all the variables would play out within a completely different context.

[truedelphi]

5. It depends on which type of person those women who held office were.

If they were similar in character to Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Boxer, and others, perhaps not.

If they were similar to Madeline Albreight, Hillary Clinton, and Diane Feinstein, we still would be warmongering.

[Drunken Irishman]

7. So men and women aren't all that different after all? :P

[Drunken Irishman]

6. Yes.

[EFerrari]

8. Hey -- gay guys score points with this DU woman all the time.

:)

[athenasatanjesus]

28. deleted

[lunatica]

9. First there would probably be a profound cultural sea change

Womens' issues would be the foundation of the government, laws and the culture. Just like the world being mostly oriented towards mens' preferences up to now. That would change everything. But I don't know about wars. Too many women leaders have gone to war, although that may be because they had to prove themselves in a man's world. I guess we would have to see what happens when it happens.

[sarge43]

11. Women are individuals. Good'ins and bad'ins and most in between.

We're not clones nor does one size fits all.

[Echo In Light]

20. True, but when examining societies objectively, most tend to fit into various distinctions

[sarge43]

43. The OP is the same argument that the Suffragettes gave:

Women are more moral than men. Give women the vote and they will vote society's best interests.

Didn't quite work out that way because we are not more moral or ethical than men. Different maybe and that's a Venn Diagram with considerable overlap. Until very recently we just haven't had a public arena. We as a group could only raise hell with ourselves, our families, our neighbors.

Who would I rather vote to have a red phone on the desk -- Jimmy Carter or Maggie Thatcher?

I'll vote for the individual. The gender is no more important than the race or religion.

[Bigmack]

54. I'm hip...Warren Harding first pres after suffrage... nt

[Hannah Bell]

12. obviously.

[dmallind]

13. Surely it would be easy to extrapolate

We have SOME women in Congress and the cabinets of the last two presidents.

Surely you could just list them and their votes or statements about the wars we are mongering and see if a majority stand for or against. Do the same for men then normalize to see what .51 ratio of W to M would vote like.

Personally I am notsure we would not be warmongering if 100% of reps and secretaries were women based on this sample.

The ones that spring immediately to mind are probably slightly pro on balance, but I surely do not know the full list. After all they have proven to be the type of women who can be elected or confirmed, which is what must happen in a democracy, so wouldn't they be an adequate and valid sample?

[DonCoquixote]

14. Ill raise you some

Thatcher is obvious, but let's name a few others.

Golda Meir, Zionist Queen.
Madeline Albright, responsible for several Million dead Iraqi children.
Sarah Palin, who thinks we should be at war with Yemen, and who would declare war with Russia over Georgia.
Hillary "we would Obliterate Iran" Clinton.
Elizabeth "to the right of my husband" Dole
Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Texas Queen
Nancy "everything is off the table" Pelosi

and last, but for from least
Phyllis Schafly.

[Better Today]

Yes. Women are just as if not more vindictive than men, based on

my employment experiences. Having women bosses is NOT more comfortable, or more compassionate than having men bosses, just different.

[defendandprotect]

15. Remember that the right wing can find its "Judas's" among any group of people . . .

and it takes money now to rise in politics --

Previously I would have been optimistic about women in office -- but now I'm not certain what

would happen --

Pathways to democracy are blocked --

And I well remember what Thurgood Marshall said as he was retiring from the SC . . .

and the question was whether or not Bush Sr would replace him with another African-American.

Marshall told us ...

"It's not the color of a snake which is important, it is whether or not it bites!"

Bush nominated the Judas Clarence Thomas --

And the same concerns would apply to women or homosexuals -- Asians, whatever --

native Americans!

How many homosexuals continue now to support anti-homosexual legislation?

Certainly patriarchy changed culture from pleasure to pain --

from peace to violence --

It's underpinning and its great tools of conquest are organized patriarchal religion --

and its capitalism --

IMO, what we need are liberals/progressives -- Humanists in every office.

They have all been purged from government and replaced with right wing fanatics --

brutal and thuglike people -- They side with power for the sake of it, making life

easy for themselves -- and ignoring whatever conscience they still retain.

Once on that path, I don't know if there can be any turning back because it's kinda

like joining the Mafia IMO -- the dirty things one is asked to do continue to escalate --

and like LBJ and Nixon ghosts appear to show you how you have destroyed yourself.


I remain optimistic about women, in general --

just feel we are being given the candidates we elect --

[RZM]

23. What, may I ask, does this mean . . .

'Certainly patriarchy changed culture from pleasure to pain -- from peace to violence'

When was this change? What pleasureful, peaceful culture are you referring to?

[defendandprotect]

29. When did patriarchy rise? 50,000 years ago by violence?

When did men begin to give birth to women?

When did violence begin to rule the world?

There was once peace in the world --

The Golden Age is the Garden of Eden -- and the overturning by violence --

[RZM]

53. Ok . . .

I'm still not entirely clear on what you mean. I agree that homo sapiens has always been a violent species -- a trait we no doubt inherited from our non-human ancestors. The impression I got from your original post was that there existed some moment in which patriarchy overturned a beautiful, peaceful way of doing things. There never was such a way, unless of course you believe in the Garden of Eden (which I don't, but I certainly don't knock those that do). We are mammals and we are violent. Like many other species, our males are usually larger and more physically powerful than females - also, males are not saddled with the physical vulnerability of gestation periods - here, and not in some identifiable moment, lies the root of 'patriarchy.'

[defendandprotect]

79. No . . . violence is taught . . .

and generally taught by patriarchy --

Patiarchy has a long enemies list, beginning with Mother Nature --

that fable about the rib transfer might give you a clue?

I'm not on the other hand denying the possibility of "non-human" ancestors . . .

the native American used to call the "white man" the pig people!!

Howard Zinn has an interesting video on violence -- no, it is not natural to humankind.

Patriarchy is violence -- patriarchy and violence are mirror images of one another.

Again, the Garden of Eden was the Golden Age . . . and the world and truth turned upside down.

The Bronze Age -- and the Silver Age . . .

It took a long time for patriarchy to take total control --

the Bible was written to cement patriarchy.

Males are now larger than females because of the Hollywood pairing -- females 20% smaller

than males. There seems to have been a time when men and women were pretty much the same

size. This is still visible in some secluded cultures --

Puerto Ricans, as I recall it, had very little variation in size between males and females.

Meanwhile, African Americans are 15% larger than "whites."

The roots of patriarchy lie in violence -- and only in violence.



And if you're still confused re the Bibical Garden of Eden ... it is fable.

But fable intended to turn the world upside down.

[upi402]

17. Thatcher comes to mind

Or take my ex wife






please!

[upi402]

22. On the other hand, Golda Meir n/t

[JanMichael]

56. You beat me to Maggie!

A war pig of the highest type.

[Wardoc]

18. Its a dangerous path to start attributing traits (even positive ones) based on gender, race, etc

[LeftishBrit]

19. Very possibly -anyone remember our own dear Maggie Thatcher?

I think that women SHOULD be better represented out of simple fairness; but I'm not sure they'd be more pacifist. On the average, men tend to be more aggressive than women; but people who seek public office tend to be more aggressive than average, whatever their gender.

I'm a woman, by the way.

[seeinfweggos]

21. only one week out of the month.

and i'm a gay girl, so there!

[chrisa]

24. The idea of the topic is somewhat stereotypical.

Essentially with the idea that women are peaceful, while men are brutes. Not always true. People have many different personalities.

But I agree, we definately need more elected women in office.

[demigoddess]

26. NO!! if we had more women in government, they would be smart women,

voted in for their intelligence not their 'male parts' and we would not be ruled by testosterone. Just my opinion.

[defendandprotect]

32. Unfortunately, system works against intelligence -- but for $$$ to be elected . ...

I agree with your faith in women --

however, the candidates we are being given to vote for are given to us

by TPB --

And money is the limbo stick -- we have seen what money brings into government!

[MellowDem]

27. Blame women....

they have the majority, they should just vote women in! Course, you might get Palin...;-)

[defendandprotect]

34. Women are a majority in numbers . . . they are a "minority" in fact --

Women enjoy only MINORITY status in our patriarchal society --

Still have no ERA -- btw --

And we still have male-dominated culture -- and government --

turn on your TV some day -- look at your newspaper -- women are "disappeared"

except as toilet bowl cleaners!

[MellowDem]

55. I was being sarcastic...

but I do believe women have the power to start taking more control, and will do so. Everything points to that happening, especially graduation rates from higher ed.

[defendandprotect]

72. Oh . . . Okay --

The power is with those who hold the reins of government and those who own

government -- I'm not saying that nothing can be done, however.

We also have a situation now where leaders aren't even given a chance to rise

now before they are killed.

We can do it without leaders -- but leaders raise our spirits --

Female power is much feared by patriarchy -- and closely watched, IMO.

I remember reading Betty Friedan's story of the feminists being stopped as they

were heading for Mexico for meetings. That was a long, long time ago and threats

of violence to them. Remember that Friedan was an effective and popular leader

of NOW displaced by the more glamourous and not as successful political leadership

of Gloria Steinem.

Will today's new female graduates come together and work for political power?

I don't know. But considering Global Warming we haven't got that much time.

[athenasatanjesus]

31. Wars are created for profit,political distractions for profit,and to divide the masses for profit

So while women in general may be less violent,ive seen no reason to believe that women are less greedy so why would the wars stop?

[defendandprotect]

36. Women are living in a patriarchy which, of course, colors their outlook, their

ambitions, their opportunities --

Women have only "minority" status in America --

We still have no ERA, btw --

No one is naturally violent -- it is taught --

Looking at HRC and her Iran baiting, I'm of course disappointed -- but not shocked.

[deaniac21]

33. It would be worse. Women are all ass kickers wether you know it

or not.

[defendandprotect]

38. Women are also peacemakers -- every society is improved by their presence ...

[deaniac21]

42. My 50+ years of experience as one tells me both of us are right.

[defendandprotect]

47. Yes . .. You know . . .

it used to kinda bother me that some women want to join the military --

but now I think they could make it more intelligent and calm it down.

I think you need something like 18% though to make some change in the culture --?

Evidently, women on the police force are also very beneficial -- for the force and

in action.

Of course, there may any minute be new policy to recruit only KKK-types !!??

:evilgrin:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

61. Yes, Sarah Palin has improved so much.

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

64. Women, in general, are all "Sarah Palin's" . . . ???

And I presume men, in general, are all "Dick Cheney's" . . . ???

[Starbucks Anarchist]

71. You were the one with the generalizations.

To claim any gender has a lock on any particular quality is foolish.

[defendandprotect]

73. And you are the one ...

who looks desperate -- and foolish --

[Starbucks Anarchist]

75. I'm not the one treating question marks like Morse Code.

[defendandprotect]

76. Oh, this is a debate about grammar and punctuation -- ???

[Starbucks Anarchist]

78. At first, it was a retort to your lame generalization.

But I might as well throw grammar and punctuation into the mix. Your logic and grammar/punctuation skills are at the same remedial level.

[defendandprotect]

80. Go for it --

look even more desperate --

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Toucano]

37. You think there should be a quota?

Take the census, count up the boys and the girls and make sure they get a representative based on their portion of the population.

Talk about gerrymandering. Whoo!

You really think sex is the problem with Congress? with the "warmongering nation"?

Sorry.

It's the money. Dollars. Lots of them.

Money doesn't know heads from tails.

The truth is this "warmongering nation" cares very little for very much else.

When it comes down to it, that's the VALUES crisis this society suffers. And in the end it is the root of every other injustice that exists.

[defendandprotect]

39. Isn't there a "quota" for males . .. ? Certainly looks like it -- !!

We should have an ERA and gender balance laws --

Women are a majority with minority status --

Agree it's the money -- that's the limbo stick letting the wealthy thru to

dominate and buy government --

Violence is learned -- taught by patriarchy and its organized patriarchal religion --

[Toucano]

48. There is only money.

Race, creed, sex, religion, nationality - not real. None of it. Only matters to the small people.

Artificial boundaries - borderlines - to keep us distracted. "Church or nation, team or tribe..." just borderlines.

It doesn't matter how many girls you let into (or keep out of) your tree house.
It doesn't matter how many black men get into the Country Club or the White House.

The violence is caused by the money and the pursuit of money.

The rest is just window dressing.

[defendandprotect]

49. The presence of females does matter and does change culture for the

better -- and that's been true of the military til female presence there

was set back --

and true of our police forces --

Violence is taught -- and it's taught by patriarchy --

But I do agree the limbo stick is still $$$ in politics --

and its buying Judas's and right wing thugs --

[defendandprotect]

40. What we need to elect are humanists -- but $$ buys exploitation -- the opposite --

[OHdem10]

41. It depends as always who the women are. Some women are more

hawkish than men. Some women are so fearful they would
push fighting.

[comrade snarky]

44. It's always interesting when people

Try to elevate a group by limiting it to a specific set of traits. As though there aren't women warriors, or war mongers for that matter.

When you say women are peacemakers it's just as dumb and just as limiting as saying Asians are good at math. It just isn't that simple no matter what stereotype you want to believe.

[Arkana]

46. Yeah, maybe.

"A consistent recent history of turning their back on progressive Democratic women candidates?"

Cite sources please, or you just pulled this fact out of your rectum.

[SoCalDem]

50. Probably not, because any women who get elected always have to

"prove" their toughness..i.e. Hillary's votes for the war & all that military stuff.. Do we really think she's all that gung-ho for war? I don't.. but she HAD to prove that she was "just as tough as the boyz".

Women GIVE life, so at the heart of (every?..most?) woman has to be an innate sense of preservation of life...but of course that flies in the face of the military-lobbyists whose business it is, to sell us all the war stuff they can make, and then to convince us to use it up,m so they can sell us even more deadly versions of the toys we broke.

Over time, if MORE women were in office than men, and if the country readily accepted that fact, the trend might start to change, but right now, any woman who runs has to be a bigger "guy" than any guy around her, to even be marginally accepted..and they are always looking for that stray tear, or that bad-hair day, or a crow's foot, or pantsuits, or anything that can "cut that little woman down to size..and maybe send her back to the kitchen..where she belongs"..

[Spike89]

51. Confusing war with violence

No doubt, war is violent, but war is not an outburst. It isn't testosterone based. Even when there is a "rush to war" it really is a deliberate and calculated decision. It is a simple form of dominance. Dominance games would not significantly diminish with a flip of gender, it might not diminish at all. War is not some giant barroom brawl started over spilled beer.

[G_j]

67. there are many forms of violence

war is the worst. Premeditated, and deliberate.

[treestar]

52. It would not make much difference

Look at Condi.

Power is power. Humans react to having it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

57. That'd be a big ol' YUP. n/t

[Odin2005]

58. No. *Points towards Thatcher*

[RFKHumphreyObama]

59. For every Barbara Boxer, Tammy Baldwin or Rachel Maddow

There is a Margaret Thatcher, Phyllis Schlafy or Sarah Palin. Women, like men, come with all types of personalities so you can't automatically assume that things would be better if women were in charge. I'd prefer President Obama to Sarah Palin just as I'd prefer Barbara Boxer to Jim Inhofe.

Now if progressive women were in charge, well that's another thing entirely

Speaking of which, there should also be more African-Americans in the Senate. There's only one now and he's leaving.

[MilesColtrane]

60. I'll take Margret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Catherine the Great, Bloody Mary, Tz'u-hsi,..

Golda Meir, Elizabeth I, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Queen Isabella of Spain, and Cleopatra for the block.

[AlienGirl]

62. Yes. Humans are humans.

[bobbolink]

63. If they were all bought by the corporations, nothing would change.

If, however, they were like Shirley Chisolm, "Unbought and unbossed", then...no, we would become a different nation.

However, I think what has to change is the consciousness of the nation itself.

And that is our job.

[hayu_lol]

70. Bobbolink, As I read down this thread...

Shirley's name popped into my head. Actually laughed when I read your post. We could use several like Shirley right now...a few more Barbara Jordans as well. They were both, in their highly individual ways, simply outstanding people. What we have elected, regardless of gender, are mostly self-serving creeps.

Gender is not, by itself, a guarantee of anything.

[bobbolink]

81. When you think of the time, 1972, she was one strong woman, with integrity up to here.

How far we have fallen....

And, accepted it......

Where is the outrage?

Shirley and Barbara, you served us well, and we miss you! :patriot:

[anonymous171]

65. We would probably be less willing to use war as a weapon of first resort

But that doesn't mean that we would stop being an aggressive imperialist state.

[invictus]

68. Yes. Look at Hillary Clinton. She threatened to "annihilate" 70 million men, women, and children.

Look at Diane Feinstein. There isn't a Middle East war she wouldn't vote for in a heartbeat. Same with Jane Harman. Madelaine Albright backed Clinton's genocidal Iraq sanctions policy. All are Democrats too.

[old mark]

69. I doubt it would make much difference re: war and peace, but it

might make the fights in congress more interesting.

Women can be assholes just as well as men....just look at the RW women on TV and in politics.


mark

[begin_within]

77. Exhibit A: