Comments on: Why more women aren’t elected

By: Hestia

Hestia — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Don’t forget the media. It would be impossible to reach even most women without relying on TV, radio, and newspaper journalists (and pundits) in one way or another. Somehow I doubt that the media is a particularly feminist institution, which means that a female political candidate’s chance of being taken seriously in those venues is slim to none.

And I’d like to emphasize the “other issues” thing. I’d vote for a feminist man over Ann Coulter any day.

By: Dan J

Dan J — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I’m happy to report that here in Missouri, in the gubernatorial primary, a woman (Claire McCaskill) took on the democratic establishment of the state and won, and is now the candidate for gov. This is the exception, but still happy news.

By: Crys T

Crys T — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I’m glad that money was mentioned as a factor. Of *course* a lot of women aren’t going to run in any given set of US elections, for the simple fact that they can’t *afford* to. In countries where election campaigns are more controlled in terms of both time and amount of money allowed to spent, more women do indeed run and are also elected into office.

However, I’d like to say that merely getting women into office isn’t in and of itself a solution: men still control the processes that lead a person through the political system, and they sure as hell aren’t going to let any women who might be a threat to male privilege and interests get past them into a position of power.

That’s why when you look at most of the women who have risen to visible positions of power, from Margaret Thatcher to Elizabeth I, you’ll find women who not only didn’t give a shit about other women, but who actively supported misogynist mentalities and the status quo.

By: Pasatiempo

Pasatiempo — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

You speak of women as if they’re passive receptacles of whatever happens to them. A million women recently marched on Washington to support a single issue. That being the case, how many women should one reasonably expect to march on the Democratic and/or Republican national conventions to protest the paucity of women candidates? Are women really only interested in one issue? 5? 20? Is it really unreasonable to assume, then, that 1 million or 5 or 20 would march in protest of the lack of women candidates given that, with 52% of the vote, they could take control of ALL issues? Why hasn’t that happened?

And these “party elites”…Martha Burk’s website contains a “Hall of Hypocrisy” to shame men who have excluded a theoretical billionairess from a country club where it’s considered the height of good taste to put lots of catsup on one’s grits. Why no “Hall of Hypocrisy” for these alleged elites who are excluding women from the political process? They’re not hard to find. For starters, political contributions are a matter of public record.

And your idea that women don’t have time to run for office because they’re all nobly tending to the national whelping…Have you truly not noticed a dramatic decline in the birth rate and that many, many women have opted to not have children? Furthermore, I think it safe to say that a preponderance of those who’ve opted out of having children have done so because of career ambitions; that is, your theory doesn’t apply to the very women most suited for political ambition.

Your answer smacks of little thought and a lot of chivalry. It seems a bit ironic for a feminist.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Was I sleeping when the memo was sent out that everyone was to disregard the subtle difference between “disadvantaged” and “too lazy to move”?

By: Pacific Views

Pacific Views — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

What I Want To Know…
The Carlyle Group takes over U.S. nuclear program, sets sights on the weaponization of space. This steams my clams on so many levels, I don’t even know where to begin. Digby says stop the handwringing over the Kerry campaign. We…