December 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm in INFORUM
Women make up just 14.9 percent of state Legislature
BISMARCK For Shirley Meyer, one thing stands out when looking around at state lawmakers.
Nearly all of them are men. Continue Reading
Tags: female lawmakers, female legislators, History, Legislature, ND Legislature, North Dakota, North Dakota Legislature, Politics, women lawmakers, women legislators 12 Comments »
Why can’t we just accept that who is voted in is voted in and there is no conspiracy to keep women out. Now some one will want a law that we have to have so many women. Then the minorities will get involved. Best person gets the job or at least the person who gets the most votes.
Like or Dislike: 0 0
So you are a sexist and a racist, you are very classy.
How do you get that out of my post? We have a lot more problems in this country than this. We need stop wasting our time on stuff like this and work on getting this country moving. Is that Classy? Is there something wrong with the person who gets the most votes or is the best person for the job getting the job?
Women don’t have the testosterone and ego for wholesale intimidation of others needed to run rough shod over those governed.
Woman get thing done more by group consensuses than a top down hierarchical chain of command. They may not get as much done in a given amount of time, but what they do get done works better in the long run because it is more by consciences than decree. Diplomacy, not War.
Boloney! If there is one thing womens equality has proven is that women are just as egotistical, arrogant, conieving, corrupt, ruthless, and stupid as men. I never would have thought it possible but I was wrong. I don’t know about the testosterone but I guess thats not what does it. Just human nature perhaps.
Boloney! If there is one thing women’s equality has proven it is that women are just as egotistical, arrogent, conieving, corrupt, ruthless and stupid as men. I never would have guessed it possible but I was wrong. I don’t know about the testosterone but guess thats not what does it. Just human nature perhaps.
People here are more likely to vote for male candidates. I don’t know the answer to that but in personal life I’ve found it’s more effective to use sexism as an advantage than to try to fight against it. It really turns people off to fight against it and it’s surprising how you can get your point across by acting how they want you to.
My whole life my interests have been things males are interested in. One example of this is poker. When you act like a female instead of trying to adapt to men and then you beat them a lot of them really go nuts. And I do mean nuts. Trying to act like a man gets you nowhere and trying to prove you’re equal gets you nowhere. Acting like you have no brain and no strategy just like they think about you and then outperforming them gets the message across crystal clear (eventually, with some it takes a while :p but the message does eventually sink in).
Oh Geez, just let the VOTERS decide who will represent them.
Kathy Hawken only masquerades as a Republican. She goes to Bismarck every two years to funnel tax money to her cronies on the public payroll.
Wow, couldn’t be that not as many women have run for office than in other states. No, couldn’t be that. lets blame someone and call it sexism instead. See, now I feel better and don’t need to do any intellectual thinking in order to prove my point.
In reading this article, I kept asking myself â€œwhy do we need women in the state legislature?â€ Finally, near the end of the article, answers are given. Most of the answers are superficial and unpersuasive, but a few are worth considering.
For example, Meyer said women are peacemakers and are better at consensus building. Even though I agree with her about women being better peacemakers and consensus builders, I donâ€™t necessarily believe this leads to BETTER decisions. In my experience, peacemakers and consensus builders, whether they are male or female, tend to be so overly concerned with avoiding conflict and building consensus that they choose to forgo critical thinking and giving others critical feedback about what is true and false or what is right or wrong. There are plenty of instances where it has led to bad outcomes in politics and there is even a name for it. It is called groupthink. My overall point is not that peacemaking and consensus building always lead to poor decision making, but that having one or two outstanding traits doesnâ€™t give a person, let alone a groups, some kind of edge in political decision-making.
In addition to talking about superiority of peacemaking and consensus building, Meyer also said women have a unique perspective and she believes this is also important in decision making. I would agree with her, but, if this is the case, then we should forget about electing Caucasian women, and, instead, elect women from minority groups because being a minority with multiple group identities would certainly make them more unique than Caucasian women. In fact, the more group identities the better! Maybe we should start electing African, Hispanic, Asian females who are gay, bisexual, lesbian or transsexual because they are even more unique. Notice how Meyer says nothing about these â€œunique perspectivesâ€ in politics. I get the impression Meyer is only concerned about her own group identity and nothing more.
One wonders why Meyer and the womenâ€™s agenda are given special treatment when so many other groups are equally marginalized. I also wonder why the Forum hasnâ€™t given men the right to highlight their superiority and implicitly degrade other groups in the process. Hopefully, for the sake of gender equality, we will see an article on the subject soon.
If more women is the goal then find viable candidates and put them on the ballot. That is still how it is done, though I can see AA becoming the rule before long.
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company