Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Female vs. Male Senators
Townhall.com ^ | January 8, 2013 | Cal Thomas

Posted on 01/08/2013 6:14:12 AM PST by Kaslin

As the son of a woman, the husband of a woman and the father of daughters and granddaughters, I celebrate the record number of females who are now United States senators. However, I do see some differences in the way these and other women are treated, depending on their party, policies and beliefs.

Diane Sawyer broadcast a celebratory report last week on ABC's "World News Tonight" on which she gushed about the "record number" of 20 female senators. Senator Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., also praised the Senate female population. Senator Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said she won't be satisfied until there are 50 female senators.

In the Senate, the ratio of female Democrats to Republicans is 16 to 4. Would media approval for these women be different if the ratio were reversed? Consider how conservative females are treated, most notably Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. During her presidential run, Bachmann was labeled a religious fanatic and anti-woman for being pro-life. Her husband Marcus was criticized because of his Christian counseling clinic that some allege focuses on converting gays to heterosexuality, a charge he vehemently denies.

The media mostly ignore other Republican women, like Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico -- at least for now.

"We're less on testosterone," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told Sawyer. "We don't have that need to always be confrontational. And I think we're problem solvers, and I think that's what this country needs." Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, agreed.

So testosterone is to blame for the fact that male senators are so combative and that Congress continues to founder? Imagine a male suggesting that estrogen hampers women from performing well at their jobs. You don't have to imagine. Some men have said that and worse, to their shame, and society and ultimately history itself was right to denounce them.

But after all the talk about female bonding and how women and men have different approaches to solving problems, what does that mean? Does it mean that a Democratic female senator who is pro-choice on abortion and favors same-sex marriage, bigger roles for government, more spending and higher taxes will be able to find common ground with a Republican female senator who takes the opposite positions? I doubt it.

This double standard seems not only to apply to gender, but also to race. Consider the disparaging things said about Tim Scott, the new senator from South Carolina, a replacement for the retired Jim DeMint. Scott is black, but his race does not endear him to liberals. He probably won't be embraced by the NAACP, whose president accused him of not believing in civil rights, having received an "F" on the NAACP's civil rights scorecard, which judges legislators on their votes on "civil rights" issues. In fact, Scott is just as much an example of the advancement of civil rights for blacks as those female senators are examples of progress for women.

In the end, it isn't about gender or race, but ideology. When they speak of "women's issues," for example, the left seems to think that all women think alike, or should. The same for African Americans and civil rights. I think the right correctly sees content of character and ideas as superior to gender and skin color.

In the interview with Diane Sawyer, Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said that by nature women are "less confrontational." Really? McCaskill must never have met the leaders of the women's movement whose disciples are among her colleagues. The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., is no shrinking violet.

I'm not betting on estrogen besting testosterone to "get things done," forge compromise and diffuse confrontation, especially given the history of some very uncompromising female leaders like Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, underground railroad "conductor" Harriet Tubman, the late Bella Abzug, D-NY., or British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In fact, these women exhibited more testicular fortitude than some men, which, in the case of the conservative Thatcher, likely had a lot to do with why her male colleagues dumped her as party leader.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: conservativewomen; diannefeinstein; liberalwomen; ussenate

1 posted on 01/08/2013 6:14:15 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Who cares what gender sells us down the river?

The women in the Democrat Party are mostly socialists and that includes Collins and Snowe, who are democrats in sheeps clothing.


2 posted on 01/08/2013 6:18:42 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The problem with congress is not to much testosterone, it’s the lack of it (especially from Republicans)


3 posted on 01/08/2013 6:19:29 AM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Having testosterone is a curse in American culture, now. Yes, the education system, the media and the communists have done a fine job. We have been subjugated on nearly every front.
4 posted on 01/08/2013 6:20:00 AM PST by ryan71 (Water, food and ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
As the son of a woman, the husband of a woman and the father of daughters and granddaughters, I celebrate the record number of females who are now United States senators

Who gives a rat's ass that they're male or female? I don't get it. Do you suggest that women will make different critical decisions than men? I don't care what gender they are. I'm so sick of celebrating the outside cover of the person rather than the inside contents. Enough already!

5 posted on 01/08/2013 6:25:55 AM PST by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

There are/were few female senators or representitives who made it there on their own.

Snowe....filled in for her dead husband

Margret Chase Smith filled in for her dead husband

and the beat goes on.

I am so tired of the Left’s sexism: women are better, more caring etc, than men. Lies.

I have worked on boards of women’s organizations, I have worked on the boards of men’s organizations. Boards with at least 1/2 to 3/4 male function rationally and reasonably.

I work with people who work in women-run organizations and believe me they are sick environments. The best run and most compassionate women’s organizations are the conservative religious ones.

Recently someone who worked in a leftist feminist organization told me how poorly she and her family were treated during by the organizaiton during a continuing family crisis. She was shocked.

You see, her husband works in a large, money-hungry capitalist, mean, man-dominated field and that company has been fully supportive to the family during the crisis.


6 posted on 01/08/2013 6:26:29 AM PST by Chickensoup (Leftist Totalitarian Fascism coming to a country like yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Senator Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., also praised the Senate female population.

Longest-serving lesbian in Congress.

7 posted on 01/08/2013 6:26:45 AM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"We're less on testosterone," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told Sawyer. "We don't have that need to always be confrontational. And I think we're problem solvers, and I think that's what this country needs." Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, agreed.

GAG ME WITH A SPOON!!!!!

Congress needs to be swept out from top-to-bottom, with a few notable exceptions (Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Michell Bachmann e.g.).

8 posted on 01/08/2013 6:30:30 AM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
As Thomas points out, the left's triumphal yapping regarding the record no. of female senators being sworn in sounds ridiculous given how poorly they treat Conservative women.

The left excels at empty rhetoric.

And I completely agree with the poster who remarked that its the lack of testosterone in congress - and across the country - that's the problem.

9 posted on 01/08/2013 6:31:15 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

The best manager I ever worked for was a woman. Her predecessor, also a woman, was the worst manager I ever worked for.


10 posted on 01/08/2013 6:32:07 AM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

The best manager I ever worked for was a woman. Her predecessor, also a woman, was the worst manager I ever worked for.
__________________________

Women are no BETTER or no WORSE than men. I think this opinion that women are better kinder and more gentle in the work arena is just ridiculous.


11 posted on 01/08/2013 6:35:05 AM PST by Chickensoup (Leftist Totalitarian Fascism coming to a country like yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

O.K. You just made me re-read the US Constitution.

How are women even in our Federal Government? For office of the President, the male pronoun, “he”, is used repeatedly. I found it used at least once for members of Congress. I find no Amendment altering these descriptions.

It is clear enough to me. The Federal Government of the United States was a government designed BY MEN FOR MEN.

I am not saying this was an “enlightened” attitude, any more than the accomodation of slavery was, but it seems to be fact. Slavery was overturned with the 13th Amendment, but no changes are entered as to the specification of males serving in government.

This seems to be a case of the fact that it is always far easier for stupid people to break something, than it was for wise people to create it in the first place.

What kind of Government would women design, if they had the chance? Would there even be a Presidency? Would the idea of “checks-and-balances” work?

All women are not the same, nor are all men. Men and women, however, are most certainly NOT the same, nor are they interchangable. It seems, however, that we think they are, since we simply turn a blind eye to the specification of male governance in the Constitution without so much as even a footnote.


12 posted on 01/08/2013 6:56:40 AM PST by Empire_of_Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup
I do remember Jean Carnahan (D-MO) was appointed to fill the Senate seat won by her dead husband in 1996.

Re Olympia Snowe, this is what I found in Wikepedia

-- snip --

At the urging of family, friends, neighbors and local leaders, Snowe ran for her husband's Auburn-based seat in the Maine House of Representatives at the age of 26 and won. She was re-elected to the House in 1974, and, in 1976, won election to the Maine Senate, representing Androscoggin County. That same year, she was a delegate to both the state and national Republican conventions

-- snip --

Olympia Snowe Early Political Snowe

The way I read it Snowe's husband was not in the US Senate

13 posted on 01/08/2013 7:02:56 AM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Let’s revisit this in about 1000 years. After future historians have written their texts on what will come to be known as The Menopause Wars.


14 posted on 01/08/2013 7:06:00 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
Longest-serving lesbian in Congress.

I can't imagine anyone of any gender being interested in that (the thing on the right).


15 posted on 01/08/2013 7:19:42 AM PST by Lizavetta (You get what you tolerate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Men make decisions based on fact and reason.
Women make decisions based on emotion.
I don’t see this new “equality” working in America’s favor.
Granted, there are exceptions to the above statements. The current GOP is evidence of that.


16 posted on 01/08/2013 7:29:59 AM PST by Fireone (Impeach and imprison, NOW! Treason and murder are still crimes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Lisa Murkowski also said that female senators tended to have less of an ego than their male counterparts.

Yes, the same Lisa Murkowski who screwed her party and the voters of Alaska who had voted her out in the primary.

         How dare you! This is MY seat!

17 posted on 01/08/2013 7:49:33 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A democrat with PMS what could go wrong?.


18 posted on 01/08/2013 8:19:56 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

That is right, she started in the house ...and moved up to the Senate.


19 posted on 01/08/2013 10:15:18 AM PST by Chickensoup (Leftist Totalitarian Fascism coming to a country like yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Empire_of_Liberty
You may not realize that in a dictionary, the "primary" usage, or definition, is the first one listed in the dictionary. (I spent a lot of time reading dictionaries in my younger days...) Definitions have evolved over time, thus the understandings implied in The Constitution must be read carefully with that in mind. That is important in what follows -

The definition of "man" from 1961 Merriam-Webster® "official" "New Collegiate Dictionary" which I hold right now in my paws is:

man (măn), n.; pl. MEN (mĕn) [AS. mann, man, monn, mon.] .1. A human being; esp., a male human being; -- now restricted to males except in general application; as, every man; few men. 2. The human race; mankind. 3. ... ... 12. ...

When I was young, I recall having possession of a Merriam-Webster in which the #1 and #2 definitions were reversed, eg., the primary definition of "man" was assumed to be "the human race." In addition, the "now restricted to males except..." passage was not present. Similarly, "he" and "his" specifically were stated as "neutral" in gender, rather than exclusively masculine. I wonder if I have that older dictionary around somewhere... The point is that the "primary definition" of "man" was once assumed to be much more general than the current "an adult male person"

When reading something written quite some time ago, it is very important to understand the language of the author(s) if you wish to accurately understand his intent.

20 posted on 01/08/2013 10:34:45 AM PST by AFPhys ((Praying for our troops, our citizens, that the Bible and Freedom become basis of the US law again))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

She did not start in the US House of Representatives though and I meant the US Senate and the House, not the Maine Senate and House


21 posted on 01/08/2013 10:54:45 AM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys

I agree that the Consitution (anything actually) should be read with an understanding of the language as used by the authors. That is, assuming you wish to understand what they are saying and are not deliberately trying to twist their words to your own meaning.

I suppose that “he” could be neutral in general context. But read the US Constitution. It’s not that long.

In the original writing, they have voting restricted to males only. They have human slavery. It is a document from a different time.

There are faults in the document, but there is also great genius.

I want to understand what they are saying and were trying to do.

Given my points above, I think my interpretation of their use of “he” for the male is the correct one. Your dictionary reference might be an excuse to interpret it in the generic, but I see nothing in the document to support that.


22 posted on 01/08/2013 12:55:00 PM PST by Empire_of_Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson