it would be easier to move towards socialism. Or at least keep some of the advances for women from eroding at the pace that they are. I don't think it's a matter of sexism to say so in that sense. Not taking a whack at progressive men at all, but sometimes a personal feminine experience in the matters under discussion makes a bigger impact on the nation. Jackie Speiers relating her experiences with abortion and the female politicians that have made challenging stands on other aspects of women's health.
I can tell you as a woman that I feel like I have more of a voice in politics when I see elected women taking public stands. I think more women feel more mobilized when they see the same things.
I think that there are some women who think that even if Sarah Palins of the world got into office, that would be an advance for women--but I would guess that she would actually put women back in the Stone Ages. A woman that has a ruling class orientation isn't really going to advance the interests of our class.
And in the same vein, I don't know that seeing more women in CEO positions advances a left wing agenda just by itself. But progressive women capitalists might donate to progressive causes and female candidates. Given that unfortunately the only real path to power in the US must now be paved with gobs of cash, we workers need to exploit any divisions that might occur among the ownership class and weaken their hegemony. An all male conservative ownership class leads to less dissension in their ranks, and is more difficult for us to exploit. And given that many male CEOs were against the rising power of women in their class, and there are still very few women in executive positions--I'd say that this group still sees women in their ranks as a threat.
Does that make any sense?
= new reply since forum marked as read