Imagine a NEW USA.... One where women take control..

[SoCalDem]

First off, let me say this.. THIS IS NOT A POST THAT INTENDS TO "MAN-BASH"....AND THOSE WHO INTEND TO DO SO, PLEASE DON'T...

I was talking to my son the other day about how if ALL the young people who currently do not vote, DID, what an impact it would/could have on society.. That led me to think about the fact that FIFTY-ONE PERCENT of the population is FEMALE..(regardless of age)..

White, 45+yr old men have pretty much run this place since Day One, and what a "f$#@%d up mess" they have created out of what could have been a superb place to be.

Can you imagine the shift in policy if women suddenly were in control??

In "most" families, women already "control" the household and the finances, so no one can convince me that they (as a sex/group/whatever) are incapable.

Some people will remind me/us that women would be no different than say , a Maggie Thatcher, but I think that if women RAN the place, there would be the same diversity that there currently is amongst the men..Some are hawks, and some are doves..

There most certainly would be more attention (and money) paid to childcare, health care, education, the elderly.

In a battle between the "Daddy issues" and the "Mommy issues", the Mommy issues are certainly more "humanity-friendly"...

In TWO election cycles, the shift could occur...or failing a complete shift, the men who remained, would certainly sit up and pay attention to what the PUBLIC wanted , for a change..

Our international stature could be elevated too, if the rest of the world saw us practicing what we preached. It must seriously rankle other leaders to see us as the militaristic behemoth that we have become, and yet preaching to them about "human rights".. A quick glance into any inner city or prison or old folks' home would show them that we do NOT practice much "humanity" here..

At the "macro level" women all over the world are the center of their family unit.. They are the "birthers/feeders/comforters/peacemakers" of the family.. (I know there are exceptions, so don't raise a ruckus)..

People who are by nature, nurturers are also very cognizant of the environment, emotional needs, physical needs,and general well-being (just like it says in the Constitution) of everyone.

Would there be greedy, corrupt women?? Maybe..Probably..But does anyone think that it would be/could be worse than it is now??

[TexasSissy]

1. Yeahhh. There ya go. A better world for all. Really.

What a different world it would be, wouldn't it? Sure, there'd be greedy, corrupt women. There always have been. Women are human beings, too.

But there would, I think, be fewer wars, less attempts to grab territory, more getting along w/other countries. Yeahhhh. I can dream, can't I?

(but who would wear the codpieces, then, I wonder?)

[Journeyman]

4. Who would wear the codpieces? Only Ian Anderson. . .

as it should be. . .

[TexasSissy]

38. LOL LOL! Now THAT was unexpected!

[demigoddess]

2. I'm all for it.

Women have not been truly represented and face it, I think women have more of the skills needed to actually run a more modern society. So often the guys seem to think in terms of war and glorify it. When living in a more modern society we have to allow a more peaceful ideas to rule. Peace and prosperity actually promotes democracy more than war any day. Peace and prosperity will win out over terrorism any day.

[newportdadde]

3. Reminds me of a comedian joking about a woman president.

His shtick was basically this:

US Woman President calls Canadian leadership.

US Woman President "Canada we are declaring war on you!"

Canada "But why what did we do?"

US Woman President "You know why... "

Click. :P

[Behind the Aegis]

47. another comedian said...

I can't remember who he was, but he said that if women ruled the world, there would be peace, love, harmony, and four days a month of intense negotiations! Kinda sexist, but still kinda funny. :)

[HughBeaumont]

5. As long as Carly Fiorina is NOWHERE at ALL

in a position of power, have at it.

[smirkymonkey]

66. Rumor has it that she's planning a run against Hillary

(just had dinner w/ an HP high-level manager last evening) or at least the right is TRYING to get her to run.

[4morewars]

6. I agree !

Like you said, it couldn't be much worse than it is now !!! And I'll bet it would be better. Our rep. in congress is a woman and she's great !!! We should go for it ! Every time I've been screwed over in my life, it was by a guy; usually a fat, white, rich guy !!

[DarkPhenyx]

7. It would be an equally screwed up place with women in charge.

The problem with society isn't men. It's people. Your gender means squat really as we are all equally capable of fucking the world up.

[jdj]

39. then perhaps men should step aside just to prove your point...

otherwise, how will we know?

[DarkPhenyx]

50. We already have evidence...

...historical and contemporary, that this is the case. No need to have men step aside to prove it.

[smirkymonkey]

67. I disagree, thought there may be exceptions

(and I believe that many of them are caused by living in world run by and for men) women by nature are not as violent, aggressive, competitive and don't have as many issues with putting other things before their egos and personal well being.

I really think there would be more negotiating and compromise and less war, rape of the environment and other anti-humanity policies.

[Joylaughter]

8. No Gov based on Gender please

Let's not abolish the male controlled gov only to replace it with a female controlled gov. Instead lets abolish the gender gap completely so that people who serve in government are elected based on their ability to serve and not on their gender or color or race or religion etc. I have always been for equal rights but the elevation of women's rights was not intended to then subjugate the males.

[tigereye]

12. there you go

although if the Senate were a little more gender balanced... I wish that having women running things would make the world a kinder, gentler and saner place. But I suspect that it would still be pretty difficult. However, there are lots of men AND women who do try to make the world that way, and we need more of those!

[jdj]

40. A "little more"?

Equal representation sounds good to me.

[Tsiyu]

46. Aw C'Mon Where's your sense of Adventure?

Can't the guys be subjugated for like, a trial period? Just for fun?

[RebelYell]

9. Or.......

a little Estrogen in the drinking water wouldn't hurt. Then men would be dangerous only one week a month. :D

[Cleita]

10. If a majority of women ruled the country there would be a shift

in priorities, that's for sure. But whether it would be better is another question. My ideal is for representative government to be equally divided between men and women and it would have to be by law as well. Fr'stance, each state would have to elect one woman candidate for Senator. So each state would have I male and I female senator. The house would have to be divided equally too. I don't know how you would divvy up the presidency, but at least Congress would be equally represented. I think the Supreme Court could be divided half and half as well. Then we would have true equality.

[Joylaughter]

11. Now that makes sense

Equal is good. I respect women but there are few of these posts that give rise to the notion of "Feminazi".

[SoCalDem]

13. If true equality could be achieved, I would say yes

to that idea..I fear that our society is still mired in the "..don't worry your pretty little head about it..." mentality, though..

Even though women ARE in places of power, it still is the case that a newcomer to the place of business will "assume" that a women there is a secretary, one to be asked for coffee, rather than the OWNER/BOSS of the company..

Friends of mine have been confronted with this very thing..

and a 50/50 split would be tricky too, since a majority would have to be reached to accomplish anythiung.. :shrug:

Sometimes I think that full time legislators is part of the problem too.. For all the time they spend in DC, they seem to always be "at deadline" before they get anything IMPORTANT accomplished.. Maybe the real solution is to further "break up" the country into smaller constituencies and just have MORE legislators.. Maybe we could get so many that the lobbyists could not afford to buy them all :)

[Cleita]

32. Your statement....

and a 50/50 split would be tricky too, since a majority would have to be reached to accomplish anythiung..

Not so tricky because you would still have a two party system to split the votes on. It's just that women of either party would bring up the issues that are on the bottom of the priorities men have.

Like let's say if funds for public buildings become available, what do you think the priorities would be? Men would probably want a better sport's stadium to perk up business. Women would maybe rather have new schools built.

However, if there are more Republicans than Democrats in let's say the City Council, most likely the sports stadium or anything to improve business would win out regardless of the gender split, or vice versa, then the schools would become more important.

It's just that in an a male city council, building schools would be at the bottom of the pile of building priortities rather than having equal importance on the table.

[SoCalDem]

34. You're right.. I suppose a split would be there regardless

It's something we will never have to really face though:(.. I don't see the fat0cats giving up their power gracefully, or any time soon..and sadly, I do not see the electorate wising up either..:(

[kiahzero]

55. Wow

Just... wow.

If I said "Let's say if funds for public buildings become available, what do you think the priorities would be? Women would probably want to build shopping malls to perk up business," that would be misogynist.

But saying "let's say if funds for public buildings become available, what do you think the priorities would be? Men would probably want a better sport's stadium to perk up business," is perfectly acceptable.

:eyes:

[Cleita]

63. This happened recently in So. California.

Funds were appropriated for a new sports stadium in a county where new schools were needed. When the educators and mothers complained, it was explained to them that a sports stadium would bring in more revenue for the city involved. I will have to look for a link because senior moments makes me forget which city.

I don't think the mall comparison is appropriate as private funds, not federal or state funds usually pay for malls. A city council may give the mall owners favorable tax breaks, but usually they aren't funded by tax payers.

[Right Makes Might]

84. "Women" on the whole may tend to want schools more than "men" but

... each individual woman is going to be different. Just because a majority of women would give higher priority to schools than a majority of men doesn't mean that the individual woman who happens to win that office would.

And the same if a man got into that office - there are plenty of education strong men politicians.

[tigereye]

14. think about what that term really means, though

actually I never really thought about it until now :)

Equating women who want equality with those who desire fascism(not saying you are, BTW), or power-mongering,is a pretty insecure place to come from. What a nasty term. But,oddly enough,this type of term is never applied to men. Hmmmm.

[Joylaughter]

24. Meanings

You are right if you use the conservative definition of "nazi". This post started with the idea of women "Conrolling". That isn't any more right than men contolling. Yes I am insecure but this is the generation of feminised men and masculine women. As I said before Equality is reasonable. One gender in charge is not. Feminazi is a play on the word feminism to describe women who want to control and rule over their men. Perhaps we can come up with a play on words for one that would describe the throwback male who still wants to control women.

[tigereye]

25. not saying you personally are insecure

just the ones who coined such a term.

[Right Makes Might]

85. "Feminized" men? "Masculinized" women?

Where do the ideas of feminine and masculine come from? Different societies have different ideas, and our society's ideas in particular are pretty oppressive of women (women should not get angry! women should live only to give to others!) as well as damaging to men (men should not feel sad or scared!)

Maybe instead of worrying about becoming wrongly feminized (or masculinized) men and women should concentrate more on becoming fully human.

Besides, I love feminine men - sensitive, in touch with their emotions, egoless - they sooooo sexay!

[Eloriel]

15. I like what Michael Moore said in Boston

recently -- when asked what he would have done differently in Bowling for Columbine, he said he'd have pointed out that one gender is responsible for virtually all the killings that go on because "52% of the population doesn't shoot other people unless they've been really, really bad."

I like to engage in thinking about how things would be different if women were predominantly in charge. Household appliances would be designed FAR differently (and far more easily cleanable) for one thing. I think our highways would all be built with emergency lanes for ambulances, police, fire trucks. I think we'd have had solar and other renewable energy everywhere, a long, long time ago, and that virtually all buildings (esp. homes) would be built using techniques that maximize their fuel efficiency. I don't think so many of the products used in building homes and other buildings would be quite so toxic, and I think there wouldn't be any office buildings whose windows don't open, or SCHOOLS where there ARE no windows. I think many more things would be built to last, and easier to fix (I'm thinking of automobiles where you have to tear out nearly the whole engine to replace the battery in particular here).

We WOULD have socialism, by whatever name we wanted to call it, and the professions and jobs involved with taking care of people would be well-paid and honored (nursing, teaching, etc.). If women had been in charge when computers and robots started making huge inroads into corporations and industry back in the mid-70s, while the unions were trying to fight and the corporations promised us a "lesiure society" because of the enhanced productivity, we'd have GOTTEN the enhanced productivity and leisure society instead of corporations snarfing up all the profits.

Our medical system would be far more friendly to people, as well as to herbs and other natural healing methodologies.

Poverty and crime would be seen for the societal failures that they are and all but eradicated. And there'd be very few wars.

Edit: IOW, damn near utopia!!

[SoCalDem]

17. And cupboards would be MUCH lower, so the upper shelves

were actually reachable :P

[Eloriel]

35. LOL -- yes, that too

When I moved here to my current home, somehow the cabinets were a few inches higher. They didn't LOOK higher to the eye, but they are much more uncomfortable for me than my previous home.

And that's another thing: chairs, esp. the recliner types or even auto seats that have the curve outward purportedly to cushion the neck never hit right either, but instead push the head forward.

There are a number of things where the scale is off, tho some of others aren't occurring to me right now.

[CBHagman]

16. Just make sure the role models aren't Maggie Thatcher and K. Harris.

There are all kinds of wonderful progressive men out there, and I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to vote for any of them, including my wonderful congressman and wonderful senior senator. Obviously, if your choices are, in some freak parallel universe, Barbara Cubin and John Lewis, there's no contest whatsoever.

But that said, I like the idea of the women taking over. I mutter that to myself all the time. Just so long as they don't do what some women producers and politicians do and emulate the most ruthless types. We need backbone-of-steel women with a brain and a heart (and no posturing about compassion, like that THING over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue).

To be fair, the men really have had their chance. Hopefully there will be more women in elected office in the U.S. with each cycle.

Election cycle, that is. :-)

[Sputnik]

18. LOL, I can't help

but see Julia Sugarbaker in my mind, uttering the words written (I'm sure) by Linda Bloodworth-Thomason:

"....in general it has been the men who have done the raping and the robbing and the killing and the war-mongering for the last two thousand years.... and it's been the men who have done the pillaging and the beheading and the subjucating of whole races into slavery. It has been the men who have done the law making and the money making and the most of the mischief making! So if the world isn't quite what you had in mind you have only yourselves to thank!!"


I love men, yes I do, but it's a disgrace that the USA ranks like 58th in the world in the percentage of women in elected office.

You're right. Women couldn't do possibly do any worse.

[BiggJawn]

19. I'm with Darkphenyx on this...

It's not a "man" thing or a "woman" thing, it's a people thing.

To put forth a thesis that it'd be better with women in charge is still stereotypical.
But could it be worse than it is now? Who can say? I sure would hate to think that it could be worse.

[jdj]

41. How could it be better?

It's not equal, and we are on the verge of blowing up the world, so a little more estrogen and less testosterone could benefit the world.

My personal pet theory is that it is not men, per se, but latent homosexuality that is responsible for so much of the destructiveness, men need to be able to go from "fight club" to "fuck club" without stigma or shame.

[BiggJawn]

51. That's an interesting theory.

I've thought about that too. Perhaps there'd be less war and international strife if our Old White Men weren't so sexually frustrated. but then again, I have PLENTY of thet evil old Testosterone, why don't I lay awake at night fanatsizing about being King of the World.

And look at the raging Corporatism that has this country in a stranglehold. There are women in the driver's seats of business concerns, too. Isn't one of the principals of the Evil Wally-World Empire one of Dead Sam's daughters? And how do we explain Condi Rice? I don't think she can even SPELL "nuture".

I think what we might find to be closer to the truth is that stereotypical notions like "Women would lead better because they're 'hardwired' to nuture" are just crap. sure, "Mom" might not do anything to endanger her kids, but does the same concern extend to our kids? I would not be surprised to find that it does not.

[dorktv]

20. *stops arming the women of Saudi Arabia to muse on this*

This would be good for America...We really have got to get rid of the Macho Man ideal. If we had tough, compentant women in charge then we would be much safer and have a lot more social services.

[Generic Other]

21. Too many of the women are in the old boy network

The Condi's of the world...

[SoCalDem]

23. But if the powerbase shifted, "those" women would not be "unique"

and special.. They would just be hawkish legislators/politicians..

What makes them dangerous now, is that there are a select few who are a dichotomy...hence more noticeable..

If Colin Powell were white, does anyone really think he would be Sec of State??

Condi's a "two-fer"..black and female.. I have no doubt that she is an intelligent (book-smart) person, but she saw long ago, that she needed a "special" edge.. "Rightwingery" became her entry into the power base.. If she had chosen the philosophy of her parents, she would just be one of MANY smart minority women in the Democratic Party.. She would be a valuable person, but she would probably not be in the power position she currently holds.. (That being said, I think she's in WAAAAY over her head)..

[Generic Other]

29. Women can sometimes be very controlling and obsessively detail oriented

in power positions. Sometimes men seem more relaxed. Maybe it's because they are confident of their place and women are not.

So, you might be exchanging one bad style for another.

Having said that, I do think women have more common sense.

I guess we need checks and balances all around. Proportional representation.

[jdj]

42. they've sold their souls, they know what sells, and they put

their whole being on the market because they know they will be taken care of no matter what. They get over while being gotten over on, (and probably gotten on, too).

[RichardRay]

22. System isn't selecting for men,

it's selecting for people who seek power. Some people start off seeking power believing that they'll use it wisely, some start off just wanting to be able to get their way all the time. In either case nearly all people end uup going down the same chute once they've had power for awhile.

I see no reason that would be any different if the power holders were female. There are plenty of women who fit into both those categories.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[Cleita]

33. The problem is that half the population is not getting equal

representation. The good thing about equal gender representation is that it cuts across all other demographics so that they all get representation like gays, race and ethnicity.

[KoKo]

26. I don't think it would be much different, to tell you my honest opinion.

There isn't much difference in compassion between the two when you view women and men who attain power in government. It's what's in the character of the people, male or female, when it comes down to it. I think it would be the same.

In fantasy at one time I would have thought it to be true. But, once women did achieve power in Corporations (not many, but they are there) and government, I haven't seen that you don't have people like Condi Rice, and Lyndie England who are the worst examples of what power can do contrasted with outstanding people like Eleanor Roosevelt and others who fought for social justice all their lives. JMHO...

[SoCalDem]

27. Okay... How 'bout THIS???

You go to your mail box.. (you are male/female/young/old/black/white/inbetween..whatever)..You open the official-looking envelope, and it says:


Please find, enclosed, a plane ticket to washington DC..You have been randomly slected to serve your country as congressperson/senator for a period of 3 years.

Your current job will be "held for you" until your service-to-country has been fulfilled. While in DC, you will be lodged at the Group Home that is closest to where you will be serving.

You will be provided a plane ticket to return home once a month. You will be required to live on the money you are paid for your appointment...any "family" money will be unavailable to you while you are serving.




:evilgrin:

[KoKo]

37. I'm not quite sure what you mean. ???

:silly:

[SoCalDem]

54. I meant that even a "random- lottery style"" legislative "draft"

of everyday people would probably net a better selection of legislators, AND would be cheaper and more in line with what the Founding Fathers intended.. A CITIZEN legislation...for a time..and then the people would go back to theirt communities and a new batch would take their place..

I doubt that the FF planned for a "professional legislation class" to emerge...like it has now..:(

[kiahzero]

57. Yeah, that's a good idea...

I know... let's have a "Nuclear Engineer lottery" too! Or a "Surgeon lottery!"

Legislating takes skills that need to be crafted over time. You wouldn't choose a brain surgeon that was randomly selected from the populace... you wouldn't trust a nuclear plant run by someone randomly selected from the populace... Why, then, are you suggesting that the country be run by people randomly selected from the populace?

This "idea" makes no more sense than the regular attacks on there being "too many lawyers in Congress." Too many people who worked with the law in the past are working with the law now? *gasp* The horror!

:eyes:

[SoCalDem]

59. Actually, the Founding Fathers espoused just such an idea

They never intended to create a "ruling class".. That's what the whole revol;ution was about....remember??:P

[kiahzero]

60. There is no ruling class

Anyone (neglecting economic factors, which are managable through scholarships in the majority of cases) can study and go to law school. There's no requirement of being of a certain lineage.

[Right Makes Might]

87. Uh... the founding fathers were the ruling class.

What they objected to was some other people being the ruling class over them.

The "founders" of "America" were male land-owners who, like the so-called democratic Greeks, believed that only (wealthy) property owners were capable of having control over the destiny of a country. They feared the "common people" and the whole electoral college debacle was part of their system of controls against them (being led astray by "demagogues".)

[Right Makes Might]

86. What if you're some poor, mis-educated person from the ghetto?

"Here you go, Ms. Smith! You wanted power to change what's wrong? Well, go to it?"

What's next, sub-particle physics? Brain surgery? Law?

The vast majority of people in the world are not trained to use their minds, and throwing them into a situation which requires a high degree of clear, trained thinking is no better than expecting an overweight 30 year old powder puff (like me) to win the gold at the Olympics. On the other hand, someone who does have the kind of training will most likely come from a privileged background and feel that the system as it currently stands is just find.

What is needed is a way to bring all people into the political process, educating and training their minds in the process.

[Butterflies]

28. Yes, there would be stronger gun control laws too

I read an interview of Michael Moore yesterday, and in it he was asked if there was anything that he wishes he had included in "Bowling for Columbine". He said he wished he had put in it that almost all of the gun crimes are committed by men. He said that 52% of the population (women) don't kill anyone who hasn't done something really really bad.

[RebelYell]

30. Sort of off topic, but it does relate to this matter

I have a friend in Turkey. We were discussing the need for women to cover up in Muslim countries. He said something that floored me.

He said western women cover up too - with cosmetics. That we think it enhances beauty, but it's just another way women cover up.

I'm still not sure what I think about this, but his viewpoints on other issues have also been thought-provoking.

[Hello_Kitty]

44. My take on Muslim v. Western dress

I think they are opposite sides of the coin. In Muslim societies, women are required to cover practically everything in scarves and modest clothing. In Western societies, women's clothing tends to expose practically everything in short skirts, tight shirts, and high heels. Either way women are presented as commodified objects to be owned by men. And in both societies, men dress more comfortably.

[Yuna]

31. Bull shit

"People who are by nature, nurturers are also very cognizant of the environment, emotional needs, physical needs,and general well-being (just like it says in the Constitution) of everyone."

That must be why those who are female in congress voted for WAR.

Let's also not forget that with 51% of the population it should be a simple matter to elect more female congress people if so desired.

[Skittles]

53. you have no clue as to the nature of sexism, do you?

nt

[LSdemocrat]

36. Two words: Margaret Thatcher

[ibegurpard]

49. Here's a few more:

Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Katherine Harris, the purple bandage freeper Republican delegates...need I go on?
I have tended to think that women in charge MIGHT be better but there's certainly a lot of evidence that they don't have a corner on the decency market.

[Gregorian]

43. Yes, but.........Barbara Bush.

I'm beginning to think there's more equality between the sexes than we would like. I used to favor women. Experience has shown me that people are human. Male and female. Darn it, I had such high hopes. :)

[DerekG]

45. Did you see the Daily Show's segment on today's Oprah program?

A roomful of women erupting in consumerist hysteria...it wasn't a pretty picture. BTW, wouldn't it have been better if Oprah had given that 7 million to world charities, instead of giving cars to predominately middle-class audience members?

We need a far gentler society--but I doubt that the women of this culture would be able to forge this dream. A revaluation of values is in order.

[Cleita]

64. A lot of women in that audience are probably single mothers

and poor. So shouldn't they get a car directly from Oprah? Or should it be filtered through a charitable organization, who only has to give one-third of their proceeds to actual charitable recipients and the other two-thirds to administration?

[Behind the Aegis]

48. interesting topic

From what I have read about matriarchal societies, they tend to be more socialist in nature. The also tend to be more willing to include differences and disabilities than patriarchal societies do. Much of this discussion really comes down to socialization and how we view it today. I personally feel that biology would play a big role in that a female society would tend to be more peaceful. Even in Amazon society, where women ruled over men (no equality), they rarely "went" to war, rather, they "defended" themselves.

[Skittles]

52. ideally, men and women should have equal control

that would make for one fantastic world

[Tom_Foolery]

56. Norman Lear had sitcom in 1977 based on this theme...

it was called "All That Glitters". Here's a link:

http://www.us.imdb.com/title/tt0075658/

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

58. Always a great idea

Replacing one group's hegemony with another.

"Women" are SO oppressed. And of course every Ivy League lawyer lady speaks for every crack ho in the ghet-to. Women are so totally a unified bloc.

Personally, I'm for the Chicanos taking all of Aztlan (USA) except for a black homeland comprising the whole lowland South.

Hardcore feminists can have Rhode Island or something...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

61. How many Ivy League Female Lawyers are there vs. Women Who

Live In Poverty?

The women who hold advanced degrees often hit the glass ceiling, and don't make nearly as much as their male counterparts.

[EstimatedProphet]

62. I can refute this in 4 words-Ann Coulter for President

And you think we have a nightmare NOW...
It's not about gender. It's not about race either. Never has been. It is all about who has the control of money, and those that do will never let go of it, nor will they stop using those that don't against their own interests. A society run by women might be better in some ways for a little while, but eventually Ann Coulter will be President, and the ovens will start warming up again.

[noiretextatique]

68. how is that any different from gw bush as president?

and a male-dominated government? personally...i don't think women or people of color could possibly do any worse than what we have already. even WITH all the money and power involved, to be honest.

[EstimatedProphet]

69. My point is that it is the same

Maybe it will be worse, maybe better-but true change is not going to come from gender or race changes, really. All should have an equal share in government and society , and I'm not claiming they do right now, but to simply substitute women for men in government I don't think will have significantly better effects in the long run. what really needs to change is the gentrified class as dominant, because it is that class which says that money equals good, and control of money justifies abuse of people.

[noiretextatique]

70. how do you know, since it's never happened?

i am just curious as to why people are so sure that women and people of color would be as bad as white men have been.

[SoCalDem]

71. That was my thinking too.. It could NOT be worse

and in a body of 538 legislators and assorted staff members, there would be a built-in balance.. They could not ALL be Ann Coulters and Barbara Bushes...

Just the "tone" of the whole place would be different.. It would be nice to have issues scrutinized that are shoved under the rug now..

That rug is pretty lumpy, since any issue that actually addresses inequity or poverty or education or..whatever ..seems to be loaded up with nonsense so it won;t pass, or it gets ignored altogether while they deliberate on important stuff like:

"death tax"
"gay marriage"
"flag burning"
"guns...guns..guns"
"re-naming every building in the USA after St Reagan"
"female reproduction management"

and so many other "important" issues that they all love to talk to death :puke:

[EstimatedProphet]

73. Yes, it would

The tone would also be different if Congress was made up of people from poor families too.
I agree wholeheartedly that this group of rich white men isn't doing anyone any favors but themselves. I'm just saying it's my belief that it's because they're rich, not because they're white men.

[noiretextatique]

75. effectively, the two are indistinguishable

whiteness and maleness, that is, because the priviledge of having access to power has been reserved only for those who meet all three requirements: white, male, and wealthy (or at least having the potential to be wealthy).

[noiretextatique]

76. I agree with you

obviously :D i'm not saying there aren't lunatic rw women, but i do think people who have been exluded from power for centuries would have different priorities than those who haven't. ann coulter is merely a handmaiden du jour because she spouts the rw party line. if she ever had an orginal thought not pre-approved by her puppet-masters, her 15 minutes would be over.

[SoCalDem]

79. and if Annie was 5'2", 160 lb, with mousy brown hair

she would be checking groceries at Safeway or making beds at the local Holiday Inn..:)

[EstimatedProphet]

83. Probably so

Although she's not the "bombshell" that the conservative horndogs make her out to be, in mine and a lot of other people's opinion...
And I also agree that that shouldn't matter (it really doesn't to me), and that the fact that she's angular and blonde has no bearing on the fact that she's a partisan shill, and truly meanspirited, which is what really matters.

[EstimatedProphet]

81. Ultimately, in my opinion it comes down to this

Money=power.
This is the base problem.
If people are corruptable (and they are), they will be corrupted by money, because money is more than just a unit of exchange-it's an individual unit of power, which states in effect "if I give you this, you give me the rights to something for it". Money as a unit of exchange is in itself fine, but it became a tool of corruption when someone figured out that controlling the money will control the exchange, and controlling the exchange meant that one side could be manipulated.
So, it's fine with me to put someone else in power for a while, but given what I see as human nature, I don't think in 1,000 years it will be fundamentally different. Once the new boss figures out what the old boss figured out, it's back to square one.

[EstimatedProphet]

72. No, it isn't that

It's not that women and people of color would be just as bad, or better, or any different. It's that going after race/gender as a problem or solution isn't addressing the gathering of money as an end in itself, which IMO is the real cause of the problem. Until we address the moneyed class, we won't be solving the problems of the moneyed class.
As to whether women, minorities, other religions, etc. would address the issues of the moneyed class any better I have no idea. I just know we won't really get anywhere until we do.

[noiretextatique]

74. explain the actions of the CBC in protesting the coup

and the inaction of the white, male democratic leadership in supporting their protest, using your analysis.
i hear what you are saying...and i actually know you are technically correct. however, generational priviledge just HAS NOT trickled down to groups who have been exluded for centuries.
that's the only problem i have with the "let's all be equal NOW" argument...we STILL aren't all equal.

[EstimatedProphet]

77. I have no argument with you there

And I believe that there are definite advantages given to white males, which are denied others. We aren't equal. But, also IMO part of addressing us all being equal is going to be addressing the moneyed gentry class, and I do believe they are 2 diffent things-even though there's a very high correllation between the two groups.

[noiretextatique]

78. as i said...i know you are correct

and i don't disagree with you at all. and i do think a white male coal miner from a long line of coal miners would have a very different set of priorites than a white male lawyer from a conservative old money family. peace...and thanks for the discussion :7

[EstimatedProphet]

82. My pleasure!

And a good discussion it is!

[noiretextatique]

65. equality is a great "concept"

but if those in power had the inclination to share, they would have done so already. fuck "equality"...it's overrated. kick out all those who have been in priviledged positions because of various "traditions" that value certain people over others, and replace than all with people who haven't been favored by those "traditions."
let those people run shit for 200 years...and then i'll be interested in "equality."

[Right Makes Might]

80. It's not about men and women but about the way people get power

... in other words, the system. Just like the reason women are an oppressed group now is because of the way the system developed.

Let's say for argument that we could actually remove all men from positions of power and replace them with women, keeping the system itself intact. What's the difference? Nothing, fundamentally. Women will be driven by the same forces that force them right now to do things like make choices in corporations and political offices that are harmful to the little guys.

It's more fruitful to look at why women have historically been in a weaker position, and that all goes back to the only fundamental difference between men and women - childbearing. A woman who has to spend all that time and energy bearing and raising a child is at a significant disadvantage compared to men who don't.

While society was still fairly primitive, this wasn't a serious problem, but as soon as technology developed to the point that people had a significant surplus, a surplus a man would want to pass down to his "blood" and not someone else's, women slowly became second class citizens, often nothing more than property.

The relations between the sexes changed because the system changed not the other way around. The only way to change that inequality is by changing the system.