Would more women in the Senate mean less gridlock?
They’re definitely “not a sorority,” as Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) insisted. And yet the 20 women lawmakers who sat down for a group interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer that aired on January 3 did seem to form a chummy, sisterly club as they celebrated the milestone of one-fifth female representation in the U.S. Senate.
There was lots of “you-go-girl” nodding, as senator after senator extolled the virtues of female cooperation, collaboration, and can-do workmanship. (“Workwomanship?” It’s a word, perhaps, whose time has come.) They agreed that, had women been running the show, there would have been no “fiscal cliff” drama. “We don’t believe in the culture of delay,” said Barbara Mikulski, (D-MD.) …
But never mind. Now is not the time to wonder if women reached a level of political participation commensurate to their representation in the voting population (which would give them a majority, not mere parity in government), and if their numbers were more or less evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, they wouldn’t find themselves in as much gridlock, with as much conflict and partisan grandstanding as their majority-male colleagues.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
These people have been telling us women cannot control their waginas enough that they need free abortions & birth control.
Clearly, a woman who votes according to, & acts as a slave to their sexual parts is not capable of making rational decisions.
But evidently these same women would make Congress better.
Badger40 on January 5, 2013 at 10:04 PM
Yes, more left wing feminists would mean the end of even the slight bit of for-show opposition that we’ve seen in Congress, ending the “gridlock” and providing a smoother transition to Marxism.
Gingotts on January 5, 2013 at 10:11 PM
They would have printed those magical platinum coins long ago, and got about the real business spending.
DFCtomm on January 5, 2013 at 10:11 PM
THIS is what the b!tche$ want.
Badger40 on January 5, 2013 at 10:12 PM
There definitely will be more legislation about shoes.
viking01 on January 5, 2013 at 10:19 PM
The biggest senatorial obstacle is Nancy Reid(D), so I’m convinced gender has nuthing to do with it.
locomotivebreath1901 on January 5, 2013 at 10:19 PM
My name is Julia .
Lucano on January 5, 2013 at 10:23 PM
Gridlock is a feature, not a bug. Why would we want less of it?
greggriffith on January 5, 2013 at 10:24 PM
The comments at TIME are pretty interesting. It seems that, with every day that passes, Political Correctness dies a little bit more. People, Americans, are waking up and discussing what ills our once fair republic. I’m sure the so-called “elites” who get space in a publication like TIME are none too happy.
Punchenko on January 5, 2013 at 10:33 PM
Women are really good at quickly resolving issues by frank dialogue.
…
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
AbaddonsReign on January 5, 2013 at 10:37 PM
Conservative women and progressive women would merit a WWF license.
katy on January 5, 2013 at 10:38 PM
Women are, and have been, the majority in the United States for a long time. If this majority could get together on a subject this easily, then one would suspect that there would be no gender gap in the work place, more women would be in management positions, etc. I think that women are plagued by differences just as men are.
DAT60A3 on January 5, 2013 at 10:41 PM
Wait, didn’t three women screw up the deal in the first place: Obama, Reid, Boehner..?
Mr. Arkadin on January 5, 2013 at 10:41 PM
Odumbass and his brigade of Marxist leeches got everything they wanted. Gridlock would have been nice.
fitzfong on January 5, 2013 at 10:43 PM
Absolutely not.
That said, demeaning men by calling them women is sexist garbage. There is nothing wrong with being female, period.
alwaysfiredup on January 5, 2013 at 11:24 PM
Complete and utter bullsh!t. Democrats are simply a majority of the women’s caucus, so they think that by showing “solidarity” they might be relevant in a GOP-dominated congress. Plus it never hurts to remind the nation how much Republicans hate women, if they lose. Boehner needs to ignore the gender ploy and treat them like all the other legislators.
alwaysfiredup on January 5, 2013 at 11:27 PM
Less gridlock…no.
Probably more photoshop, though.
chewydog on January 5, 2013 at 11:43 PM
Whoops. I didn’t see this is the senate, not the house. But I still think it’s a democrat ploy. Outside of abortions, they could care less about what is actually good for women.
alwaysfiredup on January 5, 2013 at 11:45 PM
Gridlock is good when DC is dominated by maroons and twits.
hillbillyjim on January 5, 2013 at 11:46 PM
Oh sure, just what we need, more of these: Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Claire McCaskill, Tammy Baldwin. Yeah, let’s order a few dozen clones of these, they’re top-of-the-line commiesocprogmarxist libturds with a coupla RINOs thrown in for laughs.
stukinIL4now on January 5, 2013 at 11:52 PM
Observations show the incidence of gridlock has been growing in proportion with the number of women in Congress. See also: Size of Deficits.
Also, observations indicate there is an inverse relationship to grid lock and number of women that are allowed in the WH’s top meetings.
Oh and don’t trust intuition, or stereotypes about women, on this. Trust the science.
Tomorrow I’ll present the science based modelling results of this data. Hint.
Dusty on January 6, 2013 at 12:00 AM
How is gridlock affected when the popular girls don’t let the others sit with them at the popular table in the Senate cafeteria? I mean, I’ve never known a girl to hold a grudge, especially against another girl.
Harbingeing on January 6, 2013 at 4:15 AM