Will Democrats Become the Women's Party?

Just wondering. Seems like all of the new, really good candidates are women. And they are also the one's who have the best chance of winning on being ethical.

I think I would like a Women's Party. Women have a whole lot to bring to the table.

And while it would appeal to some it would turn off a lot more.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Just kidding.

I think that people are pretty sick of machismo right about now.

Women are revered and I expect Hillary to be the first woman President in only a couple of years. Women are the majority in America today. Hillary will appeal to them and the Democrats will stick together to win.

Not that the Democrats are perfect, but the are not sexist as the republican party.
I do not see how any woman could be part of the republican party when most of the members feel that a womans place is in the kitchen and having babies. This is a long history for the republican party.
So if any party were to emerge as the party of women, I would think it would be the Democrats.

Sounds pretty sexist to me.

A women's party is an interesting idea, though. But it never pass constitutional review.

A women's party wouldn't have to exclude men. It could be quite inclusive.

But perhaps the underlying ideology would be formulated from the point of view of women's priorities.

No mistake.

But, if the underlying ideology would be formulated from the point of view of women's priorities, I doubt the male membership would be very high.

These tend to be education, health care and the environment.

Why wouldn't men get on board?

I know there are some pretty awful women in business. I have run into them. But I do think that women would be more likely to use their power well and not let it go to their head.

Through representation.

13 out of 100 senators are women. That is NOT representation.

In addition, do you posit that we can only be represented by people of the same gender?

Mind you, I'd very much like to see more women in power. I typically favor female over male candidates. But I think there are some assumptions being made here.

They get to decide who is on the ballot. If there are no women on the ballot, then we can't vote for them, can we?

I actually DON'T favor female over male candidates, unless I agree with their positions on issues. You are making assumptions about my position.

And what makes you think THEY decide who gets on the ballot?

Did someone do away with primaries when I wasn't looking?

I think the current party leadership determines the party leadership, when there is a change.

The party leadership decides who gets the financial and political support of the party. Those who provide the money choose who ends up on the ballot. Just look at what happened to Paul Hackett.

You are right that in the version of democracy I learned at Girl's State, this issue would take care of itself. But that isn't the version of democracy we seem to be living in.

Why are you so defensive, when all I'm suggesting is that we need more women in positions of power?

And if you want to be that cynical you should be consistent and consider if the machine is as corrupt as you say, then only women who are just as corrupt will be installed.

Now if you are JUST advocating for equal opportunity corruption that makes NO difference in the outcome, that's fine, but I thought you were advicating for something more than that.

The people who vote decide who represents them. Over 50% of the people voting are women.

represent me because she's a woman and I'm a man?

I wonder what other "failures of representation" we could get to. I'm gay, I'm an atheist - is anyone representing me by the standards put forth in this thread?

How can we vote for them if they aren't there?

I've certainly supported every female candidate who has run on the Democrat ticket.

"The people who vote decide who represents them." I can't believe you said that after the last four totally corrupted elections we've had in this country.

I seem to recall the PARTY deciding who is on the ballot.

Nobody is stopping women from running for political office

I'm going to get in REAL trouble now for what I am about to say:

Maybe women don't want to run for political office because it is so brutal and merciless. They don't call a blood sport for nothing.

As a qualifier, I never said women should be barefoot and pregnant, but maybe womens genetic disposition (OMG, I said it) makes running for political office something women simply are not attracted to.

Lawrence Summers, I feel your pain or am about to.

Read the post above.

women". Why do you think that?

Doesn't mean they aren't also priorities of many men.

I think that education, health care, and the environment are priorities of women based on polls I have seen, and the fact that I am a woman, and they are my priorities and those of most women I know.

My point was made in response to Poppyseedman, who said that men would not join a party that supported women's priorities. I was saying that women's priorities were the same as many men's priorities.

Sigh.

know the majority of voters are already women, what makes you so certain these are women's issues?

Of course men need to support the priorities of women, if they ever want to get elected, but not solely for that reason. They do it because it is the right thing to do for society in general.

It may be a shocker, but men and women are far different creatures. My wife and I get worked up over different political passions

I would not feel comfortable in a political party primely focused on womens issues. Politics are about everybody.

I can handle only so much touchy feely, if that makes me a male pig, so be it.

If the highest "ideal" that's culturally pitched for women to respond to and emulate is hawkish and "man-like," (cough, cough "moderate" cough..)than what difference would it really make ...especially if our "representatives" answer to their corporate pay masters ahead of the public? Women in charge who are technically little more than cheerleaders for any type of dominance and chauvinism will be no more conscientious than the phony sentiments coming from hawks pimping the current phony war.

However, imagining a hypothetical scenario in a better world, I'd be all in favor of having women in positions of delegating all that need be sort out in maintaining civilization - we men have fucked it up royally. And yes, sometimes with the support and backing of some women, but certainly not most.

A woman's party would likely be much more inclusive, as is currently the dem party. The repugs are anti-women: blame them for the deterioration of "family values" by entering the work force - blame them for increasing the need of social spending if they remain home and raise children.

What makes you think that women are more likely to win or to be ethical?

That's just ridiculous. Each potential candidate should be judged on his/her abilities and record. Gender should not enter into the equation any more race should.

... if we had proportional representation elections.

Look at the percentage of women in governments elected by PR, and then look at the percentage of women in our Congress.

"World's Greatest Democracy" indeed.

The surest way for women's issues to be addressed and for women's rights to be protected is to have women in the halls of power.



Now, having said that, the Democratic Party is still the most advantageous to women, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Women in the halls of power who don't hate themselves and their gender...

Women who don't believe that their fellow women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen...

I could post pictures of Michelle Bachelet, Barbara Boxer, and Randi Rhodes, but I just don't feel like putting forth the effort...

:hi:

are inherently more likely to come in on the right side of these issues, and instead just apply the same standards to all PEOPLE.

I said that women would be more likely to protect women's rights and address women's issues. I still believe that, and apart from posting three pictures and saying that I cling to a fallacy, you have not disproven it. Many men can be trusted to come out on the "right side of these issues," and many women can be trusted to, invariably, come out on the 'wrong' side. I do apply the same standards to all people.

Your "qualifiers" are gender traitors, though, paid by men to play a man's game in a man's world. They are (in Maggie's case, were) women supported by the male-dominated system with great amounts of money to battle for conservative causes. Also, all three reside in countries that use first-past-the-post election systems, which are rotten and antiquated, and have no bearing on what kind of female leaders a proportional representation system might produce.

I understand what you're saying, though... If there were a PR system, the Republican party could run a list 50% or 100% female, and they would still be theocratic, rights-destroying, women-hating pigs. HOWEVER, if nothing else, there should be more women in the halls of power in the name of justice and proportionality.

By the way, in the Wiki article about her, it says that Thatcher supported a bill legalizing abortion -- what you might consider the "right" side of a women's issue.

You've imagined this as men vs women.

In fact the electorate is majority female.

If women were as consistently interested in women's rights as you suggest they are, the political landscape would look very different than it does today.

Nor do I have to prove any assertion... This conversation should be accorded with all the seriousness due an internet discussion board.

I have not "imagined this as men vs women", nor have I stated such a thing. I was merely remarking on the peculiar nature of our electoral system: namely, that it shuts out women from office at a higher rate than proportional representation systems. This point is demonstrable.

Also, I am aware of the demographics of our electorate. In any event, thank you for reminding me.

What I suggest is that the political landscape looks the way it does today because of our antiquated election system. Within our nation, there exists a pro-choice majority. As you point out, a female majority also exists. Our Congress does not reflect that. Gerrymandered, single-member districts and the plurality-wins, two-party system are to blame.

If you want to continue our discussion further, you might want to message me privately. I don't think our discussion is germane to the original poster's thread, and we should not prolong it, publicly, beyond all good reason.

WE are "The People's Party" and always have been.

That's where our strength is. Men and Women of all shapes, colors and flavors working together for a peaceful, healthy, prosperous world.

Contrast that with "The Koolaid Party," where the only price of admission is Caucasian skin and the only work you do is pour Koolaid mixed with Scotch and watch FU(X) News.

And argue over the Easter Bunny in due season....

I would think the gap would close by more women getting involved in politics

Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/24/politics/24women.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

It's about how women are running as Dems in key races. I have to admit I only skimmed it yesterday but I did see that Republicans have taken it upon themselves to refer to the Democratic party as the "mommy party" in response to the candidates. Cute. Republicans who say things like that don't need congressional seats--they need psychiatric couches.

if he were still around he wouldn't have to change much, if any, of his words to talk about what's going on now and that alone would probably bring about an aneurysm.

I was thinking that if you view politics throught the lens of the Yin/Yang symbol, The male side is conservative and the female side is liberal and both have an element of the other. What would be healthy for the whole is that each side increase its portion of the other. Of course in our present mood it will not happen. I think at some point the polorization will lead to a self correction. My hope is that it comes before we devolve in to civil war and/or revolution.

the voters.

Women already make up more than half the electorate.

While I DO feel it would be better to be more reprsentative of what the countrry looks like, and that would bring more perspectives to the table, I can't ignore the fact that it isn't men who are putting the current crop into office.

47% were men, 53% were women.

The party that supports families with measures to insure reasonable work-weeks, decent childcare, and adequate family and medical leave policies. Of course these things help women, but they help men and children, too.