US Congress more effective if it was all Women?

[Garnier Fructis]

I think the fact that the poll results resemble male genitalia is pretty convincing proof that the denizens of this forum do not like this idea.

[Mihalik]

Considering some of the recent leaders of the Republican party where, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and company, I seriously doubt gender somehow qualifies anyone for leadership positions. Idiots are idiots, politicians are politicians and people who actually achieve things are just people regardless of their gender.

P.S Based on my very limited experience Women also make horrible bosses in general.

[DEATHETERNAL]

I think the fact that the poll results resemble male genitalia is pretty convincing proof that the denizens of this forum do not like this idea.

Cannot unsee.

[Very Tired]

I can only imagine the infractions if someone posted the same thing for men. Double standard?

[semaphore]

This is such a stupid idea.

[breadisfunny]

This is such a stupid idea.

please explain semaphore.

[semaphore]

please explain semaphore.

Women do not naturally "want to get something done" any more than men naturally "want to get something done". The political gridlock isn't due to anyone raging with "hormones and prides" but because of the political atmosphere in the capital. The failure of the US Congress rests with the political animosity in this nation that places political gain above the good of the country. They are fiddling as they watch Rome burn.

[celinamuna]

So congress would not meet at all for 1 week every month ?

Infracted.

[semaphore]

So congress would not meet at all for 1 week every month ?

1) Oh look uncreative recycled sexist jokes about menstruation. Ha, ha. No.
2) Because Congress isn't only in session for 1/3 of the year anyway.

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 06:21 AM ----------

I think even semaphor wouldn't be this deluded, give her even the smallest iota of credit (I could be wrong though).

Yeah because we all know that I'm a man-hating sexist. That must be why you can come up with zero examples of me saying anything in that vein.

[Vivek]

I think the fact that the poll results resemble male genitalia is pretty convincing proof that the denizens of this forum do not like this idea.

Interesting observation.

[Mormolyce]

I dont know, Thatcher was not very popular. Merkel is not very well liked and the Aussie PM is pretty hated.

Are we judging them on whether people like them or whether they get things done?

[Seranthor]

I cant help but think that women naturally are drawn to public service because they want to get something done. Naturally I think at least in my own point of view. Congress would be more effective under all women leadership. Why? unlike men who rage with hormones and prides. Women I think can better communicate with each other without the macho male ego thing.

US Congress has an approval rating of 10 percent. That is correct. Out of a hundred only 10 percent actually approve of the way its run. Lets imagine for a moment we could wipe out all the males in congress and place them with females. Would women be better listeners. Would they be able to disarm a situation and handle things better then current congress.

Congress rating is so low in fact. It ranks up there on the highest of all time of do nothing congress. In the days of social media . I notice women like Majority Dem Leader Pelosi is very effective in her own party. Right now shes urging Obama to make a trillion dollar coin. Rather then fight with Republicans over debt limit and cut spending to fill their pocket. She argues Obama can raise debt legally bypassing Republicans.

I wonder if Congress had all women would it make a difference. Would it even matter?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2410557.html

I cant help but think that its the partisanship that is the problem in Congress, neither party, neither gender wants to do a damn thing but dig in their heels and stand firm... Pelosi was/is just as hated as every other member of Congress, in fact, probably moreso. Would women be more effective? No. Why? you ask, because they are just as partisan. Sure, Pelosi is popular with her own party, but I quite assure you, she's outright hated for her hypocrisy by the independents and the GOP. There is no interest to work with the other party, from either gender. Pelosi argues incorrectly that Obama can raise debt. What will happen if they do that, yet another downgrade in the nations credit rating.

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 12:38 AM ----------

Isn't this pretty much sexism with a different face?

Yes, I think it is.

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 12:40 AM ----------

Not at all. Nothing against either gender. I just wonder silently with more women voted into office last congress. All the US Presidents have been male. If a woman was replaced a man would they be less aggressive. Less likely to confront. Its important to note its nothing against either gender. Anything that you read into it is your own point of view and I cant be held responsible if some people read sexism into it.

to exclude one gender in favor of another gender is sexist no matter how you dress it up or dodge it... would YOU stand for a Congress and Senate of all males? Would you truly? Or would you be screaming foul?

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 12:46 AM ----------

Its just a question. Anything you read into it past the question is on you. Congress has been all male for more then two generations. Why the sudden freak out if it was all women. I do not think one of superior in some cases. (i.e. susan rice) I think they would do a better job. Why is that so hard to consider for a moment.

its blatant sexism dressed up in a question and a poll. With respect to the Ambassador, wait, nevermind. I have no respect for Amb Rice. If she didn't know what she was saying was wrong, then she's an idiot, if she did know what she was saying was wrong then she willfully lied to the American people. Either way, I have no respect for her.

Much like I have no respect for Congresswoman Pelosi, 'We have to pass the bill before you can see whats inside'... Oh that worked well. and you want 435 of her running the show, NO THANK YOU

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 12:49 AM ----------

Again Its just a question. When all Presidents are male. Its not sexism?

Nope... Y'all thought it would be better to nominate Obama... funny thing... had Hilary won the nomination in 2008 she'd have gotten my vote for President. When the Democrats HAD the chance to HAVE the first Woman as a President, the didn't take it. If anything, THAT was sexist...

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 12:56 AM ----------

Not till recently were women even allowed to run for President. It was not even till the late 1950's that women even were allowed to vote. Men were superior in all jobs. Women were expected to cook clean over a stove. Just recently Hillary make make history as first women in US history to be elected President. Again any bias was not intended.

Its just my point of view. No two points of view are exactly alike. Perhaps a gaming forum with dominantly male was not the best place to ask.

Fused, I'm sorry, you are again, FACTUALLY INCORRECT. The 19th amendment of the US Constitution was ratified on August 18, 1920, giving Women the right to Vote. Now you say you do your research, what source did you use to base your claim of 'it wasn't until the late 1950s that women were allowed to vote? I'd like to know. Please, provide your source. Failure to provide your source will be taken as an admission that you willfully and intentionally tried to be deceptive.

[Grizzly Willy]

Man, if this isn't sexist I don't know what is.

Here, let me provide a counter argument. It'll be using the same dubious "logic" and "reasoning" that you do. Would doctors offices run more efficiently if we got rid of all of the female staff? They're always so catty, talkative, and inefficient; they always talk behind each other's backs, they always spend their time talking about things that have absolutely no bearing on the work they have to do, and because of that they slow the workplace down and make it a bad place to work. If we eliminated all of the women and replace them with male workers, things would get done! They wouldn't hold these petty grudge that those estrogen fueled women seem to hold on to. They wouldn't spend their day talking about what a bitch Frank is. It would be such an improvement. In short, let's get rid of bitchy unproductive women.

See? That's a fucking bullshit argument because it isn't true. Its entire foundation is built on sexist stereotypes and generalizations. Fused, you're assuming that every male in congress is trying to win the contest for having the most macho attitude. It's disgusting that you would pose this as a serious question, and an insult to feminists. Cut the sexism.

[Stir]

Man, if this isn't sexist I don't know what is.

Here, let me provide a counter argument. It'll be using the same dubious "logic" and "reasoning" that you do. Would doctors offices run more efficiently if we got rid of all of the female staff? They're always so catty, talkative, and inefficient; they always talk behind each other's backs, they always spend their time talking about things that have absolutely no bearing on the work they have to do, and because of that they slow the workplace down and make it a bad place to work. If we eliminated all of the women and replace them with male workers, things would get done! They wouldn't hold these petty grudge that those estrogen fueled women seem to hold on to. They wouldn't spend their day talking about what a bitch Frank is. It would be such an improvement. In short, let's get rid of bitchy unproductive women.

See? That's a fucking bullshit argument because it isn't true. Its entire foundation is built on sexist stereotypes and generalizations. Fused, you're assuming that every male in congress is trying to win the contest for having the most macho attitude. It's disgusting that you would pose this as a serious question, and an insult to feminists. Cut the sexism.

Actually...
Women are argumentative, lazy, gossipy, hormone driven, carry grudges, and are overall bad workers. It's completely true.

Men are simply no better.

[Zylos]

No. Evidence? Nancy Pelosi

/thread

[Nadev]

Why am I not surprised at the OP...

[Crissi]

For every Hillary Clinton or Kay Hutchenson, you will have equal if not more amounts of Sarah Palin / Michelle Bachman / Nansi Pelosi, so no, women wouldnt be any better at it.

Although there was this one meme picture i saw awhile back involving Tina Fey and SNL about calling Hillary a bitch. It said sure, call us bitches. Bitches get things done. I lol'd

[marthsk]

Oh sure, then instead of politicians yelling at each other when they disagree, they'll now talk behind one another's back, and will copy one another fashion-wise (and complain about it).

But when they'll meet, they'll squeal, hug like they were best friends, and add "like" and "omg" every two words.

And don't "stereotypes" me; I witness this on a daily basis.

[apepi]

Again Its just a question. When all Presidents are male. Its not sexism?

If you are truly not sexist you would not matter if every president was a male or a female.

[Nadev]

If you are truly not sexist you would not matter if every president was a male or a female.

Quick! We need a Hispanic lesbian on crutches to be President or we're intolerant and hateful!

obvious sarc is obvious

An all female Congress would be even less effective than our current one.

However a more effective congress would involve more women, more cultural diversity, and less "good ole boys".

I think less "People Who Have Served Since Watergate" would be a good starting place.