US Congress more effective if it was all Women?

[Cthulhu 2020]

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".

[semaphore]

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

Men are simply no better.

You guys are such pessimists about humans

Even if that absolutely just described me.

[Deleted]

Men and Women should be equal. Just that, equal. In most parts we are, in some women are dominating, others men. But instead of getting up in arms about every single incident where a field is dominated by a gender, we ought to step back and just let things develop naturally. Especially when it comes to elected officials or otherwise, that's a question of democracy, not equality. As long as everyone has the same rights to participate, run for candidate, vote for a candidate etc. I see no reason to intervene otherwise.

And while I am a STRONG supporter of equal rights and human rights, there is NO way you can justify this thread and OP as non-sexist. It's biased, sexist and discriminating towards men. I don't appreciate bashing or us, as a community, undermining eachother, but by god, FusedMass, I cannot take you seriously anymore. I am sick of discrimination against both women and men, and doing one does not justify the other.

I'm glad you made the poll public though. I'm suprised by 7/10 of the voters in "Yes" and atleast now I know to take their debates with caution when discovered. I know that's opposite of my usual cheerfull approach, but I have just about had enough of this whole hatemongering discrimination and gender bashing. Just stop.

Edit: For clarification, if you believe an all-women congress would be pretty sweet, that's perfectly fine. Infact I applaud your initiative. But the moment you put it public in choice wording to undermine and discriminate against others, that's crossing the line. You're MORE than welcome to believe and dream as you please, but enough of this intolerance towards men, women, cows, hamburgers or whatever. Just accept eachother for what we are, human beings and move on.

If this thread has said "I really think Women in Congress would be cool" I would've said "I bet it would, probably" but your decition to demeane your fellow human beings of another gender is sickening. Just sickening. And as a human being, even my gender aside, I cannot help but take the same offense I would have, had the view been mirrored for "All male congress".

[semaphore]

I'm suprised by 7/10 of the voters in "Yes" and atleast now I know to take their debates with caution when discovered.

Maybe they just thought "Congress sucks so badly now anything would be more effective".

[mordale]

why isn't this locked and the OP banned yet? mods, get off your fucking asses.

Warning: Please don't post just to try and get a thread locked. This topic is fine as long as the discussion remains mostly civil which so far it has.

[Alvito]

There is one thing that I can think of that is effect with only one or the other sex filling it, that is a bathroom. Beyond that it is a horrible idea.

[Kerath]

No, it would not be more effective if it was women only.
I don't know where you get this notion that women are so much better suited for public office than men. It seems to me that they are prone to the same pitfalls and problems as their male counterparts. The OP is just full of blatant misandry.

[Deleted]

Maybe they just thought "Congress sucks so badly now anything would be more effective".

Yeah, that's a pretty good point. You're right about that, I'm less suprised now. Thanks for offering a bit of diffrent light on my initial assumption =)

But that aside, I still stand by the remainder of my post.

[Powerogue]

I cant help but think that women naturally are drawn to public service because they want to get something done.

Not from my experiences. In fact the stereotypes I've heard more often are women being overly emotional and more irrational under stress, with men being more level headed and effective at leadership. In all likelihood we're both wrong, just due to such variety in humans that we can't just stereotype "all women" or "all men" for the sake of these positions.

[Grummgug]

Many studies show that men are bigger gossips than women. Women are indecisive.

This means women would be better suited for government because who really WANTS government to get anything done? A quality government is one where they can't get hardly anything done at all.

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 03:38 AM ----------

Not from my experiences. In fact the stereotypes I've heard more often are women being overly emotional and more irrational under stress, with men being more level headed and effective at leadership. In all likelihood we're both wrong, just due to such variety in humans that we can't just stereotype "all women" or "all men" for the sake of these positions.

Its not a stereotype, men are more rational.

For you males reading this, think back to when you are a little kid. Like under 9 years old. When you scraped your knee, or bumped your head, do you remember what happened next? You became overwhelmed by your emotions and began to cry. You might even remember thinking to yourself in the back of your head, "There's nothing really wrong, I just can't stop crying!" And you'd bawl your eyes out and not understand why. Then when you reached about age 9-12, somewhere in there, that simply went away. If you scraped your knee or bumped your head, you didn't have an emotional outburst. It was just a scrape.

For many women, they NEVER make transition to where their emotions are under control. There emotions can rage just as badly as when they were 5 years old. So when something minor happens and they have a fit, now you understand why.

Women are more emotional in this regard. And many women complain that men can be cold and emotionless. Its because many women don't understand the transition men go through as their brain develops as they never experienced it themselves.

[Grizzly Willy]

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

Men are simply no better.

That doesn't really change the validity of my point, though. If they're both as bad, then this argument is still stupid and sexist because it assumes that one is better than the other.

[Kasierith]

No... I think there are some women who are absolutely stellar examples of progress in politics, but that some is a key word there and there are men who also fit that description.

[Adam Jensen]

I voted yes, but only because I'm sick of all the white old farts.

I think 600 white old women would be refreshing.

[Mongoose19]

Remove congress make ONE person decide, make that person have big group of EXPERTS NOT POLITICS and see how much can be done.

[h4rr0d]

To answer OPs question, try to remember:
How long did a male friend of yours hold grudge against you and how long did a female friend of yours hold grudge against you.

Infracted.

[Deleted]

Why do some people automatically think with women in power. It would start a power struggle between the genders. Its totally possible it could happen without any oppression on either side. This isn't a males right or a women s right. Its a human beings right. Congress has had all males since it started. Even its Presidents not a single female. I just wonder if situation was reversed would they have an easier time.

If it would switch from all male to all female instantly as it is now I believe it wouldn't take long before it would turn out female vs men real fast. If it happened slowly over time than it wouldn't make all too much difference I think.

[Kasierith]

I voted yes, but only because I'm sick of all the white old farts.

I think 600 white old women would be refreshing.

What if they were 600 Bachmanns?

[Simulacrum]

Not from my experiences. In fact the stereotypes I've heard more often are women being overly emotional and more irrational under stress, with men being more level headed and effective at leadership. In all likelihood we're both wrong, just due to such variety in humans that we can't just stereotype "all women" or "all men" for the sake of these positions.

We can stereotype groups in terms like "X group has more of whatever trait that group Y". It's undeniable that males and females act and think differently in our society, and a lot of stereotypes are true. The only real question is how much of the differences are essentially arbitrary because of our culture, and how much of it is independent of culture (as much as you can think about anything as independent of cultural influences anyway).

Which is more important? Peace? Or Justice? I can predict which the average man will prefer, and which the average woman will prefer.

I don't care about the gender of whoever is elected to lead me; I just care that they get the job done. Considering the OP's question, it may just be better to replace them with 600 random women considering how ineffective the current ones are, but there's no reason to limit it to just women; indeed, it would be immoral to do so.

[dokilar]

I voted yes, but only because I'm sick of all the white old farts.

I think 600 white old women would be refreshing.

all the more reason why all members of the legislative branch should have term limits just like the president does. im a little up in the air about supreme court justices being appointed for life but i ultimately think they should probably have term limits as well. something like maybe 20 years

[Jackmoves]

I don't know about the US, but some of our craziest and most horrible(and some of our best) politicians have been women.

I think Martin Luther King got it right, just exchange colour of their skin with anything you like... gender in this case. There are great female politicians and there are great men in politics, you want the best ones, be it a woman or a man.


I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.