Changing LINKS
Blog Directory Del's Perspective: Hey Ladies! What's Wrong With this Picture?

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Hey Ladies! What's Wrong With this Picture?

Let's see: they are the world's leaders. They represent all of us, all races, all genders.
What does the picture below tell us? Females represent 51% of the world's population, yet one could hardly tell it by the photo of the "elected" representatives (ok, some of them come from plutocracies) at this conference.

The U.S. Congress has 535 members is made up of only 15% women.

What does this picture of the G-20 conference tell you about power?

G20 leaders, with Her Majesty the Queen


  1. OK, global power is mostly in the hands of men.

    But what is your suggestion for electing more women to Congress?

    The number has been steadily increasing since I was a kid. If more women are going to be elected, then more women have to run. Seems fairly simple to me. Barack Obama can't appoint members of Congress -- and, unless a vacancy occurs, neither can a governor.

    The decisions about who represents the people are in the hands of the people. There are no laws preventing women from seeking office in the United States. But there are districts and states that are more resistant to the idea than others. So what is needed in those districts and states is women candidates who have the persuasive talents to get the support of the majority and to motivate their voters to go to the polls on Election Day.

    Decisions are made by those who show up.

  2. Come on David,

    Look, it took the 19th amendment for them to get the vote. Then they had to fight the idea that feminism was "rather weak in leadership"; for decades it was taught that women didn't have the brain power to handle algebra, science, and other esoteric subjects. So they were relegated to nursing, teaching, social services, but not leadership, the law, philosophy, or mathematics, etc.

    Come on, tell me that there wasn't negative attitude toward Hillary Clinton in her run for the presidency.

    8 men on the U.S. Supreme Court deciding issues pertaining to women: title 9; affirmative action; and the big one, Roe v. Wade.

  3. I didn't say Hillary Clinton didn't have negative attitudes to contend with. She did. So did Obama. So have all those who broke barriers. Didn't John F. Kennedy have to overcome a religious bias when he ran for president nearly 50 years ago? Today, we have a vice president who is Catholic. I don't recall Joe Biden's religion being mentioned. Nor do I recall it being brought up when John Kerry was the nominee. I don't even remember it being mentioned when Bobby Kennedy ran eight years after his brother was elected.

    Weren't there those who voted against Adlai Stevenson because he had been divorced? A few decades later, Ronald Reagan was elected -=- and the fact that he had been divorced was never mentioned, as I recall.

    Pioneers challenge the status quo. Quite often, their personal charisma and persuasive talents have a lot to do with winning public acceptance.

    If women are going to have a greater presence in Congress, they have to have quality candidates. That's how you change attitudes. And that's how you gain political power in America. You win elections.

    I challenge anyone to show me where I suggested there wasn't a negative attitude toward Hillary Clinton. It can't be done because I didn't say that. Last spring, I encountered accusations of sexism frequently because I merely asked questions about her experience and her policies. And I've been accused of racism at times because I dared to question Obama's policies.

    Politicians and their followers have to be willing to discuss their positions on the issues. If they have unpopular positions, they have to be prepared to defend them, and that doesn't mean playing the race or gender card. That's the way democracy is.

    But I did ask, in my post, what your suggestion was for increasing the ranks of women in Congress. I did not receive an answer to that.

    Oh, and as for the female representation on the Supreme Court. Those are not elective posts. Your complaint there is with the presidents who made the appointments. But I don't think anyone prior to Reagan nominated a woman. And there's nothing in the Constitution about gender representation in either the judicial or legislative branches of government.

    I've never said that women have been adequately represented in government. What I'd like to know is how that can be changed.

  4. Your points are noted. On the sup. ct. the prez does appoint, but he understands that when a woman is nominated Congress has a fit.

  5. Are you suggesting that Congress has a fit because of gender bias? Therefore, the path to power is through guilt trips? To portray yourself as a victim?

    Congress had a fit about Harriet Miers, but that was because she was a Bush crony, not because of her gender. I don't recall any fits about Ginsburg's nomination. Sandra Day O'Connor's nomination prompted some discussion, mainly regarding her views on abortion law, but she was approved with no dissenting votes when the Senate made her the first woman on the court.

    When I was in graduate school, if I had submitted a paper that asserted that women weren't nominated for the Supreme Court because of their gender -- and gave no more evidence than has been provided in this post -- I would have received a failing grade.

    So it seems to come back to increasing the number of women in Congress. Again, I ask. How can that be accomplished?

  6. By the way, I have voted for women in the past. And I have voted for blacks in the past.

    But I will not -- and have not -- voted for women or blacks because their demographic groups were persecuted in the past.

    I vote for candidates with whom I agree. And it seems to me that most people do the same. If gender was all that mattered, wouldn't a majority of women have favored the McCain-Palin ticket last year?

    If all a candidate can offer as a rationale for being elected is that candidate's gender or race, that is the surest way to lose my support.

  7. I first I didn't post any article re: Supreme Ct. Second, I simply posted a photo with a rhetorical question about power.
    Did you really want a dissertation about the disenfranchisement of women historically?
    Third, I didn't know I was in grad-school facing the panel on syllogisms.

    For record, I never have and never will vote for anyone who doesn't have a grasp of the issues and the ability to make rational decisions about them. I want the person who isn't in the pocket of big business or a sap for every anecdotal story that comes down the pike.
    But I am not naive, either, I have seen hundreds of cases of discrimination against women in the workplace: school boards, business, classrooms, colleges, post office, and, yes, even at the election board.

  8. OK, you asked your rhetorical question about power. And, while I have no need of such a dissertation -- and you are not in grad school -- the application of logic would be helpful.

    But that still does not answer my question. How do we achieve a balance of power?


Site Meter