“Give Me Gridlock or Give Me Death”
This was my thought as I read this post at Time.com by Judith Warner, author of We’ve Got Issues: Children and Parents in the Age of Medication. Warner’s post was entitled “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.)
Well, what’s the delay if all the women are Democrats and all are “cooperative” on the party line? Why would there be gridlock? Warner hints at the problems that might come should there be disagreement from the female consensus:
The only smidgeon of a sign of barely possible disagreement came when the newly-elected Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) interrupted a comment from Susan Collins (R-ME) on how politicians should focus on the economy, health care, education and foreign policy and not reproductive issues to interject that in fact access to birth control was still very much an issue – a perhaps too self-assertive gesture that left the colleagues seated around her momentarily unsmiling.
First, note how the Democrat interrupts the Republican woman, could trouble be in the air? Why interrupt? Why not let Collins have her say? Oops, could that be the possibility of disagreement or gasp! gridlock?
I think the reaction of the Independent Women’s Forum is more accurate:
“Women and men are different, approach problems differently, and bring different talents to the table. Still, I’m far less concerned with increasing the number of women in power than in increasing the number of lawmakers – men and women – who believe in economic liberty and understand how progressive policies fail women and their families,” says Independent Women’s Forum executive director Sabrina Schaffer in a statement.
“While a lot is being made about the record number of women joining the Senate, the reality is the majority of these women are Democrats – 16 of the 20 – and as a result we are likely to see higher taxes, bigger government, and less freedom.”
If more Democratic women in the Senate (as this is what is really meant by “more women” in the Senate) means less freedom, bring on the gridlock, for it means that disagreement exists and should exist in what is supposed to be a free society.
And frankly, if women are no better at negotiating gridlock than they are negotiating their own salaries, we’re in big trouble.
“We [women] don’t believe in the culture of delay,”
Agreed.
If you want something done fast, put women on the job.
If, however, you want something done right, hire men.
Women know what they want. Women know how to form a fast consensus. But they are not so fantastic in paying for the consequences of their decisions. If they were responsible for waging wars, they might learn quickly that ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
Remember the wisdom of Melvin Udall.
1. Reason
2. Accountability
“Men can never be careless. Only women and children can afford to be careless.” –Don Corleone
When those female lawmakers said that “If we could get rid of the men in the room, we’d have our healthcare bill by now!” they were not lying. And this country would have a healthcare package that totally covered everything A WOMAN could ever want, and it would be the most expensive piece of fem-centric crap in history.
Go ahead. Call me a misogynist. You damned well know I’m right.
Remember Prohibition? The Volstead Act? Al Capone? Speakeasies? The Thompson .45 caliber machine gun? The birth of Organized Crime?
Look up a history book and take a gander at the marches on Washington to make booze illegal.
How many men do you see in those pictures?
“Men aren’t going to church! They’re getting drunk! Let’s make alcohol illegal!”
The girls did that. The launchpad for Organized Crime in the U.S. was given to us by women.
The dearies are just sooooo smart. They instantly know what to do in every occasion.
“Culture of delay,” my fat Irish ass!
If women ran NASA during the 1960s, a man would have been put on the moon in 1964 rather than 1969…and his body would still be there.
Yeah, if Carrie Nation came into my pub with a hatchet I’d break a barstool over her pipsqueak little head.
“Remember the wisdom of Melvin Udall.”
“I think of a man and take away reason and accountability.” A classic line in an otherwise forgettable film.
Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. They shouldn’t be allowed to run for office, either. Or be lawyers.
It is an error to conflate all women, as such women as Sarah Palin, Susan Martinez, Dr. Helen, Sarah Hoyt and other make clear. Making broad categorical arguments is the sort of thing that facilitates dismissal rather than rebuttal. Reflexive denunciation of “Women” as a class is as stupid as reflexively praising “women” as a class — and at least as destructive.
This could be an opportunity to recycle the old lawyer joke: “99% of American women make the rest of them look bad.”
Why not in the cases Bob Wallace specifically named – voting, public office, and lawyering? Women all share an attribute that in a rightly-ordered republic would disqualify them for at least two of the three activities named by Bob Wallace; every one of them is a born draft dodger.
Hillary Clinton dodged the draft even more successfully as her husband Bill Clinton yet when she ran for President no one questioned her about it at all nor did anyone challenge Her Feministness on the sexist means she employed to do it.
At a previous job one of our departments was all-female and staffed by an incompetent shrew. They hated each other, treated my department horribly, and irritated our clients. and the mistakes that came from throughout the department resulted in 2/3 of the company’s employees getting laid off.
Goooo Team Woman!!!
Y’all are overlooking the most salient element: as noted in Liberal evaluations of Michelle Bachmann & Sarah Palin, “they aren’t women — they’re Republicans.”
A misogynist is anyone who hates women as much as The Left hates Conservative women.
If PJ Media had “like” buttons, this would get one from me.
1. As soon as you employ the term “Y’all,” people cease to take you seriously. It marks you as quickly as the word “Sheeple.”
2. I only make broad generalizations when I am talking about broads. Surely that’s only fair.
In response to point #1: That is why I use the term ironically, even though “in cyberspace no one can hear you iron.”
I’m stealing that!
I’m afraid these Congressional women – a club all ready – and their camaraderie are figments of their own vapid imaginations. It’s thinking and acting like this that creates many of the problems that they face – they have and will continue to have problems to face generated on fallacy and self-centeredness. They are their own worst enemy.
I honestly don’t fault the Democrats for obsessing on birth control and abortion as young women have only those 2 issues on their minds at all times, regardless of employment situation. Just ask any non-Christian woman in her 20s what her #1 thing is. Probably cheap access to birth control so she can engage in random sex with strangers at the club.
As the article states “men and women are different” we see this politically, for the most-part women will take “perceived” security over freedom, younger women are single issue concerning reproductive rights.
Men tend to be risk-takers who dislike restrictions; although many women feel the same, statistically they’re a minority.
It seems that women voters and their socialist counterparts are slowly marching us into a Marxist Gulag.
They are, and when we’re there, women will blame it all on men.
I will add that it’s mainly under-40 single women who think this way. Married women were one of the two demographic groups who voted for Romney.
“Reproductive rights”: The problem is that the definition of the word “rights” has changed, behind our backs. When I think of rights, that includes the right to make bad decisions and suffer the consequences thereof. When the young single women think about rights, they are including the “right” to be protected from the consequences of their bad decisions.
The last thing we need is more political solidarity based upon identity politics. What we do need is political stands made on principles and real knowledge, rather than the abridged Cliff Notes versions, of economics, foreign affairs, and the real world rather than the view of it from ivory towers or exclusive country clubs.
If you have someone like that I really don’t care about their gender or ethnic background. Period. I just wonder where those people are hiding. Where is it written that you have to flunk Economics 101 in order to run for public office?
the sooner the western matriarchies make all government officials and “electees” female, the sooner we can drop the whole sham that women are only now “rising up from oppression” to “take their rightful place” in society
i’ve seen what womens’ “rightful place” really is, in the offices and homes and workplaces: standing on top of men, with their high-heels on our throats, shrieking about the abuses the dearies suffer, and the “war” being made on them
the denial that the Beltway Bitches aren’t forming a “sorority” is just another lie out of the mouths of the professional dissemblers — indeed, the Grrls already have formed their own (off-camera) chauvinist clubs to better Crush the Evil Male and his nonexistent patriarchy
in fact, the Grrls often share townhouses, etc, so that they don’t need to travel so far to collude against God, nation, truth, and sanity
The reason why Warren could not let Collins finish her statement was a knee-jerk fascistic world outlook. Leftists can’t abide a different way of looking at things other then their own, so they must engage in shutting-up tactics.
I agree women make decisions more rapidly…with either consensus or shaming (silencing ‘wrong’ views)…never mind that they are decisions that will, in the long run, bankrupt a country. So long as they are given their ‘due’ and their ‘rights’ (being oppressed they deserve it), they won’t care.
As TMG stated, they will blame it all on men when it (inevitably) goes wrong. Women seem incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. Cause and effect don’t exist. Yes, NAWALT. But, thanks to female suffrage we have massively bloated governments, teetering on bankruptcy, that regulate every aspect of our lives (or intend to). Security over freedom. Especially when the ‘security’ (economic, physical, etc) is paid for by men.
There would be no fiscal cliff? We would sail right over it without anyone noticing…until the government freebies stopped arriving.
So will I break down the wall that ye have daubed with untoward mortar,and bring it down to the ground,(yikes!)so that the foundation thereof shall be discovered,and it shall fall,and ye shall be consumed in the midst thereof:(yikes!)and ye shall know that I am the Lord.
Where are you Waxie? Don’t leave me hangin’.
Untempered mortar, not untoward.
Damn iPhone
Did you know that when women get together they synchronize their menstrual cycles?
Yeah, it happens all the time with best friends, roommates, and when women work together in groups. It’s the dominant woman who establishes the cycle, and the rest simply synchronize.
No one knows how or why this happens. Presumably pheromes, some sort of scent, behavioral mimickry, but it does happen.
If I had to guess, I would say it’s an instinctive reproductive strategy. In chimpanzees, the females will have sex with all the males. This keeps them around to provide food and protection for the females and the young, because no one knows who the father is. But when they are fertile, the females will only have sex with the dominant males. This is to ensure they get the best genetic stock for their offspring. So synchronizing menstrual cyles, or ovulation cylces which is more important, makes perfect sense.
It’s just like the modern girl. Oh, yeah, she will date the banker or the businessman, just to keep him around when she needs money or child support. She’ll even marry him. But when she wants to get pregnant, she’ll have sex with an athelete. And no one is the wiser.
What concerns me about this, besides the problems with the marriage contract, is that now 1/5 of the Senate are all ovulating together, and they’re all Democrats.
What you described is precisely what Martha Stewart instructed her daughter to do. Marry a chump with money and get impregnated by the hottest stud she could find.
There’s a good reason marriage is dead. Probably dozens of good reasons.
Frankly, it’s a good strategy.
I look around at my relatives / extended family, and the older women are lots richer in general than the older men, and the older women did it by separating the man from his money / having a spouse die and inheriting everything (men die younger on average) / or manipulating the assets of a second husband (in one case, with transfers to joint name after the husband got Alzheimer’s, completely stealing his children’s inheritance).
The funny thing is, lots of posters here seem to only worship the money and rich people (they are the “producers” – right?). Well, women who separate men from their money are rich. And many are really skilled at it.
What you are describing here is the Wife of Bath. Chaucer wrote about her in the late 1300s. She’s a snaggle toothed fat hag on the pilgrimage to Canterbury to ask for forgiveness for her sins.
What did she do that she has to take a pilgrimage to ask forgiveness for? Well, she went around looking for older wealthy men, preferably widowers, marrying them, and, well, basically screwing them to death. Then she inherits all their property and wealth. According to the tale, she went through at least five husbands doing that.
And now she’s on a pilgrimage to ask for forgiveness. But she’s rich. She’s got land, estates, money; she’s happy. So she’s not going to Canterbury to give a confession. It was all strategy.
Also, marriage is not dead. There are plenty of chivalrous men who will “man up” and marry the poor little victim-woman if they should happen to oppress the poor thing by having sex with her.
It is a piece of cake to separate those types of men from their money, and most will go on to marry again. If your tastes are not all that expensive as a woman, but you don’t like that “work” thing, military men are great for exploitation. They have to do the manly, honorable, chivalrous thing, and once you can get a court order of some type against them, the military will provide all possible assistance to simply have it taken out of his paycheck.
Most men – even today – are just a cakewalk to get money out of. It is really too funny, and many are really proud of it (“no wife of mine will ever work”).
At least there will be one week a month they will be at each other’s throats instead of trying to mother the rest of us.
Ron White has a thoroughly misogynist (and funny as hell) routine about women and PMS, but any husband who denies the reality is either dumb as a rock or hen-pecked to the extreme.
Two observations:
1. Women, in my experience, hate working for other women. Women have repeatedly told me that they would refuse to work for another woman. Men can handle working for men or women. In my own experience, women, as a group, manage about as well as men, as a group.
2. Based on my recent experience as the only male member of the local garden club, women do things neither right nor quickly. Virtually every statement made in a meeting would result in either an argument or a request that it be repeated or clarified.
My wife has repeatedly stated that she would NOT want to work for a woman or work in an organization dominated by women. I think her experience as both an equestrian and as barn manager of our current riding facility have influenced her greatly.
Okay, now I’m curious. I was born in a house on a horse ranch (actually a sulky track) and lived there until the age of six. But I fail to see the whole “horse : female-run” concept.
I would be grateful if you would develop your point a bit more.
“We don’t believe in the culture of delay,” said Barbara Mikulski, (D-MD.)”
Given Mikulski’s assertion, I guess it’s a GOOD thing for European Jews there weren’t more women in charge during the Third Reich, huh?
The “women’s reproductive rights” stuff shows just how dumbed-down the US is. Women still outlive men significantly and the far greater proportion of medical money (from taxpayers) goes to women’s health. The fact that this silly “war on women” stuff got this far just shows how shallow the thinking is. Let’s start an equally valid movement complaining that “for thousands of years, women have let the men do the fighting and bring home the money, while the women sat on their butts around the house”. Absurd? Yes. But so is the “War on Women”.
I thought gridlock meant no laws were being passed, which basically means no money is being spent. And that’s good, right?
First part true, second part false: No laws being passed means no changes to current law, and current law is automatic increases in spending every year.
To add to Deoxy’s point, gridlock used to be a good thing, back when it was necessary for Congress to appropriate money before it could be spent. But the system is now rigged so that spending, and increases in spending, are automatic unless Congress passes a bill to prevent it. So gridlock is what the tax-and-spend crowd wants.
Every human being deserved to be judged on their own merits… but groups, as a whole, will have different outcomes.
In this instance, the problem is people who vote for their own short-term self interest with no other thought. There are both men and women who do this; experience and what data I can find lead me to believe that, by group, there are noticeably more women than men, but there are plenty of both.
The problem with the “low information voter” is not the “low information” part – every human being starts ignorant. It’s the “voter” part – be low information, OR be a voter, but NOT BOTH.
Of course, there’s no PERFECT way to solve this, really, but there are several that are a lot better than what we have now. Removing the vote from women would probably be a small improvement (on AVERAGE only, mind you), but really, the only advantage of that plan is simplicity (which is, admittedly, a significant advantage – the “bright line” is a VERY VERY useful feature).
Personally, I think some kind of property requirement would work better… but it would certainly be very difficult to implement, and it would be at least moderately game-able.
Welcome to the world of fallen man, where the presence of broken humanity is the primary flaw in every good system (bad systems are the ones with flaws even worse than “broken humanity”).
You can’t possibly be serious?
Au contraire, Deane.
The most serious of the knowledgeable people agree with Deoxy.
I am absolutely serious. As best I can tell, AS A GROUP, men are (slightly) more responsible voters than women. Just like, AS A GROUP, women are better with any topic involving color.
If you divide people into groups based on any particular criteria, one group will better at some things not related to that criteria than the other, and the other group will be better than the first at some things, and some things will be about the same. Some things will vary over time (random drift) and some won’t, even though we’re only talking about things NOT related to the criteria in any way that we see.
Perhaps tall people, on average, have darker hair color. Or perhaps, one group is, on average, smarter than another.
This has NO BEARING on any individual in those groups – it only matters if you care about the aggregate, if you make claims of “disparate impact” and the like.
As I said, even if you removed the vote from women, the benefit would be, as best I can tell, small. There are plenty of women who take the time to make an informed decision before they vote, and plenty of men who don’t. As best I can tell, at this point in history (and perhaps it’s one of those things that varies over time), there are more women who vote ignorant or thoughtlessly than men by some small margin.
For all I know, that could be due to the influence of stupid women’s magazines (I don’t read them, so I don’t actually know, mind you). I don’t claim that it is inherent or unchangeable, only that it appears to be true at this time for the group as a whole.
Other methods of preventing people from voting ignorantly would probably be more effective (such as some form of property ownership), if they could be implemented.
If the ladies in question had actually read the Constitution, they would see that the Founding Fathers had deliberately set up the government to ENSURE gridlock. They had SEEN efficient government, and wanted nothing to do with it except in times of war.
I’m not picking sides here but I will just note that with the ever growing percentage of woman in the primary and secondary schools the quality and usefullness of that education has been going down almost in lockstep with it’s growth. Why is that if they are so damn good at doing what woman do? Just askin.
Rick K,
I think you bring up an excellent point. Whenever I hear from my leftie feminist friends about how much better it is going to be when women “take over”, I point out to them what a wonderful job women have done in turning out an entire generation of ill mannered, uneducated idiots. No, it’s not just women alone, but they are the majority force in that field and must bear that share of the responsibility. Of course, they never will. Can you say, “Social Promotion?”
I wish that Sara Steelman had won the Missouri Republican senate primary instead of Todd Akin. Remember that Claire McCaskill ran ads during the Republican primary that helped Todd Akin win. McCaskill was headed to defeat until her opponent made a fatal mistake
Todd Akin royally screwed up by talking about rape and reproduction. He could have talked about law enforcement, support for adoption, the inalienable rights of the unborn child, gun toting women protecting themselves, etc. but just don’t talk about reproduction if you’re in the elderly grandparent stage of life. Think of the ick factor of old Hugh Hefner voicing his opinion on reproduction from the other side.
Women don’t believe in the culture of delay? Who’s delaying marriage until their 30s?
+5 Insightful.
This is the kind of swill that permeates society when a group of left-wing women get together to wallow in a pack of lies. Thank heaven for feminists or we’d still have only the Nazis and the Klan to amuse us.
http://glpiggy.net/2013/01/08/a-graphic-display-the-anatomy-of-a-lie/
Zorro, that link led me to two well written and thoughtful articles. Thanks!
Trey
As Jeeves would say, “One endeavors to give satisfaction, sir.”
After 5 years of working with a company, the new CEO hired was a woman. First thing she did was promote all the women. Next came gridlock. Endless committees to discuss this and that, and when nothing was decided another committee was formed to discuss why not. It was ridiculous and forever ruined a good organization.
I had one female boss there – she was moody and a screamer. I kept track of her monthly cycle.
In either chamber, and regardless of political persuasion, eventually, all their clocks will tick at the same time, as they do in army barracks. I would not want to serve in house or senate one week a month with all those women eventually having their periods at the same time.
I usually really like readying Dr Helen, and the comments…
This string has me genuinely troubled.
I know NO women who are out there trying to have sex with multiple men, and NO women who want to have sex without protection.
But I know too many men who have carried on (attempted hidden) multiple sexual relationships with women over the same time period, and many who try to slip out of birth control methods.
I am not advocating for free birth control, but, my God! I really have to question where all the poor commenters hang out to have so many horrible women around you!
I have seen (either me, or my friends’ experiences) my share of men I describe above, but run from them as fast as possible (and learn from them to avoid any others)
While I am proud of the very low number of notched on my bedpost, I know too many men who seem to be aiming for a High Score…
(While I believe the vast majority are decent human beings)
Maybe I should leave this post, and let the men have the women-bashing moment. But, I just want to point out, every time you make a generalization, you are no better than the men-hating feminists you are describing…
Whew… I needed to get that off my chest…
Project much?
What you are in essence saying is that all of the posters here are *bad* people, but you don’t get specific.
What bugs you specifically? What are commenters saying here (apparently as a group) that disturbs you … specifically?
I have had the experience of *specifically* pointing out what my neighbor’s wife has as a life. She watches TV; he works his butt off. I personally think that’s unfair, especially when she is wailing about how women are so oppressed. I was told that I was being misogynistic, so I shut my mouth.
So point out how people are being misogynistic. Let’s argue it … honey. Does your Dad pay for your college? Mine didn’t.
No, “honey”, my Dad did NOT pay for college. I had a full scholarship to one school, but thought “longer-term”, and chose the school that offered co-op and only half-scholarship… I thought the experience in the field would be better long-term, and I was right. So I worked two jobs during the school terms so I could graduate without debt, and was hired right out of college by my co-op employer. I guess that long-term thinking really paid off. And in the engineering field, no less.
In my original comment, I was trying to say that IF you make a generalization about women, you are doing no better than the feminists making a generalization about the entire population of men…
I also do know a neighbor who wanted half of a wife’s money that she had earned the 20 years before she met him… Thankfully she gave him way more money than she should have, learned her lesson and moved on.
The point is, there are creeps in every gender, color, religion…
You’re a female.
…and has no female friends – none that won’t lie to her, anyways.
Tell the women I know who in their 40′s who are finally getting pregnant that they ‘don’t believe in the culture of delay’.
Right.