Congress Comprised of Fewest Women in 30 Years

[marmar]

from AlterNet:



Congress Comprised of Fewest Women in 30 Years


In terms of sheer numbers, there are dark times ahead for women in Congress.

For the first time in 30 years, the amount of of women in the house has decreased, with nine representatives losing their seats. And in the Senate, it looks like the number will remain the same at 17, even with Patty Murray's recent win–though if Murkowski somehow gets the shaft in Alaska, that number will decrease as well. Even with all the brouhaha about the so-called mama grizzlies–of Republicans, only three women out of 30 candidates ran on open tickets–Congress is still comprised of only 17 percent women. According to Debbie Walsh, Director for the Center of American Women and Politics at Rutgers, "This year is the first time that it has gone down, it's gone down a little bit, but going down or staying the same if you care about women's participation in politics."

But it goes beyond mere participation. As the Republicans take over the house, and the number of men and women aligned with anti-choice groups such as The Susan B. Anthony Foundation increase, the implications of a lack of female representation are troubling. New Hampshire's Kelly Ayotte, for example, defended parental consent laws during her time as attorney general–and she was propelled to her new seat thanks to cash infusions from the SBA. Similarly, while women made gains across the country in gubernatorial races, they were generally conservatives who toe the tea party line–radically anti-choice, anti-gay rights, steeped in traditional gender roles–not exactly the paths to parity.

-- By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd


http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/319529/congress_comprised_of_fewest_women_in_30_years/

[devilgrrl]

1. Mission Accomplished!

:sarcasm:

[truedelphi]

2. I don't quite understand.

Had all the Tea Party candidates won, we would see some women in important posts.

It just so happened that the crazy whack jobs like McConnell, Whitman, and Angle were defeated, which is good, right?

SO now we have to focus on how few women were elected?

Will you be able to relax when/if we have Sarah as President?

I for one could care less what gender someone is,.. I mean, c'mon - Jerry Brown is a three legged, but his being in office is still a step up from what Meg Whitman would have done for the women in California.

[marmar]

4. "Will you be able to relax when/if we have Sarah as President?"

What 'you' are you referring to? I just posted an AlterNet article.

[truedelphi]

5. I don't care whose article it was.

We are at a point where people are waking up that it is about WHO you vote for, and not what sexual equipment that person has.

Poll after poll showed that for a while there (like in the early nineties) people would invariably vote in the woman if they saw her running for office. Give a voter a list of two sets of names for an office, and there for awhile, the person with the woman's first name would win. This is especially true, and in fact still holds up right now, that when a voter is selecting from a long list of unknown's, like on Tuesday when the average Californian had a list of over a dozen "never heard their name before" people running for judgeships. The women will be selected in larger proportion than the men.

We had a lot of women running for office this time around. It just so happened that many were bat shit crazy.

Again, would you vote for Meg Whitman over Jerry Brown? To even up the score on how many women governors the nation has?

[joeybee12]

3. Deafeating all those nujob Republican Women actually made the election MORE Pro-Women

Series-ly, you can't call yourself for women if you think your own sex cna't make her own private, choices and decisions.