Things are looking bleak for advocates who are pushing for a woman
president in 2004. Hillary Clinton is still making up her mind whether
to enter the race. And the polling numbers for Carol Moseley Braun are
about to fall off the radar screen.
But the real reason for their angst is that after three decades of
steady growth in the number of female elected officials, the trend has
stalled out. In the US Congress, the number of female elected officials
has remained steady at 59 Representatives since 2001. In state
legislatures, the number has actually fallen slightly,
from 22.5% in
2000 to 22.3% in 2002.
There are many reasons for this leveling-off. And none of them can be
blamed on sexism.
The most controversial explanation comes from Ellen Sauerbrey, US
ambassador to the United Nations. During a briefing held at the State
Department a couple weeks ago, someone asked her why there aren't more
women in politics. Her answer: Because women are innately averse to
risk-taking.
Of course, that response deeply offended the radical feminists in the
room. But Ambassador Sauerbrey, who is our representative to the UN
Commission on the Status of Women, doesn't care what feminists think
anymore.
But the reasons for low numbers of elected female officials actually
run more deeply than a fear of taking risks.
First, female politicians are too often guilty of feminist groupthink.
They stake out a one-sided women's agenda, while ignoring the legitimate
issues of men. Sometime go visit Hillary's web page at
http://clinton.senate.gov/ -- you
won't find much there about paternity
fraud or false allegations of rape.
Second, female politicos are all too willing to bend the truth -- even
to the breaking point -- to advance their pet causes. For example, women
like Rep. Patricia Schroeder and Sen. Barbara Mikulski made the shrill,
but unfounded accusation that women had been
excluded from medical
research.
Third, female politicos seem to have a problem with women accepting
the consequences of their actions. When Andrea Yates admitted to killing
her 5 children, Patricia Ireland of NOW claimed this was an
example of
patriarchal society where "women are imprisoned at home with their
children".
The refusal of female elected officials to counter this feminist rubbish
was disturbing.
But what most rankles male voters is the accusation by gender
feminists that male officials do not act on behalf of the interests of
their female constituents.
Think about the major entitlement programs passed by the US Congress
in the 70 years: Social Security, Medicare, and a variety of welfare
programs. Each of these programs were enacted by almost entirely male
legislatures and signed into law by a male president. The money for
these programs comes mostly from male taxpayers.
And the beneficiaries of these programs are predominantly female.
Collectively, these programs represent a transfer of billions of dollars
annually from male taxpayers to women who are elderly, sick, or living
in poverty.
Don't get me wrong -- Social Security is a good program, and I want my
grandmother to be comfortable in her Golden Years. But to claim, as
feminists do, that male legislators aren't looking out for the needs of
women is a gross mischaracterization of the truth.
So here's my advice to persons who want to see a woman elected as
president: cut the whining, stop playing the gender card, and start
acting like a man.
