Now Reading:
Gender Equality In Congress: Why It Shouldn’t Matter
Full Article 5 minutes read

Gender Equality In Congress: Why It Shouldn’t Matter

Listen to feminists and you’d think that women are not just the minority in Congress, but are completely barred from entertaining the thought of such an ambition. Gender parity among politicians is as popular a lament as they come. Now that the race box has been checked in the list called: “People Who Still Need To Be President”, the gender box is “logically” next. With midterms on the horizon, equality among the ranks of the 535 members who make up the bicameral legislature is of increasing focus.

Before commenting on the oppressive nature of public office, let’s disregard the following, shall we?

  • The Supreme Court of the United States currently has three justices who are female (Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor)
  • Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State under President Obama (and also a presidential candidate)
  • Sarah Palin was Governor of Alaska, and VP candidate with McCain (but she probably doesn’t count)
  • Condoleezza Rice was Secretary of State under President Bush

Feeling better by having purged just a few of the many political successes for women from my memory, let me proceed.

According to a July 14, 2014 profile of the United States Congress by the Congressional Research Service:

“One hundred two women (a record number) serve in the 113th Congress: 82 in the House, including 3 Delegates, and 20 in the Senate.”

Although “a record number” of women in Congress is a good thing, liberals see only a count of less females compared to males, and determine that disparity defines the branch. Are there fewer women than men in Congress? Definitely. Is the reason for the difference because women are subjugated to the patriarchy? Definitely not.

The suggestively bitter study titled “Men Rule: The Continued Under-Representation of Women in U.S. Politics” begins:

“Study after study finds that, when women run for office, they perform just as well as their male counterparts. No differences emerge in women and men’s fundraising receipts, vote totals, or electoral success. Yet women remain severely under-represented in U.S. political institutions. We argue that the fundamental reason for women’s under-representation is that they do not run for office.”

A chief hang up in the liberal mindset is the obsession with unequal outcomes, all the while residing in an environment where equality of opportunity already exists. The opportunity for Congressional equality (not its current, inflated offspring) has existed since April 2, 1917, when the first female member of Congress, Montana representative Jeannette Rankin, and the entirety of the 65th Congress, was sworn in. Furthermore, although many states had ushered in equality among voting rights by that time, national law announced no discrimination “on account of sex” with the passage of the 19th Amendment on August 18, 1920.

Yet liberals continue on, lamenting the gender inequality among the members of Congress. As seen in a June 2014 Huffington post column:

“…at the current rate that female candidates are being elected to the House and Senate, we won’t achieve equal numbers of men and women until 2121. The big question: how can we speed things up?”

No. The bigger question: why would we want to speed things up? Women have no more merit to represent another than a man does. Their ability to speak for their constituents is not made greater by their gender. Conversely, liberal exasperation over men discussing and voting on women’s issues is ironic, considering they ask us never to question a woman discussing that which affects a man.

Jeannette Rankin was the first woman elected to the United States Congress.

Jeannette Rankin of Montana was the first woman elected to the United States Congress in 1917.

When stepping into the voting booth, the criteria for choosing a candidate should never be based on the superficial, yet the superficial is what drives liberal banter on Congressional gender division. Instead of backing away from the external, they focus in on it, and falsely believe that an equal amount of males and females in Congress will improve the legislature. This could not be further from the truth. Voting “on account of sex” was shot down in 1920. We should not, and cannot, refer back to that by way of electing or supporting women solely based on gender. Our votes are a precious right, and should not be swayed by anything but a desire to usher in the best candidate regardless of race or sex.

In Ms. Rankin’s statement of victory upon winning a seat as the first female in Congress, she exclaimed, “I am deeply conscious of the responsibility resting upon me.”

If only each member of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, would realize this. If only we who elect them would as well.

What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below OR write a letter to the editor!

2 comments

  • kimberlyross

    Right on as usual Lady K!

  • kimberlyross

    This is all part of the same liberal dance card. From the beginning, the left has always complained about how the rules aren’t fair or the same. They always play that “we didn’t lose, they cheated” card.

    It sad how many people are made the victim by liberals in promoting their agendas. They have no problem demonizing half of the human race – or maybe just the conservative ones.

    Of course, when the winds change, the concept of fairness to women will blow away too – because it has nothing to do with fairness to women – but rather, attracting and keeping power in their base – by hook or crook.

    TRC

Input your search keywords and press Enter.