Blog Index
The journal that this archive was targeting has been deleted. Please update your configuration.
« Ana Marie Cox Doesn't Understand Conservative Women | Main | Kill the Babies No Apologies »

Do Women Make Worse Senators Than Men?

Here is the title of the article I am analyzing today and where you can find it:

“Do Women Make Better Senators Than Men?” Jill Lawrence. July 12, 2013.


If you know anything about the Feminist Media, you know that the answer to the question in Lawrence’s title is implied. Feminists know that in the culture we live in it is considered rude and impolite to say that men are better than women or that women are worse than men at anything. (See Guideline 8a.)


There are 20 women in the U.S. Senate and Lawrence is one of many cheerleaders for them in the Feminist Media. Sixteen of them are Democrats, which partly explains Lawrence’s fake inclusiveness of the four Republican women.


Here are a few excerpts from her article:

“This room, probably when Barbara Mikulski came in, was one of those rooms where there were cigars and a bunch of guys,” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said during a recent discussion in the hideaway.

And now? “No cigars,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

“No cigars and a lot of hardworking women,” agreed Murray. [Emphasis added.]

(Adhering to Guideline 27a: Women love to compliment themselves.)


Lawrence writes:

Another hallmark of the women is that they have re-created among themselves a bygone world, one in which senators drank together. The women do it in part through their famously private dinners, begun 20 years ago to create what Collins calls a “safe space” for women.


What about the “cigars and a bunch of guys”? This is Political Correctness in action: an old boys’ club bad/an old girls’ club good. (See Terminology 201.)


Lawrence writes:

Women have a particular talent for working with others. If you ask them what they bring to the Senate, almost all of them say things like this: more collaboration, less confrontation; more problem-solving, less ego; more consensus-building, less partisanship.


They’re modest too! Portraying women in this light (Adhering to Guideline 26a.) partly explains Lawrence’s fake inclusiveness of the four Republican women in her article. She can’t look confrontational and partisan right now, she saves that for her articles that focus solely on conservative women.


Lawrence labels Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz as “provocateurs”. I guess one feminist’s provocateur is a patriot’s leader. I think all of you know how the feminist game is played. Senator Barbara Boxer is a “collaborator”, but Ann Coulter is a provocateur. Senator Dianne Feinstein is a “consensus-builder”, but Sarah Palin is a partisan. Senator Patty Murray is a “problem-solver”, but Representative Michele Bachmann is divisive. 


Lawrence writes:

The women of the Senate, including Hillary Rodham Clinton while she was there, have also been longtime champions of the women of Afghanistan and the Middle East. Boxer says Afghan women have come to see all the Senate women in their offices. “I think they know we have their back,” she says.


Remember, one of the goals of the National Organization for Women is “Global Feminism”. (You can see a list of their goals in the Daily Vos article, “Feminism Is Liberalism Is Socialism”.) Feminists care more about women in other countries than they care about men in the United States.


I will make a deal with the feminists, install women in all 535 seats in Congress, but all of them must be Ann Coulter-types. Feminists would never accept that deal. They make clear distinctions between Feminist, Liberal, and Socialist women and Ann Coulter-types.


Lawrence is attempting a very old feminist trick. She wants to make you believe that women are better on style (“more collaboration”) and then assume they also must be better on substance (facts and issues). She knows that if you look at the facts and issues, then most of the women senators fail. (Guideline 5c and Style of Argument 301.)


We should look at the facts of an issue before deciding if women make better or worse senators than men. How did these 20 women senators vote on constitutional amendments to balance the budget? The vote totals that follow won’t surprise you.


(Some of the women have been in the Senate longer than others but the dates of these votes are: December 14, 2011, March 4, 1997, June 6, 1996, March 2, 1995, and March 1, 1994. You can see the vote totals for all Democrats and Republicans on these dates in the Daily Vos article, “Balancing the Budget: Democratic Politicians vs. Republican Politicians”. Source:


                                                  Yea          Nay

The 4 Republican women:          4             0

The 16 Democratic women:        2             27


So female Republicans are as good as male Republicans and female Democrats are as bad as male Democrats. Therefore, women senators are just more of the same old politics as usual, right? Wrong. Right now, female Democrats have female Republicans outnumbered 4 to 1. At this ratio, if all senators were women, then the Senate would consist of 80 Feminists, Liberals, and Socialists, and 20 Republicans.


Here is an insight into human nature: Good men can defeat bad men, but bad women easily defeat good women. I will explain this more fully in the future.


It explains why the Feminist Media wants more women for the sake of more women. They know, I know, and now you know, what the outcome will be.   


There is a big difference between female Democrats and female Republicans. Just as there is a big difference between male Democrats and male Republicans. Just as there is a big difference between Democrats (regardless of sex) and Republicans (regardless of sex).


So we, all, need to avoid the Politically Correct men bad/women good dichotomy. We must make distinctions among women; female (and male) Democratic Party Senators are worse than female (and male) Republican Party Senators.