There was a new US Congress sworn in today. I think the political system here is too dysfunctional to hope for any significant change, but there was one statistic that caught my eye. In 1989 there were 16 Democratic women in the US House of Representatives. This year there are 89. Admittedly that’s still only 37% of the 235 Democratic seats they currently hold, but it’s still progress to be welcomed. Of course over the same period the Republicans have gone from a total of 13 women to – wait for it – 13 women. So not so much progress on that front. I think whatever your politics, if you regularly read this blog, you should welcome more women to positions of power and influence.
The image below is Kyrsten Sinema being sworn in to the Senate by Mike Pence. She’s the first openly bisexual woman to serve in the Senate and was sworn in on a law book, rather than a religious book. I think those facts are both great. That fact Mike Pence would undoubtedly hate them makes the moment even better. And, I don’t to be shallow about this important moment, but she has also looks fantastic.
Krysten Sinema!! Yes she does look super. Pence is a serious Bible thumper. Hatred?? He’s probably deeply upset though. 🙂
89 women in the Democratic House!! Another major plus for the good ‘ol USA.
89 is definitely an improvement, but a long way to go yet, particularly on the right. But I’ll take the little victories when I see them!
-paltego
I dislike when we view ‘progress’ as measured by outcome. Women have made tremendous stride in the political arena and continue to consistently out pace their male counterparts at the voting booth. Lets not get trapped in the equity game that unless there is equal outcome the system is unfair or somehow malevolent towards a specific group.
I find that view really odd. Women are 50% of the population, and clearly equally well equipped to hold political office as men. So you’d expect them to be roughly half of the people in charge of running the country. The fact they’re not would seem to indicate something odd and worthy of study is going on.
-paltego
Women are 50% of the population … actual more than that … but represent the majority of kindergarten teachers and also are extremely poorly represented proportional wise in the industries of forestry and mining. Does the fact that women make up the majority of the population determine they must represent equally in those professions as well? If so, why? Why does ones identity indicate their propensity for specific work?
It is not a given that cause women make up 50% of the population that they would therefore make up 50% of political office. This sort of logic is without reason. The fact that women don’t make up 50% political office has been studied, happily so.
I’m almost tempted to delete this thread as its so ridiculous, but OK. Let’s do it.
With the greatest respect to kindergarten teachers, they don’t hold quite the same importance in our national life or direction of the country as the leaders of that country. They’re not setting policy, distributing tax dollars, or passing laws affecting 100% of the population.
There will always be jobs that have a valid skew towards men or women. Lumberjacks and lingerie models spring to mind.
There are certainly jobs that are currently skewed in their representation, and where a more even distribution would likely be preferable, but the impact of the skew is debatable. Kindergarten teachers would be a great example.
And then there are important high profile jobs with a skewed distribution, where that skew has a large material affect, and where women are not being well represented. American politics is that perfect case in point.
Governments should represent the people. If there are significant differences between groups of people then that should be represented in government. Men and women – while being equally capable of governing – clearly have different perspectives and life experiences. Ditto for ethnic groups. Looking at US politics in general, and the Republican party in particular, you’d think the country mostly consisted of old, rich white men. Which it clearly doesn’t. We’re represented by unrepresentative representatives.
Anyway, I can’t believe I’m arguing with someone on a Femdom blog who apparently thinks women aren’t suited for positions of power and that we’re better off with the useless fucks we currently have. Don’t bother responding unless your argument is a damn sight more intelligent than “Some industries have unbalanced gender distribution, so therefore unbalanced gender distribution is OK everywhere.”
-paltego
I would love to respond. And I can perfectly appreciate that this is no place to have a discussion over equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity. Having said that I sincerely applaud your continuing the conversation. I will respect the wonderful blog you have had ( have been a reader for years, truly do think its great work ) and refrain from further replies here as it really isn’t the place for this. You have my email if you at all are interested in a continuing friendly dialogue.
I think you have grossly mischaracterizing my position which isn’t fair. I would never say women aren’t suited nor capable for political positions or positions of power. I never commented on the current overall state of politics. The main contention for me was focussing on equality of outcome as it tends to result favour values which run counter to other values which we also cherish and rightly vault. This concept is playing out right now at Harvard as there is a lawsuit regarding Asian applicants and the Universities policy of diversity.
The kindergarten example is a most interesting one because if there is a case to be made for desiring equality of outcome, in this case having somewhat equal representation of genders in early education, than a kindergarten teacher would personify this. Psychology has shown that young children of both genders do well being exposed to both genders and since a large portion of their time is spent in a classroom it has been argued ( Jonathan Haidt ) that having teachers of both genders is desirable. Hence, focusing on equality of outcome in that regard is not without merit. However, the justification therein is a scientifically based one.
Governments should represent people is not axiom that demands it is made up of equal proportion of its population statistics. This line of thinking is a trap to identity politics. How far does it extend to? Just gender or what about different ages? Individuals of different ages all have immensely varying concerns. What about race? Religion? I mean the list is endless. And does it strictly apply to the Congress or the local state? What about local city councils? And why just government, surely there are any number of other organizations that carrying significant impacts on our daily lives.
You mention that it is desirable to have different perspectives and life experiences. I would agree but it is not a given that this arises strictly from selecting 50% women and 50%men. I would argue what matters more is competency and diversity of thought.
Basically, I want to see a system set up that maximizes the ability for those that are interested to pursue a career or path in politics regardless of their skin colour, sexual orientation, religion, gender, etc. to pursue those interests. I want to see the sociological and societal barriers diminished and let each individual choose their own path. When this happens however, one maximizes the biological differences, including the hugely impactful psychological differences. When this occurs what we see is not an equalization of gender outcome but a greater disparity, as seen in professions people choose. We see more nurses as women and more men as engineers and politicians. ( Jordan Peterson et. Scandinavian Countries ) This I think is to be celebrated and appreciated as recognizing that when we limit the sexism, racism and other isms we maximize everyones freedom of choice and freedom of expression which has empirically resulted in a greater disparity in gender equality in many professions.
There are a lot of things to choose from …. so I feel grossly incompetent selecting one to begin what might be a pleasant plunge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQNaT52QYYA
Again, long time admirer … differences of opinion hopefully doesn’t translate into tribalism beyond what already has occurred!
I will respond to this in the next day or so when I have time. This weekend has unfortunately not given me the window of free time I needed.
-paltego
As a kinky Catholic, I’d much prefer that nobody swears on the bible if they don’t have a faith in it. In fact, on reflection, I’d rather that faith was separated from law and politics entirely. Maybe we should swear with our hand on our testicles, or female equivalent, like the ancient Greeks.
Agreed. Well to the separation part – not so sure about the testicles part :-). Swearing on the constitution or something equally symbolic of the state rather than the church would make a lot more sense to me.
-paltego
And I agree, she can legislate for me anytime. I’d relish the smack of her firm governance.
Hm, I followed your blog for a few years now with great pleasure. That was for the main reason because you respect everybody whatever their kink was.
Please leave out politics.
I really don’t see why Sinema’s beliefs should be more respected than Pence’s.
That’s an easy one to answer. Because Mike Pence has consistently opposed LGBT rights and aligned himself with groups like “Focus on the Family”. The kind of people who, if they ever had the chance would remove gay/trans rights, as well as the kind of pornographic material I feature so regularly. So it’s pretty straightforward for me to see why her beliefs should be more respected than Pence’s.
-paltego
Actually, I believe that many in the far right, including Pence and FoF and others, would happily march gays, black and brown people, and non-Christians into gas chambers if they could. If you think that’s far fetched, study early 1940’s Germany.
I think ‘many’ might be over-stating it. But definitely ‘some’. And definitely many who’d happily turn the clock back to the 1950’s when it comes to those groups.
-paltego
To truly believe that a sitting vice president would advocate and take pleasure in mass genocide of roughly 57% of the american population ( https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/white-christians-now-minority-u-s-population-survey-says ) is appalling to believe. It’s a horrible thing to claim about a person with no proof and should not be tolerated from either side. The only appropriate response to a person that spouts such vile and divisive charged statements is ridicule and scorn.
Kyrsten Sinema has it all. Looks, determination, brains, style, and sass. I love this photo of her. Smarter than you, stronger than you, better looking than you, and more of a killer instinct than you. (“You” being Pence and the rest of the GOP snowflakes.)
Keeping in the spirit of this board, if I showed up to a session and she was my domme, I’d be thrilled.
She was rocking a great look for the swearing in process. Apparently she also did an Ironman Triathlon back in 2013. So you can add fitness to her list of attributes as well :-).
-paltego