You can put a dress on a pig but...
I think there would be far fewer Democratic women in both houses of Congress without EMILY's List helping with fundraising. There are simply far fewer Republican women than Republican men who can raise the $1 million or so it takes to win a Republican primary in a Republican-leaning or marginal House district, and even fewer who can raise the several million dollars needed to win a competitive Republican primary for the Senate. EMILY's List is terrific at providing early financial support to promising female Democratic candidates for Congress, and Republicans have no equivalent. So I think that the relative scarcity of elected Republican women in Congress will continue for some years to come.
This just pushed the question back a level, doesn't it? Why isn't there a Republican equivalent of Emily's List? Could it be because Republican donors are not really interested in supporting women as candidates?
doc - I don't think that's it. Republicans, including even some Republican women, simply choose not to look at people as members of groups. While I tend to share their individualist perspective, I think it's misplaced when it comes to electing people to high office. After all, it's not like there aren't millions of women capable of serving in Congress.
Republicans, including even some Republican women, simply choose not to look at people as members of groups.This must be one of the stupidest things that I've ever read in my entire life.
purusha -- Do you read your own work?
Go fuck yourself, chimp.
Eu sou um macaco?
For the same reason Democrats have trouble electing women -- the system was designed by and for power-seeking men. The problem for Republicans is that there are more Democratic women in high office than Republicans. Part of that may be simply because more women are Democrats. And those women who are Republicans are more likely to have traditional family roles that make such a career more difficult.The lack of women in high office is a problem not just for Republicans, but for the country in general. Republicans would also do well politically to elect more women to office, including younger ones with families. I never thought I'd say this about her, but we need many more Sara Palin's before it will seem "normal" for family women to also have positions of great responsibility in our society.
I think it's perfectly normal to have women with families to also have positions of responsibility. It's a little silly to expect them in the patriarchy party.
I think reproductive rights play a big role in this issue for professional women. Its an incredibly awkward topic; unfortunately, for many professional women, the evangelical POV on abortion is incredibly disenfranchising. Which no one is willing to say, in part surely because we're all pretty strongly opposed to abortion, and who is gonna look Todd Akin in the eye and say, yeah, that innocent baby has to die for the sake of my interests?I'm not a woman, but my hunch is, until the Republicans come to terms with the necessity of reproductive freedom in the lives of professional women, ain't gonna be too many of them in the tent. For fear of being ostracized for alleged selfishness, they won't say why.They just won't show.
Good point CSH, I hadn't thought of it that way.
I agree with CSH, but I'd extend it to any woman who really needs or wants a paycheck, not just professional women. Many depend on early abortion as a backup in case of contraceptive failure. Fewer, but still a significant number, have had abortions for that reason. After all, abortion isn't that rare and it's not only careless teenagers (or congressmen's lovers) getting them.
At The Washington Post
At The American Prospect