Why Are Women Only 17% of Congress?

[ismnotwasm]

By Carol Jenkins | September 5, 2012

As Michelle Obama delivered her outstanding speech at the Democratic Convention last night, at least one network ran a reminder across the bottom of the screen: Michelle Obama graduated from Princeton, and Harvard Law School. Oh, yes, that’s right. This self-proclaimed “Mom-in-Chief” is also brilliant. With a speech like that — arguably better written and delivered than any we’ve heard this election season — she should run for office herself. (President, 2016 anyone?)

Of course many women do run for office, but only belatedly find out elections can look far different depending on the gender of the candidate. This is often true whether the race is for city council or president. Widespread sexism is a major barrier to women’s equal representation. This is why projects like Name It. Change It., which seeks to identify, prevent and end sexist media coverage of women candidates and politicians are so important.

A group of experts in the field of elections spent the day in Charlotte yesterday discussing women running for office. We were brought together by Swanee Hunt, the former ambassador to Austria, philanthropist and women’s advocate. One of her new initiatives, the non-partisan Political Parity, intends to double the number of women in Congress by 2020. That would mean women would occupy 34 percent of the seats, instead of 17 percent -- a number Debbie Walsh of Rutgers’ University’s Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) calls “pathetic.” The 17 percent figure puts the United States in something like 94th position in terms of women’s participation in government.

CAWP’s new effort, The 2012 Project, presented some encouraging numbers: women broke the record filing to run for the U.S. House this year: almost 300 did so. More than 160 survived their primaries—and there is hope that in November women will break the 20 percent marker

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/blog/entry/why-are-women-only-17-of-congress


http://www.nameitchangeit.org/

[thelordofhell]

1. Because men run the world

But that's changing..........slowly, but it's changing

[ismnotwasm]

2. Love the user name

Reminds me of "Hellblazer"

You are correct; So painfully slow it seems incremental, but change nonetheless

[GreenTea]

3. Sexism - Second class citizens....men's insecrity...creating impotence....

LOL! - Just look at these insecure asshole in the republican party....They have no respect for women.

[ismnotwasm]

4. That, they certainly do not

THE GOP AND ITS ANTI-WOMEN LEGISLATION
Conservatives rankle at the phrase "war on women," but what other description would fit the unremitting assault on women's rights that GOP legislatures in GOP controlled states have proposed; and in many cases, enacted into law?

The Guttmacher Institute has documented 916 measures related to reproductive health and rights in the 49 legislatures that have convened their regular sessions. (Louisiana’s legislature will not convene until late April.) By the end of March, seven states had enacted 15 new laws on these issues, including provisions that:

http://progressiveerupts.blogspot.com/2012/04/gop-and-its-anti-women-legislation.html

[Warpy]

5. Add to that the fact that women are pretty much still kept poor

by wage disparity and things like the glass ceiling. We have fewer resources to dedicate to running for office.

[ismnotwasm]

6. Good point

The "War on Women" is so often framed in terms of reproductive rights--other inequities aren't addressed often enough.

[redqueen]

7. ... and that's provided they're acknowledged as existing forms of inequality at all

e.g. the pay gap, objectification, etc.

[ismnotwasm]

8. Oh yes the pay gap

I've read the contortions of those who want to pretend it doesn't exist. Like the torturous none-logic statements of those who deny the objectification of women


This article talks about the anticipation gap, what women expect less So they get less?

Among undergrad students surveyed from 321 universities in 2012, women anticipated an annual salary of $48,237. The guys in their class say they expected an income of just over $55,000. When discussing the salary gap then, particularly when we look at its origins, it’s becoming clear that the anticipation gap is a hurdle to overcome. undefined“This is something we struggle with every year when we look at these numbers,” says Camille Kelly, vice president of employer branding at Universum. She points to sites like Glassdoor.com–where salary information by job title, industry and even company is readily available–and says she continues to be shocked by women’s consistent underestimating


To be fair, researchers at Universum say the anticipation gap has narrowed in recent years–although by a margin of just a few hundred dollars. Last year women expected to make $7,248 less than their male colleagues (to $7,056 in 2012). This narrowing margin could possibly be attributed to women’s increasing dominance on college campuses. For years women have been enrolled at a much higher rate than men and according to 2010 Census numbers are on their way to erasing the historic male advantage in undergraduate education (current gap: .7%).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/07/05/real-origins-gender-pay-gap-how-we-can-turn-it-around/

[MysticLynx]

9. I can not believe

this is where we are at now. I thought things would have changed, but we still have women in positions of power and influence including even some of our congress women defending the women as 'subservient' to men garbage, and being against a women having the right to affordable reproductive health care.