Female Senator Says 50% Of Congress Should Be Women, And This Guy’s Comeback Goes Viral
U.S. Senator from New York Kirsten Elizabeth Gillibrand asked the internet to imagine “if half of Congress was women. If half of all mayors and governors were women. Imagine what could get done.” Her tweet instantly ignited heated discussion about gender diversity in politics, receiving 75,000 likes and 21,000 retweets, and all of this huge attention only proves that it’s a topic worth debating about.
Gillibrand – who is a Democrat – earned national recognition for fighting the Pentagon over how sexual assaults are handled by the US military. She also leads a project, called “Off the Sidelines” that supports women candidates across her country. Do you agree with the senator’s statement or not? Let us know in the comment section below!
More info: Twitter
Everything started with this tweet
To which Tyson Davis quickly responded
And it started escalating
But while some agreed on the original statement
Others did not
And a few commenters even thought that the whole discussion was meaningless
What do you think? Is Senator Gillibrand right?
I'd settle for 51% of a Congress being intelligent, caring and honest (no matter their race, sex, gender identity or religious preference).
50% of citizens are women. So I see it as a normal thing if 50% of parliament were women. Not because they'd do better. In many cases, men are not there "because they do better". So there's a lot going on against "female shares", forgetting that as a matter of facts there are "male shares" today. But still, we have to justify ourselves, we have to say that we'd do better... some women would do good, some would do bad, EXACTLY LIKE MEN.
Agreed. It's good to pick people for jobs based on how well they are qualified. However, a democratic government should strive to be a representation of its adult populous. This concept in my opinion would also stretch beyond gender.
Load More Replies...
I'm thinking that the "Race" and "Gender/Sex" cards are getting badly torn, creased, and dog-eared. It's time to put them aside, if not totally destroy them. Besides, the "ad hominum" attacks they create are bad debate form and used only to cover a lack of critical thinking and reason. As to Senator Gillibrand's original question: Nothing would change, except the (gender-based) titles of those in charge. Foolishness is not the exclusive prerogative of any one group of people.
Cards. Just cards, huh? So I guess racism and sexism no longer exist or never existed, right? That people just act oppressed and use it to get their way? Oh great let's just ignore what's happening and has happened in our history... if you close your eyes, racism and sexism will just go away right, like they were never there? Ignorance is bliss, after all. Not to mention that women are just making up stuff, that the fact that there is a majority of male politicians doesn't actually influence what laws are passed that negatively affect women. Oh, sarcasm. But seriously, women would be less nervous about the whole abortion debate, among other things, if more lawmakers were female...
Load More Replies...
I mean, yeah. But also, no. Judge a person by their merits. I agree that we need to change the people in our (the U.S.) government, but it's about their merits, but about choosing based off of who they are. That's just as bad as choosing someone because they're a man.
The current Canadian Federal Cabinet (heads of departments) started as gender-balanced* under Justin Trudeau. There was the same kind of "most qualified person for the job" controversy here, but that argument falls apart a bit when you look at actual current and past governments - is every position actually filled by the absolute best choice, and most qualified person for the job, in practice? Food for thought. In practice it hasn't really had any measurable effect so far. I think the logic is that women as a whole have somewhat different concerns, priorities, etc. from men, so a government where most of the decision makers are men is less likely to address (or be aware of) these concerns, and since ~50% of the population is female, that is bad for democracy, individual liberties, and the general function of society. *I'm genuinely not sure this concept could survive another election cycle here because of the fairly abrupt shift in how gender is discussed in the mainstream.
I'm not sure about exactly 50% of congress, but for sure there needs to be more women. All of these ridiculous laws about women's reproductive rights and taxes on women's hygiene products wouldn't exist. There also needs to be some kind of 'basic human decency' test that all potential candidates need to pass in order to go into government. Like treating all human beings as equal human beings, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. What a concept! ALSO: You shouldn't have to be a sickeningly rich in order to run for politics. It pretty much ensures that a good percentage of government is completely out of touch with the average citizen and the suffering they're causing their constituency with their moronic, nonsensical laws. What we have isn't a true democracy anymore. It's capitalism with a thin veil of democracy draped over top. The amount of sway that rich companies and individuals have over government with their 'donations' is sickening. It's bribery, pure and simple.
I think it's far more important to introduce term limits than to worry about gender. Until the old cronies network is dissolved nothing will progress.
While I really don't have my feet planted firmly in the air, I wish like he*l somethings could get done, that need doing, and the need for repairing/rebuilding our highways and bridges being first and foremost. The GOP, the Democrats, The Green Party, Freedom Party, The Party Just To Party Party, The Blue Dog Moderates, just get it done.
He misses the point. Congress is suppose to representative of the people. Congress is 80 percent white, 80 percent male and 92 percent Christian.... I don't know that I trust that group to understand the needs of a poverty line single mother or Muslim doctor or gay gypsy jew (points if you get the last reference)
People should be judged on merit, but different genders experience different things and offer much needed perspectives. It's one sided now
The thing is she asked specifically what if it was 50/50. Seemed like a worthy topic for an interesting discussion within those parameters.
But don't try having it here, lol. All the old dogs are trotting out their old tropes.
Load More Replies... 
There are almost no women in chess top charts. It happens in all animal species, they split in two genders, and each of them is specialized in some tasks. Nature is sexists by nature. That's the way the world works
You also have to admit than nurture is more responsible for gender roles in society. Girls are raised to be a certain thing and boys as well. I personally have never believed in a dominant gender, if we raise our children to be successful and intelligent they will achieve. That being said, I won't deny the merits of your opinion since hundreds of thousands of years is hard to go against, it's time to nuture past nature to achieve an enlightened species.
Load More Replies...
I think that if our leaders weren't elected based on whether or not they could afford to campaign and bribe their way into office. If there were term limitations instead of this being a life long career option. If special interest groups didn't have so much influence on our politicians. There is so much wrong with our government right now. So much more than just gender inequality, or racial representation in government....I honestly don't know if this will ever get fixed before idiots blast us all into extinction in the pursuit of their own interests and in pursuit of greed. Yes there should be more equality but it shouldn't just stop with gender.
Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Jan Brewer...and they all get bought by the same bastards...
It was the women of the GOP that had the bravery to vote with their constituents, and not their party.
We need to stop thinking in terms of gender and more in terms of masculine and feminine principles.
Politcal correctness aside... when I first went into the workplace, the office manager was a woman. I can't count the number of times I heard one of the other women in the office say how much she hated working for a woman office manager.
I have had terrible male bosses and terrible females bosses. Some people just aren't equipped to be leaders regardless of gender.
Load More Replies...
David Cameron Vs Theresa May . Professional politicians are terrible, regardless of gender.
why can;\'t we just elect the people that will actually help I hate this whole "that's sexist" or "that's discriminatory" don't judge people on there race or gender or background judge them on the actions and choices they have made please people I am an 12 year old girl and even I know that please fix this cause I can't help yet I'm not 18 I can't vote or persuade anybody. and No this is not just based off what my parents have said I have done my research because I am concerned that my future children will grow up in a terrible world please fix it. preach over.
The US is the most sexist of the industrialized nations. American men don't like women very much. They certainly don't respect them. A great number of women are just as sexist toward other women. It is a cultural trait of this puritanical, sexist, bigoted nation.
I think a some of the women politicians that are in office now are just as corrupt as their male counter parts. Greed and power do not care if you are a woman or a man. I do believe that a woman has a much harder time of it because it has always been a "man's world". I think a woman can pretty much do anything a man can do even screw up a government.
Since politicians are the lowest form of human, I would not encourage any women I know to become politicians. They can do much better.
The original inhabitants of America were ruled by women which was the reason Europeans called them savages. Women owned the crops, the buildings, the children and decided if there would be war and who would live or die when captured, i.e. Pocahontas.
I think we should have elected officials that reflect the populace, so there would be more women, but it would also mean that the politicians would have average pay checks. We would need to change things so that so much time was not wasted on campaigning and the offices being held were not vulnerable to the interests of other parties. The reasons for there a legislative body that resembles the people represent is that they should also have more of the sensibilities of the people. The millionaires that represent us are so far removed....
If those women were like Nancy Pelosi and Pocahontas, then heck no no no.
Male or female, the US government has become a joke. Both of the 2 parties are bought and paid for by the same few giant corporations. Our best chance to save our country is to try and end the 2-party system. I don't think it's possible to make parties go away, but there are several election reforms that result in getting 6 or 7 political parties, instead of just 2. I'm an activist working to achieve that goal. I'm a member of the group FairVote. Check us out. We have a plan to end the 2 party system with voting reforms. One US state, Maine already passed some of these reforms, so it's totally possible to do. http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation#ranked_choice_voting_pr
Feminism and equality doesn't mean women do it better than men. As a male feminist i am a strong bekiver of eqiality and that woman bring an incredible strength and drive that some men lack. It sucks and i know i will never ever understand the striggle women go throiygh,but just like men, ive met some pretty abusive women in position of power as well and they were as ruthless as some of the men. I wish we can all be equal but himabity loves the power play to much and they will use gender, race and financials to manipulate and take over. Stupidity, intolerence and corruption comes from both sides. However, with this long rant, i do strongly believe that there needs to be a strong presence of women. Most of the succesful older civilizations where matriarchal. These civilozations ended when they went patriarchal. We need to learn from history and not forget the strong women around us who are more than capabke of making the best deciaions for this world.
I think it is worth a try. However, that doesn't mean they get to be in congress because they are women, they need to be qualified as well.
MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE! It doesnt matter if that candidate is a moose!
Just ask Yahoo about their "recently retired" CEO, or Hewlett Packard about Carly Fiorina. What an absurd concept!
I don't think anyone should be given a job (or denied one) based on their gender, regardless whether it's a woman or a man. Just like I don't think someone should be given a job (or denied one) based on their race. It should be based on their ability to do the job. Period.
Should go on 100% qualifications always f$@k gender or race get over it! Do you really want more people who no nothing of which they speak in government positions?
Imagine if half of Congress was women like Sarah Palin. If half of all mayors and governors were women like Sarah Palin. Imagine what could get done. Enjoy your nightmares tonight. Your welcome.
God forbid we should allocate political offices to the best-qualified people. No, Sen. Entitlement wants half without silly stuff like that being a consideration. Somewhere along the line, between my childhood in the 1960s to about 25 years ago, those who were rightly seeking equal opportunity switched to demanding equal outcomes--and set their causes back many years.
Honestly I'm young and you know what? Screw it! I have no intelligent remarks becuase literally anything will contradict anything here. The last comment on this post proves that. Choose people with more qualifications, yes, but men have been given more experience with this type of work as women were seen as unworthy for it. It's just so confusing that I'm going to look at happy puppies and do my research later.
An interesting research was made: women care for the planet more than men. Seems that more women are born these days. Conclusion? The future obviously belong to women and nature knows it.
Link please. In what sense were women more caring for the planet? In the sense of giving the best answers on a questionnaire? I'd be willing to bet you didn't actually pay attention to the study design; I'd also be willing to bet that the study wasn't designed to prove what it purports to prove. (And, if it in fact does somehow prove what you say, I'd enjoy learning how such a thing was actually proven) A lot of studies are created specifically to produce support for a political agenda and are in fact nothing but tautologies and endless babbling syllogisms. Imagine how fast such a statement would be excoriated if the conclusion were reversed.
Load More Replies...
Men and Women think differently so to change it up a little bit would change some things but not a 50/50 split. That's not the answer.
Notice women and the left are not calling for 52% of soldiers to be women, especially on the front lines. How about 52% of work place deaths to be women? How about 52% women in the 25 most hazardous, life-threatening jobs? How about 52% of prison inmates becoming women? How about 52% of false rape accusations accusing women of raping men? If women and liberals had intellectual integrity, they would want these things to represent America as well.
I'm sorry have you seen the massive f**k turd Theresa May has made in the UK. Maybe instead of looking at gender we should look at who is most qualified.
The key to all this is "natural selection" and what a sex, not gender, is biologically better at doing. Those categories that require heavy physical lifting, AND hard choices favor males. Women like Margaret Thatcher are rare exceptions and should be encouraged. If a politician is unable to make those hard choices, they will not make good political leaders. In the same vein, women are far better than men at other things and will always enjoy a majority of participants. In other words, pay no attention to this misguided politician and just let nature follow its own course, instead of trying to force things on to everyone. :O
What a load of s**t. You're the type that would father a bunch of kids and let your wife raise them because "women are better at it". The only thing men are better at is peeing standing up, while women are better at men at giving birth.
Load More Replies...
I'd settle for 51% of a Congress being intelligent, caring and honest (no matter their race, sex, gender identity or religious preference).
50% of citizens are women. So I see it as a normal thing if 50% of parliament were women. Not because they'd do better. In many cases, men are not there "because they do better". So there's a lot going on against "female shares", forgetting that as a matter of facts there are "male shares" today. But still, we have to justify ourselves, we have to say that we'd do better... some women would do good, some would do bad, EXACTLY LIKE MEN.
Agreed. It's good to pick people for jobs based on how well they are qualified. However, a democratic government should strive to be a representation of its adult populous. This concept in my opinion would also stretch beyond gender.
Load More Replies... I'm thinking that the "Race" and "Gender/Sex" cards are getting badly torn, creased, and dog-eared. It's time to put them aside, if not totally destroy them. Besides, the "ad hominum" attacks they create are bad debate form and used only to cover a lack of critical thinking and reason. As to Senator Gillibrand's original question: Nothing would change, except the (gender-based) titles of those in charge. Foolishness is not the exclusive prerogative of any one group of people.
Cards. Just cards, huh? So I guess racism and sexism no longer exist or never existed, right? That people just act oppressed and use it to get their way? Oh great let's just ignore what's happening and has happened in our history... if you close your eyes, racism and sexism will just go away right, like they were never there? Ignorance is bliss, after all. Not to mention that women are just making up stuff, that the fact that there is a majority of male politicians doesn't actually influence what laws are passed that negatively affect women. Oh, sarcasm. But seriously, women would be less nervous about the whole abortion debate, among other things, if more lawmakers were female...
Load More Replies... I mean, yeah. But also, no. Judge a person by their merits. I agree that we need to change the people in our (the U.S.) government, but it's about their merits, but about choosing based off of who they are. That's just as bad as choosing someone because they're a man.
The current Canadian Federal Cabinet (heads of departments) started as gender-balanced* under Justin Trudeau. There was the same kind of "most qualified person for the job" controversy here, but that argument falls apart a bit when you look at actual current and past governments - is every position actually filled by the absolute best choice, and most qualified person for the job, in practice? Food for thought. In practice it hasn't really had any measurable effect so far. I think the logic is that women as a whole have somewhat different concerns, priorities, etc. from men, so a government where most of the decision makers are men is less likely to address (or be aware of) these concerns, and since ~50% of the population is female, that is bad for democracy, individual liberties, and the general function of society. *I'm genuinely not sure this concept could survive another election cycle here because of the fairly abrupt shift in how gender is discussed in the mainstream.
I'm not sure about exactly 50% of congress, but for sure there needs to be more women. All of these ridiculous laws about women's reproductive rights and taxes on women's hygiene products wouldn't exist. There also needs to be some kind of 'basic human decency' test that all potential candidates need to pass in order to go into government. Like treating all human beings as equal human beings, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. What a concept! ALSO: You shouldn't have to be a sickeningly rich in order to run for politics. It pretty much ensures that a good percentage of government is completely out of touch with the average citizen and the suffering they're causing their constituency with their moronic, nonsensical laws. What we have isn't a true democracy anymore. It's capitalism with a thin veil of democracy draped over top. The amount of sway that rich companies and individuals have over government with their 'donations' is sickening. It's bribery, pure and simple.
I think it's far more important to introduce term limits than to worry about gender. Until the old cronies network is dissolved nothing will progress.
While I really don't have my feet planted firmly in the air, I wish like he*l somethings could get done, that need doing, and the need for repairing/rebuilding our highways and bridges being first and foremost. The GOP, the Democrats, The Green Party, Freedom Party, The Party Just To Party Party, The Blue Dog Moderates, just get it done.
He misses the point. Congress is suppose to representative of the people. Congress is 80 percent white, 80 percent male and 92 percent Christian.... I don't know that I trust that group to understand the needs of a poverty line single mother or Muslim doctor or gay gypsy jew (points if you get the last reference)
People should be judged on merit, but different genders experience different things and offer much needed perspectives. It's one sided now
The thing is she asked specifically what if it was 50/50. Seemed like a worthy topic for an interesting discussion within those parameters.
But don't try having it here, lol. All the old dogs are trotting out their old tropes.
Load More Replies... There are almost no women in chess top charts. It happens in all animal species, they split in two genders, and each of them is specialized in some tasks. Nature is sexists by nature. That's the way the world works
You also have to admit than nurture is more responsible for gender roles in society. Girls are raised to be a certain thing and boys as well. I personally have never believed in a dominant gender, if we raise our children to be successful and intelligent they will achieve. That being said, I won't deny the merits of your opinion since hundreds of thousands of years is hard to go against, it's time to nuture past nature to achieve an enlightened species.
Load More Replies... I think that if our leaders weren't elected based on whether or not they could afford to campaign and bribe their way into office. If there were term limitations instead of this being a life long career option. If special interest groups didn't have so much influence on our politicians. There is so much wrong with our government right now. So much more than just gender inequality, or racial representation in government....I honestly don't know if this will ever get fixed before idiots blast us all into extinction in the pursuit of their own interests and in pursuit of greed. Yes there should be more equality but it shouldn't just stop with gender.
Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Jan Brewer...and they all get bought by the same bastards...
It was the women of the GOP that had the bravery to vote with their constituents, and not their party.
We need to stop thinking in terms of gender and more in terms of masculine and feminine principles.
Politcal correctness aside... when I first went into the workplace, the office manager was a woman. I can't count the number of times I heard one of the other women in the office say how much she hated working for a woman office manager.
I have had terrible male bosses and terrible females bosses. Some people just aren't equipped to be leaders regardless of gender.
Load More Replies... David Cameron Vs Theresa May . Professional politicians are terrible, regardless of gender.
why can;\'t we just elect the people that will actually help I hate this whole "that's sexist" or "that's discriminatory" don't judge people on there race or gender or background judge them on the actions and choices they have made please people I am an 12 year old girl and even I know that please fix this cause I can't help yet I'm not 18 I can't vote or persuade anybody. and No this is not just based off what my parents have said I have done my research because I am concerned that my future children will grow up in a terrible world please fix it. preach over.
The US is the most sexist of the industrialized nations. American men don't like women very much. They certainly don't respect them. A great number of women are just as sexist toward other women. It is a cultural trait of this puritanical, sexist, bigoted nation.
I think a some of the women politicians that are in office now are just as corrupt as their male counter parts. Greed and power do not care if you are a woman or a man. I do believe that a woman has a much harder time of it because it has always been a "man's world". I think a woman can pretty much do anything a man can do even screw up a government.
Since politicians are the lowest form of human, I would not encourage any women I know to become politicians. They can do much better.
The original inhabitants of America were ruled by women which was the reason Europeans called them savages. Women owned the crops, the buildings, the children and decided if there would be war and who would live or die when captured, i.e. Pocahontas.
I think we should have elected officials that reflect the populace, so there would be more women, but it would also mean that the politicians would have average pay checks. We would need to change things so that so much time was not wasted on campaigning and the offices being held were not vulnerable to the interests of other parties. The reasons for there a legislative body that resembles the people represent is that they should also have more of the sensibilities of the people. The millionaires that represent us are so far removed....
If those women were like Nancy Pelosi and Pocahontas, then heck no no no.
Male or female, the US government has become a joke. Both of the 2 parties are bought and paid for by the same few giant corporations. Our best chance to save our country is to try and end the 2-party system. I don't think it's possible to make parties go away, but there are several election reforms that result in getting 6 or 7 political parties, instead of just 2. I'm an activist working to achieve that goal. I'm a member of the group FairVote. Check us out. We have a plan to end the 2 party system with voting reforms. One US state, Maine already passed some of these reforms, so it's totally possible to do. http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation#ranked_choice_voting_pr
Feminism and equality doesn't mean women do it better than men. As a male feminist i am a strong bekiver of eqiality and that woman bring an incredible strength and drive that some men lack. It sucks and i know i will never ever understand the striggle women go throiygh,but just like men, ive met some pretty abusive women in position of power as well and they were as ruthless as some of the men. I wish we can all be equal but himabity loves the power play to much and they will use gender, race and financials to manipulate and take over. Stupidity, intolerence and corruption comes from both sides. However, with this long rant, i do strongly believe that there needs to be a strong presence of women. Most of the succesful older civilizations where matriarchal. These civilozations ended when they went patriarchal. We need to learn from history and not forget the strong women around us who are more than capabke of making the best deciaions for this world.
I think it is worth a try. However, that doesn't mean they get to be in congress because they are women, they need to be qualified as well.
MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE! It doesnt matter if that candidate is a moose!
Just ask Yahoo about their "recently retired" CEO, or Hewlett Packard about Carly Fiorina. What an absurd concept!
I don't think anyone should be given a job (or denied one) based on their gender, regardless whether it's a woman or a man. Just like I don't think someone should be given a job (or denied one) based on their race. It should be based on their ability to do the job. Period.
Should go on 100% qualifications always f$@k gender or race get over it! Do you really want more people who no nothing of which they speak in government positions?
Imagine if half of Congress was women like Sarah Palin. If half of all mayors and governors were women like Sarah Palin. Imagine what could get done. Enjoy your nightmares tonight. Your welcome.
God forbid we should allocate political offices to the best-qualified people. No, Sen. Entitlement wants half without silly stuff like that being a consideration. Somewhere along the line, between my childhood in the 1960s to about 25 years ago, those who were rightly seeking equal opportunity switched to demanding equal outcomes--and set their causes back many years.
Honestly I'm young and you know what? Screw it! I have no intelligent remarks becuase literally anything will contradict anything here. The last comment on this post proves that. Choose people with more qualifications, yes, but men have been given more experience with this type of work as women were seen as unworthy for it. It's just so confusing that I'm going to look at happy puppies and do my research later.
An interesting research was made: women care for the planet more than men. Seems that more women are born these days. Conclusion? The future obviously belong to women and nature knows it.
Link please. In what sense were women more caring for the planet? In the sense of giving the best answers on a questionnaire? I'd be willing to bet you didn't actually pay attention to the study design; I'd also be willing to bet that the study wasn't designed to prove what it purports to prove. (And, if it in fact does somehow prove what you say, I'd enjoy learning how such a thing was actually proven) A lot of studies are created specifically to produce support for a political agenda and are in fact nothing but tautologies and endless babbling syllogisms. Imagine how fast such a statement would be excoriated if the conclusion were reversed.
Load More Replies... Men and Women think differently so to change it up a little bit would change some things but not a 50/50 split. That's not the answer.
Notice women and the left are not calling for 52% of soldiers to be women, especially on the front lines. How about 52% of work place deaths to be women? How about 52% women in the 25 most hazardous, life-threatening jobs? How about 52% of prison inmates becoming women? How about 52% of false rape accusations accusing women of raping men? If women and liberals had intellectual integrity, they would want these things to represent America as well.
I'm sorry have you seen the massive f**k turd Theresa May has made in the UK. Maybe instead of looking at gender we should look at who is most qualified.
The key to all this is "natural selection" and what a sex, not gender, is biologically better at doing. Those categories that require heavy physical lifting, AND hard choices favor males. Women like Margaret Thatcher are rare exceptions and should be encouraged. If a politician is unable to make those hard choices, they will not make good political leaders. In the same vein, women are far better than men at other things and will always enjoy a majority of participants. In other words, pay no attention to this misguided politician and just let nature follow its own course, instead of trying to force things on to everyone. :O
What a load of s**t. You're the type that would father a bunch of kids and let your wife raise them because "women are better at it". The only thing men are better at is peeing standing up, while women are better at men at giving birth.
Load More Replies... 
94
86