New Agenda: Time for Ohio to move women forward
This received via e-mail from The New Agenda:
TIME FOR OHIO TO MOVE WOMEN FORWARD
(Columbus, OH) — The New Agenda, a new national nonpartisan women’s rights organization, calls on both the Ohio Republican and Democratic Parties to nominate a pool of talented women to run for the U.S. Senate in 2010.
“Sen. George V. Voinovich’s decision not to seek re-election next year kicked off a round of jockeying that must include Ohio women,” said Cynthia Ruccia, co-Founder of The New Agenda. “Ohio has never elected a woman to the U.S. Senate even though women represent over 50 percent of the electorate. It’s time for Ohio to lead in moving women forward.”
Women of this country did not fare well in the 2008 election. After the November election, ten states have lower representation of women in state government positions. The U.S. House of Representatives is still 84 percent male, and women lost four seats overall. The U.S. Senate is 83 percent male.
There are a number of highly qualified women who can ably represent Ohioans and their interests in the U.S. Senate. That list includes State Auditor Mary Taylor and former Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Bradley for the Republicans, and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and former Ohio House Minority Leader Joyce Beatty for the Democrats.
Amy Siskind, co-Founder and President of The New Agenda said, “At The New Agenda we know that our country needs talented women in leadership positions and we need them now.”
According to the Center for American Women at Rutgers University, of the 50 states, Ohio ranks in the bottom 20 percent for female
representation in government.
>>a new national nonpartisan women’s rights organization, calls on both the Ohio Republican and Democratic Parties to nominate a pool of talented women to run for the U.S. Senate in 2010.<<
One’s gender has nothing to do with his or her nominatable status since both males and females are equally capable of making bad polices.
So why SHOULD one group call on other groups to discriminate solely on the basis of gender?
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:38 pmWhen we have an equal system where women are considered the same as men then you would have a point, because then we would have achieved the milestone that people were being supported/considered/promoted based on the character of their content and not on their race or gender.
We are not even close to that which is why groups like The New Agenda exist. One’s gender should have nothing to do with it, I hope I live to see that day actually exist when that is demonstrated in deed rather than just in word.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:06 pmThe point is if there is “inequality”, “injustice”, “discrimination” going on, there are already laws and procedures to resolve those problems.
Why doesn’t this group just say obey the laws about discriminatory practices, if that’s what’s really happening?
Instead, this group seems to be asking for “special status” based on their gender and their personal preferences rather than the rule of law.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:16 pmI don’t see this as asking for “special status” what they are doing is pointing out they are aware of the inequities and given the statistical evidence that they are calling upon both parties to consider women.
The numbers speak for themselves.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:40 pmWhat they are saying is “nominate us from this “pool” [instead of others] on the basis that “we’re talented” and “we are women.”
Who cares what their gender is? If gender matters and there are already laws, rules and regulations against discrimination, then why not use those laws?
Gender is irrelevant when it comes to an individual’s qualifications, but this group is trying to make gender the issue. For whatever reason regardless if “inequities” are perceived or actual do not want to go appeal to the existing laws against discrimination.
On that basis alone they are seeking “special rights” because none other than elitists seek to circumvent the law.
Besides, if those who were either for or against Obama believed it was wrong to make his race an issue in his campaign, it is also equally wrong for women to make their gender an issue when being considered for “nominations.”
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:02 pmRace was a factor in the election, by both those for and against Obama as well as gender. It’d be nice to live in a world where the way it “should be” was reality but we don’t live in that world.
It is one thing to say “you can only pick a woman” it’s another to ask that qualified women be considered. I don’t advocate someone being selected strictly on the basis of their sex, but I do believe that more can be done to fairly promote the best candidates, which at times will be women. I advocate for a selection of candidates that is truly diverse and then…let the voters decide in an actual primary process as opposed to one where party higher ups decide who we should be allowed to decide from. A man may very well be who is decided by both Democrats and Republicans in the primary process but it could also be a woman, if the process is done fairly…
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:29 pmYes, of course “if the process is done fairly”, but this “pool of talented women” seem to be insinuating that the process is currently not fair.
I think the process is in fact fair, because if it wasn’t, they could make their case in court and let a judge and/or jury make that determination.
Instead, the question of fairness and equality is being answered within the political arena which is hardly an objective and unbiased way to prove one’s case on its merits. Perhaps they are doing it this way because they know they don’t have a real case.
If there is something unequal with the laws, then they should work to change the laws.
If there is something unjust with the way the people in charge are deciding who should be nominated, then they should work to remove those bad decision makers.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:48 pmProbably because the process as it is done now is not considered fair, if you believe it is? Then it’s apparent you would not understand the concerns or the motivations in trying to point this out publicly.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:51 pmIt’s not considered fair by whom? One group thinks something is fair while another group thinks it is not but what what should be the standard of “fairness”? Opinion? Politics? Feelings?
You demonstrated the point I was trying to make–that it should be left up to a court to decide “injustice to women” because courts are based on the rule of law, rather than public opinion in the political arena.
If the courts err based on bad laws, then there is the option to get the laws changed.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:01 pmJay, have you ever been involved in the screening process for a political party? It’s clear you think what is currently happening is fair, it’s also clear we don’t agree on that so I don’t think either of us is going to change our positions on the lack of diversity in our elected representation.
You might want to visit the New Agenda site and read their goals. While you will probably still disagree with their beliefs, it might help shed some light on where they are coming from.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:41 pmJay-I have to agree with most of what you say. It is and should be all about a viable candidate, a quality candidate.
Lisa- This group and its goal is no different than that of the police and fire departments with their hiring/promotional practices based on race/gender vs. quality… you want a partner on the street who consistently fails the firearms test, but is promoted anyway just to meet quota???
January 24th, 2009 at 8:42 amWhen endorsing candidates, the gender can be a factor – it’s hard for a man to run against a woman because of the perception that a male can’t ‘beat up’ on a female. It’s a strategic consideration, though, not one of discrimination or bias.
What this group forgets, in their effort to get women to run, is the desire of the women themselves. If any of the four women mentioned in the press release decided to seek the office of Senator, they’d do so – and they’d have considerable backing because of their prior successes and demonstrated ability to garner votes.
There has been discussion about Mary Taylor considering the run – but a large portion of Republicans want her to remain in the Auditor’s Office, especially because she’s the only Republican in state-wide office. Again – a strategic consideration not based upon discrimination or bias regarding gender.
Despite the national statistics, Ohio – and especially Lucas County – have been good to women when it comes to elections. Women don’t have 50% of elective offices, but we also don’t have equal numbers of women and men deciding to run – again, not because of discrimination or bias, but primarily because of interest.
However, both parties and private groups should encourage more qualified people to seek public office – regardless of race, gender, etc, etc…
January 24th, 2009 at 9:02 amOhio ranks in the bottom 20 percent for female representation in government which was what was stated in the press release is not my idea of “being good to women.” I don’t disagree with Maggie that Lucas County has more elected women, and Sylvania Township does but that can’t be said for Toledo or many other parts of NWO. City Council as an example, three women and one is not seeking re-election, it’s very likely there will only be two women on Council out of 12.
I disagree that it’s because of a lack of interest, it’s a lack of support and at times bias and discrimination. This list by New Agenda was suggestions/examples and I don’t disagree with the belief that if you are in one elected position you should stay there, similar to those who have suggested Kaptur consider the Senate race. It’s as if they take just from a small pool of women when there are more out there that could very well be just as qualified, perhaps even more so. I do however support the general idea of pointing out the lack of diversity and the gender discrepancy.
This isn’t about quotas or courts, in my opinion, it’s about public perceptions, party good old boy networks, it’s about encouraging more women to run and one way to do that is to stop sitting at the back of the political party and “waiting your turn” or being questioned if you as a mother can handle a position that a father is not asked that question. (Just one example of the discrimination factor that appears to be built into the political/public vetting process.)
I encourage and support the concept of more women in office the same way I do for more women to blog, especially about politics because I think having a diversity of opinions and experiences makes us more informed and better in the long run as far as decisions/representation and I’m not going to apologize for that belief Henri…
January 24th, 2009 at 10:14 am