Path: ...!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2025 21:39:49 +0000
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2025 13:39:44 -0800
From: Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Hogwasher/5.24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <0001HW.2D516F2001E566B6305AB638F@news.giganews.com>
Subject: Women's Representation Amendment (repost)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv, alt.women
Lines: 80
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-xSzU6CUdWNofQv2vZRieXctV7UArdpkRrEnN8tjawoIL6cmYlEd4V8t/53737G9z0HKuXChQNtJVnpZ!xsljLJJaBOcb7bClAovXAXhtxiAF6kl3XBMnrUilLeL+44wk2dWc+zd2dY40F11KPilXJau97Gag!kDyQ
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5528


Here's something interesting from 2003, in alt.women:

I have an idea designed to help women achieve a more equal political status
with men in the United States, and thereby improve the quality of life for
us all. The basic premise behind the idea is that as long as men maintain
overwhelming control in both the House and the Senate, women's issues will
progress at a much slower pace than they would under balanced
representation.

Thus, stated simply, women, and this country, need a constitutional
amendment requiring gender-balanced representation in Congress. For
example, were a state to now have two male senators, the amendment would
limit candidate eligibility for the next available seat to woman, thereby
achieving gender-balanced representation in the Senate. This balanced
representation would be maintained through each election cycle, and, of
course, be similarly applied to House elections.

The argument in favor of this gender based "quota" system of representation
would be that men and women have profoundly distinctive concerns, and
manners of addressing these concerns, as has been empirically demonstrated
by hundreds of sociological, and psychological, studies. This profound
biology-based difference was ignored by the exclusively male founders of our
constitution, whose imperfect document went as far as prohibiting women,
among others, from voting, let alone holding office.

An expected counter-argument would be that other groups, like ethnic and
racial minority populations, should also be offered proportional
representation in Congress, and since that would most likely be either
unfeasible, unwise, or both, a gender-based congressional representation
amendment should therefore not be allowed so as not to set an unfair
precendent.

A salient response to this argument would be that the differences between
men's and women's concerns, and their approaches to those concerns, are
profoundly, and UNIVERSALLY, more distinct than the differences between male
congressional representatives and other under-represented groups. Granting
women the right to constitutionally mandated equal representation in
Congress need not, necessarily, lead to similar legislation for other
under-represented groups.

A second, and stronger, argument against a gender-balanced representation
amendment would be that it could never succeed, considering the overwhelming
majority of men now in Congress, and the fact that many women would side
with the male majority on this issue.

The response to this argument would be that; firstly, the woman's sufferance
amendment (XIX), ratified on August 18, 1920 convincingly demonstrates the
strength of gender-based equality initiatives in the face of overwhelming,
and seemingly insurmountable, initial opposition. Secondly, women's issues
will advance exceedingly more slowly without attempting to pass a
gender-balanced representation amendment, and thus there would be little to
lose, and much to gain, by presenting this amendment as a national political
issue, and working for its establishment.

The third response would be that gender-balanced representation will make
our representational democracy much fairer (and, in my opinion, more
effective), and should be advanced without regard to political expediency,
or likelihood of success, but simply because it is clearly the right thing
to do. Whether it takes a few years, or a few decades, for Americans to
pass a gender-balanced representation amendment is a matter that only time
will resolve. However, to delay advocating for gender-based representation
is to delay progress in EVERY other congress-dependent women's issue now
being advanced.

Conversing with my girlfriend, a staunch women's rights advocate, led me to
understand the value of promoting this idea of a gender-balanced
representation amendment. When I suggested to her that the term could be
shortened to "balanced representation amendment," and be ascribed the
acronym "BRA," she laughed, so I trust I am not being offensive in
suggesting this somewhat whimsical term for a profoundly promising political
initiative.

I hope you will either forward this article to women's rights activists,
whom you believe would further promote the initiative, and/or present your
own, perhaps better stated, promotion in however many ways you deem
effective. With a little work, and a little luck, we may succeed in having
BRA become a national issue of the 2004 elections.