I'd settle for 51% of a Congress being intelligent, caring and honest (no matter their race, sex, gender identity or religious preference).

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.

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.

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.

They have already done this in many countries and the results have been really great, so I don't actually have to imagine, just do my research.

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)

The thing is she asked specifically what if it was 50/50. Seemed like a worthy topic for an interesting discussion within those parameters.

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

Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Jan Brewer...and they all get bought by the same bastards...

I dunno, Margaret Thatcher was a woman too..... ............

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.

Just f*****g vote based on merit nothing else

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.

Since politicians are the lowest form of human, I would not encourage any women I know to become politicians. They can do much better.

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 are like Nancy Pelosi and Pocahontas , heck no.

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.

Just ask Yahoo about their "recently retired" CEO, or Hewlett Packard about Carly Fiorina. What an absurd concept!

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?

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.

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.

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

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

behind every successful man is a woman so why expect better