Re: Women's Representation Amendment (repost)

On Feb 3, 2025 at 1:39:44 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:

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 Board of County Supervisors in Los Angeles County has been 100% women for
years and our quality of life has done nothing but spiral down the shitter.
Vagrant encampments exploded, crime shot through the roof, hundreds of
millions of dollars in damage from BLM riots while they defund the sheriff's
department, billions of dollars of damage and more than two dozen deaths from
wildfires while fire prevention projects and firefighting infrastructure go
unfunded or drastically underfunded in favor of spending tax money on things
like illegal alien handouts.

But sure, let's elect more chicks. That'll make everything better.

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.

Of course if this were ever to be implemented, every single minority grievance
group would demand the same. Which, of course would be impossible to achieve.
With each state allocated only two senators, how can there be a black senator,
a latino senator, a Native American senator, and an Asian senator all at the
same time? We'd also need to ensure one senator was handicapped, one was
Christian, one was Jewish, one was Islamic, one was Wiccan, one was
Zoroastrian, one was Hindu, one was Sikh, one was Buddhist, one was Satanist,
one was atheist, etc. etc. (It's estimated that there are more than 30,000
distinct religious sects on planet earth, so you can see how this could get
out of control real quick.)

And how does this work in a world where men can now put on a dress and declare
themselves a woman and we all have to pretend that he really is a woman?

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

What?!?! There are biological differences between men and women? Heresy! You
bigot!

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.

It would also be a self-serving response. Telling all those other groups to
shove off because "we're special" isn't likely to win you the day.

Granting women the right to constitutionally mandated equal representation in
Congress need not, necessarily, lead to similar legislation for other
under-represented groups.

But it will lead to that and anyone with an IQ higher than that of a rutabaga
knows it.