@JPB,
JPB wrote:
I think the "War on Women" is multi-faceted. The battle of privacy rights for women is certainly embraced by many on the religious right (both males and females). The battle of the glass ceiling against women falls under the bastion of a male-dominated corporate culture. Things are slowly changing in that regard, both in the corporate and national political arenas. Things are getting worse for women in the legislative push at the state level, particularly in red states.
I'm curious, do you think that somehow it should be arranged so that there is rough equity between men and women in the number of corporate executives with a short period of time? If so in how short a time period and how?
Do you believe the Republican party is responsible for our male-dominated corporate culture?
Are they also responsible for our male domninate military leadership structure, and should be somehow forced or encouraged to produce gender parity?
I've not met or worked for a woman CEO, but I have no doubt there are some who are very capable, and I also have no doubt that there are women excutive who, if given the job of CEO of a company would do very well.
Most of the CEOs I've worked for or done business with are or were not very capable executives, and I have no doubt that women CEOs will, in general, match their performance. There is certainly no logical reason why a qualified woman could not perform well in the role of CEO.
As you've noted, progress in this area is being made, and while individual cliques of male executives within a corporation may resist the addition of a female to their ranks, they tend to resist the addition of any new member, irrespective of gender. New members mean new competition, and rightly or wrongly, they often believe a woman who has risen to their level actually has an advantage over them.
I don't think that classifying this as misogyny or characterizing the matter as constitituting a battle in a
War on Women is reasonable.
As for the state level legislative arena in Red States, unless you can identify a Red State where men greatly outnumber women or where the women are the helpless chattel of the males, the women living in these states have a say in the makeup of their state governments, and so your characterization of "things getting worse" for women is entirely subjective, and entirely discounts the possibility that a large segment of the women in those states are in favor of local legislation.
No individual has the right to have the laws they prefer imposed on the state in which he or she lives. Just as many people have left states like California due to their displeasure with the political climate, so too can folks leave Red States for the same reason.
I've no doubt that you have found it objectionable when the federal government has attempted to force a one side fits all approach across the entire nation, when you strongly disagreed with the approach.
Before you go there (just in case it was on your mind to do so), the issue of abortion is not the same as the issue of slavery. Primarily because slaves didn't have the right to move to a state wherein legislation better suited their preferences (to greatly understate the situation).
