Women Rising
This video is an advertisement in support of a group of women running for national office in these midterms.
I am compelled by this advertisement and these women. I am very hopeful that women like these will increasingly lead our congress and our country.
Comments (Archived):
Rightfully so, it should. In Ethiopia, the first woman president was just elected, and…37% of Ethiopia’s parliamentary seats are held by women (twice the ratio of women in the US Congress), plus women are holding 50% of the top ministerial positions. [Source from 2 days ago: https://www.voanews.com/a/w…]
Ask almost anyone (boys/men in particular) who would be or is better running their household and managing the family at almost every level. Well I’d suggest 80%+ of the time it’s mom.We hear this talk of businessmen who run businesses can run our government.Well I suggest that women run our homes and households.I’m confident that they can run our government better.
Women might be able to run our government better, however I don’t think that saying they run households well is a great supporting argument for that.Politics is about deal making and getting others to agree with your point of view as well as compromise. As such someone running a household (which is confined and where you have (if you want) sticks for compliance (punishments)) is vastly different than when you don’t. Plus you are dejure in charge and get the final say. Sure some are better at it than others. As I always brag my teenage stepkids clean the kitchen floor and do a good job with it among other choirs. But i have and employ sticks and manipulation to get that done which I wouldn’t have in office.Also part of the argument for successful men who have run businesses being in office is also simply because they aren’t ‘politicians’ as much as the fact that they have been in business. Also there is always a kind of halo around certain people as a result of success which doesn’t factor in luck in any way to that halo.It usually goes something like ‘well he built X so therefore he can also do Y and is the Christ figure we need to get us out of this mess with his good ideas!’.Most importantly the first part ‘he built’ is never just ‘he’ it’s a host of others who helped ‘he’ that won’t be around in the government that ‘he’ will depend on.
It depends on the household.And the kid.I once had to negotiate with my four year old who resisted going to preschool the morning I had to drive downtown to meet a prospective client. Finally, driving away after an intense session I thought there was nothing the prospect could throw at me that would represent a greater challenge.
Me too.
Couldn’t agree more.Putting my votes and my money behind many.The quality of younger, women, diverse candidates being fielded by the Democrats is really impressive and if elected, will change the conversation as it most sorely needs to be.
This is a great advertisement and promotion for women running for office.That said it does reinforce repeating themes (which is part of what people do not like about politics):a) In order to run you need to have money and high level people surrounding you to get into and win the game. This video is top flight (not that I wouldn’t change a few things about it) and definitely will get voters to act and support these women. So it’s a win for sure. But yes it took gobs of money and very expensive talent to do this type of production. (Just confirmed)b) The entire video screams ‘see we are just like men – we are tough and had tough jobs and we are accomplished’. Most of these women are not relatable to what we can call ‘the average woman’.Backup for my points (which I dug up after writing the above):Production Company: http://parkpictures.com/Talent: https://www.adsoftheworld.c…Pac: https://www.fec.gov/data/co…
Scandinavian studies (where gender opportunities are most the equal in the western world) have shown conclusively that women are not just like men.
Who could possibly question that?The value of diversity is because people are different.
no one should, but that video is composed of a group of women who seem to have a very similar professional background. where’s the diversity of experience?
Dunno about this video but the diversity of women and others running is truly inspiring.
You seem to seek and praise “diversity” over qualifications, capabilities, accomplishments, results, promise of results, etc. Diversity alone is so good because of WHAT THE HECK????Do we pick winners in the NFL, NBA, Olympics, The Masters, Wimbledon based on diversity? Do we award Nobel prizes in physics, chemistry, or medicine based on diversity — right, I omitted the Nobel Peace prize, the ones on literature and maybe economics. I’m really reluctant to believe that diversity will help much on the SAT or GRE tests.My guess is that the Democrats and liberals want to use white guilt to promote diversity as just another excuse to get power to pursue their usual hidden agendas.Trump has been claiming, maybe with some significant truth, that in fact, actually, in reality, the Democrats and liberals have been bad news for the people to be counted as contributing to “diversity”. So, Trump has asked Blacks, in leaving the Democrats who have actually done so little for you, “What do you have to lose?”.As long as I get wildly overly emotional, hysterical, obsessive, irrational, dangerous, destructive nonsense from Mazie “Men need to shut up. I believe Dr. Ford” Hirono, Nancy Pelosi “The San Francisco Treat” (recall the ad jingle for Rice-a-Roni or some such), Maxine “Impeach 45; get into their faces” Waters, Dianne “I did not leak” Feinstein, Kamala “Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman …” Harris, Claire “I can afford to lose some in the boot” McCaskill, Fauxcahontas “My failed DNA test increases trust in government”, Kirsten “To Trump, ‘F… NO!'” Gillibrand, I won’t want them in government, even if they are red, white, blue, black, white, male/female, Asian, Caucasian, Hispanic, African, Arab, Persian, etc. In the words of M. L. King, we need to pay attention to “the quality of their character”, …, etc.
.It is diverse in that the Dems as a body are generally anti-military.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
.Isn’t the liberal reality that you can look different as long as you think the same?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
That has been my experience. Also to define the crime it’s not someone talking their game. It’s saying their game is right, just or the only way to think. Or that thinking a certain way is correct and makes you a better person (and therefore implies others are defective). That is what bothers me. Also ‘splitting’ that is seeing things as or right, wrong, black, white with no middle ground or gray areas ever allowed.To me the lack of acceptance and discussion is the real issue. We see that in how quickly Megan Kelly was shut down for what she said. [1] Ditto for the Netflix executive who was fired by Reed Hastings.[1] Even if it was used simply as a leg to stand on to void a contract for other reasons.
yes.
However Scandinavian’s are also not like Americans. So…
in what way?
Well to cherry pick one person’s opinion (with Finland not part of Scandinavia but will suffice for what I am saying):http://www.finland.org/publ…Americans can be wary of public policy solutions, especially when it comes to government services, even though in some cases a public service might be the most efficient and sensible solution to a problem, instead of leaving everyone to struggle to work it out for themselves, individually….Nordics strongly believe that in many cases the best way to expand individual freedom, improve everyone’s quality of life, and support equality of opportunity is smart government services that serve everyone, instead of leaving it up to each individual or family to figure it out on their own.The makeup of Nordic countries of course is vastly different than the US. Plus their system is legacy of what has always been based on their culture and the way people have been raised and who they are surrounded with. Look in the US we don’t care about the Queen, right? You do (you are in the UK)? You have been raised that way it’s baked in.Here is a good example of difference that I can give. I am dealing with a woman in Japan who will not sell something that I want to buy. The reason? It was owned by her son, he died prematurely, and she does not want to ‘disturb the memory of the dead’. Or something like that. As such she has turned down large amounts of money for what I want to buy. Little old lady who could use the money. The contact with her has been by a person who I hired who is quite familiar with Japanese culture. Someone who is the head of the asian language studies department of a major university. It’s a cultural thing apparently. That would almost certainly not be the case with most Americans we don’t (at least on average) act that way it’s not part of our culture. (Some exact facts in my summary have been changed but the point I am making in a general sense is stands).
I think that “not everything is for sale” is a good thing. But I also believe in that “everything has a price”. Maybe your bid was too low considering the lady has cultural convictions.
You sometimes run into nut jobs. An example (might be) Vera Coking not selling out in Atlantic City and allowing casinos to be built around her house. While it is possible that the cocky developers screwed up the process it’s also possible that even with the best kid gloves she would not sell. Just because. Some people are just mentally messed up (changed from ‘mentally ill’). This is not saying Vera Coking was. But people are all over the map and you get outliers and non rationality. My dad bought plenty of properties off of widows that nobody else could deal with (at least as he would tell me I don’t know how true it was). But he would kind of get to know them first and suck up in his own way prior to going in for the kill. And he wasn’t big and brash and knew how to behave himself and they weren’t building casinos or anything like that in the area. And he did it himself not by lawyers and intermediaries.Quality of life wise you can fully understand why someone wouldn’t want to give up their house that they are comfortable with if they don’t view money as important or don’t need the money. That makes sense fully. What doesn’t make sense (and shows non rationality) is not factoring in how that lifestyle would change if a casino is built right around your house. Also possible she was advised incorrectly by advisers who had no down side.https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
Yes, the Fins came late to the European party, as did the Magyars. Both languages are impenetrable to Germanic (and Romance) speakers.In my view Lizzie is a political prisoner, trapped inside a system of power over which she has little influence. She was once quoted as saying “there are networks of power in this country (UK) that we know nothing about”. Quite revealing.Culture, and the things we do without even thinking. It’s fascinating.Britain is not a good case study. Being an island, and thinking about Darwinism (gigantism and dwarfism), and marginal cost benefit of utility distribution), we here suffer more than most from the malign power of a centralised state. The UK is finished. It is literally falling apart in front of my eyes, and that’s a good thing. I favour a Swiss-style model local governance.
I have the conviction that political organizations run by gender balanced teams produce better results in the long term, once the initial shock of the power shift is over.I don’t like the message in the video “Hey, we have jobs than men have, we could work as representatives too”.. You have the numbers, this time leave the kids with your husbands, couples… and go out and vote for.. women. A kinder, better world would emerge.
Golda Mabovitch showed women the path of women in politics 100 years ago.
I think she was the 3rd woman to become head of government.Sirimavo Bandaranaike – 1960. First woman non-hereditary head of government. From 1960-65; 1970-77; 1994-2000.Indira Gandhi – 1966. From 1966-77 and 1980-84.Golda Meir – 1969. From1969-74.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…AKA Golda Mier
Love the advertisement and looking forward to transforming governance. It would be nice if you could run a series, profiling some of these and other women running for public office.
TCP/IP looks like a feminine protocol: “Don’t ask. Do tell”: https://medium.com/@brittb/….While the default male verbs are “Kill, Control, Coopt & Quiet.” I’m wedded to the view that the arc of the moral universe is bending away from institutionalized patriarchy even as deeply as the protocol level.That’s as optimistic as Dr. Lewis Thomas’ 1974 declaration in Lives of a Cell: http://booksneverread-rays….”We have language… We have affection. We have genes for usefulness, and usefulness is about as close to a ‘common goal’ of nature as I can guess at.”We should form a Laddies’ Auxiliary to support these women. https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
.These are not good “women” candidates, they are excellent candidates without the knee jerk reference to their gender.The problem is they immediately fall into tribal politics.New faces, old worn ideas poisoned by entrenched partisans preaching bankrupt policies.”Resist” is neither a policy nor a viable alternative to a robust economy. Haters are not ideators.This is why we need term limits to create room at the top to allow new leaders to emerge, to allow new ideas to disrupt the establishment status quo.These candidates have to win locally and waves of outside money will ultimately be unsuccessful (talking to you Beto).We need new faces, new ideas, new leaders. This is not a new notion.Cong Mia LoveSen Kay Bailey HutchisonExcellent exemplars.Give us new ideas. Ideas which make sense. Not old wine in new vessels I’d vote for a Marine fighter pilot with new ideas who was not a Nancy Pelosi acolyte.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
This is why we need term limits to create room at the topI know that many people support term limits as ‘the answer’ (a theme of mine ie ‘try a paleo diet that’s the ticket! Or with all due respect to Arnold ‘cbd that’s the ticket’) however in the end doesn’t that shift the power to the inmates from the guards?In this case ‘the inmates’ are = ‘existing lifers working in politics who ‘manipulate the guards”. Per our back and forth the other day about lack of knowledge of newcomers depending on others.Term limits shift things whereby someone stands to gain in another way by being in a certain position. [1] So perhaps their actions will not be entirely pure. People work for the USPTO and do it ‘a certain kind of way’ to get a position after the fact at an IP law firm. In that case getting life may be better.Not saying it’s not an idea but not without drawbacks.[1] For example I remember working for an attorney in high school and where another attorney in the same office was ‘Chancellor of the Bar Association’. As a kid in high school I was all impressed with that. Mrs. Legal secretary (who ran the office for ‘Mr Lawyer’ who I worked for) says to me ‘oh that’s just ceremonial and only for a year’. So it’s a resume enhancer. Sure impressed me though (and I am certain potential clients). Medical societies do this as well giving term limits.
I see more likely that a change in gender representation will come from the center left than the right.What does Mrs. JLM or your perfect daughter think about this? What women think about this is what matters.
For yourI am compelled by this advertisement and these women. I am very hopeful that women like these will increasingly lead our congress and our country.I’m reminded of:”Be careful of what you wish for because you might get it.””Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear and still will believe twice too much.””Measure twice. Saw once.””Men’s eternally unanswerable question, what does a woman want?”Net, IMHO, it’s super tough to respond to that ad. Being already “compelled” is a very fast reaction.If I write Girls 101 for Dummies — Boys I will try to emphasize (A) the wide variety of attitudes of women today and (B) the extreme difficulty men will have in evaluating the potential of women. For (A), the wide variety seems to be from changes in culture, especially economies, technology, with the fall in importance of small villages, traditional marriages, the birth rate, and extended families. For (B) the variety and the short track record, say, less than 100 years for the variety in contrast with the tens of thousands of years for what went before, make evaluating the potential very difficult. Since men and women are so different generally, for a man to evaluate the potential of some women in new roles is especially difficult.Then I will move on to assert that there was a traditional role, and apparently it was terrific in the senses that (A) it had terrific reproductive advantage, (B) commonly had women as wives and mothers doing fantastically well at hard work and devotion to family, and (C) was quite reliable. For (C), a young man could follow usual norms, think very little, find her, have the two of them love each other deeply, right away get her married and pregnant, maybe not in that order, and have a really good shot at building a terrific family and “living happily ever after”.Observation: Maybe 20,000 years ago a generation was about 15 years. Or, otherwise explain why human females enter puberty commonly between ages 10 and 13? Taking 15, that means that the bride and groom had parents of about 30, grand parents of about 45, great grand parents of about 60, and a shot at great great grand parents, all in the same village and, thus, within a mile or so. Add that up, and the young couple had 30 or so ancestors, experienced and successful at family formation, likely highly devoted to the young couple, right there 24 x 7 to help with all the small things and the big things in family formation. E.g., athttps://www.youtube.com/wat…see the Spencer Tracy, Elizabeth Taylor movie Father’s Little Dividend (1951) where the doofus young husband and wildly overly emotional wife (Taylor) make a mess out of their marriage but the four, wealthy, doting grand parents save the marriage.The rules were simple and well understood. There was a LOT of help in following the rules. Follow the rules and get a good family. Even with ice ages, epidemics, tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons, droughts, floods, injuries, poisonous plants, snakes, and insects, predatory animals, bad water, no effective medical care, etc., populations could grow quickly. E.g., supposedly from 1800 to 1850, the US population of European descent grew, just from babies born in the US, by a factor of 4. Net it worked GREAT.Net, if want to know with high reliability what women, including teen women, really CAN do that is amazing, it’s be a young wife and mother in as in the US from 1800 to 1850.In comparison today, (A) people move around and have small families with a generation 20, 25, or 30 years so that newly weds have maybe only 1 to 4 ancestors available to help with information on family formation, (B) the old rules and other structures are mostly gone, (C) the variety of what women believe they want and try to do is enormous, nothing like the clear, single path of 1800 or tens of thousands of years ago, (D) about 1/3rd of US marriages end in divorce, (E) a lot of women who try being a wife and mother soon get discouraged, dissatisfied, disillusioned, depressed, frustrated, angry, unproductive, destructive, etc. as in the Betty Friedan, The Problem That Has No Name as athttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov…and (F), for a devastating summary measure, here in the US the birth rate is so low we are literally going extinct; we have never gone extinct all the way back to the first worm that wiggled out of some mud, but now we are going extinct.So, for the video ad, none of those women have been following the simple old rules that worked. So, just first cut, we are lacking an attractive track record.In my book, I would warn young men: Human females that for so many tens of thousands of years did so well with the rules are, as basically the rules permitted, MUCH more emotional, which of course likely had reproductive advantage, and, consequently, much less rational and much less well suited to using rationality to be successful at new things, than men. Then, sure, those women in the ad did well in the military, but there they received intense training and, in effect, plenty of rules on just what to do and how to do it. For just what those women will do in situations with next to nothing in effective rules and that are quite new for them, individually or collectively, e.g., politics, we are very short on evidence of their potential.So, I’d so warn young men and also current voters.
The first woman to run for president did so in 1870.https://uploads.disquscdn.c…https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
@fredwilson, pro tip. If you want a successful bipartisan campaign about promoting women in government then through in a republican in to this video it will be taken more seriously.
Otherwise it looks like the same old, vote for me, I’m a woman, Hillary campaign.
What = sound. How = garbage.Great candidates who happen to be women, fill your boots. List 50 more.Encouraging people to blanket support women candidates? Irresponsible, virtue signalling pandering.Don’t go around bad mouthing Trump if you are going to play the game his way.
All of these women seem to have a background in military and ‘combat’ (aka – killing/fighting in some way or the other). Are you sure they have the right mindset to establish a thriving democratic society without leveraging violent tools?
On sovereignty, the glaring (but little mentioned, and then only in hushed tones) issue is why so many members of your congress have dual nationality… with the same other country. is the US an independent polity, or a vassal state?
Spanberger (VA-7) is great and in a dead heat vs Dave Brat (about whom I will reserve comment) in a very Republican district. https://www.washingtonpost….Leslie Coburn (VA-5) is in a similar boat, (while not a veteran but an ex-journalist) also great, and similarly worthy of support.Jennifer Wexton (VA-10) is pretty much odds-on at this point.That’s just Virginia.
All I can say is WOW… good on them for wanting to serve. May they all be successful in creating a country built on the core principles of liberty and service for others.