What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.
 

Jun. 25 2009 - 3:13 pm | 55 views | 1 recommendation | 5 comments

Elect more women, but not because Dana Perino said so

Dana Perino listens to a reporter's question M...

Image via Wikipedia

I don’t normally pay much attention to what’s posted over at the National Review’s blog, The Corner. I mean, if I had to pick apart every lop-sided argument and pot-shot that Kathryn Lopez made, I wouldn’t have time to write posts on abortion rights or hang out with my gay married friends. 

But this morning’s post by Lopez on her exchange with Dana Perino, former White House press secretary, made my jaw drop. In reference to the adultery of Gov. Mark Sanford, Perino writes bemoaning the philanderers in modern-day politics. And her solution to all this extra-marital sex in Washington?  Elect more women.

While I am not able to explain, I do think I know the answer to all of this: Elect more women. No woman I know has the time for such trysts, nor do I know any who say the desire one. They’re too busy trying to keep all the plates spinning at home, at work, and at the gym to make sure none fall and break.

I mean, of course we should elect more women to office. But is Perino really suggesting (and is Lopez really agreeing!?) that the impetus to women in office is because they’re too busy (read: too sexless) to be having affairs?  

That argument strikes me as awfully similar to that made by Richard Nixon, in his recently released tapes. “I don’t do it because I’m for women,” he said to then GOP Chairman George H.W. Bush, about supporting women for election. “But I’m doing it because (a) woman might win some place where a man might not.” Doesn’t seem like the Republican backing of women in office is any less utilitarian now than it was then.

And let’s not forget that just a few years ago, people were making the exact opposite argument to that made by Perino and Lopez today — that women who had careers were more likely to be having affairs. To wit

While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it.

So which over-generalizing, mind-numbing, anachronistic stereo-type are we to believe? Perino and Lopez’s asexual Mother Mary politician? Or Forbes’s philandering professional feminist?

I’d like to suggest an option C :  We elect more women to office because they’re qualified (well, most are), competent, and – oh yeah - representative of more than 50% of the population. 


Comments

5 Total Comments
Post your comment »
 
  1. collapse expand

    Well in any case, women cheat too, and the idea that electing more of them would stop the practice is just plain silly. Ms. Perino, try again.

  2. collapse expand

    Dana Perino said something silly?
    Stop the presses!!!

  3. collapse expand

    Does anyone remeber who said Janet Nepolatano would be a great Secretary of Homeland Security because she was single? That was such a load of b.s. Amazing.

  4. collapse expand

    Women in politics, I believe, are more warped than their male counterparts. Perino is full of crap.

  5. collapse expand

    As far as why women in politics have virtually “no” extra-marital affairs…it’s a science thing. Read
    here
    .

    It’s not a social thing as the ill-speaking Perino said.

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook
 

My T/S Activity Feed

 
     

    About Me

    While working at Talking Points Memo Muckraker during the 2008 Election, I covered the Justice Department politicization, voting rights law and the insanity of Alaska politics. I loved the beat which was somewhere between the wonky side of politics and the law. The realization was enough to send me off to law school in D.C. -- which seems to be a perfect combination of both.

    Though I've covered everything from birth control to blenders in my few years in journalism, this blog will be a compilation of stories related to the Supreme Court, federal courts, and the law generally. With an occasional story about Sarah Palin or Ted Stevens thrown in for good measure.

    See my profile »
    Followers: 111
    Contributor Since: March 2009
    Location:Brooklyn