Moms Running the House -- and the Senate

Great article in yesterday's Washington Post about the record number of moms in Congress raising young kids today:
Mom's in the House, With Kids at Home: For Congresswomen With Young Children, a Tough Balance
.

Turns out we currently have 10 (count 'em, 10!) moms in Congress raising kids under 13, including Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.). Not surprisingly, these moms face the same work/family balancing act most of us moms face. What's different is that their kids are thousands of miles away from their offices, and their decisions about combining work and raising children are made under a political spotlight.

Nice to know these high-voltage public servants also confront our country's lovely double standard -- their male colleagues are congratulated for being involved in their children's lives, while big question marks arise when women with young children run for office.


Men running for office get kudos from voters for raising young children, but women are often penalized for it, said Celinda Lake, the Democratic pollster who has tracked voter attitudes on the topic for the past 20 years.

"For male candidates, people think having young children is a total plus -- people think, 'Oh, this is great, he's going to be concerned about family issues, he'll be more future-oriented,' " she said. "A male with young kids, everyone likes it -- men, women, seniors." For women, it's a different story.

And these women, despite their public responsibilities, long days and distance from their families, are expected to do it all as moms and politicians and questioned or demeaned for needing help from husbands and paid caregivers.

"Men have this fixture called a wife that's going to take care of the children," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for the American Woman and Politics at Rutgers University's Eagleton Institute of Politics. "We hear very often from women who are running or elected that they wish they had a wife, someone to deal with the children, have fresh food in the house, pick up the dry cleaning."

But also like us, these women seem determined to make it all work -- thankfully. Many of the issues they are fighting for are ones near and dear to the most passionate discussions on this blog: children's health and safety, women's equal rights, and of course -- breastfeeding.

Often, motherhood colors the legislation they propose. Wasserman Schultz has introduced a bill to improve swimming pool safety, because accidental drownings account for the second-highest number of injury-related deaths of children under 14. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) is pushing a bill to ensure the rights of women to breast-feed in public. And Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) is trying to increase federal money for childhood cancer research.

So what do you think? Do you have a mom representing your state or district? How much does it matter to you to have a mom as your political mouthpiece?

By Leslie Morgan Steiner |  July 20, 2007; 7:00 AM ET  | Category:  Free-for-All
Previous: Adding an Animal to the Balancing Act | Next: Labor Imbalance


Add On Balance to Your Site
Keep up with the latest installments of On Balance with an easy-to-use widget. It's simple to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry to On Balance.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Sorry to be picky (especially on a Friday) but Blanche Lincoln is from Arkansas (AR) not Alaska (AK).

Posted by: auntb | July 20, 2007 7:47 AM

"Do you have a mom representing your state or district? How much does it matter to you to have a mom as your political mouthpiece?"

Yeah, a mom named Clinton. Dunno if having a mom as a political mouthpiece makes much difference.

Posted by: Guns 'n Roses | July 20, 2007 7:48 AM

Get a grip, Leslie. There's nothing inherently maternal (as opposed to fatherly, or child-free) about proposing legislation to improve swimming pool safety, ensure the rights of women to breast-feed in public, or increase federal money for childhood cancer research. Just as there's nothing inherently masculine about supporting Bush's war in Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 7:48 AM

Yea, Leslie's always promoting the theory that there's something magical about motherhood, compared to fatherhood.

Posted by: To 7:48 | July 20, 2007 7:51 AM

Back to bed....

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 7:53 AM

re: Blanche Lincoln -- This has been fixed.

Posted by: washingtonpost.com | July 20, 2007 7:56 AM

"Back to bed...."

Great idea! I'll get the booze and jump in with you!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 7:56 AM

To July 20, 2007: The WaPo article from yesterday said that motherhood colored their choice of legislation, not Lesley. I tend to agree that you are way more likely to see a woman, particularly a mother, introducing legislation on breastfeeding. Of course, it's not exclusively a "woman's issue" but please . . .

I don't have a woman representing my district but loved that article and told my almost 8 year old daughter all about it. I was really impressed with the balancing act these women face and was particularly intrigued about how the work hours in Congress have gone up under Nancy Pelosi - mom, grandmom, extraordinare!!

Posted by: PT Fed Mof2 | July 20, 2007 7:58 AM

re: Blanche Lincoln -- This has been fixed.

Posted by: washingtonpost.com | July 20, 2007 07:56 AM

Why fix it? Why not let readers see Leslie's sloppiness, so we can judge her accurately?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 8:01 AM

"I tend to agree that you are way more likely to see a woman, particularly a mother, introducing legislation on breastfeeding."

Why?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 8:02 AM

Sure it's great that Congress includes moms. But for Leslie to attribute special qualities to them based on their motherhood is voodoo politics.

Posted by: To PT Fed Mof2 | July 20, 2007 8:03 AM

I think my one congresswoman has five grown children, but that is not why I voted for her. I voted for her because she represents my beliefs and ideals. I would vote for a single mother, childless woman, gay man, straight, single man, married man, or even a dog if they could get the job done.

It's great for these women to be able to be mothers while serving an important function for our country, but I highly doubt that anyone, even the dog, would vote against increasing child cancer research or for making pools safer.

Posted by: scarry | July 20, 2007 8:34 AM

Hey anonymous --

If dads in particular, and men in general, are so wonderful about creating legislation that protects women and children, why is it a more serious crime to steal a car than rape a woman or child? Why do we have such minimal support for mothers, less than nearly every other developed country? Why does almost all medical research focus on men? Why did we need Title IX? Why did women need to fight for decades, if not centuries, to vote?

You're full of it!

I'm not saying female politicians are perfect. But at least they care more about issues effecting women. We need more of them at every level of politics, government and business.

And thanks for the state abbreviation fix!

Posted by: Leslie | July 20, 2007 8:35 AM

I don't think you can be a good Mom from that far away. They may be being good politicians, but I think you need to be present in your kids' lives in a much more active way. Same with Dads. You shouldn't have them if you're not going to be there for them.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 8:43 AM

Get your facts straight, Leslie.

It IS a more serious crime in the US to rape a woman or child than to steal a car.

The greater support for mothers in most other developed countries was implemented by governments with a majority of male politicians.

Medical research focusing on men wasn't determined by Congressmen but a once mainly male medical establishment. Nowadays women are becoming well-represented as doctors and researchers, and that's what'll make the difference, not Congress.

Title IX was passed over 30 years ago, when there was only a comparative handful of women in Congress.

As to women politicians not being perfect, Heather Wilson (who you mention first in the column) is one of the ones who threatened that US attorney in Albuquerque. Nice.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 8:45 AM

I see that the Negative Nancies are out this morning in full force.

Personally, I don't care how many moms are representatives. I do care that the House and Senate are as diverse as possible so that all interests are being represented.

This blog entry inspired me to find out who my representatives are since I moved to a new district last summer. I am happy to report that they all seem pretty moderate.

Posted by: Meesh | July 20, 2007 8:45 AM

"issues effecting women"

Quick, Washingtonpost.com, fix Leslie's latest error.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 8:46 AM

Touchy much?

Posted by: To Leslie | July 20, 2007 8:50 AM

"I don't think you can be a good Mom from that far away... same with Dads."

I'm sure the politicians considered their children when running for office and made educated decisions. And, while you're entitled to your opinion, I'm sure they don't give a rat's a$$ what you think.

Posted by: Meesh | July 20, 2007 8:52 AM

Why did women need to fight for decades, if not centuries, to vote?

You're full of it!

Centuries? It wasn't that long.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 8:52 AM

Seriously Leslie. You do need to get your facts and your logic straight.

And to add onto the response to the "nearly every other developped country comment", not only were those protections passed when those countries' political bodies were dominated by males, but sexism continues to be a social and economic problem in those countries. For example, unlike in the U.S., it is legal in most of those countries to ask women whether they have or plan to have children and make hiring and promotion decisions based on the answer. The protections were enacted less to protect women's equality and participation in the workplace than as part of the generally more parternalistic vision of government in those countries and to encourage women to have children (unsuccessfully, for the most part) at a time of slow population growth.

You might want to actually, I don't know, spend some time living in one of those countries or at least do some in depth, balanced research before leaping to a conclusion that those countries are more woman-friendly than the U.S. Those laws don't tell the whole story, nor do they come without seriously trade-offs. And I say this as someone who would prefer for the U.S. to adopt some of those laws, even with all the shortcomings.

Posted by: NotAMom | July 20, 2007 9:02 AM

"issues effecting women"

Great, they are back. Lord help Leslie and anyone else who makes a typo.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:02 AM

"I don't think you can be a good Mom from that far away... same with Dads."

I'm sure the politicians considered their children when running for office and made educated decisions. And, while you're entitled to your opinion, I'm sure they don't give a rat's a$$ what you think.

___

I'm sure they don't, but since a blog is a place to offer an opinion, I was offering mine. Chill out.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:03 AM

I like da' women in my house!

Posted by: Michael Vick | July 20, 2007 9:03 AM

8:45, while Leslie's examples to support her argument are not very strong, I'm sure you can agree with her main point: Women "care more about issues effecting women. We need more of them at every level of politics, government and business."

Those changes she cited didn't happen because the male politicians woke up one morning and decided to make laws to protect women's rights. Those changes happened because women lobbied and petitioned and picketed for change. Now that women are able to become representatives, they can do an even better job of speaking for women everywhere in the legislative system.

Posted by: Meesh | July 20, 2007 9:03 AM

I'm inclined to believe that the 8:35 comment from "Leslie" is not really her. "You're full of it"??? C'mon. Leslie has disagreed with other posters before, but never to such a childish degree. My money's on someone using her name in order to tick off more people.

Posted by: skeptic | July 20, 2007 9:04 AM

"Now that women are able to become representatives, they can do an even better job of speaking for women everywhere in the legislative system."

Now that Latinos are able to become representatives, they can do an even better job of speaking for Latinos everywhere in the legislative system.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:08 AM

She has been snippy before.

Posted by: to skeptic | July 20, 2007 9:08 AM

I found it ironic that the Congresswoman pushing the pool legislation had a kid with Heelys and let her use them in the House hallways!!! I bet more kids are injured by Heelys then drown in pools...

Posted by: WDC | July 20, 2007 9:11 AM

"8:45, while Leslie's examples to support her argument are not very strong, I'm sure you can agree with her main point: Women "care more about issues effecting women. We need more of them at every level of politics, government and business.""

I hate this type of reasoning, because it perpetuates the idea that women are affected by legislation pertaining to families and men are affected by legislation pertaining to, I don't know, the defense budget. It goes both ways. I can't think of a single issue in the purview of Congress that is a "women's" issue and not one that affects both genders.

I don't count the breastfeeding legislation, because a woman's right to legally breastfeed pretty much anywhere she pleases is safe. She might get attitude from passers-by, but whatever; you can't legislate that away.

Posted by: Lizzie | July 20, 2007 9:11 AM

These female politicians have the resources to hire nannies, housekeepers, babysitters, drivers, chefs, personal trainers, assistants ad nauseum. Furthermore, if there is a child most likely there is a spouse (or should be) who is pulling his share of the responsibility. If these women can't manage their own lives they have no business managing the country.

Don't get me started on poli-tee-shuns. They're right up there with car salesmen, drug dealers, shyster lawyers, and flim flam men. Being a female politician only gives the rest of us women a bad name.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:17 AM

Leslie didn't make a typo. She misspelled the word.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:22 AM

In general, legislators take a stronger interest in legislation in which they have a stronger, more personal understanding/interest. Thus, the veterans (McCain, Murtha, etc.) tend to be more strongly invested in defense issues; African-American representatives tend to be more strongly invested in issues affecting African-Americans, etc.

Not to say that no others become deeply involved in these issues, but in general that's the case. That's why it's asserted the female representatives can more strongly support "women's issues".

Posted by: Army Brat | July 20, 2007 9:30 AM

Yeah, 9:17, because sitting above it all and complaining about all the corruption and incompetence is a MUCH more honorable course of action .

Posted by: NotAMom | July 20, 2007 9:30 AM

Once again, men are portrayed as being incapable of taking care of children and a household:

"Men have this fixture called a wife that's going to take care of the children," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for the American Woman and Politics at Rutgers University's Eagleton Institute of Politics. "We hear very often from women who are running or elected that they wish they had a wife, someone to deal with the children, have fresh food in the house, pick up the dry cleaning.""

These women have husbands who are fully capable of dealing with the children, doing the grocery shopping and running errands.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:32 AM

We hear very often from women who are running or elected that they wish they had a wife, someone to deal with the children, have fresh food in the house, pick up the dry cleaning.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yet another good argument for lesbian marriage!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:35 AM

Army Brat

"That's why it's asserted the female representatives can more strongly support "women's issues"."

Look at all the infighting on this blog alone! Is there truly any consensus of "women's issues"?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:37 AM

Represented by a female representative? Nah. Used to be - Beverly Byron (D-MD). But then Governor Parris Nelson Glendenning (my least favorite politician of all time) decided that

(a) there were too many Republicans representing Maryland in Congress (he deemed 2 to be the maximum acceptable number); and

(b) he had to punish Ben Cardin for threatening to run against him in 1998.

So with the help of the General Assembly - overwhelmingly controlled by members of his party - he gerrymandered the state of Maryland. The result is, among other things, that Cardin's district, now represented by John Sarbanes, is colloquially referred to as "the big honkin' Z".

(And FWIW I'm a Democrat, but I just really don't like living in a one-party state where we're subject to the personal whims of an arrogant PoliSci professor gone loco!)

Posted by: Anon for this | July 20, 2007 9:38 AM

Leslie didn't make a typo. She misspelled the word.

"But at least they care more about issues affecting women."

It's not spelled wrong, it is the wrong word. That, I would say, is a typo.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:39 AM

"It's not spelled wrong, it is the wrong word. That, I would say, is a typo."

Using the wrong word is a greater sin than misspelling a word.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:41 AM

Using the wrong word e.g. affect when effect is correct is poor grammar not a typo. A typo would be spelling affect as "afect"

Posted by: Grammar Sheriff | July 20, 2007 9:43 AM

Using the wrong word is a greater sin than misspelling a word.

Would that be a mortal or venial sin?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:45 AM

I can't believe all the negativity directed towards both Leslie AND female politicians in general. But then I have to remind myself that on this blog, there are a handful of very vocal, always anonymous, individuals who think a woman's role is to sit at home barefoot and pregnant. Any person other than mom providing care for a child will mean that the child is being abused.

You are definitely entitled to your viewpoint, but come on - wake up and join the 21st century!

I enjoyed this article and think that these women - female politicians - should be applauded. It can't be easy to juggle it all, and no doubt they get support (just like their male counterparts), but just like in any workplace, we as society benefit from having working moms. I think they are great role models to young girls and probably do provide a different perspective in their legislating!

Posted by: londonmom | July 20, 2007 9:47 AM

"Leslie didn't make a typo. She misspelled the word."

Either way, the resume gets tossed.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:47 AM

Bill for First Lady!

It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush!!!


:-)

Posted by: Hilary 2008 | July 20, 2007 9:50 AM

Interestingly the site for Mikulski, who is my Senator does not mention a thing about her marital or motherhood status.

She's quite a bit older than the officials mentioned in the article, so maybe she came of political age before being a woman could be trumpeted.

Generally I think women shouldn't make a big deal about being mothers and sponsoring "woman-oriented" legislation because it narrows their field of influence, and I want women to exercise their influence everywhere.

I'm quite sure that many of my male representatives are fathers - so why a big deal about women being mothers.

Posted by: RoseG | July 20, 2007 9:50 AM

Either way, the resume gets tossed.


Big assumption that the resume reviewer knows proper grammar!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:51 AM

Using the wrong word e.g. affect when effect is correct is poor grammar not a typo. A typo would be spelling affect as "afect"

I think it would depend on the person, don't you? She is highly educated, I think she just wrote in a hurry and chose the wrong word. I am standing by typo.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:52 AM

Get a grip, most of these kids are probably raised by nannies or the Guatemalan maid. People seeking power don't give a rat's behind about anything but achieving and maintaining power, man or woman. Leslie writes from such a washington DC, inside the beltway mentality that she can't possibly relate to real people.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:52 AM

"Look at all the infighting on this blog alone! Is there truly any consensus of "women's issues"?"

Exactly. I'd be annoyed with any politician who tried to tell me that they cared enough about me to spend time on "women's issues," particularly if those were (as they almost invariably are) defined as being centered primarily around childcare. Way to reduce me to a biological function, and way to patronize me by assuming that I can't possibly be interested in the defense budget.

Posted by: Lizzie | July 20, 2007 9:53 AM

To anon @ 9:37: "Look at all the infighting on this blog alone! Is there truly any consensus of "women's issues"?"

No, if you mean issues that ONLY women care about, or issues on which women essentially unanimously agree with one position.

But there are issues on which it can be shown the position of women in the population is substantially different from the position of men, and there are other issues about which women taken as a group care about more than men taken as a group.

The lack of unanimous agreement or even a significant group consensus should not deter you from noting significant trends.

Posted by: Army Brat | July 20, 2007 9:54 AM

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas is an adoptive mother, and it doesn't make one wit of difference or not whether she is a mother or not, biological or not--she's still President Bush's political water carrier.

And unlike many other working mothers, she can well afford the best in child care--as can Sen. John Cornyn (not that he's a working mother, mind you)!

Posted by: Loomis | July 20, 2007 9:55 AM

I can't believe all the negativity directed towards both Leslie AND female politicians in general. But then I have to remind myself that on this blog, there are a handful of very vocal, always anonymous, individuals who think a woman's role is to sit at home barefoot and pregnant. Any person other than mom providing care for a child will mean that the child is being abused.

Wrong there are more than ahandful who don't buy the feminist crap and speak out against it every chance they get. Typical arrogance that if they don't tow the line, then they want women barefoot and pregnant.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 9:57 AM

"It's great for these women to be able to be mothers while serving an important function for our country, but I highly doubt that anyone, even the dog, would vote against increasing child cancer research or for making pools safer."

I agree that increasing child cancer research and making pools safer are both initiatives that few people would vote against. But there is a difference between initiating something and voting for or against it. There are loads of things that are really good ideas, including the two items below, but that never get initiated because they are just not priorities on peoples's agendas. I think it's cool that these women legislators are promoting legislation that on the face of it, seems so simple and necessary, but that for decades, has been ignored because it was never on someone's priority list.

Posted by: Emily | July 20, 2007 9:59 AM

"I think it would depend on the person, don't you? She is highly educated, I think she just wrote in a hurry and chose the wrong word. I am standing by typo."

Noo, the definition of a grammar mistake doesn't vary when the writer is highly educated or writing in a hurry! LOL!

Harvard grads make grammar mistakes.


Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:00 AM

Leslie,
Thanks for another great post. I love your blog. As a political scientist who does research on the behavior of female politicians, I can confirm that it is indeed true that women legislators behave differently from male legislators. They propose more legislation related to children, families, and women than male legislators. And they are more likely to vote in favor of legislation that supports children, family, and women.

Posted by: political scientist | July 20, 2007 10:02 AM

RoseG, Sen. Mikulski has never been married; for whatever reason when she was first elected to the Senate in the '80s it was a major topic of discussion. It hasn't really been a topic since.

(FWIW, Barbara Mikulski and Nancy Pelosi are alumnae of the same high school, the Institute of Notre Dame in Baltimore. Think that school doesn't trumpet that fact to all prospective students & donors? :-)

As far as men being fathers and trumpeting/hiding that fact, it depends on the individual politician and how he/she wants to play it. Some make a big deal of it; some don't. Maryland's other Senator, Paul Sarbanes, never used to make a big deal about his kids. But now that one son is in Congress and another is running for President of the Baltimore City Council, he gives them much more prominence in his bio.

Posted by: Army Brat | July 20, 2007 10:03 AM

Just a comment on Deborah Pryce - her support for funding childhood cancer research is based on her experiences as a mother. She lost her daughter to neuroblastoma some years ago. Her daughter was treated by the same doctor that my son was treated by (my son is a 3 year neuroblastoma survivor). Besides her legislative work, she also runs a charity called Hope Street Kids which raises money for childhood cancer research. I've participated in some of the Hope Street Kids events myself.

Posted by: ratgirlny | July 20, 2007 10:04 AM

"Typical arrogance that if they don't tow the line, then they want women barefoot and pregnant."

That should be TOE the line.

Posted by: YLS '85 | July 20, 2007 10:09 AM

These types of blogs actually are anti feminist. The cornerstone of feminist ideology is that gender is irrelevant. So if only women can care about women's and children's issues and are better at it than that undermines women's position that they are fit for traditionally men's roles. Trying to have both ways is just hypocrisy

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:12 AM

"Wrong there are more than ahandful who don't buy the feminist crap and speak out against it every chance they get. Typical arrogance that if they don't tow the line, then they want women barefoot and pregnant."

Yes, it is "feminist crap" to state that moms should be able to work in any field (including in Congress) in the same manner as dads. A major point in Leslie's blog and this article was to show that there is a serious double standard when it comes to moms in Congress, especially those with small children. It is perfectly fine for dads with small children to work long hours, be away from their children during the week, etc. Hooray to them! But when moms do it, we get grief about what horrible parents we are.

Posted by: londonmom | July 20, 2007 10:16 AM

" . . What's different is that their kids are thousands of miles away from their offices, and their decisions about combining work and raising children are made under a political spotlight."

Well that isn't quite true-- I loved the part of the story about Sen Landrieu living 4 blocks from the Capitol and making time to be with her family for dinner (even MAKE dinner!) and then walk back for votes, etc. Sounds like she has lots of kids too! Seems like an ideal approach if you are a MOC with trustworthy staff in you rdistrict to take of things while you live and raise your family living on Capitol Hill. I think there was another mom in the piece that was doing something similar-- the one with the baby with Downs? She only took off a month of work post-partum and now commutes bach and forth between the Capitol and her home on Capitol Hill. This really inspires me to try to do something similar. These ladies know how to balance!

with Pelosi's new regime of representatives needing to put in more days at work at the Capitol (which I wholly support, especially during wartime) perhaps more MOCs will decide to move their families to Capitol Hill.

Posted by: jen S. | July 20, 2007 10:17 AM

"Just a comment on Deborah Pryce - her support for funding childhood cancer research is based on her experiences as a mother."

It's so sad that she lost her child, but it is wonderful that she wants to give back. However, I doubt it has anything to do with gender. I think that when anyone in a position of power loses someone or has a disease, they try to push for more research, funding, etc.

Why do stars get involved with lupus research? Because someone they know has it. Just look at Brooke Shields and her post partum depression or Michael J. Fox and his Parkinson's.

Look at the Doug Flutie foundation for Autism for example; I doubt there would be one if his little boy didn't have it. I don't mean this in a bad way, but even I as an ordinary citizen support causes that have affected my life.

Posted by: scarry | July 20, 2007 10:29 AM

That was me earlier. And I stand by what I said: unfortunately men are biased in favor of issues they deem "serious." Most (but not all) law makers in this country have been men. I know through research and my own personal experience that theft of a monetary asset such as a car is taken far, far more seriously by our judicial system than violence and sexual assault against women and children.

If you are one of those who argue differently, I bet you have never been the victim of sexual assault or violence and tried to seek punishment of the person who battered you from our legal and judicial system.

There are many types of discrimination in our country. You are living in lala land or in a troll cave if you think our country treats women fairly. My hope is that more women in positions of power will rectify this bias over time. To date, most progress in this area has been because of women having a more powerful voice. Go girls!

Posted by: Leslie | July 20, 2007 10:29 AM

"I loved the part of the story about Sen Landrieu living 4 blocks from the Capitol "

Yeah. It's always been really nice when you and your husband can afford to BUILD a house 4 blocks from the Capitol!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:32 AM

"I know through research and my own personal experience that theft of a monetary asset such as a car is taken far, far more seriously by our judicial system than violence and sexual assault against women and children."

I will agree with Leslie on this one. All you have to do is look to the poor woman from Maryland who was doused with oil and lit on fire because a judge didn't protect her or the fact that drug dealers get more time in jail than child rapists.
I can't agree on everything she says, but I agree with this post.

However, I think things are changing, and all men are not sweeping domestic violence or child rape under the rug. It takes time for change, so as citizens, we have to vote for the best person for the job, whether they are black or white or are female or male.
.

Posted by: scarry | July 20, 2007 10:35 AM

I know through research and my own personal experience that theft of a monetary asset such as a car is taken far, far more seriously by our judicial system than violence and sexual assault against women and children.


BS Leslie, http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2003/table13.pdf

That rhetoric sounds good at the monthly meeting or through the bullhorn at the rally, but it is untrue.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:35 AM

But there are issues on which it can be shown the position of women in the population is substantially different from the position of men, and there are other issues about which women taken as a group care about more than men taken as a group.
---------------------------------------

I think "equal" would argue that there are no issues that pertain to women because men and women are the same.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:36 AM

Actually, the cornerstone of feminism is not that gender is irrelevant but a social construct.

Also, I believe the point is not that women should/do only care about family and children issues--most parents do--but that they be in the positions of power that can make a difference. As Walsh points out: "Men have this fixture called a wife that's going to take care of the children." As a result, a congressman may not see a need to address say adequate childcare, children's health & safety because he has wife at home who strictly handles that for their home. Women in power on the other hand are essentially doing two jobs and therefore playing two traditional gender roles, be it mother/provider/public servant. These woman can be a political mouthpiece on several issues including those close to home.

Posted by: to 10:12 | July 20, 2007 10:37 AM

Just a bunch of bored, rich white women with too much time on their hands railing against inequality from their high paying jobs..yawn

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:40 AM

"If you are one of those who argue differently, I bet you have never been the victim of sexual assault or violence and tried to seek punishment of the person who battered you from our legal and judicial system."

Unfortunately, this is true. Remember Yvette Cade, the woman whose husband set her on fire about a year or two ago. Before this incident, a judge lifted the restraining order against her husband, even after she told the judge that she feared for her life. He told her to deal with the issue in divorce court, and refused to take her very valid fears seriously.

Posted by: Emily | July 20, 2007 10:42 AM

to 10:40 am - And you are???

I'd rather a bored rich white woman railing against inequality than nobody at all...

Posted by: londonmom | July 20, 2007 10:45 AM

today's topic would take the snap, crackle and pop out of Rice Crispies!

Posted by: Boring! | July 20, 2007 10:47 AM

KELLOGG'S RICE KRISPIES TREATS

1/4 cup butter
1 (10 oz., about 40) pkg. regular marshmallows or 3 cups miniature marshmallows
6 cups Kellogg's Rice Krispies cereal

In a large saucepan, melt butter over low heat. Add the marshmallows and continue to stir until the marshmallows have completely melted. Remove from heat.

Stir in the Kellogg's Rice Krispies cereal coating them well with the melted marshmallow mixture.

Using a buttered or silicone spatula, press the mixture evenly into a 13 x 9 x 2 inch pan which has been buttered or sprayed with non-stick spray or lined with wax paper.

Cut into squares when the mixture cools.

Makes 24 squares.

Posted by: You asked for the recipe | July 20, 2007 10:51 AM

Bill for First Lady!

It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush!!!


:-)

Oh great back to cigars in young women's privates, slimy last minute pardons, not have sexual relations with that woman. Hurray-Not

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:53 AM

You must be quite naive to believe that a restraining order protects anyone.

Posted by: to Emily | July 20, 2007 10:56 AM

"today's topic would take the snap, crackle and pop out of Rice Crispies!"

That should be KRISPIES

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:56 AM

Yes, I know that is it spelled with a K but I did not want to infringe on a trademark.

Posted by: Boring! | July 20, 2007 10:58 AM

Leslie: "theft of a monetary asset such as a car is taken far, far more seriously by our judicial system than violence and sexual assault against women and children."

While I have no personal experience with dealing with violence against women and children, I do have personal experience with having cars stolen and it's just not taken very seriously.

I had a car stolen in Louisiana as an undergraduate, and another stolen in Indiana while in grad school. My in-laws had one stolen from their home in Bethesda; my boss had one taken from his house in Anne Arundel County. In all cases, the police came out, took the information, and then had essentially the same response: "You got insurance? Call them and file the claim. If the car ever gets found, we'll call you. In the meantime, collect the insurance and get another car."

In three of the four cases, the car - or what was left of it - was found after having been abandoned, leading to calls from the authorities. "We found your stolen car; it's at location X. Come get it or we're going to tow it away and you can deal with the impound fees."

Not a rousing response!

Posted by: Army Brat | July 20, 2007 10:58 AM

You must be quite naive to believe that a restraining order protects anyone.

right on , do you really think a piece of paper will deter a nut? A complete joke!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 10:58 AM

Posted by: Army Brat | July 20, 2007 10:58 AM

Thanks for some perspective from the REAL world

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:00 AM

"You must be quite naive to believe that a restraining order protects anyone."

The point is that the order was lifted by a judge that did not care about the dangers this woman faced. She sought the only legal recourse available to her, and it was denied her by a male judge.

Posted by: Emily | July 20, 2007 11:03 AM

Army brat, i got my car burglarized and the stereo taken, broken glass etc., they caught the guys who copped to twenty burglaries, guess what-probation. Leslie needs to stop counting on the justice system giving a damn about anything

Posted by: liked my stereo | July 20, 2007 11:04 AM

The point is that the order was lifted by a judge that did not care about the dangers this woman faced. She sought the only legal recourse available to her, and it was denied her by a male judge.

so, if a female judge did it you would feel better? Incompetence runs in all people, male and female

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:06 AM

You must be quite naive to believe that a restraining order protects anyone.

right on , do you really think a piece of paper will deter a nut? A complete joke!


That is not the point. The point is that the judge did not even try to help her and was very disrespectful to her in court. He has since been removed from these cases because he is an idiot.

Posted by: scarry | July 20, 2007 11:07 AM

""You must be quite naive to believe that a restraining order protects anyone."

The point is that the order was lifted by a judge that did not care about the dangers this woman faced. She sought the only legal recourse available to her, and it was denied her by a male judge. "

As tragic as this case is, it is a bad decision by a (bad) judge who is male. Using this case to say that the judicial system does not care about abuse against women is too much generalization.

Do you think all women with post-partum depresssion will kill their kids just because Andrea Yates did? Then don't assume that men in the judicial system would be the same as the idiot judge in this case. My husband has a wife, daughters, a mother, aunts, and sisters as well as female cousins and friends. Do you seriously think men care nothing about women's issues?

Posted by: to Emily | July 20, 2007 11:11 AM

"so, if a female judge did it you would feel better? Incompetence runs in all people, male and female"

But males tend to be especially cavalier about domestic violence situations where women are at risk. And it wasn't a woman judge, was it? It was a man with a very clear bias against women.

Posted by: Emily | July 20, 2007 11:12 AM

The point is that the order was lifted by a judge that did not care about the dangers this woman faced. She sought the only legal recourse available to her, and it was denied her by a male judge.

By this line of logic the male judge should face conspiracy charged with the husband.

Is it possible that the woman lied to the judge about her fears at that time? I understand that it is not uncommon for a restraining order to be requested in divorce cases. Is it possible that the judge saw no evidence that the husband had ever exhibited any violent behavior? Is it possible that she presented no evidence that she was in danger? Would the fact that the judge granted the restraining order prevented this tragedy? Would a female judge necessarily have granted the order?

Judges must adjudicate upon evidence that it presented not emotional appeals.

Posted by: to Emily | July 20, 2007 11:18 AM

--And it wasn't a woman judge, was it? It was a man with a very clear bias against women.

It was a man - one man. Don't stereotype.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:19 AM

"It was a man with a very clear bias against women."

As clear as your bias against men.

Posted by: lurker | July 20, 2007 11:20 AM

"And it wasn't a woman judge, was it? It was a man with a very clear bias against women. "

And there is a very clear bias FOR women in many child custody cases!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:21 AM

"Yeah. It's always been really nice when you and your husband can afford to BUILD a house 4 blocks from the Capitol!!!"

Yep! totally agree! does anyone know how much something like that costs? On the other hand, it probably doesn't cost more than a house in McLean where I think most senators live, AND she can walk to work whereas most senators must drive-or more likely, are driven-- from their residence. housing is expensive everywhere in DC-- I don't think Capitol Hill is particularly more expensive than any other neighborhood.

i wonder if the kids attend the neighborhood schools?

Posted by: Jen S. | July 20, 2007 11:26 AM

Emily, I agree with you about this judge. He was very dismissive and rude to her in court, WHICH is why he is no longer allowed to rule over domestic violence cases. Clearly, other people thought the same thing as us or he would still be there.

And, no I do not think that all men are caviler about women's rights, but this male judge was. However, as I said before, when a drug dealer gets more prison time than a serial child rapist it makes one wonder what the hell is going on in this country. No, I am not blaming that on men, I am blaming it on the system.

Posted by: scarry | July 20, 2007 11:27 AM

But males tend to be especially cavalier about domestic violence situations where women are at risk.

That is your little opinion. But what would else would you expect from a ball busting hemorrhoid ridden woman with an axe to grind against men.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:28 AM

your forgot tarot card reading!

Posted by: to 11:28 | July 20, 2007 11:32 AM

"But males tend to be especially cavalier about domestic violence situations where women are at risk."

Which men? This is a really crappy thing to say.

Posted by: Lizzie | July 20, 2007 11:33 AM

i wonder if the kids attend the neighborhood schools?


Posted by: Jen S. | July 20, 2007 11:26 AM

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:34 AM

But males tend to be especially cavalier about domestic violence situations where women are at risk."

Which men? This is a really crappy thing to say.

Yep, your husband, son, dad, grandad, friends, uncles they all are cavalier about domestic violence.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:36 AM

i wonder if the kids attend the neighborhood schools?

I love rich liberals who send their kids to private schools. Delicious hypocrisy

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:38 AM

Can someone look up the assessed value of the house built 4 blocks from the Capitol?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:39 AM

Can someone look up the assessed value of the house built 4 blocks from the Capitol?

Wouldn't it depend on when she bought the house? I mean, maybe she paid 200,000 for it. She can't help how much it goes up.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:41 AM

Jen S.: "i wonder if the kids attend the neighborhood schools?"

Umm, no. But that runs in family. Mary Landrieu herself was educated at the all-female Ursuline Academy in New Orleans rather than attend Orleans Parish Public Schools. Her brother, Louisiana Lt Gov Mitch Landrieu, went to all-male Jesuit High in New Orleans. (The other Landrieu kids were similarly educated.)

Mary Landrieu's father, former New Orleans Mayor Moon Landrieu, also went to Jesuit High. (He was also Carter's Secretary of HUD, FWIW.)

Public schools? I think not.

Posted by: Army Brat | July 20, 2007 11:50 AM

http://homes.longandfoster.com/Real-Estate/PropertyDetails.aspx?MlsCompanyID=2&MlsNumber=DC6436831&Add=408-EAST-CAPITOL-ST-NE,WASHINGTON,DC-20003

I am going to guess that they are expensive. So not worth living in DC.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:50 AM

To answer Leslie's original question, it's not important for me to have a mom in Congress representing me in my district. But to be effective, Congress should be made up of all types of people. We need people who are young, people who are old, people of all religions, parents and non-parents, representatives from all ethnic groups, etc. That way, all types of people are represented. Now, can you predict what influence each individual person will make--and if it will be consistent with each person's gender, socioeconomic status, and background--no. What the representatives are supposed to do is to effectively represent their constituency--but having a real "mix" of America, and a fair representation, is probably important. And that includes having some in congress be moms with young children.

Posted by: kattoo | July 20, 2007 11:51 AM

Townhouses around Capitol Hill run about $700,000 and up. Townhouses in Georgetown, where a lot of politicians live, would run about $1 million and up. These people send their kids to private schools, hire housekeepers, nannies and drivers. I can't feel sorry for anybody in their situation.

Posted by: NW DC | July 20, 2007 11:55 AM

When I read that article yesterday in the Washington Post, I was most taken with the women who are trying so hard to squeeze in time with their families while they're in Congress. Such as the woman who ran home for dinner with her family--changing into mom clothes and making tortalini and salad--then running out to a professional event. To me, I'd feel like my life with children was incredibly choppy! Plus, I couldn't personally take hte pace. It would wear me out. Our children are only young once--will these women in Congress look back and regret the choices they made?

Posted by: kattoo | July 20, 2007 11:55 AM

Our children are only young once--will these women in Congress look back and regret the choices they made?


No because the power they seek, is truly what is important to them.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 11:58 AM

Army Brat, when i asked about "neighborhood schools" I really meant it just to refer to schools in the neighborhood-- public, private, charter, whatever. Is it common to only mean public schools when you use the term "neighborhood schools"? Sorry i was unclear! I guess I meant as opposed to having the children tutored at home or perhaps having them attend a school outside the neighborhood.

Posted by: Jen S. | July 20, 2007 12:00 PM

Army Brat

I will disagree with you on the Landrieu's education. They all attended Catholic High Schools. Attending a Catholic HS is by no means a repudiation of public school as could be construed by a "private academy."

As for the schools being all male/female, there were many public schools in the Kenner/Metairie area which were separated by sex even the late 1970's.

In fact, there has been a minor resurgence in separate sex schools, if not in the whole school but in some classes.

Posted by: Fred | July 20, 2007 12:01 PM

Studies have shown that our male dominated judicial system does have a definite and documented bias against women:

From stopfamilyviolence.org/media/IACHR_gender_bias_A.pdf

"Since the 1990's, a series of gender bias studies were done around the country. The findings of the thirty-one state and five federal task forces that have reported over the last fifteen years are similar and disturbing. They report that gender bias in the courts does sometimes affect men, but that its victims are overwhelmingly women; that male judges and lawyers of all ages are largely unaware of the experiences and perceptions of their female colleagues; and that the disrespect and devaluation experienced by white women is even more pronounced for women of color. In the words of the New York Task Force on Women in the Courts, "Gender bias against women litigants, lawyers and court employees is a pervasive problem with grave consequences. Women are often denied equal justice, equal treatment and equal opportunity." The task forces also found that custody awards often punish women who breach the stereotype of the ideal mother, because, for example, they work outside the home or have a sexual relationship outside of marriage. There is a growing tendency to award custody to the wealthier parent rather than to award child support. Given women's and men's unequal earning power, this constitutes a paternal preference. There is also significant indifference to spouse abuse in custody cases. Many judges do not understand why a man who beats his wife but not his child should not be awarded custody, and erroneously assume that husbands' violence against their wives ends with divorce, so requests for supervised visitation can be denied. Judges sometimes assume that women are making false allegations of child sexual abuse to gain an advantage in custody disputes. 312. The task forces repeatedly found that men who rape, batter and even murder women often face little or no punishment. These findings are illustrated by two cases. A Kentucky man raped his former girlfriend and injured her so severely that she required surgery. The jury recommended a sentence of thirteen years in prison. The judge sentenced him to six months in jail and probation on work release. The judge was swayed by letters from such luminaries as a basketball coach attesting to the rapist's good character. [Thomas Tulliver, 13-year Sentence for Rape Cut to 6 Months, Probation, LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER, June 8, 1994 at A1] A Maryland man shot his wife to death several hours after finding her in bed with someone else. The judge sentenced him to eighteen months in prison to be served on work release, plus fifty hours of community service in a domestic violence program, the last place someone like this should be permitted. The judge said he wished he did not have to impose any sentence, because it was understandable that a man in such a situation would feel compelled to impose some "corporal punishment." [ Reporter's Official Transcript of Proceedings (sentencing) at 3 and 12, State v. Peacock (Md. Cir. Ct. Oct. 17, 1994) (No. 94-CR-0943)]. 313. Domestic violence continues to be an area in which women experience significant bias, despite major statutory reforms to provide them with civil and criminal protections. Courts show little understanding of the circumstances under which battered women survive and the ways in which the cycle of violence, economic dependence, lack of support from family and community, and fear of the batterer combine to keep women in these situations. 314. Instead of focusing on why men batter and what can be done to stop them, many judges and court personnel ask battered women what they did to provoke the violence, subject them to demeaning and sexist comments, shuttle them from court to court, and issue mutual orders of protection when the respondent has not filed a cross-petition and there is no evidence that the petitioner was violent. These women are then castigated for failing to go forward with their cases. Although initial orders of protection are granted with greater frequency than they were in the past, violators are rarely punished in any meaningful way. 315. The gender bias task forces' documentation of state courts' failure to treat gender-based violence seriously was the basis for a 1991 Senate report recommending adoption of the Violence Against Women Act, which treats these crimes as a civil rights violation. Pointing to the "sad fact" that "law reform has failed to eradicate the stereotypes that drive the system to treat these crimes against women differently fromother crimes," the Senate acknowledged the need for a federal remedy for women victims. [S. Rep. No. 102-197, at 47-48 (1991)].1 Unfortunately, the civil rights remedy for battered women was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Emily | July 20, 2007 12:02 PM

"There is a growing tendency to award custody to the wealthier parent rather than to award child support. Given women's and men's unequal earning power, this constitutes a paternal preference."

Unless they controlled for women who voluntarily exited the workforce entirely, it's not exactly unbiased to refer to "women's and men's unequal earning power," is it?

Posted by: Lizzie | July 20, 2007 12:06 PM

Are you Matt from Aberdeen twin? Very few people read long posting (covering more than one screen at a time) which appear to be just one paragraph.

Being verbose does not attract attention to your point.

Posted by: to Emily | July 20, 2007 12:08 PM

NW DC, i don't think these women are asking you to feel sorry for them. I certainly don't feel sorry for them-- but i do look to them as examples. For example, the mom going back to work after taking off only one month of maternity leave. I hear about that and I think maybe I could do that too. going back to work so soon where you have a short commute and flexible workplace--i.e. can stay home until needed at the Captiol for votes or meeting, etc.-- is pretty inspiring. I just read a magazine article that women need at least 3 months to physically recover from childbirth before they go back to work (otherwise they get burned out) and that freaked me out. But hearing about this mom makes me think that with the right environment (short commute), flexible workplace (read briefs while nursing) and support (husband-- perhaps an au pair?) one can still balance a career and motherhood gracefully.

Posted by: Jen S. | July 20, 2007 12:10 PM

Fred

"Attending a Catholic HS is by no means a repudiation of public school as could be construed by a "private academy."

Explain.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 12:11 PM

"Being verbose does not attract attention to your point."

Actually, if you bothered to read, you would find that the article is long (not verbose), but very well written.

You need to learn the difference between long and verbose. They are not the same thing.

Posted by: Emily | July 20, 2007 12:12 PM

"Being verbose does not attract attention to your point."

Actually, if you bothered to read, you would find that the article is long (not verbose), but very well written.

You need to learn the difference between long and verbose. They are not the same thing. Duh!!

Posted by: Emily | July 20, 2007 12:12 PM

"I hear about that and I think maybe I could do that too. going back to work so soon where you have a short commute and flexible workplace..."

Jen S. - I went back to work after only 6 weeks maternity leave when I had my son. I also had a short commute and flexible workplace. Even so, I don't recommend it. I was constantly exhausted those first few months at work. This time, I intend to take off 3 full months, and then perhaps go back to work on a part time schedule for a couple of months. Luckily, I have a lot of leave saved up, and will be able to do so while still getting full time pay. Those first few months are so draining. Take all the time you can get off. You won't regret it. (Of course, I am no Congresswoman. If I were, I might feel differently.)

Posted by: Emily | July 20, 2007 12:17 PM

A former neighbor of mine worked as a horse trainer. She returned to work four weeks after having twins because she needed the money. She took the twins along. I don't know if they stayed in the barn, outside, or in an office at the track.

I guess you do what you have to do.

Posted by: anon for this | July 20, 2007 12:21 PM

Bravo Emily!!!!! Thank you.

Posted by: Leslie | July 20, 2007 12:27 PM

thanks for the advice Emily-- I think! I'm sorry that it was difficult for you to go back to work quickly. Luckily my reasons for wanting to return to work are not based on money-- I suppose I don't have to work at all really. It's more that I think I am a better mom if I'm not MOM and nothing else for 24/7, ya know?

Posted by: Jen S. | July 20, 2007 12:29 PM

I still pity Leslie's poor poor husband. Her ex must be feeling great these days.

Leslie = manhater.

Posted by: dctony | July 20, 2007 12:35 PM

Emily, this is just anectodal. Sorry, no cigar

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 12:37 PM

So what's up with all these women who live with, marry, and/or have children with such losers?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 12:38 PM

I still pity Leslie's poor poor husband. Her ex must be feeling great these days.

Leslie = manhater.


Don't feel bad for him, he works at 3 am on vacation. One souless yuppie just married to another

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 12:39 PM

I feel sorry for Emily's husband. Staying at home, probably dressed in some frilly maid outfit, cooling down the spinach for her hemorrhoids, waiting for her to come home.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 12:43 PM

David and Victoria Beckham may have descended on the Hollywood Hills, but the British babes won't be contributing to the panty-free party craze made famous by the likes of Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears.

The comely couple made an appearance at L.A.'s Little Door restaurant, but as Posh went to climb out of the car her loving husband put his hand between her legs, covering her crotch to stop any problematic paparazzi snaps

Handsome and a gentleman.....

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 12:52 PM

"Our children are only young once--will these women in Congress look back and regret the choices they made?"

Rather than target women in Congress, why not ask- Have are elected Presidents, our serving men/women, great thinkers in history regret not spending more time with their families? Are their contributions in assuring a more fruitful life for all mankind not imperative?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 12:52 PM

..."our" elected

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 12:54 PM

Is it just me, or is the ratio of anon to signed posts higher today, and could this explain why the tone here is even nastier than usual? BlogStats, where are you? In the meantime, over & out.

Posted by: SheGeek | July 20, 2007 1:01 PM

BTW, Emily and Leslie,
I believe your husbands must be very secure with themselves to love women as thoughtful, classy, and confident as you both demonstrate. Those men are the best!

Posted by: by the way- | July 20, 2007 1:01 PM

"So what's up with all these women who live with, marry, and/or have children with such losers?"

Men do the same thing.

The losers are hot stuff in the bedroom, but little anywhere else. It takes a while for the losers to show their true colors and natural selection to proceed.

A lot of losers self-destruct and Darwinism takes its course.


Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 1:04 PM

I watched the Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) tape with her daughter on Capitol Hill and I feel that if she wants to devote the time to her children, she should get another job. Being a serious legislator takes time away from the home. Mothers are the most important of either parent. I don't believe this be be a sexist comment, just a fact of nature, or nurture, if you please.

Also, it did bother me to see a child running around in the halls of the Capitol and/or the House office building. This may have been done for the camera but I find it completely out of place.

I think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is doing a disservice to her constituents by not being a full time legislator. I really didn't want to put this into a quasi-public forum but her website does not allow non-constituents to send her e-mail. Here, in my nievity, I thought that congress existed to work for the country as a whole. Her children are an obstacle in that respect.

Posted by: Michael1945 | July 20, 2007 1:18 PM

"could this explain why the tone here is even nastier than usual?'

Today is no nastier than any other day. People just think it is nastier when they don't agree with the postings.

Posted by: anon | July 20, 2007 1:25 PM

To Jen S.
Since the Landrieus are catholic, my hunch is that their kids go to St. Peter's catholic school on the hill - fwiw.

On women in Congress, I think it's important to note that not ALL of them are rich or have rich husbands. Serving in Congress IS a financial burden for SOME and it's why the trend is toward only the wealthy running for office. They are required to maintain 2 households (in DC and back home)on their families budget- the taxpayer does not pay for them to have a place in DC or to fly their families - for those out in the west, that's a really big expense. The Senate has alot more wealth in general, but there are women house members who have kids and are NOT super wealthy. For example, Deborah Pryce, who someone mentioned earlier, is a single mom who has been in public service her whole life (she was a family law judge before she ran for congress). Also, most members in the House of Representatives do not move their families to DC because their opponents use it against them and say they've "lost touch" with their home districts. That presents another complication for the House moms - move your family to DC and possibly lose your job! Crazy. Senators have 6 years in between elections so they can more easily move their families to Washington without the same political danger. I think it's sad that it's the case that members can't bring their families here (before cheap air travel, most did) b/c i think the influence of family would help them be better legislators. Being away from your family for whole weeks at a time is not good for anyone. But then, they did choose the occupation.
PS- By way of background- I spent 10 years as a hill staffer - hence my familiarity with this topic...

Posted by: D in DC | July 20, 2007 1:31 PM

Amazing, it took this blog to inspire "MEESH" to find out who his/her representatives are? I hope he/she knows the other elected officials in state and local government.

No wonder this country is in such a sad state. This person is not alone. When I recently contacted my state delegate about a vote I disagreed with, he took the time to phone me because, paraphrasing, the vast majority of his constituents don't offer comments, one way or another. This, and Meesh, really make me worry about the future of our country.

Posted by: Michael1945 | July 20, 2007 1:32 PM

Amazing, it took this blog to inspire "MEESH" to find out who his/her representatives are? I hope he/she knows the other elected officials in state and local government.

No wonder this country is in such a sad state. This person is not alone. When I recently contacted my state delegate about a vote I disagreed with, he took the time to phone me because, paraphrasing, the vast majority of his constituents don't offer comments, one way or another. This, and Meesh, really make me worry about the future of our country.

Posted by: Michael1945 | July 20, 2007 01:32 PM

_________________

It really makes me worry about the future of our country that uppity, snobishy, annoying people like you live in it. And you have the audacity to come air your trumped up superiority on this blog. You're nothing but a puff of words--poof! Bye bye

Posted by: kattoo | July 20, 2007 1:36 PM

Michael, most people want to live their lives, keep their money and be left alone. Very few want to be involved in constant political fighting.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 1:39 PM

I just hope that while he is the acting President on Saturday (while Bush undergoes his colonoscopy), Dick Cheney takes care of business!! GOD BLESS YOU DICK CHENEY!!!! Please nuke the enemies of America while you have the chance. And provide a full pardon to our hero, Scooter Libby. And make Bill Kristol a Cabinet member so that he can have the power he deserves. And, while you're at it, please teach Leslie the difference between effect and affect. I know that last request is the most difficult!!!

Posted by: Baba Booey | July 20, 2007 1:45 PM

Piling on Michael here:

The House and Senate office buildings are open to the public. If you have ever been in them, particularly in the summer, you will see hordes of people of all ages roaming the halls as tourists, visiting their members of congress, or working. A kid on heelys is not rare and is not even close to the most distracting thing in the halls of Congress. That, would be college interns who's parents never taught them how to dress so they show up for work in little more than a tube top and miniskirt!

Posted by: D in DC | July 20, 2007 1:45 PM

*off-topic alert!*

Mona,

I posted a link for you on yesterday's blog, regarding cat restraining.

Posted by: Maryland Mother | July 20, 2007 1:45 PM

The gender bias task forces' documentation of state courts' failure to treat gender-based violence seriously was the basis for a 1991 Senate report recommending adoption of the Violence Against Women Act, which treats these crimes as a civil rights violation. Pointing to the "sad fact" that "law reform has failed to eradicate the stereotypes that drive the system to treat these crimes against women differently fromother crimes," the Senate acknowledged the need for a federal remedy for women victims. [S. Rep. No. 102-197, at 47-48 (1991)].1 Unfortunately, the civil rights remedy for battered women was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Emily | July 20, 2007 12:02 PM

The basis for the finding that the Violence Against Women Act was unconstitutional was that the authority for the act was supposedly the Commerce Clause, and a statute grounded in the Commerce Clause must involve interstate commerce. No matter how much I consider VAWA a good idea from a public policy standpoint, there's nothing about domestic violence that relates to interstate commerce and, hence, no authority for the feds to enact the VAWA. Passing a similar statute in each of the fifty states that don't already have such protections should be the goal.

To Leslie's assertion that female legislators act like automotons "fighting for [legislation] near and dear to the most passionate discussions on this blog: children's health and safety, women's equal rights, and of course -- breastfeeding," I can only say balderdash -- although I am positive someone out there thinks "balderdash" is a vulgar term which should be banned from the blog. There are women legislators on the right, left and center. The idea that I'm better served by voting for, hypothetically, Kay Bailey Hutchison than for Jim Webb is absurd. Voting on the basis of gender rather than platform sure is easy, but remains as stupid a concept as it is every time Leslie pushes it. Duh. Making assumptions about legislators priorities and political values based on their gender is insulting and a throwback to the ignorant past.

I consider the deficit, the war, financial policy, trade policy, the strength of the housing market and lowering the tax burden on small businesses to be "female" issues as much as "male" issues. Someone worried about enacting legislation relating to pool safety isn't going to get my vote regardless of gender because she's ignoring far more pressing and weighty issues for good sound-bites and non-controversial pablum.

Posted by: MN | July 20, 2007 1:50 PM

D in DC

"That, would be college interns who's parents never taught them how to dress so they show up for work in little more than a tube top and miniskirt! "

It should be WHOSE parents never taught them...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 1:51 PM

Fred

"I will disagree with you on the Landrieu's education. They all attended Catholic High Schools. Attending a Catholic HS is by no means a repudiation of public school as could be construed by a "private academy.""

Agreed; the Landrieus have always been staunch Catholics (the seven kids Moon and Verna had were a hint :-) and so they'd probably send their kids to Catholic school no matter what, for the religious education. But Moon was the Mayor of New Orleans (which is contiguous with Orleans Parish, so he was the head of the Parish), and the public schools there did stink then and aren't any better then. Also, when Mary Landrieu was in school was when the Catholic schools in New Orleans were starting to integrate.

And for those not familiar with the concept, some places in Louisiana opened a system of "private academies" as a separate school system to which white students when the public schools were integrated. Tangipahoa Parish was the example with which I was most familiar. (And no, we didn't go to private academies; we went to St. Tammany Parish public schools; one of my high schools was majority-black, as it was referred to back then.)

"As for the schools being all male/female, there were many public schools in the Kenner/Metairie area which were separated by sex even the late 1970's."

Yup; Riverdale and Grace King were all-female; Bonnabel and East Jefferson were all-male. They had to change the mascots when they made them co-ed; Grace King was the "Colleens" and Riverdale was the "Lassies". Wouldn't work with boys.

"In fact, there has been a minor resurgence in separate sex schools, if not in the whole school but in some classes."

Posted by: Army Brat | July 20, 2007 1:51 PM

Thank you MN for stating what should be obvious to everyone-vote for the person, not the gender

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 1:54 PM

Jen S.: "Is it common to only mean public schools when you use the term "neighborhood schools"? "

In my experience, yes. That's the way I (and apparently other blog-readers) took your question - to be wondering if the Landrieus send their children to the local public schools.

Posted by: Army Brat | July 20, 2007 1:56 PM

"This, and Meesh, really make me worry about the future of our country."

Don't worry about Meesh she is head and shoulders above a lot of people in this country. She cares about social issues, animals, and from what I read on the blog, a very nice lady. Worry about yourself, which is what you were doing anyway.

Although I don't always agree with Emily or Leslie, I also think that they are two ladies who are trying to make a difference in our world too. Bravo to them, and hey, if you were carrying around a baby, you might have the hemorrhoids too.

Posted by: scarry | July 20, 2007 2:01 PM

"Is it common to only mean public schools when you use the term "neighborhood schools"? "

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

The several public schools in that could reasonably be labeled "neighborhood schools" are not available to our kids. The beautiful irony of assuming otherwise is that our public school system, like many in cities, doesn't value assigning kids to a school in their neighborhood, but economic diversity. Our kids' buses go by 9 - count em, n - i - n - e, public elementary schools on their way to their assigned school. We wholeheartedly support the goals of economic diversity but find it amusing that people on this blog assume that kids and families supporting public schools might get to attend school with their neighbors, and that there are no trade-offs to such policies.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:07 PM

"This, and Meesh, really make me worry about the future of our country."

With all the numbnutzes on this blog, Meesh worries you?? what an idiot you are.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:10 PM

"The idea that I'm better served by voting for, hypothetically, Kay Bailey Hutchison than for Jim Webb is absurd. "

I actually agree with this, but I don't think that Leslie ever stated, or even intimated, that women will always vote in ways that are favorable to women's interests. One particular vote for swimming pool safety does not mean that as a whole, a particular woman candidate's voting record benefits women's interests. Because for one thing, different women have different interests, and depending on their particular political leanings and values, they might be better served by a man. I personally would vote for Webb before I voted for Hutchinson. But I do think that the idea that Congress should be more diverse is a good one. Right now, it has more women (as well as other minorities) in it than in any other time in history, but women are still a minority, as are minorities. And I believe having more women (as well as minorities), of diverse backgrounds and diverse political ideologies, would make Congress more truly representative of the American people as a whole than it currently is. So in that sense, I applaud those mothers in Capitol Hill who are in the front lines of making Congress more truly representative of the diversity of Americans out there.

Posted by: Emily | July 20, 2007 2:10 PM

Posted by: | July 20, 2007 02:07 PM

That's what happens when you let liberals set crazy policies based on social engineering. Nine schools? Move to a place with some sanity.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:15 PM

"Our kids' buses go by 9 - count em, n - i - n - e, public elementary schools on their way to their assigned school."

Same story here.
There is a public elementary school ACROSS the street from our house! Not the assigned school.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:16 PM

i wonder if the kids attend the neighborhood schools?

Do you really think that any wealthy rep or senator is going to send THEIR kids to DC'S crime infested low performing schools? PULEEZE

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:18 PM

Our kids' buses go by 9 - count em, n - i - n - e, public elementary schools on their way to their assigned school."

Same story here.
There is a public elementary school ACROSS the street from our house! Not the assigned school.

What planet do you live on to tolerate that? You should be raising holy hell

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:19 PM

Back at you, Scarry. I also have figured out that drinking lots and lots of water is a great way to avoid hemorrhoids.

And Meesh moved into a new Congressional district (for those of you who failed 6th grade and need a remedial reading course), which is why she had not found out who her reps are. I find her comments to be far more insightful, interesting, and intelligent than the drive by snarkers who criticized her. You only wish you were as smart and knowledgeable as she is.

Posted by: Emily | July 20, 2007 2:20 PM

I'm really confused-- what is so "Bwahaha" funny about what i said? I just wondered if a Senator's kids would attend neighborhood schools-- and I further expalined that what I use the phrase "neighborhood schools" that I don't mean for it to exclude private schools.

To whomever posted at 2:07, I'm really sorry that your kids are being bussed to schools outside your neighborhood. I think that is crazy. but I evidently don't live in Washington DC-- more particularly Capitol Hill. If Sen Landreux wanted to send her kids to the closest public school, i don't think she would have any resistance at all from DCPS-- or that school!

I hope your neighborhood finds a way to resolve this-- maybe by making the schools in the lower income neighborhoods so fabulous (or special interest-- i.e. magnent schools) that higher income parents will either want to send their kids to such schools or perhaps will even move into those neighborhoods.

Good luck! hope you get some elected officials who will work hard to resolve this bussing problem. You (and your kids) really do have my symphathy.

Posted by: Jen S. | July 20, 2007 2:22 PM

Emily,

How tall is the ladder you use to climb up on that high horse?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:22 PM

What happened to foamy?

Posted by: Elaine | July 20, 2007 2:23 PM

Michael, I recently moved to this district. Previously, I volunteered for my city council woman on election days and voted in every local election, rain or shine. I also collected signatures for several petitions and attended council meetings.

I agree that people need to take a more active role in their local governments. However, I don't despise people who don't think it's important.

Posted by: Meesh | July 20, 2007 2:23 PM

Its preferable that most people don't vote. Most people in this country are barely well informed enough to vote for American Idol. I don't want people who don't care enough to truly educate themselves on this issues to vote at all.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:26 PM

Opps! I meant to say "You evidently don't live in Washington DC", not "I evidently don't live . . . " I don't know a lot about the DCPS system, but I do know that they don't engage in this kind of crazy school assignment.

Posted by: Jen S. | July 20, 2007 2:27 PM

scarry, Emily, I you guys.

Posted by: Meesh | July 20, 2007 2:27 PM

Uh, that should read "I heart you guys." I guess that putting brackets around a word makes it invisible on this blog.

Posted by: Meesh | July 20, 2007 2:29 PM

Back at you, Scarry. I also have figured out that drinking lots and lots of water is a great way to avoid hemorrhoids.

Don't forget fresh fruits (figs!) and even dried ones.

I suspect that prenatal vitamin pills haven't gotten any smaller, have they? Still big enough to choke a dog? Blech.

Posted by: to Emily | July 20, 2007 2:30 PM

Classy? Talking about hemorrhoids in a public place? Treating them with frozen spinach? I don't think so. Sounds more like trailer trash to me.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:30 PM

Yes, fresh fruits and veggies of course too, as well as dried fruits, which are a great substitute for candy. And yes, pre-natal vitamins are still huge, plus my regimen also includes a fish oil gel capsule which made me feel very nauseated until a few weeks ago. But it's all worth it. I love being pregnant.

Posted by: Emily | July 20, 2007 2:35 PM

"Sounds more like trailer trash to me."

Thank you. If you are the model of classiness, I will take trailer trash over you any day.

Posted by: Emily | July 20, 2007 2:38 PM

"Classy? Talking about hemorrhoids in a public place? Treating them with frozen spinach? I don't think so. Sounds more like trailer trash to me."

You should know....

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:41 PM

Can we get awy from emily's disgusting hemorrhoids?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:55 PM

Emily: Can you ask your husband, anon. at 2:55, to stop posting anonymously? Only trolls do that.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 2:57 PM

D in DC...Pile it on...I have big shoulders! Did you notice that she almost fell using those healys? Mom will probably sue when she does fall. Did I say anything about interns? Congressmen probably don't notice because lately, they seem to prefer boys. I work in a school and I know I see much worse. Many of these high school girls will probably be interns because the way their parents let them dress. Female faculty and staff kid me because I won't enforce the dress code. Like I'm going to say something to pubescent or pre-pubescent girls. The women can handle that.

scarry...really ugly attitude. You didn't comment on the post, just attacked without discretion. I said nothing about social issues or animals. She didn't know about her representation. Sorry, I'm not worried about me,I am a big boy and can take care of myself. I am worried about our progeny, yours and mine.

Anonymous July 20, 2007 01:39 PM...Huh? Did I miss something?

kattoo...your statement, "uppity, snobishy(NOT A WORD)", annoying people like you(YOU DON'T KNOW ME)live in it (YES I DO, JUST LIKE YOU). And you have the audacity(YEP, NICE WORD THOUGH) to come air your trumped up superiority(HUH?) on this blog.(OF COURSE) You're nothing but a puff of words(ISN'T THAT ALL THIS IS?)--poof! Bye bye" (HAVE A NICE AFTERNOON!)

Posted by: Michael1945 | July 20, 2007 3:02 PM

I admire the female Senators and Congresswomen mentioned in the article. I couldn't do what they are doing, being so far away from their children, but I am glad they are doing it on behalf of us all. I am not a feminist but after having children I have faced professional discrimination because of my children. I doubt that I would have been treated the same way by a female member of congress, even the most demanding one. As for the hours these women put in, women who work in high power demanding jobs (public administration, Wall Street, large law firms, etc.) probably have even worse hours. In fact, I want to see more working parents (women and men) on Capitol Hill not only in elected positions but also as staffers. Right now the Hill culture is very much geared toward young, unmarried, work around the clock, ambitious people.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:13 PM

Michael1945

"I work in a school"

Oh, my God! Can this be true?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:15 PM

"I am worried about our progeny, yours and mine."

Worry about your own progeny. There is no need to worry about anyone else's. Since your progeny will inherit your genes, you are right to be very worried.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:15 PM

Sorry Meesh, not disrespect intended. Just an observation.

Posted by: Michael1945 | July 20, 2007 3:18 PM

"Worry about your own progeny. There is no need to worry about anyone else's. Since your progeny will inherit your genes, you are right to be very worried."

Darwinism will take its course.


Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:19 PM

"Michael1945

"I work in a school"

Oh, my God! Can this be true?"

Yes, he's real name is Mr. Hand

Posted by: spicoli | July 20, 2007 3:19 PM

Meesh, No disrespect intended. Just and observation.

Posted by: Michael1945 | July 20, 2007 3:20 PM

I was fascinated by this article yesterday. I agree with D in DC about problems of representatives moving to DC. You still have to be a "resident" of your district to be able to run for office, so they need to maintain a residence back home. Many do it by rental property or vacation home or something, but some actually have their home elsewhere and "commute." I think those that CAN move their families here have a much better deal-but there is no reason dads can't take care of the kids during the week, either. And I always find it amusing how so few people even bat an eye when a father works crazy hours or travels...don't you wonder about his quality time with the kids? I know my husband would hate to not have time with our daughter-it's hard enough that he is in school some nights and can't always be there to tuck her in at night!

As for Pelosi extending the workweek, there was VERY good reason for that. I'm sorry, but a day and a half of actual work is shameful, especially when there are so many problems that need fixing. And the things that were getting done? Voting on gay marriage, partial birth abortion, flag burning and Terri Schiavo? Hardly the most important topics when Americans are dying overseas AND at home! But I digress...I don't believe she did it to make it harder on Representatives and their families.

I thought this was a very interesting piece, and made me think about how lucky I am, even as a working mom. And for those who think being a congressional member is all about power, I just wanted to share that my mother is very seriously considering a run for Congress because she is so disturbed by the way our country is being run right now. Some people get into it for more idealistic reasons than being power-hungry, whether you want to believe it or not.

Posted by: HilsMom | July 20, 2007 3:21 PM

to michael1945: since you have big shoulders... here goes. I was disturbed by your statement that Wasserman Shultz children prevent her from being an effective legislator. How can you make such a broad statement without any factual knowledge? Did she miss important votes? Does she never show up for mark ups and committee hearings? I am a former staffer who absolutely loved her job and also loved being a mother. I had the same kind of attitude thrown at me and it was extremely unfair.

Posted by: ex staffer | July 20, 2007 3:21 PM

There are certainly a great number of anonymous postings here.

Posted by: Michael1945 | July 20, 2007 3:24 PM

"There are certainly a great number of anonymous postings here."

Another brilliant observation.

Posted by: Emily | July 20, 2007 3:25 PM

I want foamy!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:32 PM

Hey Emily, what do you think about this? Maybe you can add more of your acidic comments to this one. "L" word?

Posted by: morefeministhooha | March 13, 2006 04:48 PM

It's sad to see WashPost sponsoring something called "Mommy Wars" that so obviously intends to castrate traditional men and celebrate the aggressive, self-serving, pants-wearing, 40-something feminist mommy whose sky-high ambition, self-centered attitude and overall nastiness undermine the stability of families and relationships across our country.

A woman like Leslie who mocks her husband in public, considers herself a hero, and castigates women who take other paths is the paradigm for what is wrong with America. She is the nightmare scenario for the average American man. She drives Americans into the arms of conservatives. She frightens her children. And she repulses me.

Personally, I hope this blog is dumped before it generates a backlash. What a wasteland.

Q. What kind of insider deal gets a former editor a blog to promote her book anyway?

Posted by: I Support Michael 1945 | July 20, 2007 3:36 PM

And she repulses me.

I Support Michael 1945/I am Michael1945

Aha. Now we get to what really matters the most. Not the editors, not the owners, but you.

*genuflect!*

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:38 PM

I Support Michael 1945

You give this blog waay too much credit.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:40 PM

To Michael:
I mentioned the interns in response to this quote from you:
"Also, it did bother me to see a child running around in the halls of the Capitol and/or the House office building. This may have been done for the camera but I find it completely out of place."

Clearly, you were not aware of what would seem "out of place" in the halls of Congress and that is why I described a typical scene for you. You implied that the little girl was a distraction, hence my mention of the greater distraction of the "female intern season" as it used to be referred to by some of my former male colleagues (staffers, not members) - and it was a joke, which you clearly failed to get. And, while they may be (and should be) accused of many things, to paint all male members of congress as pedophiles because of the actions of one of them is a little over the top, I think.

Ex-Staffer: Right on. I left the Hill so I could have options with regards to my family. The unpredictable and late hours required are really difficult for a mom!

HilsMom: It wouldn't be so irritating that they now work (mostly) 4 days a week if they were actually doing 4 days worth of work and not just stretching 2 days worth into 4 days! It's not like the members go back home and sit on their duffs on M and F anyway - most have very full schedules of district activities when they are home (meetings with constituents, Rotary Clubs, Parades, Community Events, Town Hall mtgs, etc, not to mention fundraising - ugh). My DH is still on the hill and the "fake" 5 day work week is annoying - regardless of your political persuasion!!

Posted by: D in DC | July 20, 2007 3:42 PM

My comment is that although I am sure that there are plenty of wimps out there who are threatened by people like Leslie, they are powerless to silence her and people like her. And if they expect this blog to bust, they should brace for a bitter disappointment. Because despite all the noisy detractors, this blog is wildly successful. And the anons and idiots who come by to snark, insult, and complain, only add to the success of the blog by generating more traffic to it.

Posted by: Emily | July 20, 2007 3:42 PM

Leslie = manhater

Dunno about that, but there are PLENTY of manhaters who would love to meet you!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:43 PM

My comment is that although I am sure that there are plenty of wimps out there who are threatened by people like Leslie, they are powerless to silence her and people like her. And if they expect this blog to bust, they should brace for a bitter disappointment. Because despite all the noisy detractors, this blog is wildly successful. And the anons and idiots who come by to snark, insult, and complain, only add to the success of the blog by generating more traffic to it.

You are a ninny! This blog IS a bust. It devolves every day into crap. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:51 PM

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Posted by: | July 20, 2007 03:51 PM

Wake up and count the hits on the WP site, and this blog. If you really want it gone, then do what you do best and be apathetic.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:54 PM

My comment is that although I am sure that there are plenty of wimps out there who are threatened by people like Leslie

More of the hemorrhoid ladies arrogance, anyone who disagrees is a wimp an dis threatened. Do you ever get off your high horse?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:56 PM

"This blog IS a bust. It devolves every day into crap"

Not EVERY day. Some days it is tons of fun!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:57 PM

Wake up and count the hits on the WP site, and this blog. If you really want it gone, then do what you do best and be apathetic.

It gets traffic for the OFF topic posts and the infighting not to support Leslie's feminist rants.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:58 PM

Emily makes big bucks blogging all day while hubby stays home taking care of the homefront. Why wouldn't she rather work than be at home? No clue about the real world.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:59 PM

ex staffer:

On tape, she admitted to missing votes. Who is to say which ones are important? Did I say anything about her never showing for mark ups and committee hearings? No, I didn't, and she probably missed some of those too. Everyone does that but one doesn't go on record saying, "I stayed home to watch my daughter in a school play". Maybe she trying to explain or looking for sympathy, I don't know and I don't care.

As for your being a former staffer and a mother, there is a great deal of difference in responsibilities. A legislator has to be available, whether a mom or dad. It is a job that is completely voluntary. Nobody is forced to commit to politics but if you do, be prepared to do what is necessary.

I'm glad you are an ex staffer, it makes life a lot more enjoyable. Been there, done that. I'm sorry that you were exposed to that "attitude". I agree with you that it is not fair.

None of this was directed at staff. Those that have been there know that it can be a crappy job but it can also be a stepping stone to a great future.

Posted by: Michael1945 | July 20, 2007 4:00 PM

"I Support Michael 1945," I am interested to know what your descriptions of a "traditional man" and "traditional woman" are.

And, more importantly, why they should all be "traditional." Who prescribed how women and men should act?

Are "different" women and men really threatening the "traditional" people? Is your traditional life really any worse because some people are not "traditional?"

Why can't people be different without being wrong, repulsive, and dangerous?

Posted by: Meesh | July 20, 2007 4:01 PM

She is the nightmare scenario for the average American man.

Why? Because she earns more money? Writes books that get published? Can't they take care of themselves? Are you some sort of unsung hero of the tender psyches of American males?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 4:02 PM

Wake up and count the hits on the WP site, and this blog. If you really want it gone, then do what you do best and be apathetic.

It gets traffic for the OFF topic posts and the infighting not to support Leslie's feminist rants.

Posted by: | July 20, 2007 03:58 PM

Right, and there you are, replying. Thus increasing the traffic to the host and this blog. It's not rocket science.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 4:04 PM

She is the nightmare scenario for the average American man.


She is just a yuppie wife with too much time on her hands. Nightmare? ha!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 4:04 PM

I miss fun fridays around here.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 4:06 PM

"Right, and there you are, replying. Thus increasing the traffic to the host and this blog. It's not rocket science."

Darwinism takes its course.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 4:07 PM

She is the nightmare scenario for the average American man.


She is just a yuppie wife with too much time on her hands. Nightmare? ha!

Posted by: | July 20, 2007 04:04 PM

I'll wager a lobster dinner that you haven't accomplished half as much, and never will.

Her writing was first published in Seventeen Magazine when she was 21 and a senior at Harvard College. After college she worked as a writer and editor at Seventeen, exploring subjects ranging from eating disorders to teen runaways to family relationships. She went on to contribute to Mademoiselle, Money Magazine, and other magazines, and to work as a restaurant critic and feature writer for New England Monthly. Her essay "Starving for Perfection" appeared in the anthology The College Reader (Harper Collins).

In addition to years as a nonfiction magazine writer and editor, Steiner has an MBA degree in marketing from the Wharton School of Business. She launched Splenda Brand Sweetener around the world for Johnson & Johnson, the world's largest consumer healthcare company. Over the years, she has turned her professional experience into advocacy for abused women as a spokeswoman at The Harriet Tubman Center in Minneapolis. She joined The Washington Post in February 2001.

Posted by: Bedrock | July 20, 2007 4:09 PM

Only in New York or Washington DC would a writer be seen as a worthwhile pursuit.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 4:13 PM

Bedrock

"Her essay "Starving for Perfection" appeared in the anthology The College Reader (Harper Collins). "

Was the essay about Leslie's own eating disorder? I would read that.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 4:16 PM

Only in New York or Washington DC would a writer be seen as a worthwhile pursuit.

Yep, the rest of us get real jobs.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 4:18 PM

Part or all of Leslie diatribes against men stem from her abuse at the hands of a man.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 4:19 PM

"She launched Splenda Brand Sweetener around the world for Johnson & Johnson, the world's largest consumer healthcare company."

Johnson & Johnson. Is that where Leslie had the mean Iraqi woman boss?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 4:22 PM

Anon @ 4:18: "Only in New York or Washington DC would a writer be seen as a worthwhile pursuit.

Yep, the rest of us get real jobs."

________________

On this of all days, I'll respond with: J K Rowling.

I'm biased; oldest DD wants to be a writer; she starts college in 5 weeks. Yes, I'd rather she want to be an engineer like me, but hey, it's her life.

Posted by: Army Brat | July 20, 2007 4:45 PM

"I'm biased; oldest DD wants to be a writer; she starts college in 5 weeks. Yes, I'd rather she want to be an engineer like me, but hey, it's her life.'

great, because in 5 years with an english major, she will be living with you and getting good at "do you want fries with that? Plus a nice hefty student loan balance to boot probably

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 4:54 PM

Anon @ 4:54: Shows how much you know. First, no student loan balance because I'm paying her tuition and fees and she's working (and has been working) to pay incidental expenses/spending money.

Second, while she hasn't decided whether to major in English or communications, there are some jobs available. Yes, she knows that the starting salaries tend to be low (although better than "you want fries with that"), and she'll have to be both lucky and good. We've discussed it at length. She's a good kid with a good head on her shoulders.

Posted by: Army Brat | July 20, 2007 4:59 PM

Anon @ 4:54: Shows how much you know. First, no student loan balance because I'm paying her tuition and fees and she's working (and has been working) to pay incidental expenses/spending money.

I stand corrected, she will work at Mickey D's and not have a student loan balance.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 5:07 PM

13 Things PMS Stands for:


1. Pass my Shotgun
2. Psychotic Mood Shift
3. Perpetual Munching Spree
4. Puffy Mid-Section
5. People Make (me) Sick
6. Provide me (with) Sweets
7. Pardon My Sobbing
8. Pimples May Surface
9. Pass My Sweatpants
10. Pissy Mood Syndrome
11. Plainly, Men Suck
12. Pack My Stuff
13. Potential Murder Suspect

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 5:10 PM

I assume the anonymous coward who doesn't understand how someone could make a living as a writer simply understands their own inability to make it. Some of us do quite nicely, thanks. Some us even consider it a real job, since there is no requirement that the way you make your living be something you detest doing.

Yeah, this was a waste of electrons, but I'm waiting to leave the house.

Posted by: writer | July 20, 2007 5:17 PM

Yeah, this was a waste of electrons, but I'm waiting to leave the house.

Fry shift about to start?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 5:27 PM

Writer,

How did this get to be about writers? I wish I could write. I try but for me, it is an avocation. I'm impressed by fiction writers especially when they can grab a thought and run with it. Non fiction is usually too subjective and argumentative.

Don't trash writers. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have anything to read. Also, the job I detested, I left. I now do something that I enjoy very much. Of course, it isn't writing.

You're right, better things to do now.

Posted by: Michael1945 | July 20, 2007 5:31 PM

Off topic -- "Starving for Perfection" was the story of my battle with teenaged anorexia (a battle I am very lucky to have won). It was published in Seventeen Magazine in Sept 1986 and in a HarperCollins anthology called the College Reader in 1990. I doubt it is available online (if anyone knows otherwise, please let us know). If you want a copy, email me your mailing address and I will send you one.

Posted by: Leslie | July 20, 2007 6:32 PM

Maryland Mother, thanks! I'm sure you're not on now but I'm just getting around to reading today's blog. Busy day!

Posted by: Mona | July 21, 2007 12:14 AM

I stand corrected, she will work at Mickey D's and not have a student loan balance.

Fry shift about to start?

Posted by: | July 20, 2007 05:27 PM

Does anyone else get the feeling that this individual will have to reach for the stars in order to get out of rat-catching duty?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2007 8:48 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company