Though its population is 50.6 percent female, Kansas is among the 18 states in which top legislative leadership is 100 percent male, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. What’s more, the number of women lawmakers hasn’t changed much over the past decade; currently, 35 women serve in the 125-member Kansas House, and the 40-member Senate includes 13 women. The Legislature’s 29 percent female membership means the state badly lags Vermont’s 37 percent, but at least women are better represented in Kansas than in South Carolina, where 91 percent of lawmakers are men. The state currently has a woman governor and, for the first time in a decade, a female member of Congress. But it needs more women in the Legislature overall but particularly in its top ranks.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
63 Comments
Does your poll consider that only some women are crazy enough to want to be politicians?
Why?
Legislature needs more women
Umm. Apparently not.
It’s high time the Legislature get some more women. Who else is gonna do all the cookin and cleanin?
My Senator, my House of Representative and my Governor are all females.Unless the NCSL know about someone’s little closet secrets, to me they appear to be females.Here lately I have notice the governor’s mustache is a little thicker then what it use to be.
I think we need more women in power. Perfume is much more attractive to the senses than aftershave.
Littlejohn,
Why not?
Tom-
The note was not idealogical, just practical. ALthough I realize party poltics plays a huge hand in candidate selection, it is my contention that since 50.6% female, and given the penchant for women’s practicality, if their was a need for more women in the legislature, there would be. Women would see to it. Hence, since there is only a 29% women ratio, apparently there is no need.
Or perhaps, many powerful and practical women actually really that there are many powerful men controlled by even more powerful women. :)
Littlejohn,
Because of the advocacy work I do in Topeka, and consulting work I do for candidates from this part of the state, I see the “system” up-close and personal. There’s a “good old boy network” in Kansas politics that is incredibly difficult to penetrate, especially for women.
One of the things Holman points out in her blog posting is that the Legislature’s leadership on both sides is 100% male-dominated. That domination is a direct outcome of the GOBN at work. I’ve been witness to how that male-dominated leadership often treats the women in the Legislature; it’s often dismissive and condescending.
You can’t win if you don’t run. And who needs all the abuse that you would have to endure from clueless fools. And women are generally more sensitive to criticism that men. Look at this blog and tell you can’t understand why there are a shortage of good people running for office.
Tom-
Yeah,I guess I could see that, particulary within the leadership network. However, I still think that if there was a felt need for more women in legislature, there would be moe women in legislature.Personally, I could care less one way or the other. I have a female state senator, and a male representative. Neither have or do not have their vote because of their sex. I have worked for male bosses, and females bosses. I really don;t care one way or the other.
Gotta start proofreading!
Outlander, that remark was so sexist. But that’s indicative of how many republicans feel about women, so it’s no wonder. What Tom said is 100% dead on. When they see the women coming, they act like ‘aw, how cute’ instead of taking us seriously half the time in the Capitol.
I do wish to be represented fairly. But I’ll take a man like Betts over a woman like O’ Connor anyday.
I find it ridiculous and sad that female candidates are judged differently than males. Comments about the size of Hillary’s thighs would never be made about Romney’s hair dye or McCain’s comb over.
From the tone of some of the commentary, we have a damned long way to go.
If the women are not strong enough to break the good ole boys network, maybe they shouldn’t be in top positions in the legislature.
If there hand is held to get elected, who’s gonna hold their hand once they are in office?
If they want to enter the big pond, they have to be ready to swim with the sharks.
I wouldn’t want somebody weak representing me in government, though we have enough weakness already there.
I have 2 daughters. I have always encouraged them to follow the road they wished, including positions of power. Including up to the White House. While I feel there ae some real obstacles, including a bias in society, and some inherent traits, there is no reason the Presidency, or state legislature, could not be held by a woman as well as a man
I also have 2 daughters, and also told them they could reach for the stars.
I also told them they need to work for everything they expect to get, and not to expect special treatment.
One daughter played 8th grade tackle football – with the boys. She took a lot of teasing, and I told her to expect that, but she did ok, playing Defensive Tackle!
If you want to swim with the sharks, you have to be as tough or tougher than the sharks.
I am torn on this one. I can understand on one hand that the ratio of women in Legislature does not reflect the ratio of women in the general population, so there could be cause for concern. However, I do not know that this type of comparison is even valid.
Each precinct elects their own representation without regard for what other precints do. If Sedgwick county voters happen to decide that they want a man to represent them, so be it. Should that have any bearing on how any other county votes so a specific ending ratio is achieved?
It isn’t that women want their hand held at all. It’s that it’s doubly hard for them to get anywhere and be taken seriously.
It’s high time that it ends and that women are treated just like a man when seeking political office. I would have little doubt the ERA would have been voted on last year had we had more women.
So sad that we’ve gone backwards on the equality issue for women. Kansas was the first state to write it up- and when it wasn’t ratified by the Federal Government, Kansas shouldn’t have dropped it back then. Now you’re almost laughed at when attempting to pass it.
SAD, that in 2007, we still have no ERA. It’s shameful.
Political Mom-
Practically speaking, what rights or priviledges would the ERA give you that you do not have now?
In KANSAS, it would give women the same constitutional guarantees under the law. That means, if 51% of lawmakers decided that, say, women couldn’t hold property…they couldn’t pass it because of the constitution.
The only ONLY constitutional right guaranteed to women is the right to vote. Pretty much anything else is subject to the whim of a majority legislature.
I’d like to see it passed at the Federal level, but until it is, each state should enact it individually per their own constitutions.
We were the first state to propose it, but we still don’t have it.
It’s high time that it ends and that women are treated just like a man when seeking political office. Posted by: political_mom | July 05, 2007 at 02:57 PM
Political Mom, you are asking for SPECIAL treatment. I’m all for treating women like men, if that’s what y’all want. Ya see how nasty political campaigns are between men and men don’t you? Then women who want to swim with the sharks will have the same chance at drowning as the men – and they have that opportunity now. You want women to be treated the same don’t you? No, you really want SPECIAL treatment.
Um.. Mom, I fear you have been reading too much NOW propaganda!
For you, LJ….a good article on why it’s still needed.
equalrightsamendment.org/why.htm
Ihg, you gave no reason whatsoever. NO I don’t want special treatment…exactly what special treatment did I ask for?
Whenever you say things like that without backing up what you say, you just sound stupid. Don’t project your ridiculousness on me.
Well, argue it then Outlander.
I’m ready for ya.
Doesn;t the 14th amendment give equal protection for women?
Political MOm-
Thanks for the link.
Political Mom-
I find their arguments less than compelling. This one argument bears looking into:W
“We need the ERA because the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause has never been interpreted to grant equal rights on the basis of sex in the same way that the Equal Rights Amendment would…. the traditional assumption that males hold rights and females must prove that they hold them.”
I will try and educae myself on that one.
Dear Mom, you are the one who said women are treated differently. If anything, I see reverse discrimination where women are favored in the workplace and in divorce proceedings.
How do you see women being treated differently and less fair then men are treated? And just exactly how do you think some new law will change how women are treated today?
The US Constitution Bill of Rights refers to “The People”.
The 14th Amendment provides “equal protection of the laws” to “All Persons”.
Are women not included in “The People” or “All Persons” and the rights protected by the Constitution?
In fact, what People or Persons need SPECIAL protection which are not already enumerated by the Bill of Rights and other Amendments?
I see no need for any SPECIAL laws and SPECIAL protection for any particular group of people – THAT would be discrimination.
All the rights in the Constitution apply to All the People already.
Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Ihg, your arguments are wrong. Did you look at the link I provided?
No, not special protections, equal protections. You cannot tell me that they haven’t argued before the supreme court that when the constitution was written, it applied to white men only. We know that from history.
I certainly wish that it had applied to all peoples throughout history or we wouldn’t be having this argument. So you can’t just say ‘the constitution says this”, it is still interpreted by the courts on what exactly “IT” is. And by the courts, “all peoples” haven’t included women. There is nothing in the ERA AT ALL that provides us with special protections. If you can find something there, please let me know.
LJ
I am not a lawyer, I can’t cite the individual cases where they have argued these things where skeptical scrutiny differs from the other, but perhaps the legal minds on this forum can jump in on it.
Elections in this country are more or less fair. Women have the same right and opportunity to run for public office as men. If you think females are somehow getting the proverbial shaft then put together evidence and submit it to the local paper. I suggest contacting Rhonda Holman. I understand she might be sympathetic to your cause.
However, to say that we need female legislators just because they are female is sexist. When you vote for a representative it should be because that person is philosophically similar to yourself. You really want someone there who will do what you would do in that public office. Gender does not matter.
Poltical Mom-
That’s okay. I know you aren;t. I will look around, though, and see if I can find some references. Thanks again for the link
Dear Mom,
Yes, I did review your link, and stand by my 4:37 post.
Do we need an Amendment that says the Constitution means what it says? Perhaps.
The Supreme Court decision which overturned the 5th Amendment is an example of what you claim has happened to women.
In the Kelo v. New London (June 23, 2005), the Supreme Court ruled the Constitution does not mean what it says. Is the same true for women’s rights and other rights of the people?
Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
I think the broader question, going beyond just women’s rights issues, is to examine what to do when the Government fails to follow its own laws. How are the people to ensure their rights are protected and existing laws are not followed? Pass new laws?
And how are the People going to ensure the new laws are enforced more so then the existing laws that are being ignored?
Obviously Proud, or I wouldn’t have said Betts is the better legislator (and I as a woman would vote for him over someone who doesn’t support my views).
However, it’s still harder for women. Often, the rules of society will follow the rules that become law. Think of how things were before anti-discrimination laws…it was perfectly ok for someone to treat a black person inferiorly. The law allowed them to.
If we create a law that says we’re all equal, will it stop all discrimination? No, of course not. But it’ll soon become the norm to treat everyone equally after the law is passed.
I’ve never heard of the government taking someone’s property without paying them extremely well for it.I don’t know why you’re trying to change the subject.
There is NO REASON not to put in the ERA. NONE! Unless you want to get away with sexist behavior…that’s the only reason why anyone would oppose it.
Moderate thinking women perhaps. The radical thinking Kansas republican neocons are not good for the economy or for the environment.
No matter all of those who supported Rep. Nancy Boyda put a moderate republican into office and so it goes for the state AG’s office as well. Very smart move for all those on both sides of the aisle who supported them.
I supported Nancy Kassebaum without blinking an eye and never regretted that vote.
Then again whatever happened to the real republican party…will it please sign in for it is still a mystery. Ryun is a radical neocon not a republican.
Women are outnumbering men in college and it’s about 50/50 in medical schools. We’re gaining ground, but you can’t overturn thousands of years of culture and opression in a a few short decades. We will get to the point where we believe in ourselves enough to take on political leadership roles, too, it just takes time. Too many women are self defeating, that’s one thing we need to overcome big time. If you believe in yourself, you can jump over the hurdles that others throw in front of you. No one can hold you back unless you allow them to. Yes, it’s hard, but most things worth achieving take effort and tenacity.Another thing I see is that most women I know put their families first, something many sucessful men don’t do. Maybe women just have their priorities in better order?
’scuse the typos, I didn’t proof read either.
The real Republican Party.
Secular Progressives never had a clue about it in the first place.
If they knew, they wouldn’t have gotten their butts kicked in the last two Presidential election.
Oops, my bad…they sent the GORACLE and “SwiftBoat” Kerry.
never mind. :)
We need mo squaw in Legislature. Need more wampum.
The perfect number of women holding public office would be ZERO. They also should not be able to vote.
Sgt, you need some women in your teepee, otherwise you be lookin at other braves, specially when they bend over.
The conversations on this thread have been very revealing. So-called “conservative” men have mocked women for their political ambitions, and demeaned them with comments about appearance, perfume, mustaches, and “cookin’ and cleanin’.”
Such charmers you all are.
Such misogynistic pigs you are.
The Founding Fathers stated that women should not be allowed to vote or hold public office and they were right. Most women are not rational, they are prisoners of their feelings and emotions.
I’ve never heard of the government taking someone’s property without paying them extremely well for it.I don’t know why you’re trying to change the subject. MOM
I wasn’t changin the subject Ma. The POINT was that existing laws already provide equal protection to all people.
The Kelo v. New London ruling is an example of how the Government, in this case, the Supreme Court, does not defend the law or enforce the law.
YOUR solution, is to pass ANOTHER law.
Question is, how will a new law be enforced when existing laws are not?
Not changing the subject at all, unless your field of vision is so narrow you cannot see the forest for the trees.
And by the way MA, Kelo v. New London says that the Government can now take your property for PRIVATE use for the first time in 231 years.
I’m not talking about using your land for public parks, or highways, or sewer right of way. I’m talking about some land developer taking your house and putting up a new privately owned condo or hotel or any private use. If the government wants to, your home is now gone for any reason.
Regardless of how you are compensated, you may now be forced to sell your home to put up a new gas station – if that’s what your local government chooses to do.
You see, the Bill of Rights is about all of the Peoples’ rights, men, women, boys, girls, straight, gay, black, white, brown, yellow.
If the entire Bill of Rights is meaningless, then your ERA amendment will be too.
The Legislature and Politics in General needs LEADERS! We do not need Tokenisms! We do not need quotas.
We need leaders of consequence and character.
The current crop in this day and age on both sides of the isle are polarizing selfish and shortsides, therefore leadership and concern for the Office and their responsibilities to their constituents are secondary.
We have politicians elected because they are “fundraisers”. The LIE to people to get money to run and LIE more to keep their sorry asses in office.
We do not need tokenism, we have enough crapola in the political system as it is.
WE NEED LEADERS regardless of gender, race, etc. I don not want to elect or vote from someone based on thsoe “discriminations”. I want a leader that leads on the basis of what is good for the constituency, not for a small sector.
“If they want to enter the big pond, they have to be ready to swim with the sharks.”
This is priceless! And as soon as a woman starts swimming with the sharks, men start calling her obscene names. Too many men don’t like independent, educated, strong-minded women.
Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
And what does the above prove about women? Women weren’t allowed to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in…(wait for it)…1920.
Mary, it should’nt be one or the other. For men neither. Family- as in working to earn a decent wage, going home after 40-50 hours and being still considered good hardworking loyal employees.
These 80 hour weeks for some people have to stop…that goes for the men too.
Don’t feed the troll.
IGH, we were all angry about the SCOTUS ruling on private property. The laws are being worked to be more specific right now I believe.
Two guys show up at a party in the same suit and they admire each other’s good taste in clothing. Two women show up in the same dress and they worry over who’s butt looks bigger. And so ladies, this qualifies you to lead the free world, how?
This thread is so telling about the sexism we still endure. Sigh. And you wonder why feminists are still around?
It’s not just sexism, PMom – it’s outright misogyny. The amount of scorn and derision in these pigs’ comments say more than just “I think men can do a better job.”
… and you wonder why the woman hating roberts and alito are dangerous? Dont worry girls, they will take care of you and your uterus. Never you mind your pretty little head about such things.
I think this thread proves EXACTLY why we need more women in office.
Does ihg remind you all of someone? Swimming with the sharks, the big girl’s pond, etc.?
Big eye roll here.
Doesn’t bother me…if some men enjoy coming across as ignorant assholes that’s their problem not mine.No man has ever stood in my way and never will.There will be more women leaders in the coming years, Frmgrl, you can count on it!!!Not to name drop, but I’ve had diiner twice and wonderful conversation with the woman who is now running Hilary’s campain. She’s bright, fearless, ambitious and there are a lot more like her coming up. Yeah!
Turned into a lesbo fest here. Not even brave men dare (or want to) tread further down path where such squaw squawk. There be reason why such squaw left to be only with other squaw.
Ya, I can see why the farmgirl is a farmgirl. Spec she can carry 2 haybails at once. She’s enough woman to turn on any lesbo woman.
Power to the Feminists! Oooray!
Women like that will soon rule the world in their wildest dreams!
I don’t know JR, I sorta like em fat, flat chested, and ugly. Pretty easy. Just buy em a Bud and that’s all it takes. And if they talk too much, well I know how to cure that.
It’s so predictable how guys always resort to insults and putdowns anytime a woman asserts herself…so silly and insecure…we must be quite a threat to their male egos.SMS, I’d say!
What the country needs is for the 19th Amendment to be repealed. Thats right! Women should not be allowed to vote. They vote on a candidates looks or on emotion, rather than the facts.
And just how do you know how women vote and what criteria they use, No wimmin voters?
He doesn’t. I’m sure he resents women because he can’t get a girlfriend.I’m glad women are choosing to evolve…more men need to. It’s sad that many in the male population choose to be ignorant and shallow. I’m sure that’s what underlies many of the world’s problems.