How Insulting

This little AP article enlists the head of the inherently unserious White House Project (dedicated to electing a woman president) to moan about how few women there are in government compared to other countries.

Marie Wilson, White House Project chief, whines that the US has:

"gotten further and further behind as other countries have adopted quotas and other mechanisms to ensure they are using all their resources, meaning their women. Those countries implemented quotas because they finally decided that political parity was important enough to be given some teeth."

Yes, well, forget about jumping off a bridge -- if those countries disbanded their armies and decided to impose a marginal tax rate of 100%, does that mean that we should do it, too? Hardly.

This type of complaining so typical of the silly breed of feminist. Note the following paragraph:

Experts point to a number of problems the U.S. needs to solve to bring more women into office: the cost of running a competitive campaign, redistricting that favors incumbents — most of them male — and stagnant numbers at the state legislature level.

'Scuse me -- but aren't those problems that relative newcomers to elected politics in the US (male, as well as females) confront? Has anyone been able to muster any evidence that women are either being discouraged from seeking electoral office, or that they're being opposed, simply on account of their gender? Hardly.

And has anyone ever considered that women aren't turning out to run in droves, not because "the man" is keeping them down, but because they're relatively happy with the representation they're already receiving?

Think about it -- and shed the mantle of victimhood. We're about elected the best candidate, not the breast one (unless she's the best, too, as may well be the case).

As for the White House Project, maybe I'll take its bona fides a bit more seriously when they indicate any interest in supporting conservative women, as well as liberals.