Is It Gender Specific?

Inkwell Institute

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Political Theory/Feminism/

Paper #19

It would be difficult to try and teach political theory without injecting gender into the mix…..in today’s world gender and politics is as important as any other issue and if one looks at the most recent primaries then you can understand why I make such a statement……women are coming of age, especially in the GOP which in the past had been a cultural wasteland for women candidates….all that is changing and we need to see what it will mean in the future…..

In the US the Democratic Party has long held that women are very viable candidates, but it has not been so with the GOP in the past…but today’s political climate is giving conservative women an outlet for their political ambitions….especially on the shirt tails of the Tea Party…..this can only increase the democrat process…but in today’s political sphere there are a few philosophies about gender….personally, I like the idea of more gender diversification in politics….

But different philosophies view gender in very different lights……not all view it in a positive way….and some even see it a the hue of the Cro-Magnon man…..

I will begin with Liberals (I know I also begin with Liberals) who have traditionally viewed differences between man and woman as being a personal and private  significance.  In politics, all people, regardless of gender, are equal….gender is irrelevant as is race and social class.

Conservatives have emphasized the social and political significance of gender divisions and argue that the sexual division of labor between men and women is natural and hierarchical.

And now the Socialists…..like liberals have seldom treated gender as politically significant….they view the divisions between men and women as a reflection of deeper problems with economic and class inequalities.

Everybody’s a/hole the Fascists who see gender as a fundamental division of mankind, where men are naturally the leaders, while women are more suited for domestic, supportive and subordinate roles.  (No wonder these guys have little success)

Feminists also see gender as a political and social distinction, but see these divisions are manifestations of male power, otherwise there is NO distinction….

Now my fav, the Religious Right who regard gender as a God-given division and as such is critical to social and political organization.  So with that said, they tend to see the leadership by men as natural and desirable.  (Silly people that they are)

We could carry on with this discussion of gender and politics, but that would take a whole semester and then we would be where we were when I began this  post.  I realize that my definitions are short, sweet and overly simple but unfortunately that is the way people think and I try to be accurate as I can and as informative as I can in the least amount of space……enjoy…..

In The Beginning………

Daily Agitator

In the beginning there was a massive amount of anger leveled at the Wall Street banks that took the US to the brink of collapse……..so much anger that the Congress set about to stop the gambling on the taxpayer’s dime…..regulation and oversight was the call of the day…..it showed promise….it showed that the Congress got the idea and started acting on behalf of the people……that was in the beginning….now it is something way less than the original intent…..

When the Senate bank reform legislation passed in May, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said it sent the message to Wall Street that they can no longer “recklessly gamble away other people’s money.” The bill told Main Street, “you no longer have to fear that your savings, your retirement or your home are at the mercy of greedy gamblers in big banks. And it says to them, ‘never again will you be asked to bail out those big banks when they lose their risky bets,’ “

The bill the Senate passed did protect the taxpayers from reckless gambling by the big banks, largely due to the last-minute inclusion of strong derivatives reforms authored by Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas). So why is it that Senate and House leadership are now busy behind these scenes trying to kill the best provisions in their own banking reform legislation?

Behind the scenes, Senate Banking Chair Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) and House Financial Services Chair Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) have made it clear they are not fans of Lincoln’s proposal. Neither is the U.S. Treasury Department. Treasury official Michael Barr has been running around telling anyone who will listen that these derivatives rules were not part of the administration’s four “core objectives” for financial reform.

But opponents of strong derivatives reform have a big problem. They can’t just yank it out of the bill with an outcry from consumer advocates and reform groups like Americans for Financial Reform, who have been working hard on the issue. So they have cooked up a new scheme. They will replace the Lincoln language with the strengthened version of the Volcker Rule offered (but never voted on) by Senators Merkley (D- Oregon) and Levin (D-Michigan). They want to convince everyone that a strengthened Volcker Rule takes care of all the issues raised by Lincoln.

In case you are not sure what the Volcker rule is…let me help….The Volcker Rule deals importantly, but narrowly, with derivatives trading for a bank’s own account. This is called “propriety trading,” and banks would be barred from trading any financial instrument (mortgage-backed securities and stocks, as well as derivatives) for their own as opposed to a customer’s account. Merkley-Levin would make this reform a statutory ban rather than leaving it to the discretion of regulators and would further crack down on Goldman-style conflict of interest trading. But big banks would still be allowed to deal and trade on behalf of their clients and their derivatives business would still be backed by the taxpayer guarantee.

Watch the slight of hand by the Congress…the bill that is the final version will be far from the regulation needed to prevent the economy from collapsing again….with the Congress being paid by the banks to water any reform down….we can look ahead ten years or so and see all this economic woes occurring again…….Politicians need to think about that when they are so concerned about our children’s future…….