Dee Dee Myers is Ready to Rule the World. Are You?

I have long joked that things would be a lot different when I'm King of the World.

Public places would have more "rest" facilities for women since the lines are always so much longer than for the guys. Men would be required to do half of the child care for their own kids and every employer would have on-site day-care facilities.

And while I'm at it, I'll hire Clive Owen and John Cusack to clean my house and cook the meals!  Hey, it's my fantasy, right?

I do believe there is plenty of truth to the argument that loads of things would be better if women ruled the world. Dee Dee Myers has beaten me to the punch in bringing this discussion to the main stream media.

Myers, the former press secretary to President Clinton, ponders in her new book, Why Women Should Rule the World,  an obvious question -- just why aren't there more women in charge of things given the demographics:

Women make up half of law school graduates and roughly a third of all lawyers. But they account for only 15 percent of partners in law firms or federal judges, and 10 percent of law school deans or general counsels at Fortune 500 companies. Women make up nearly half of medical school graduates — but only a quarter of doctors and 10 percent of the deans of medical schools. They are 20 percent of university presidents, but still woefully underrepresented in tenure-track teaching positions, especially in math, science, and engineering. How would a giant increase in the number of women at all levels change law, medicine, and academia?

Yeah, I've been wondering that for a long time, too.

We might have a chance to see how that works if Hillary Clinton can overcome the current political situation and move back into the White House in January.

While I've made no secret that I cast my ballot for her in my state's primary election, it's not a woman president that's going to get us started down the road to world domination.  Things have to start changing in our neighborhoods and our workplaces before our country is ready for a woman to take the helm.

If we can't even get our society, especially so many employers, to see the importance of having more women lead law firms, head up universities and hospitals, and run businesses, how can we get one controversial "girl" to be in charge of Air Force One?

I'm ready to start trying to convince the guys that I've got more to talk about than school pick-up and playdates, how about you?

When she's not here or at her place, PunditMom, Joanne is hard at work on her own scheme for world domination.

Comments

[joeblow]

The reason women dont rule the world right now is a combination of sexism and self-selection. How many female lawyers (RELATIVE TO MALE LAWYERS) are out there who are willing to put in 80 hours per week for many years in order to make partner? If a woman wants to have children thats a non-starter from day one.

I submit to you that for every female lawyer who is willing to pull out all the stops and put in those 100 hour weeks, there are 10 male lawyers willing to do the same, despite the fact that law school classes are 50/50 male-female now. Thats why men are at the top positions. They harbor no illusions about trying to "have it all." They dont give a shit about raising children.

I hear a lot of women in top positions lament that they cant be their kids primary caregiver. Newsflash, ladies, male CEOs arent primary caregivers either. You really think that male CEOs are "having it all" and getting to spend quality time at home? Thats total BS. Men are more willing than women to forego the joys of primary caregiving and delegate it to others.

[PunditMom]

joeblow, And this is a good thing??

[joeblow]

Let me say something else about Myers book. She's in the vein of feminism that foolishly believes all wars would end, all the world leaders would meet together in harmony at the table of brotherhood under female rule.

I think thats just pandering BS. Take a look at Hillary. She's much more hawkish than Barack Obama is, she wont agree to meet rules of "bad" countries such as Cuba. So I dont buy this argument that female leaders are automatically going to sit down with everybody and work out our disagreements.

[Wandering Man Baton]

Hi guys my comment regarding females ruling the world, is that although women are a key part of human
existence, traditionally women also took a back seat
to participating in wars thruout the ages. If women got into true power - just consider this. Power corrupts - and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Pretty soon the "new female world order" would make it illegal to be a male. And therefore, with all the sperm banks available, not to mention the fanatical growth of the lesbian consciousness, women would simply do away with men forever and the world's
population would be driven to extinction without virile males.

[PunditMom]

WMB, Hmmm. I'll add some of that to my plan for world domination.

[cynematic]

I'll gladly vote for progressive women to rule the world. But there's no way in hell I'd vote for *any* woman to rule the world...no Condoleeza Rice, no Margaret Thatcher, no Phyllis Schlafly, and so on.

[Gunfighter]

Well, I don't know that things would be different... women with bad judgement are just as dangerous as men with bad judgement... see Hillary Clinton's vote on invading Iraq.

Having said that, I would be happy to vote for a truly progressive female candidate for any office, including the Presidency, as long as I was convinced that she would be the best person for the job.

[PunditMom]

I don't know -- men have ruled the world for an awfully long time. Don't you think it would be interesting to see what would happen if women had that chance for a while? Oversimplification? Yes. But I still think the concept is a good one.

[cynematic]

The difficulty is that woman are also people of color/white/mixed, gay/straight/lesbian/bi, working class/middle-upper class, differently abled or not, with a religious identity or not, and so on. 'Woman' is never simply only 'woman.'

Aren't we always "both/and"? 'Woman' and something?

I think it's a sign of progress that we can have a male candidate who also received a 100% rating from major pro-choice groups, for example. Isn't there a need for men to "get" feminism also?

[Gunfighter]

Truthfully, I would have no issues with a female candidate who I agreed with on issues... but I have no rose-colored illusions that she would be any different than most men.