Democrats practice gender apartheid

The Democratic Party practices institutional gender apartheid.

Democrats force voters to choose a MALE and FEMALE representative on the State Democratic Executive Committee: prohibiting men and women from running for the same office. 

For example, look at the Madison County Probate Judge Election Results where State Representative Laura Hall won the “STATE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (FEMALE), DISTRICT NO. 19″.    County Commissioner Bob Harrison won the “STATE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (MALE), DISTRICT NO. 19″. 

Rep. Laura and Commissioner Bob are presumably elected with male and female votes in the general elections, but the Democrats apparently believe that Laura can’t compete against Bob (or is it that Bob can’t compete with Laura?).

How can Democrats defend sex-segregation?  There are no bona-fide occupational requirements that would exclude women and men from competing IN POLITICS.  I’m sure they’ll say that sex-segregation doesn’t imply a lesser social status, but what other conclusions can be drawn?

15 thoughts on “Democrats practice gender apartheid

    • Of course that will be the spin! Democrats will claim that they are promoting women’s causes by guaranteeing that a female will serve on the position. Of course, they can’t let go of their token black guy either. Only Democrats.

  1. it’s not the way you portray it. it’s share the wealth, so to speak. each state legislative district gets two seats on the state democratic exec ctte, one male, one female. so females run against females, males against males. i can see the validity in the argument that the top vote getters ought to be the delegates, regardless of gender. incidentally, maybe i shouldn’t have used the :share the wealth” phrase/ when obama told joe the plumber he wished him luck starting a plumbing business and used the expression, obama was espousing capitalism. look what happened to him.

  2. ivan, Orwell has nothing on you… Obama said “share the wealth” because he was espousing capitalism? Do you really believe what comes out of your mouth (er keyboard)?

    It is exactly the way I portrayed it – I just use plain language. Sex-segregation is “females run against females, males against males”. Separate but equal. Gender apartheid.

  3. I think it is more like affirmative action since the males and females serve together. Apartheid would lead one to think there was a male only committee and a female only committee. I don’t agree with the policy. I think it is detrimental to gender equality since the policy makes a gender distinction where one is not needed.

    • I agree. Political correctness run amok perhaps, but “gender apartheid”?

  4. Is “gender apartheid” excessive hyperbole? The phrase certainly jumps out and grabs you. I figured I would look up the definition, though…

    a·part·heid –noun
    1. (in the Republic of South Africa) a rigid policy of segregation of the nonwhite population.
    2. any system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc.

    The “etc.” on the second definition could be interpreted quite broadly, but gender is often given comparable treatment to race in terms of how groups that receive special treatment are defined. I don’t think anyone would argue that the Democrats’ Executive Committee does not separate people according to gender since, well, candidates are clearly segregated by gender on the ballot. So you might not like the term “gender apartheid” because it sounds negative, but it is accurate. Maybe it sounds negative because segregating people based on things like gender in political races is an undesirable practice.

    • If you want to go by the denotation alone, it’s not precisely apt either. Apartheid is a loanword from Afrikaans, a dialect of Dutch, which literally means “apartness.” For there to be an apartheid, there would have to be separate committees that had separate jurisdictions. “Separate but equal” doesn’t really work here either for that same reason.

      Look, I understand that you had a smirk on your face about how clever you were when you had this little light bulb moment, but it really add up. All we really demonstrably have here is a case of overzealous political correctness.

  5. How its their party so that they get to make their own internal rules? Its about like complaining about the Shrine go-kart team’s mandatory fez and vest rule or bar’s two drink minimum. Don’t want to participate, you just either vote R or leave the lines blank.

  6. Reactionary and all,

    For more on this, look at the bylaws for the state Democratic party:

    As each party is able to set up their structure how they see fit, Democrats made the decision to ensure female participation by stating that every House district has one male and one female representative on the State Democratic Executive Committee (SDEC). It isn’t gender apartheid but ensuring that different perspectives will be in the room.

    • Why only “ensure female participation?” Why not ensure certain proportions of minorities? Gays? Are they not important?

      “Ensuring participation” = implicit belief that the group that “benefits” can’t do it on their own.

  7. csduke – “Democrats made the decision to ensure female participation…” Ah, so you ARE saying that females like ‘Laura can’t compete against Bob’ without a special policy, even though she successfully competes in a larger arena. I can’t imagine in what way Laura needs help to compete against Bob (well, maybe more debates).

    You should consider this policy to be unfair in another respect – females outnumber males. For example in Birmingham, females make up 54% of the population. In the spirit of affirmative action, Democrats should arrange for more female representatives.

    If you really want different perspectives in the room, change the bylaws to ensure that me or Brian are there.

    Betty Friedan (with whom I’ve spoken several times, G-d rest her soul) would be disappointed in the Alabama Democratic Party (on so many levels). Does a separate but equal policy really fulfill women’s aspirations?

    Is this all?

  8. Pingback: MCGOP – 17 September 2011 | Flashpoint