Study: Women lawmakers outperform men

[kpete]

Source: Politico

Are women more effective lawmakers than men?

That’s the preliminary conclusion of a study conducted by researchers at Stanford University and the University of Chicago, who say that on average, women in Congress introduce more bills, attract more co-sponsors and bring home more money for their districts than their male counterparts do.

The study, which examined the performance of House members between 1984 and 2004, found that women delivered roughly 9 percent more discretionary spending for their districts than men.

For instance, during Rep. Judy Biggert’s first two-year term, Illinois’s 13th District received $382 million in federal funds, $70 million more than it received during the final term of her predecessor, Rep. Harris Fawell.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren delivered around $859 million to her district, compared with $541 million brought in by her predecessor, Rep. Don Edwards, during his final term, the researchers said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27152.html#ixzz0RKLEbMat


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27152.html

[MellowDem]

1. Just wait till they are the majority for a while...

then they'll get lazy ;)

[Bicoastal]

2. Well DUH. The average age of a US politician must be around 55...

...who do you THINK is going to have more performance issues?

BA DUM PSSSH

[virgogal]

3. Of course they do----no surprise to me.

[elleng]

6. Yup, we ALWAYS work harder

because we know the value of our work.

[No Elephants]

14. IMO, we always work harder because we've always had to.

If we really knew the value of our work, we'd be getting paid more than men instead of getting paid less than men.

[Demeter]

20. And We Don't Have Time to Waste

nor put up with much BS

[Lorien]

22. Yeah, but they don't. We work twice as hard for far less pay

I once worked for a major corporation that paid women $25 an hour and men $45 an hour for the EXACT same position. I was given young men to train who were always promoted over me. At the time I was being paid $35 because of my greater expertise than all the men I was working with. My boss actually said "your doing really well here, for a woman"! I demanded equal pay and they finally gave me $40 an hour, but refused to give me full male employee wages, so I left. Suing would get me no where; they have the best lawyers money can buy. This kind of crap still goes on everywhere. Male bosses have actually said to me "Well, you don't need the money; you can just get married!" :grr:

[ihavenobias]

7. I'm not surprised but

it sure would be interesting to see the comment section had they concluded that men work harder.

:)

[Dems2002]

8. that's true

You're right -- if they had said the opposite, I would probably have thought that their male colleagues who have a majority of the power, were discriminating against them, rather than that there was something wrong with the women...so guys can't win for losing!

Dems

[Lorien]

24. Guys always win. White, hetero, Christian guys in particular always win

or haven't you noticed?

[chollybocker]

4. Yeah, but they spend it all on shoes.

:rofl:





(So sue me.)

[TygrBright]

5. DUzy!! n/t

[No Elephants]

13. Spend what all on shoes? They're not getting paid any more than their

male counterparts. And, in private business, they'd probably be making a lot less.

[Lorien]

23. And there it is. Misogyny rears it's ugly head on DU once more

and fellow sexists grin with approval.

I won't sue you, but I will tell you to go f*ck yourself, which is something that I've never said to anyone on DU before.

On edit; if the report were about African Americans, would you have said "but they spend it all on watermelon and fried chicken"? No, because that would get you BANNED. DU mods don't protect women against hate the way they protect minority races against hatred.

[pollo poco]

9. k / r n / t

[Autonomy]

10. This is totally pseudo

You can't objectively compare legislators. More bills introduced is meaningless. More money brought home to districts could be interpreted negatively. This is junk science. Just sayin.

[No Elephants]

15. It's not science at all.

It's simply a fact that women prepare more bills. That's not science. It's counting. (Well, ok, math is a science.) It is also a fact that women get more to their districts. The conclusions that one draws fom the numbers, if any, are a matter of analytical and reasoning ability.

[Autonomy]

18. Yay for semantics

I'm saying the conclusion reached cannot be reasonably reached, and is therefore not reasonable.

[Autonomy]

25. On edit:

You're right. I knew someone would object to the word 'scientific' in that context, but I was too lazy to find the right words. My original point stands, but I accept the correction.

[BR_Parkway]

11. They don't have a brothel on C Street to distract them!

[No Elephants]

16. Yet.

[damntexdem]

12. And wise Latina lawmakers ...

;-)

[Javaman]

17. explain kay bailey hutchison, then? nt

[sofa king]

19. Could it have something to do with consensus building?

That, after all, used to be the main purpose of Congress, at least in theory. Other studies suggest that American women usually work harder to build consensus in groups, and are generally better at it.

However, that article does not break down the study between the two parties. I would be totally unsurprised to learn that female Republicans in Congress are far less successful than female Democratic Members of Congress, for the simple reason that chauvinism is much less well tolerated in Democratic circles. This article could actually be masking how effective female Democrats really are.

[JackRiddler]

21. The criteria are not in themselves good or bad. One needs more information.

More bills introduced? But what are the bills? Often we're better off without them.

I view the term "gridlock" as a neutral description, not automatically an evil; for example I wish there had been nothing but gridlock on the Bush agenda.

More cosponsors? Again, in what cause?

More money for a district? Careful: it matters for what. This is the attitude that celebrates nuclear submarine bases and air-bombing ranges as great things, because they represent "jobs."

Also, this accepts the notion that districts and their representatives should act as individual competitors for access to a money trough, rather than envisioning a good future for the nation and the world as a whole and taking steps toward that.

Regardless, I'd wager that women tend to introduce the worthier bills and get the more "quality" money for their districts, but without exploring that, the statements made in the OP are meaningless.