The Right Opinion

Female vs. Male Senators

By Cal Thomas · Jan. 8, 2013

As the son of a woman, the husband of a woman and the father of daughters and granddaughters, I celebrate the record number of females who are now United States senators. However, I do see some differences in the way these and other women are treated, depending on their party, policies and beliefs.

Diane Sawyer broadcast a celebratory report last week on ABC's “World News Tonight” on which she gushed about the “record number” of 20 female senators. Senator Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., also praised the Senate female population. Senator Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said she won't be satisfied until there are 50 female senators.

In the Senate, the ratio of female Democrats to Republicans is 16 to 4. Would media approval for these women be different if the ratio were reversed? Consider how conservative females are treated, most notably Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. During her presidential run, Bachmann was labeled a religious fanatic and anti-woman for being pro-life. Her husband Marcus was criticized because of his Christian counseling clinic that some allege focuses on converting gays to heterosexuality, a charge he vehemently denies.

The media mostly ignore other Republican women, like Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico – at least for now.

“We're less on testosterone,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told Sawyer. “We don't have that need to always be confrontational. And I think we're problem solvers, and I think that's what this country needs.” Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, agreed.

So testosterone is to blame for the fact that male senators are so combative and that Congress continues to founder? Imagine a male suggesting that estrogen hampers women from performing well at their jobs. You don't have to imagine. Some men have said that and worse, to their shame, and society and ultimately history itself was right to denounce them.

But after all the talk about female bonding and how women and men have different approaches to solving problems, what does that mean? Does it mean that a Democratic female senator who is pro-choice on abortion and favors same-sex marriage, bigger roles for government, more spending and higher taxes will be able to find common ground with a Republican female senator who takes the opposite positions? I doubt it.

This double standard seems not only to apply to gender, but also to race. Consider the disparaging things said about Tim Scott, the new senator from South Carolina, a replacement for the retired Jim DeMint. Scott is black, but his race does not endear him to liberals. He probably won't be embraced by the NAACP, whose president accused him of not believing in civil rights, having received an “F” on the NAACP's civil rights scorecard, which judges legislators on their votes on “civil rights” issues. In fact, Scott is just as much an example of the advancement of civil rights for blacks as those female senators are examples of progress for women.

In the end, it isn't about gender or race, but ideology. When they speak of “women's issues,” for example, the left seems to think that all women think alike, or should. The same for African Americans and civil rights. I think the right correctly sees content of character and ideas as superior to gender and skin color.

In the interview with Diane Sawyer, Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said that by nature women are “less confrontational.” Really? McCaskill must never have met the leaders of the women's movement whose disciples are among her colleagues. The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., is no shrinking violet.

I'm not betting on estrogen besting testosterone to “get things done,” forge compromise and diffuse confrontation, especially given the history of some very uncompromising female leaders like Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, underground railroad “conductor” Harriet Tubman, the late Bella Abzug, D-NY., or British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In fact, these women exhibited more testicular fortitude than some men, which, in the case of the conservative Thatcher, likely had a lot to do with why her male colleagues dumped her as party leader.



wjm in Colorado said:

The marxist harpies love to slobber all over their deluded selves. I would rather the policies of Michelle Bachman send the traitors to jail. Another favoite of the fairer sex is Michelle Malkin, no shrinking violet either who slays the traitors without equal. Washerwoman Shultz is an imbecile, who needs to be slapped.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Old Dragoon in Dallas said:

Nonetheless, there is substantial research that suggests women think and communicate differently. More collaborative, empathetic, etc. The "soccer moms" had an effect on government and will have a greater effect, I fear.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Richard J. Abbate of CT in Cheshire, CT said:

Anyone delusional enough to believe that women are less confrontational has not know some of the women in my life.

Try to take on my Mom (89 years old BTW) in a disagreement over practice or principle and you will leave the arena with a seriously depleted testoserone level.

Take my ex-wife! Well someone else did, and that poor SOB is in for a hell of a life experience!!

Most of the women friends I have cultivated over the years were tough, no nonsense 'babes' who could go toe to toe with their male contemporaries and best them at least half the time.

My American Spirit Racing Team, of dear departed memory, had a mere slip of a gal as our fastest and most proficient tire changer. Over the wall with a jack in one hand, tire/wheel combo under the other arm, and a mouth full of lug nuts!! A 5' 4" dynamo who later went on to win three National Championships in the Sports Car Club of America. And that doesn't even mention some of the female drivers I had on the team!!

LESS CONFRONTATIONAL???? My ass!!! There are shrinking violets in both genders, but I wouldn't call "Dog Face" Pelosi or "Mush For Brains" Fienstien less confrontational than Paul Ryan or our own PP's Burt Prelutsky!! RJA

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA said:

""We're less on testosterone," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told Sawyer. "We don't have that need to always be confrontational. "

Senator "Ma'am" hasn't met the cow leading the Chicago teachers union who recently called for killing the rich.

Those Chicago teachers are not even close to dong their jobs. According to the USDoE 79% of the 8th Graders are below grade level proficient in reading and 80% below grade level proficient in Math.

All of them ought to be fired.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska said:

Cal Thomas: " I celebrate the record number of females who are now United States senators."

Cal, then your worldview is not Biblical:

"Because women tend to vote with their hearts, Amendment 19 has contributed to America becoming much more liberal than it was before 1920. For example, women tend to vote against capital punishment and for gun control:

'Women do consistently vote in a more liberal direction than men, but the differences have decreased over time and are negligible among Northern Democrats.' (Susan Welch, “Are Women More Liberal than Men in the U.S. Congress,” JSTOR,

"Women are not voting more like men; men are voting more like women – shades of Jeremiah 44. Yahweh’s system of appointment eliminates all liberal votes. It does not allow for liberals or, for that matter, even conservatives, but only for Biblically qualified men. (See Chapter Five “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” for a list of Biblical qualifications for leaders.) Amendment 19 conflicts with Yahweh’s patriarchal system. He does not permit women to serve in positions of leadership over men, except as a curse or judgment against men who are no longer mighty in the Lord."

For more, see online Chapter 28 "Amendment 19: The Curse of Women's Suffrage" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Lyna in AL replied:

Sorry to break it to you, but this country is not OT Israel or a theocracy. We do have an excellent constitution that is based on many Biblical principles; would that we returned to it.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

Lyna, thank you for responding.

If we have a Constitution based upon Biblical principles, why is nearly every article and amendment, in some fashion, antithetical, if not hostile, to Yahweh's sovereignty and morality? Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our Constitution Survey at and receive a free copy of the 85-page "Primer" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective."

As for theocracies, please consider the following:

"There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.

"People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?"

Excerpted from "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YHWH" at

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

I love Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Anne Richardson, Mia Love, Michelle Bachmann, et al. Conservative women are fantastic! Liberal women are often acrimonious, bellicose, or insane---Yuck!!

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 5:13 PM

rab in jo,mo replied:

...and ugly, inside and out!

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Robert Alexander in Texas said:

Unbiblical, so you stand on the side of MAN and opposed to God.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Roger Mitchell in Montana said:

What is more important than the gender or race makeup of the Senate is the beliefs that each senator holds. I would far prefer a black woman who acknowledges Jesus Christ and submits her life to His rule than a white ( black, Hispanic, oriental,) man (or woman) who acts according to his own opinions or only listens to whoever will pay him the most money.

The Bible commends a woman, Deborah, who was a judge and leader of (some of) the Hebrew tribes. She ordered a man, Barak, to go up against their enemy, but he refused unless she would go with him. This refusal was probably political in nature. Nevertheless, she went, the battle was won and she received credit for it.

Interestingly enough, another woman, Jael, is remembered for driving a spike into the head of the enemy commander as he slept in her tent. These two women will always be held up as heroines as long as the Bible is read. Would to God that we had more women like these.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Ethan David Ellingson in Harris, MN said:

It is shame and folly for a nation to have women rule over them.

Isaiah 3:12 "O My people! Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them.

O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray and confuse the direction of your paths."

1Timothy 2:12 "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."

Biblical examples of women ruling over men demonstrate the curse of such a situation.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Roger Mitchell in Montana replied:

See my comment on this topic. It is my understanding that women rise to leadership positions within society BECAUSE men fail at and are derelict in their responsibilities. My question to you is this. Considering where you stand on this, what would you do to correct it if you had the power to do so?

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Ethan David Ellingson in Harris, MN replied:

Raise sons who lead and daughters who follow.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Truthseeker in Springfield, MO said:

To "Reverend" Ted: You, sir, are confusing OT cultural norms with what Jesus Himself taught us about the roles and value of women. Within the CHURCH, yes, women have different roles than men. However, those "limitations" do NOT apply in the other spheres of society, including business, government, education and, in some cases, the home. Even Solomon (that Old Testament misogynist!) praised the female businesswoman in Proverb 3. So stop blurring the spheres already, Ted!

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

I suggest you read Chapter 28 "Amendment 19: The Curse of Women's Suffrage" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

By the way, I'm pleased you put Reverend in quotations. I refuse to use the title. It is used only one time in Scripture in reference to the only one who deserves the title: Psalm 111:9.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Chris in Wisconsin said:


You're part of the problem with your promotion of women to be in positions of authority, thus you promote rebellion to The Great I Am that became flesh and dwelt among us, His Kingdom/Will on earth.

Women ruling over you is a curse, not a blessing. Isaiah 3: 12.

Women in office and places of authority: 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35; Ephesians 5: 22-24; 1 Timothy 2: 11-15; 1 Peter 2: 5-6.

Saturday, January 12, 2013 at 1:58 PM