Dems promise to subordinate men if they retake the House

Democrats are promising that women will be the ones wearing the pants in the House if they get a majority in the November elections.  That's because not only would Nancy Pelosi become speaker, but 35 women would head major committees and subcommittees.  Voters who think women are better at ruling because of their sex are politically aroused.

Just look at the over-the-top rhetoric:

35 women are poised to lead committees and subcommittees in the next Congress ... put[ting] female lawmakers in the driver's seat[.] ... [It would take] take the "Year of the Woman" to new heights of power.

Party leaders are practically giddy at the thought of positioning more women in power[.]  "It is absolutely vital that women leaders take their rightful seat at the table: at the head of the table," Pelosi told The Hill in an email.

Driver's seat, heights of power, giddy for power, head of the table – this sounds like a bad reboot of "Abbott and Costello Go to Mars" where fascist women are in charge!

Rep. Rosa DeLauro said that if the girls take over, they will tackle "women's health care, domestic violence, equal pay, and family leave."

1. Women don't get health care?  Or is this code for late-term partial-birth abortions?

2. Aren't there already laws against "domestic violence"?  Or is Rep. DeLauro talking about increasing deportations of illegal aliens who are guilty of that offense?

3. As for equal pay, does it start in Rep. DeLauro's office?  Do the men get paid the same as she does?

4. In order to be for family leave, one has to be for families.  Maybe Rep. DeLauro should be more focused on passing an "abortion leave" bill, so women can take time off after unplanning their families.

Another Democratic airhead says women not only have better temperaments, but even smell better than men do.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) argued another benefit of having women in charge: They are simply more open to compromise, a breath of fresh air[.] ...

"I believe women tend to find common ground, work together and accomplish big tasks," said DeGette[.]

So I guess, by contrast, that men tend to fight more and accomplish only small things.  However did we invent the light bulb, lay the railroads, mass-produce the automobile, invent the atomic bomb, and land on the Moon with the male population dragging us down every step of the way?

34 subcommittee gavels appear poised to go to Democratic women if the party takes the House.  Those include spots atop five Appropriations panels, as well as influence over other major issues: digital commerce (Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky); counterterrorism (New York Rep. Kathleen Rice); higher education (California Rep. Susan Davis); and immigration (Lofgren).

I like women's policies on digital matters, but I prefer the men's point of view on counterterrorism.  As for the women's point of view on higher education, I'm uncertain: do liberal women believe men should get a higher education, or do they want men to be stay-at-home moms and, as soon as science permits, barefoot and pregnant?

Some liberal Republicans like Cathy McMorris Rodgers have also been bitten by the sex supremacy bug.

"Being a mom makes politics real," she told Fox News.  "That's why it's so critical that more women and moms are elected to Congress."

And being a dad doesn't make politics real?  Or how about just being a man?  This is from a Republican!  Is there a Mr. McMorris, or a Mr. Rodgers, or a Mr. McMorris Rodgers, and if so, how does he feels being treated like a second-class citizen by his wife in the national media?

When female politicos talk about what's in their pants as the best reason to elect them, it tells me their agenda is morally bankrupt and politically untenable.  If men talked like this, they would be booted out of office.  It's time we started treating female candidates equally.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at

If you experience technical problems, please write to