Because it's the cause of the day. It signals appropriate sensitivity, politics, and gets attention. Actually, there is no reason not to only accept women. I m

Because it's the cause of the day. It signals appropriate sensitivity, politics, and gets attention. Actually, there is no reason not to only accept women. I mean, apart from choosing best possible candidates but that's apparently not the primary concern. And, really, who cares? Start worrying if she succeeds. > I don't want to be cynical, but boy oh boy is it hard not to observe that at the very moment in our history when we have the most women in the Senate, Congress is perceived to be pathetic, bickering, easily manipulated and powerless, and I'll risk the blowback and say that those are all stereotypes of women. Easy, HuffPo, I know it's not causal, I am saying the reverse: that if some field keeps the trappings of power but loses actual power, women enter it in droves and men abandon it like the Roanoke Colony. Again we must ask the question: if power seeking men aren't running for Senate, where did they go? Meanwhile all the lobbyists and Wall Street bankers are men, isn't that odd? "Women aren't as corrupt or money hungry." Yes, that's been my experience with women as well. http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_wo...