The problem isn't with women in the Senate, but rather its celebration, which these dummies blindly participate in. Is it putting on a face for the American public, the way the first face I see on Goldman Sachs's website is a black woman? Is it cosmetic? She's probably proud, she should be proud, that she made it to GS, but for the rest of blacks and women, what is the significance? It may be regressive to ask this, but it is illuminating: "hey.... why did they let so many of us in?"
This is part of a larger, systemic problem with the way power has shifted not from Group A to Group B, but from ground up to top down, and top down works in a very specific way: it concedes the trappings of power while it retains the actual power.
And so, while browsing various sites, I likewise can't help but notice all the chattering about The Significance of women in combat. As with gays and atheists, the problem isn't with the right to participate, but with the dummies celebrating it.
And then I watch the Daily Show, and see Jon Stewart yukking it up with some drone — 'scuse me, unmanned aerial vehicles, they're not stupid — expert from M.I.T., who assures us, in between jokes about FedEx and UPS delivering packages like bombs, or Death Stars, that the military has lots of regulations, even an entire conference which spends a lot of time discussing the ethics of remote warfare. Oh, good. You wouldn't want to belong to any club that couldn't discuss Augustine and Aquinas like civilized folk, after all.
And Br'er Rabbit smiles contentedly in his briar patch.