The scenario is as old as the human race.  Two persons are involved.  One has power – the other does not.  The bigger, the more aggressive, the one with resources tells the smaller, the placid one without resources to do something and the result has historically been that one will be the boss and the other will do his bidding.  In the sense of male and female relationships this has historically been how a chaotic society has remained basically stable.  That is, until we made some efforts to create actual political, economic and social equality between the sexes. 

It has been interesting to see how our Senate that works by ownership of a great deal of power has said NO to a Bush appointment.  This is not quite the same NO that Rosa Parks said to the bus driver when told to give up her seat to a white man.  This is not quite the same thing when Martin Luther King, Jr. led the movement of saying no to U.S. apartheid.  But it is in that spirit that Ms Miers dropped out of contention for being voted to the Supreme Court.

Saying no is a problem for a great many people.  Consider the Professor. When I came to Monmouth College the professoriate was used to being told what to do by management, not all of whom had a background in higher education.  This management just made decisions without recourse to the experience and wisdom possessed by its professors who were in the business of educating students.  Coming from a background in public education, I marched on a picket line demanding that the Board of Education meet with us (just like union workers) and listen to our side of how resources should be used. We finally won the right to bargain collectively. Getting professors to say no to dumb management decisions was very hard.

Women saying no to the men in their lives take a huge chance.  This is not quite the same thing as Nancy Reagan telling them to “just say no”.  The no that I am talking about is the level playing field that does not exist for we insist on a winner and that winner is bigger, stronger, smarter and more willing to take chances.  We like and celebrate winners and do not listen to the side that is actually beaten down by managers and even by those who are voted into positions where they have the power over life and death of young people who are sent out to war.

Telling Mr. Bush no is something his backers are usually unlikely to do. In his choice of Harriet Miers it was the conservative wing who thought her not willing to speak up on whether she would be a Scalia or an O’Conner that caused THEM to say no.  The Democrats let this happen and kept quiet and reserved their no for another time.  It gets curious if you think of the power no has to someone running roughshod over your rights, your peace and future security.  Try it; you’ll like it.