In January, Seattle seated a city council with a 5-4 majority of women. Last week, in a 5-4 decision strictly along gender lines, the council nixed a corporate-welfare scheme that might have helped the city bring a pro basketball team back. (Seattle's former team, the Supersonics, moved to Oklahoma City after the 2007–2008 season and were renamed the Thunder.)
As the New York Times said this morning (May 8), "In hundreds of email messages and social media posts, the female council members were attacked by people — practically all apparently men — who said [the female majority] lacked intelligence and an understanding of the importance of sports because they are women."
One writer attacked the women as "ladies" who should "go back to the kitchen." Another invited the ladies to "rot in hell."
The publication fieldofschemes.com, which does an excellent job pointing out the fatuity/stupidity of cities handing out huge subsidies to billionaire sports-team owners, quoted a letter to all five female council members: "I TRULY pray for nothing but horrible things for each of you moving forward. You have made this world a worse place by whoring yourselves out to the highest bidder. Please Please Please do the honorable thing and end yourselves. Each of you are disgraceful pieces of trash that deserve nothing but horrible outcomes."
San Diegans, in fighting the proposal to subsidize the billionaire Spanos family for a new football stadium, must realize that gender will be important. Men seem to think subsidizing billionaire sports owners is macho. Women realize these self-described macho males are, in fact, couch potatoes, and the money should be spent on important matters, such as infrastructure, neighborhoods, libraries, and repairing the pension system.