Christina Hoff Sommers, who played a starring role in the anti-feminist backlash of the 1990s, is back again with a new edition of her book The War Against Boys. Originally subtitled How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, it's now relabeled How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men; she now stresses–in a major New York Times op-ed (2/3/13) and a 10-minute one-on-one interview on NPR's Tell Me More (2/12/13)–that changing schools to help boys do better educationally is just a question of "basic fairness." She writes in the Times:
That boys struggle with school is hardly news…. Over all, it's likely that girls have long behaved better than boys at school (and earned better grades as a result), but their early academic success was not enough to overcome significant subsequent disadvantages….
Those disadvantages have lessened since about the 1970s…. Universities that had been dominated by affluent white men embraced meritocratic values and diversity of gender, race and class…. And while workplace inequities persisted, changing attitudes, legislation and litigation began to level the occupational playing field.
Sommers labels as "understandable but misguided" the attitude, "Isn't it time for women and girls to enjoy the advantages?" A more pertinent question to ask Sommers, though, is what advantages are women enjoying that suggest boys deserve an extra boost?
After all, women who work full-time still make only 81 percent of what men do. And women own only 36 percent as much wealth as men do.
Only 4 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, as are 17 percent of directors on Fortune 500 boards. Women are 18 percent of U.S. representatives and 20 percent of U.S. senators.
And that meritocratic academy still tends to find much more merit among males: At the most prestigious institutions, those that award doctorates, only 26 percent of tenured professors are women.
When some of these numbers start reversing themselves, it'll be time to see what can be done to make sure that boys have a fair shot at success in this country. As it stands now, though, it there's a war against boys, the men still seem to be winning.
About Jim Naureckas
I agree that Sommers is unquestionably a stalking horse for chauvinism
But the idea that more female corporate CEOs and board members would represent some sort of progress for women's rights strikes me as sophistry, given that in those roles, they would be screwing the rest of us
Regardless of our genitalia.
Identity politics often have little to do with, or is antithetical to, the improvement of the lives of the great mass of those so identified.
See Obama, Barack Hussein
Or Clinton, Hillary Rodham.
I am not sure I follow why you think that more Female CEO's are just more of the same? If I am wrong, sorry.
((But the idea that more female corporate CEOs and board members would represent some sort of progress for women's rights strikes me as sophistry, given that in those roles, they would be screwing the rest of us
Regardless of our genitalia.))
This sounds like your impling that all women CEO's are like men, and thus a women CEO is little more than a Male CEO, possible thought of as a little less, because she wouldn't have two certain things to make her a real man.
But that is not true; when you look at companies with Female CEO's, it is not "a man wearing a dress" and thus screwing us all, regardless of our genitalia as you say that makes them successful; it was being a female, but not being a washy push over, smooth everything over type. It was some one who made a business decision based on business, not greed.
It was they who changed things, little by litte, stopping the 'hostilities and the Isolation', that was used heavily up through the 90. It was just using other ideas to get a profit where others failed, though it might take longer, it would yield even more. And that has been pointed any number of times by KPFA and F.A.I.R., In fact, even in the academia where there are more females than there used to be, it is still pretty much controlled by Males and as such is rather more cut-throat about business all together. The problem with "Cut cut cut" is pretty soon you run out of things to cut. Not Sustainable.
But the only reason that the myth that "all female CEO's were just as corrupt as men" ever took hold, because in the beginning, that was the only type of Female that would have been allowed to hang around with me. And so when the choice of female CEO's was a number you could count on your two hands, they were going to be like the Males they worked with. I have worked with any number of "Females" who were corporate Officers all the way up to CEO, and found they are just human like the rest of us.
Men and women are not equal in every respect but women do have advantages that men do not. There are more men in the corporate board rooms but there are also more men in prison and jail cells. Men are more likely to be homeless. Economically black men are way behind black women.
And even at the higher achievement levels, 60% of college graduates are women, most new medical doctors are women, etc.
To actually see who is better off, you have to look at the mean and not individual points. Looking at the salaries is not accurate because that is a probability distribution with its tail cut off (only counts those who have jobs).
Truth is that men and women may never be exactly the same. Why do more women chose medical school and more men choose engineering? I don't know. Maybe they are just different in some way.
Jim: If there is a problem with educating our boys in grade school (e.g., lack of physical activity), it should be fixed. Period. Girls and boys should be given an equal chance at a good grade-school education. If women indeed earn less than men when they get into the work force, despite have had an education equal to boys, then let's not try to make grade school LESS equal in a misguided attempt to try to even out how women are treated in the adult world. Instead, if the grade-school years are equal, then whatever is causing the inequalities in the adult working world would seem to be originating there, in the adult working world. Let's fix it there, in the adult world. Let's not punish our boys in grade school.
Typo:
"As it stands now, though, it there's a war against boys, the men still seem to be winning."
Should be:
"As it stands now, though, if there's a war against boys, the men still seem to be winning."
Truth is that men and women may never be exactly the same. Why do more women chose medical school and more men choose engineering? I don't know. Maybe they are just different in some way. -Mirza Borogovac
Bingo. Even amongst men from the same culture, your going to have variances in how things are done; and they can be nearly 180 degrees apart in how they are implemented but it all boils down to "Does someone have an Idea that works". I have been doing this for awhile now, and I have a highly diverse crew. It works, because I don't tell them what to do. I tell them what needs to be done, and let them do it. But they are men and women of all kinds of backgrounds, and we are surrounded by people representing the world.
I say with true Diversity, ask 45 people a question and your get back 50 answers. And one of them is more than likely to work.
Wow, a woman stands up for men and she must be a chauvinist, because you know, men dont matter as much as women.
First, the trend for women is reversing, second, only .01% of men are CEOs anyway, so what is this generality about men winning?
Second, what does the amount of money you make have to do with winning, shouldnt winning be about making a good living wage? Something women are at least as likely to do.
Mirza made a very good post.
Using extremes to prove a point here doesnt work because there is no men are winning bullcrap and even if there were it sure isnt going to go well for both of us if schools keep catering only to a female way of learning. Alot has been written about the school system and how it seems to be failing men and boys in larger amounts, and we have a good idea why, but somehow pointing that out equals chauvinism.
Men still are disposable to this day.
a percent of men are dominating a way too high paying field and somehow that means men are winning. Oh brother, I sure had to fight for everything I got. At the bottom and the middle, I guarantee, we are all still struggling to make more money, men and women.
I want to clarify my first line. Calling her a chauvinist for pointing out mens issues like the same as saying that men dont have issues to worry about just because women have gender issues to worry about.
I am willing to get she doesnt think women are inferior to men, or support men who think that, so to even call Sommers a chauvinist or supporter of such is sickingly dismissive.
I guess patriarchy is still alive and well!
This is a disgusting, fraudulent examination of the reality of the situation. Female Chauvinism is constantly on the rise, and males take the brunt of the punishment. The fact is that the discrimination of women happens only among 0.0001% of males, and the rest of us are fully supportive of women's equality. The problem is that Feminism isn't about equality; it hasn't been for 40 years. These days, it's all about women getting revenge on men; inflicting the suffering that their predecessors suffered under what was still only 0.001% of men. Men are getting PUNISHED for being Male in our society. That means young boys, too. Test scores are constantly dropping for boys in schools, as the system has been switched to one that favours girls' best methods of learning, to the detriment of the boys. This is definitely the time for women to rest on their well-earned laurels, and start uplifting EVERYONE equally, rather than having women stepping all over males on their way up.
When the number of boys dropping out of school stops shooting up meteorically, and drops below the much lower number of girls, I'll agree that it's time to think about giving girls a leg up again. Until then, though, we need to protect our boys and young men as much (not less) than how much we protect our girls and young women.
Frankly, I'm highly offended that such a prejudiced, unreasearched, fraudulent article ended up on anotherwise neutral site. FAIR, you need to do better, because this article ISN'T FAIR!!
I notice that Jim Nourekas isn't talking about achieving salary parity in the job fields where men still make up to 45% less than women. We've been uplifting women long enough. it's time to uplift EVERYONE equally; and that means helping our boys at school just as much as we help the girls!
It's not that simple. Yes, men are still ahead, economically and politically, but the entire country is slipping backwards. And men are "ahead" in the most repressive regimes on Earth too. the fact is, we are failing BOTH sexes, but in different ways. I read Christina Hoff Sommers book when it first came out, and she makes some very good points. There are many ways to fail children of either sex. We need to start finding ways to succeed.
You start your argument by citing the apples-to-oranges comparison that women make only 81% of what men do, which is a raw and meaningless statistic: when all relevant factors are considered, the number drops to about 98%, a fact ideologues ignore. The rest of the author's statistics are equally ignorant. I had to take statistical analysis in college; maybe the author should consider doing the same.
First of all, Doug, I know exactly what you mean. I am a feminist, not an equal rights supporter — equal rights to do what? — and that means I have no more faith in female CEOs than male CEOs. They support a system that does not fulfill human needs, a system that oppresses and exploits human beings, a system that is destroying the earth. I do not count the number of CEOs or women using political power to advance oligarchic interests as measures of human equality.
As far as female chauvinism goes, to the commenter below, jeezums, what a load of crap.
[...] • If There's a 'War Against Boys,' Why Are Men Still Winning? [...]
@Tobysgirl: I point out that it wasn't all that long ago that Feminism was called a Load of Crap. Just because you're blind to something, it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Female Chauvinism is happening, person-to-person and system-to-individual. If you don't believe in female chauvinism, I suggest you get a pad of paper, and put it next to where you sit to watch TV. Then, for a week, take note of 4 things; make a check every time a woman is presented in a positive manner. Put a check in a different column whenever a woman is presented in a negative manner. Likewise, keep track of each time men are presented in either a positive or negative manner. Do this for everything you see on TV; shows, news, commercials; all of it. When a man is presented as a useless moron that needs a woman to set him right, then make a check in the Male Negative column. When a female criminal on a show has her actions rationalized as understandable because of what a man did to her, that's a Female Positive and Male Negative events.
Keep track of that for a week, then look at the results you get.
THAT is Female Chauvinism, as well as a wholesale agenda against males in general in action.
I can see why the book was republished; the sexist, patriarchal backlash is (still) in full swing. Nearly every single comment here could have been made in the 1950s, except for the fact that the sexist arguments are far more subtle now.
Well, usually they're more subtle. Some are just moronic. Take Rod's contention that "You start your argument by citing the apples-to-oranges comparison that women make only 81% of what men do". Why is comparing men's wages to women's wages "apples and oranges"? It's wages vs. wages–meaning apples vs. apples. Unless Rod means to say that it's men vs. women–meaning superior apples vs. inferior oranges.
Perhaps he can enlighten us all as to what these "relevant factors" are that magically equal out women's pay to be 98% of that of men's. If he means to suggest that what's "relevant" is to only narrowly focus on pay for the exact same job and the exact same years of service at the exact same industry, etc., then that's going to be a pretty small sample and it won't tell us much. What's more telling is national average and median salaries of women vs. men, which in Canada, where I live (surely similar to the situation in the U.S.), is 71% and 76%, respectively. Canada ranks 4th worst in the gender wage gap in OECD countries, with the U.S. right behind. That's straight from the radical ultra-leftist feminist ideologues that run the Parliament of Canada, if you want to check the numbers, Rod.
The point is, when we see numbers like that we can make two different conclusions. First, like Rod or McBob, we can conclude that there's some kind of anti-male conspiracy, the numbers lie, women are doing just fine, and *men* are actually the ones getting screwed here. Conversely, we can choose to see what's right in front of our faces: not only in the workplace, but across society, men still have considerable economic, political, religious and social power over women, and they're working like hell to maintain their systems of power. That's obvious enough, without even mentioning the horrific epidemic of rape and violence against women and girls, overwhelmingly perpetrated by men.
Things are better for women and girls than they were 30 years ago–thanks to feminist movements–but they're still pretty awful. Rod, Mcbob, Christina Hoff Sommers and millions of others are making noble contributions to keeping things that way. If only they could see that in the cases where things are worse for men and boys, too, it's not the fault of women or radical feminists. It's the fault of the economic and political masters who profit from us fighting one another instead of fighting them.
Andre, you're brainwashed like the rest of the Feminist cultists. You don't even see the evidence before your face. Feminism is an evil force in the world today. These are not the comments of the 1950s; these are the comments of men in 2010 who can't even get a fair shake; not from the law, not from society, and definitely not from the whiny feminists who have done nothing but clung to their victimization syndromes. I take it you didn't bother trying that experiment that I outlined, because if you had, you'd see what you're saying is utter nonsense.
There's prejudice all throughout the workforce; it's just not all about women. In some places, it's about being women. in others, it's about being an immigrant; in some, it's about NOT being an immigrant. And in a lot of places, it's about being a man. In my job field, it's beyond rare for a man to ever get a managerial position, and we get paid significantly less than women doing the exact same thing, simply because things are set up to favour women, and NO ONE has done anything about it (unlike women, whose place in the workplace has improved HUGELY). You're looking at the forest, but ignoring the trees. All sorts of people, including me, have a lot going against them in the work force. The difference is, that while there's agencies and laws looking out for and helping women and minorities, there is NO ONE HELPING THE MEN IN NEED!!
This obsession with feminism is destroying men's lives IN REAL LIFE!! Just look at the men that have to resort to stunts that get them arrested, just to draw attention to the fact that they can't get justice in family court because there is massive bias against men?
Frankly, you're just like every other blind fool who refuses to consider that Feminism could be a bad influence in the world today. Time to nip it in the bud, and work toward a solution that uplifts EVERYONE!!
BTW: your theory falls on your face because nowhere in any of my posts did I suggest elevating men above women. I only did what a rational person would do, and insist that we eliminate an imbalance and level the playing field for EVERYONE! The time for the wholesale need to help all women is long since over. Time to stop stepping on men, and to start lifting each other up equally. Yes, address the circumstances where a single organization is being prejudicial to women, but don't be an idiot and assume that a few examples means that EVERY COMPANY is prejudiced against women. That simply isn't true, and blatantly ignores the very real advances that have been made in the Equal Rights Movement. But in the mindless rush to uplift women, let's pause and take notice that there are people other than women having the exact same problems — often, in some cases, because the legislation enacted to give women a boost in the working world is now doing so at the expense of men! Don't assume that just because you don't see it yourself, it isn't happening. That's what made the Feminist movement so important back in the 60's and 70's.
It's just that now, the Masculist Movement is what's important. Level the playing field, and take individual injustices as just that — individual cases.
In my job women were definitely getting the better deal. Electronics store, I worked in the back, receiving. Women didnt want to, and didnt have to do the heavy lifting, aside from one fat girl who did it when she chose. Yet they made the same pay. They didnt work as long or hard, same pay.
If they did make a different pay, how hard they worked doesnt show up too well does it, but discrimination could still be called.
All in the store there is a dress code, but due to harassment policy, men were not allowed to talk to women about the dress code, and female managers didnt care to do so either, so some women were sloppy with their dress and got to wear more variety of clothing. Men always wore strict attire and did not get away with anything.
Just some male discrimination, not that unusual really.
It seems to me that you are disregarding the fact that much of what we see now in schools will not be realized in the workplace (especially upper level management) for 20+ years. If we accept that success and status in school achievement do have some effect on earning ability and the likelihood of advancement to positions of power and responsibility, it seems clear that women's status is certain to continue to improve. Are they there yet? No, but there's little reason to believe that the status quo will continue indefinitely.
That doesn't mean, however, that we should ignore the time lag here and wait until our sons become disfavored in the workplace before we start trying to get education right for them, too. We DO all want a world in which people can realize their true potential, right?
I love you folks at FAIR, but please at least acknowledge that this time gap makes the argument: "Men are way ahead in the workplace, so we don't need to do anything for boys in schools" less powerful than it seems at first blush.
"If we accept that success and status in school achievement do have some effect on earning ability and the likelihood of advancement to positions of power and responsibility, it seems clear that women's status is certain to continue to improve."
We shouldn't accept this, because half of it is simply not true. The part about "success" in school (assuming this means "high grades") having some impact on earning potential is patently false. Although it's a common and intuitive assumption, there's absolutely no proof of it. In fact, I remember reading a study (can't find it at the moment) that figured that high grades accounted for a whopping 3% of the total variance in income, job status and so on. So grades have nothing to do with it.
However, if by "status in school achievement" you're suggesting something to do with one's socioeconomic background, then yes, absolutely, that has plenty to do with one's eventual income, power and responsibility. If I recall correctly–and I'm sure you could look this up if you want to–there have been a number of studies that show a direct relation between coming from a low-income family and ending up in low-income jobs, and coming from a middle/high-income family and ending up middle/high-income jobs–almost completely regardless of one's schooling.
Stunningly, your family's wealth and power is the #1 determinant of your own eventual wealth and power. Strange, isn't it?
We must also disregard your argument that women's status is "sure to improve" merely because there are more women in school now–which seems to be what you're implying. That guarantees absolutely nothing.
In reality, women's status will improve only if we want it to–and only if we work at it. That's the only way things are going to get better, not just in regards to women and girls but in regards to any issue.
It doesn't happen by magic. It happens by people who care about these issues taking real steps to make things better for real people. It doesn't just magically happen by shrugging and saying there are more women in school, so, you know… somehow or other that'll fix everything.
That's exactly how it *doesn't* happen, in fact. But it's a nice way of convincing ourselves that we don't have to do anything about it.
Yet your comment is even more a reason why Feminism must be purged from our social memory, and replaced with Equality for all, regardless of sex, visible race, social status, religious affiliation, or any other differing factor.
The start of that is Income Parity, where the Income Gap is reduced to the smallest it can possibly be. That will improve the stake of everyone across the board. But it is not a reason to continue teaching methods that are proven to fail boys in school. Anecdotes are nice, but they are meaningless. They do not represent factual data. What IS factual data is that the percentage of boys dropping out of school is skyrocketing, and the number of boys being accepted to colleges is dropping drastically as girls increase far beyond 50%.
When you uplift one group to the exclusion of all others, then you simply create a new victim group. In present day Western Society, that's Males of every age, visible nationality, religious belief and practically everything else, except financial class. Money is the antidote to this social malaise striking men; or perhaps the poison itself. Money creates advantages that no one else has. That's unfair. Society has created advantages for women that men do not have. That's unfair as well.
Time to stop focusing on individual victim groups, and instead focus on levelling the bar for EVERYONE!
"Feminism is an evil force in the world today."
I have to ask you, McBob–where are all these terrible, evil feminist powers hiding? How do they exert their power on the world? Through what organizations? Who are their spokespeople? How are they funded? Who is it that's so "obsessed" with feminism? Where do you hear people talking about it so much? (I wish I knew some of these people… I barely meet anyone who could say what the hell feminism is in the first place!)
Frankly, I just don't see it. I rarely ever see anyone that could remotely be called a feminist on TV or in print. There are almost zero feminist movies or musicians that get any kind of coverage or distribution. In the media feminism nearly non-existent, and if it does appear it's actively distorted and misrepresented–and meanwhile, of course, male dominance is constantly and actively promoted. It's just the norm. Turn on the TV for two seconds, flip around a bit, and you're sure to see it.
Of course, it's not nearly as bad as it used to be, but it's still there. And I don't mean to say that women's rights movements don't exist either–they're there, but they A) are quite isolated and scattered, like most of the left, and B) they're pretty much just ignored by media, business and politicians–unless those groups are forced to do otherwise. The Billion Woman Rising events around the world got some decent coverage, pretty much just because it was so big that the media *had* to cover it–just as they *had* to cover the most recent and brutal gang rape and murder in India, because it was so appalling and the reaction so fierce. Sadly, those are two pretty exceptional cases in terms of media coverage of serious issues facing women today.
Otherwise, I have no idea what you're watching or reading. I have no idea where you're getting the impression that there are all these powerful (and horrifically evil) feminist organizations all over the place trying to make things awful for men. Honestly, it's hysterical – and borderline delusional.
I'd suggest that you look elsewhere for why "men aren't getting any help" today. The truth is, unless you're a wealthy man, very, very few men are getting any kind of help at all – because the wealthy are helping themselves to everything.
Things are getting bad for lots of men–and women and children–because social and economic policy is overwhelmingly designed to protect the profits of the wealthy. That's called NAFTA, austerity, the budget deficit, bank bailouts, the S&L crisis, illegal wars of aggression, and so on. The roots of the current economic crisis can't be traced to women. No serious economist has ever done that – nor would dare to; the facts just aren't there.
In the real world, if you really want to understand what's going on, look for a start at the dismantling of the Breton Woods system of international trade in the 1970s–and the falling rate of profit in U.S. manufacturing in the late 1960s that preceded it. Look at the destruction of regulatory apparatuses. Look at the decisions to allow commercial banks to participate in highly risky speculation and all the financial crises that followed – of which there were zero before those changes were made. Look at how the tax system was inverted to place the tax burden on the poor and low-income families, conveniently freeing up billions for the rich to buy boats and private jets. Look at the massive and unprecedented rise in income and wealth inequality over the last 30 years. There's nothing like it in history. Look at how the top 1% of the population owns over half of the country, and how that hasn't happened since the 1920s. Look at how, globally, 10% of the population owns something like 80% of global wealth. It didn't used to be like that.
Look at a few of these things for yourself – and *then* come back here and say that men are getting the shaft because of women. It's not women's fault. It's convenient to have us think that so we go off railing about women and not the real criminals – but it's false, completely false. It's the fault of the rich and powerful who take everything for themselves and leave nothing for the rest of us. But figure that our for yourself – don't take my word for it.
Here's a start: http://www.zcommunications.org/americas-ten-economic-crises-by-jack-rasmus
Look, McBob – I think perhaps you should read some feminist literature. It just so happens that most feminists argue for pretty much what you're arguing for: "Equality for all, regardless of sex". Feminism doesn't mean "women above men", it means "women and men equity sharing the burdens and benefits and opportunities of society, regardless of sex". Isn't that what you're arguing for? I really don't see why you're so against feminism when its tenets seem to be very much in line with your values.
To be sure, there was a segment of the women's movement in the 70s and 80s that was pretty anti-male. It's still kind of there, but no serious feminists pay much attention to it. Anti-male spokespeople did, however, get plenty of attention, because that was a convenient way to demonize the feminist movement and scare men into being *against* gender equity, which is exactly what serious feminists are *for*.
If you're interested in what feminists *actually* have to say, rather than just relying on what other people say about feminism, I could suggest some places to look.
For a comprehensive vision of what a better family in a better society might look like: http://www.zcommunications.org/imagining-intimacy-family-and-sex-in-a-better-world-by-cynthia-peters
For a wonderful recounting of coming to terms with feminism and hopes for a more just future: http://www.zcommunications.org/searching-for-a-post-sexist-society-by-lydia-sargent
Rebecca Solnit, "Men explain things to me": http://www.alternet.org/story/82222/men_explain_things_to_me
Or try anything by bell hooks.
They aren't hiding; they're the status quo. That's the problem. It's gotten to the point where even men are acting misandrist and not even thinking twice about it. It's a Femocentric world out there, where any imagined slight against women is automatically a critical issue, and anyone who dares speak up about how men are getting abused by society is dismissed, like you are trying to do, as nothing but a throwback misogynist. I know you're blind, because I see it everywhere. Do that experiment I outlined and you will see what I mean. Society can't jump fast enough to stand behind a woman who perceives and injustice against her, and while it's very heartening to see how much eager support women with real issues get, the fact that a man can't do the same thing without being demeaned, insulted or ignored is a huge injustice. It's Institutionalized Evil; it's a complete paradigm shift where the easy social bias against women has switched to men, rather than being eliminated entirely.
Do that TV experiment I outlined. Then, if in a week you still think there isn't a Femocentric bias to Western Society, we can talk again.
Andre; I've read nearly all the Feminist Literature there is to read; I used to be a Feminist myself. But then I woke up and saw just how abusive society has become to men; the inverse of what it was traditionally, with women being seen as doing no wrong, and men being seen as nothing but evil or stupid screwups. Feminism had its time, but while it made some much needed advances, it utterly failed to create Equality. Time to drop it like the rancid turd it is, and turn to the Masculist movement, which truly wants equal responsiblity and equal rights for EVERYONE, regardless of gender, skin colour, nationality, religion or any other factor. We just want to stop being the step-stools for every woman's career path. We want to make some personal advances of our own without the government saying, "No, not you. Her."
[...] Jim Naureckas of FAIR points out that "Sommers labels as "understandable but misguided" the attitude, "Isn't it time for women and girls to enjoy the advantages?" A more pertinent question to ask Sommers, though, is what advantages are women enjoying that suggest boys deserve an extra boost? After all, women who work full-time still make only 81 percent of what men do. And women own only 36 percent as much wealth as men do. Only 4 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, as are 17 percent of directors on Fortune 500 boards. Women are 18 percent of U.S. representatives and 20 percent of U.S. senators." [...]