Gender Issues

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Who is going to have the babies? Maybe our situation isn't that drastic now? I really like you Hector, and I think you're an intelligent guy, but that statement was really stupid.

It's sounds pretty simpleminded doesn't it?

http://jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker121506.php3

The question is meant to point to the structure of family. Who is baby's biggest bond with? Mom.

Mom is the one you go to usually, because mom was the one you were always with as a child.

Let me make this more relevant: the mothers serving in Iraq and Aghanistan. Daddy dying is pain beyond compare, but when Mom dies it's a whole other world for that child.

Probably you've just had a lapse in your otherwise considerable intelligence.

Probably?

This is an argument against having a draft, not against having women in the military. I am against the draft as well, and this is the main reason.

Well, I had a few points that I had wanted to come across, but only if you read (past tense) Lief's posts preceding mine.

I think the draft should apply to both women and men equally (for those of appropriate age and fitness), but that would absolutely decimate our society in a war.

Wow, now you suddenly agree with me?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Kathleen Parker

Women volunteer on their own accord, certainly. But many never anticipated being placed in combat situations, which increasingly has been the case in Iraq. By assigning support personnel to or near combat units, the Pentagon effectively has placed women where, by law and sense, they don't belong.


Otherwise, feminism has succeeded in shaping and presenting the military as just another career option. Young ``women'' barely out of high school — or single mothers looking to support their families — are vigorously recruited with promises of money, travel and benefits. The military has become ``a particular Mecca for single parents,'' as feminist author Linda Bird Francke put it.


More to the point, the military has become the final frontier for radical feminists, for whom equality won't be complete until the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has breasts. Putting women into combat is the Maginot Line of the gender wars, which, once crossed, shatters the military's glass ceiling to the highest promotion levels.


In the distorted logic of feminist gender theorists, getting women killed in combat is viewed as ``proof'' that they're suitable for combat — a sign of progress rather than a tragedy of political idiocy.


But what these trends really prove is that we've lost sight of what matters, not to mention what we fight for. Children need mothers more than wars do, and nations need healthy, well-adjusted children.


If we're willing to sacrifice mothers and abandon the next generation, what sort of civilization, exactly, are we trying to preserve?

See above.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Even if every government in the world was controlled by women, my feeling is that men would take over. I don't want my country invaded and conquered . Men's aggression and masculinity make them vital as leaders and defenders of nations.

So the problem isn't that women are too soft, but that men are way too aggressive.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I can't accept your own personal study as a valid source of evidence, I'm afraid. You couldn't possibly have the resources to conduct a study of a large enough percentage of the population, with the stratified sampling that would be necessary, to make reliable conclusions about gender. Also, homemade studies aren't scientific and tend to make many errors (an error you could hardly help, if you weren't spending thousands of dollars on the study).

Oh, but it wasn't my own study, it was a test I made in a scientific magazine back when I still took science classes (4 or 5 years ago?) and the other things were mentioned in the accompanying article.

By the way, why is this all about the shortcomings of women in politics or leadership functions? I am sure there is a far longer list of men failing in their leading positions...
But since our societies have mainly been patriarchical ever since our races changed from being nomads to settling in one place, the line of argument has ben set I guess. Women and men might be equal, but everyone has to fit into a model created by thousands of years of male dominance.
Now what I am going to say next is about stereotypes, is my personal experience and I have absolutely no official source to back it up (allthough I am sure there are) so don't kill me for that OK?
Back in my (Western) home country I am not supposed to say I like cooking, because that means I am behaving too girlish and women of our time have to be strong and prove that they are equal to men blablabla. But that I like sports like basketball, soccer, etc. is a good thing.
Here in Japan I am not supposed to say I like sports (in fact I am not allowed to join in open soccertournaments organized by the people of the dorm) and being able to carry my own bag is something of a rarity when there are boys around (In case there are no boys, all the girls are all of a sudden perfectly able to carry their own bags themselves I still get a shock when I see boys carrying those silly little handbags in which you cannot put more than perhaps one pen for their girlfriends...) but when I say I like cooking, people are all of sudden relieved that they can find some girlish thing about me or something.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That's not necessarily because she's a woman. Perhaps it's because she's a Republican. Many assumptions about gender are should often be attributed to other factors.

I couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

It was first and fore-most a children's book. It was for me believable enough, because it was set in a distant future (having been through global warming no less, Thea Beckman was a visonary in that respect) where people had enough time to go to a series of cultural changes. The land was also isolated, so that would help to keep its structure intact.

In many ways it was more a story of nature against industry, like Tolkien's Shire, than female against male: the matriarchal, isolated country chose not to pursue industrial technologies to keep their vast natural continent intact while the patriarchal empire had much more contact with other lands and needed constant new resources and land for its unbridled industries and trade.

Yep it was fiction, perhaps it wasn't a very good example. I didn't like the way how in the "female country" the man were treated like children in a way anyhow... But I didn't like how the "male country" just invaded the "female country" either. Too agressive

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Let's start with the "women are nurturing, men are aggressive" debate. Insidious Rex and myself, and possibly other Mooters had a response to this statement. I hope those Mooters will join the discussion in this thread.

There are two problems with this statement. First of all, the statement that most women are nurturing and most men are aggressive is false, and has no basis in science.

I agree. In my house, my husband seems to be more "calm, caring and nurturing" than I am. I am the more aggressive and "easily to anger" parent. But I DO want to nurture my child and I DO try. I think that I seem to possess a more " mannish" (for lack of a better word) quality to parenting and my husband seems to posses a more feminine quality. He has patience and isn't easily upset, whereas I am the complete opposite.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It's sounds pretty simpleminded doesn't it?

http://jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker121506.php3

The question is meant to point to the structure of family. Who is baby's biggest bond with? Mom.

Mom is the one you go to usually, because mom was the one you were always with as a child.

Let me make this more relevant: the mothers serving in Iraq and Aghanistan. Daddy dying is pain beyond compare, but when Mom dies it's a whole other world for that child.

I see what you mean now. But I still disagree. How is losing a mother worse than losing a father? Is it not a whole other world for the child who loses a father in Iraq?

Unless their mother or father are absent or total failures as parents in some way (in which case, the child has already lost that parent), a child would be equally devastated by the loss of either parent.

My Dad worked full time when I was growing up, but I never felt like he was around less than my Mom was. Besides, my school day as a kid overlapped with most of my Dad's work day. This also kept me away from my Mom whether she was home that day or not, so it's not like I was always around my Mom, and therefore would be more devastated by losing her.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Probably?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well, I had a few points that I had wanted to come across, but only if you read (past tense) Lief's posts preceding mine.

I have read those posts, what points did you mean?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Wow, now you suddenly agree with me?

Of course! Just because we disagree on one thing doesn't mean we can't agree on another. Note that I referred to the loss of a generation of young people, both men and women, would devastate society.

Originally Posted by Kathleen Parker

If we're willing to sacrifice mothers and abandon the next generation, what sort of civilization, exactly, are we trying to preserve?

But a society that's willing to sacrifice fathers, or people in general for that matter, is completely fine?

Originally Posted by Mari

By the way, why is this all about the shortcomings of women in politics or leadership functions? I am sure there is a far longer list of men failing in their leading positions...

Yeah, women should be given equal opportunity to screw up their respective countries, just like the men in politics!

Originally Posted by Mari

But since our societies have mainly been patriarchical ever since our races changed from being nomads to settling in one place, the line of argument has ben set I guess. Women and men might be equal, but everyone has to fit into a model created by thousands of years of male dominance.
Now what I am going to say next is about stereotypes, is my personal experience and I have absolutely no official source to back it up (allthough I am sure there are) so don't kill me for that OK?

We'd never do a thing like that. Too aggressive.

I think many societies were male-dominated even as hunter-gatherer societies.

Originally Posted by Mari

Back in my (Western) home country I am not supposed to say I like cooking, because that means I am behaving too girlish and women of our time have to be strong and prove that they are equal to men blablabla. But that I like sports like basketball, soccer, etc. is a good thing.

Yeah, isn't that annoying? Hey world. I like cooking, sewing, wearing skirts, wearing make-up, singing, cute animals, wearing jewellery, planning a wedding, reading bridal and fashion magazines, the colour pink, and a bunch of other "girly" things. Got a problem with that? Tough.

Originally Posted by Mari

Here in Japan I am not supposed to say I like sports (in fact I am not allowed to join in open soccertournaments organized by the people of the dorm) and being able to carry my own bag is something of a rarity when there are boys around (In case there are no boys, all the girls are all of a sudden perfectly able to carry their own bags themselves I still get a shock when I see boys carrying those silly little handbags in which you cannot put more than perhaps one pen for their girlfriends...) but when I say I like cooking, people are all of sudden relieved that they can find some girlish thing about me or something.

OMG that would drive me friggin nuts! If people frowned upon girls playing soccer, that would be bad enough, but actually not allowing them to play soccer? Insanity. Perhaps someone forgot to extend Japan an invitation to the 21st century. (Sadly, they weren't the only country to be left out of this party.)

Small aside:

What do Japanese people generally think about the character Osugi in the novel Musashi, if they have read that book? She's aggressive, dominating, determined, honourable, and very brave. She (and her husband, because she makes him) embark on a quest to restore their family's honour.

Her husband dies during their quest, but Osugi continues after burying him. She challenges Miyamoto Musashi, the greatest swordsman in Japan, to a duel. Musashi refuses to fight her, because she is pretty old. He respects her a lot and he doesn't actually have a quarrel with her.

She has a quarrel with him, because she blames him for her son Matahachi's lack of character, which led to a broken engagement (and thus, the need to restore the family's honour). I love Osugi, even though she's the antagonist.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Wow, less than 24 hours and there's already 18 posts! If this thread keeps up like this, I probably won't respond to everyone, so I'll apologise in advance.

It's already getting that way for me .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

One thing I think it would be useful to avoid in this thread is the whole "this man/woman possesses these certain qualities, therefore the entire gender does"-style arguments. They are sometimes appropriate, but I don't want this thread to turn into a long list of politicians' names.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I read your first post in its entirety Lief (very well written BTW), but I feel I can address it by quoting your later posts, and people's responses to your post.

Okay.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That's not necessarily because she's a woman. Perhaps it's because she's a Republican.

Agreed. One can't know whether that instance was a result of this or not. But general trends toward extremes exist among women in politics, and this is just a possibly flawed example. Just a little, potentially flawed illustration of a point, as was my mentioning Jeanet Rankin. But you're right, individual examples aren't going to make a huge difference in this debate.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

However, it can't be completely horrible if it has helped you. I'd caution you that treating assertive, egalitarian women like myself as though we're from another planet would be unsuccessful. But don't worry, I don't lose my temper easily.

I think you misunderstood the book, if you think it trains people to treat each other as though they're from a different planet. It does help us to understand people better, though.

For instance, my Mom tells me how to do even the very simplest things that I already know how to do and have been doing for years. Sometimes, I feel insulted to think, "how could she doubt that I knew how to do that?" But according to that book, this is because women tend to just want to help men and this is one of their ways of trying to help people. No harm is intended- the desire is common and very innocent. So learning what that book taught me, I realized that my Mom meant nothing by this and so we get along very well now in spite of things like that.

And men tend to be very achievement oriented and doers, and will hence tend to try offering solutions when women just come to them for sympathy. That can lead to misunderstandings among both genders.

So the book just talks about general differences between the genders that show up over and over and over, and it explains what they are. Knowing about them can help improve people's relationships. It's not intended to treat people in absurd ways, but rather to treat them in a way that enhances the relationship for both parties, and also it helps people to understand why people of the other gender do some of the apprently crazy things they do. It just helps people with their relationships with people of other genders. Nothing else.

But if you think that everyone has the same kind of brain, or highly, highly similar brains, and that gender differences don't make much difference, really, then I can understand your finding the book useless. You're denying what psychologists constistantly find to be true, though.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I should write a rebuttle book called Human Beings are all from Earth.

Good title.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

This idea neglects an important principle of workplace equality: the job should go to the most qualified person, regardless of gender.

If that person is a woman? Great. If that person is a man? Great. If that person doesn't have a gender? Great. Because when it comes to qualifications for jobs, gender is totally irrelevant.

I don't know whether tests for job suitability would pick up the crucial gender differences until the people are in office. Anyway, it turns out that there are problems with women in office, as has been noted by the political science branch. Similar problems have not been observed among the male gender as a whole, in office.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

They could be, but I suspect that the book itself is faulty, by which I mean their interpretation of the studies is incorrect.

I've presented more than one book's evidence on the matter. I've been taught this in two different Political Science classes now, from two different textbooks. I've heard one liberal professor speak of it as accepted throughout the Political Science profession. So I don't think it's either the books or the studies, unless you think there's a major problem with the entire Political Science profession. Which would be quite a big assertion, and to support it you'd need a ton of evidence.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Also, bear in mind that while Political Science is a science, it is also an art. The Political Science major is part of the Arts faculty at universities, not the faculty of Science. It is difficult to conduct studies in the arts sometimes. There are factors that we aren't aware of, sometimes the subject changes his behaviour because of the study, and other problems that I forget now, but learned in a class called Forests and Society, which was a Sociology class. (Sociology has the same problem.)

Scientific methods are used regarding polls though, from which they get a good deal of their information and form conclusions. Those methods are based upon sound mathematical principles, taking into account issues such as sample size, stratification, randomization, etc.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Small aside:

However, your political scientists seem to have ignored Canadian politics. Just like Canadians! Ba-dum-tish. But seriously, there are a large number of politicians who are women in Canada, and I can't think of a single one of them who fits into your nurturing/overly-aggressive mold, except maybe Hedy Fry. But her comment that people in Prince George, BC were burning crosses on their lawns probably stems from her being a total idiot rather than being overly-aggressive.

Actually, you're wrong here .

Originally Posted by International Politics on the World Stage

Polls going back as far as World War II have almost always found women less ready than men to resort to war or to continue war. For example, a survey taken just before the Persian Gulf War in 1991 found 62% of American men compared to 41% of American women favoring military action. This gender opinion gap also existed in other countries, as evident in Figure 3.1 on page 68. Similarly, a poll of Americans conducted in 2003 just before the war with Iraq found two-thirds of American men compared to half of American women supporting military action. This gender gap was again found internationally with, for instance, men in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and Italy 10% to 15% more favorable toward war than their female counterparts.

Note that this gender gap is observed in Canada too .

The fact that this gender difference exists over all these different countries is a strong evidence that this is at least one significant difference between the two genders. And of course it'll hop around some. I'm not saying that women will never support war. But I am saying that there is an obvious and potentially worrisome difference between the genders. I don't believe most women would be anywhere near so likely as men to take strong action in times of crisis, and that means that women in politics could put our nation into jeopardy.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Back to my main argument:

So, from your studies, you can talk about political science. You can't use a group of political science studies to make inferences about women in politics, but you cannot then make inferences about all women.

As I've shown with the polls above, this evidence isn't just about women in politics, but the polls and data they've gained also relate to women in general. Because we work in a democracy and they want to find out how different groups of people vote, it's part of Political Science to find out about the ordinary civilians too, and what they behave like. Hence the gender difference became quickly apparent.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The reason you can't do this is because this provides a biased sample for your inference. If you wanted to make your current argument, you'd have to back it up with studies about men and women of all ages, nationalities, religions, ages, etc. (as much as diversity as possible, and as many people as possible) in order to make an inference about all people.

That has been done. Here are percentages of people from each gender who favored war in the time of the Persian Gulf War. This data comes also from International Politics on a World Stage, by Rourke.

Belgians- Men, 53%, women, 40%.
British- Men, 62%, women, 53%.
French- Men, 54%, women, 49%.
Germans- Men, 60%, women, 50%.
Israelis- Men, 90%, women, 86%.
Italians- Men, 50%, women, 24%.
Japanese- Men, 14%, women, 7%.
Mexicans- Men, 90%, women, 86%.
Nigerians- Men, 43%, women, 41%.
Russians- Men, 47%, women, 39%.
Turks- Men, 45%, women, 47%.
Americans- Men, 62%, women, 41%.

In all but one of the countries polled, men were more likely than women to favor war. Many women have been in favor of wars at various times, for sure, and there is going to be variation within each gender, from person to person. But overall, it is clear from the available data that this attitude toward war is one symptom of a broader gender difference that exists. Seeing that these differences between men and women exist across nationalities and religious boundaries also strongly points toward a biological explanation.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Your statements suggest that all the unfit men are also weeded out of the system. Do you really think that?

Or, what did you mean?

Ask Gaffer what his views on that are. I'm just mullng over what he said.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mari

So the problem isn't that women are too soft, but that men are way too aggressive.

No, if women are to be in high places, it should be possible to trust them to defend our country in times of crisis. So that's women's problem. Except that I don't view it as a "problem" at all, because in my view, it should be men's problem. Our gender is designed to fulfill that function, and I think Nurvi's right in linking this male dominance to our species' hunter-gatherer stage of existence. I think our gender's role and abilities, mentally and physically, were vital to our species' survival in the hostile environment we found ourselves in. I think that the nurturing nature of women also was absolutely essential for our species.

Originally Posted by Mari

Oh, but it wasn't my own study, it was a test I made in a scientific magazine back when I still took science classes (4 or 5 years ago?) and the other things were mentioned in the accompanying article.

I still just have a general distrust of personal studies. They tend to not be that mathematical or precision based, and they often have various errors. Even those that are for a science magazine. Though I certainly respect your making the study, and it can be interesting for you on a personal level, I just don't know how solid that evidence is.

Originally Posted by Mari

By the way, why is this all about the shortcomings of women in politics or leadership functions? I am sure there is a far longer list of men failing in their leading positions...

Well naturally, there's bound to be. A lot more men have been in high office than women have, so there will be both vastly more successes and vastly more failures among men.

Originally Posted by Mari

But since our societies have mainly been patriarchical ever since our races changed from being nomads to settling in one place, the line of argument has ben set I guess. Women and men might be equal, but everyone has to fit into a model created by thousands of years of male dominance.

So why were our societies initially "mainly patriarchical ever since our races changed from being nomads to settling in one place", in your view? Why did they go patriarchal to begin with?

And also, are you suggesting that all humans originated in one single place at one point in time, as in the Bible? Just for the sake of clarification . Because if that's not what you're suggesting, then isn't it an incredible coincidence that many different tribes decided to be patriarchal independently from one another?

A third question: If this difference is cultural, as you suggest, why didn't the culture change sooner in various places? We have observed massive culture shifts within tiny spaces of time, such as changes in religion that have swept through whole countries in a matter of just a few years, and political changes that have tossed aside whole ways of life in no time. Why, in all the turmoil and change of thousands of years of civilization (and if you believe modern scientific information on the origins of humanity, hundreds of thousands of years before that), was this bit of "culture" not changed too, in more than a tiny handful of places and times?

Originally Posted by Mari

Now what I am going to say next is about stereotypes, is my personal experience and I have absolutely no official source to back it up (allthough I am sure there are) so don't kill me for that OK?

*Shoots Mari full of poisoned arrows, throws hand grenades on her and scatters the remains all over the place with lightsabers.*

Maybe I got a little carried away.

And no, of course you don't have to have any additional source to back up your personal experience. You are the official source, when it comes to your personal experience .

Originally Posted by Mari

Back in my (Western) home country I am not supposed to say I like cooking, because that means I am behaving too girlish and women of our time have to be strong and prove that they are equal to men blablabla. But that I like sports like basketball, soccer, etc. is a good thing.
Here in Japan I am not supposed to say I like sports (in fact I am not allowed to join in open soccertournaments organized by the people of the dorm) and being able to carry my own bag is something of a rarity when there are boys around (In case there are no boys, all the girls are all of a sudden perfectly able to carry their own bags themselves I still get a shock when I see boys carrying those silly little handbags in which you cannot put more than perhaps one pen for their girlfriends...) but when I say I like cooking, people are all of sudden relieved that they can find some girlish thing about me or something.

Cultural differences are indeed interesting to observe. The different ways you were treated, I think were all culture. And when men dominate women in a society, that's culture. But culture is the way it is for a reason, and in this case the evidence indicates that that reason is that societies are responding to genetics in various different, but overall similar, ways.

Originally Posted by Mari

Yep it was fiction, perhaps it wasn't a very good example. I didn't like the way how in the "female country" the man were treated like children in a way anyhow... But I didn't like how the "male country" just invaded the "female country" either. Too agressive

About the book, I'd just refer you to RÃ*an's post. She is a better source on that angle than me, being a woman.

[The Gaffer]

The problem, Lief, is that (if we take a Belgian female politician as an example) you can't get 40% of a person. She will either be in favour of war or not. So, you are extrapolating from surveys to individuals, which doesn't make sense. We don't recruit our leaders by random sample. They are carefully selected to ensure existing vested interests are preserved

The other thing to say is that the choice of measurement (support for a war) is subjective and arbitrary. It's also what's called a "surrogate" measurement, because what you're really interested in is (I presume) whether a woman can be trusted to defend her country. So, if you want to be scientific about politics, there needs to be a clear statement of exactly what it is you are looking for and an objective means of assessing it.

It would be interesting to run the same poll, but with "stupid" and "intelligent" as the sample populations instead of men and women. Or rich and poor for that matter. My guess is you would get some consistent patterns

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I see what you mean now. But I still disagree. How is losing a mother worse than losing a father? Is it not a whole other world for the child who loses a father in Iraq?

Yes but the father is less of the nurturing type that mothers are. Not only are we depriving them of a parent, we're depriving them of the parent they are most psychologically dependent on.

Unless their mother or father are absent or total failures as parents in some way (in which case, the child has already lost that parent), a child would be equally devastated by the loss of either parent.

But the military shouln't help this.

I have read those posts, what points did you mean?

Specifically the points about men and women being equal, but not equal in all things. The "men are the hunters etc..." type thing. And I'm trying to point out, with this bit about the military, that women should not serve in combat. At least not the mothers.

Of course! Just because we disagree on one thing doesn't mean we can't agree on another. Note that I referred to the loss of a generation of young people, both men and women, would devastate society.

Yeah, but you saw my point about the loss of a parent.

But a society that's willing to sacrifice fathers, or people in general for that matter, is completely fine?

Men are warriors, we have that natural instinct to kill anything that moves...

Ok, (Get serious Hector! *slaps self*) what I mean is that if you have to lose a parent, you're going to need your mother most if you are still very young. There it is. The cruelest statement of all time.

[Mari]

[QUOTE=Lief Erikson]No, if women are to be in high places, it should be possible to trust them to defend our country in times of crisis. So that's women's problem. Except that I don't view it as a "problem" at all, because in my view, it should be men's problem. Our gender is designed to fulfill that function, and I think Nurvi's right in linking this male dominance to our species'

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

hunter-gatherer stage of existence. I think our gender's role and abilities, mentally and physically, were vital to our species' survival in the hostile environment we found ourselves in. I think that the nurturing nature of women also was absolutely essential for our species.

Two points about this one:
1) In nature, the females are usually considered to most fierce creatures when they fight to protect their children. That women might hesitate to go to war doesn't mean that they would make bad defenders. In fact, I think you can make a point about women being more able to defend what they love and "nurture" than men. It might be my misunderstanding of the word nurturing, but isn't protecting and defending inherent to nurturing?
2) In the hunter-gatherer stage it was the job of men to sustain their families by finding food. Which left the women in charge of the defending part. Allthough this last statement is just what I remember from history-class, but it does seem rather logical.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I still just have a general distrust of personal studies. They tend to not be that mathematical or precision based, and they often have various errors. Even those that are for a science magazine. Though I certainly respect your making the study, and it can be interesting for you on a personal level, I just don't know how solid that evidence is.

As I tried to explain earlier, it was not a personal study. There was an article in a scientific magazine about the two sides of the brain, their functions and other stuff and it also contained a test to see which side of your brains you mostly use.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So why were our societies initially "mainly patriarchical ever since our races changed from being nomads to settling in one place", in your view? Why did they go patriarchal to begin with?

And also, are you suggesting that all humans originated in one single place at one point in time, as in the Bible? Just for the sake of clarification . Because if that's not what you're suggesting, then isn't it an incredible coincidence that many different tribes decided to be patriarchal independently from one another?

No I don't think all humans just got into being with a (smaller) bang; but most societies changed from rudimentary to sedementary at some point, I think almost all of them after the rise of new technologies. With the help of tools to till the land and the discovery of agriculture, there was no need to keep traveling in order to find food. Before, men had to go hunting and left the organization to women but when it wasn't necessary to go out, the women would work the land (which is still the case in some African countries) and now the men had time to organize. Later on when it became more like a community, the council of elders often contained several women (it is a fact that women usually live longer than men) and elders usually had the largest say in the community. So gradually the matriarchical (is this the correct spelling?) society became a patriarchical one especially with the coming of new technologies. Interesting fact is that with the change of the matriarchical society into a patriarchical society, the main focus of religion shifted from godesses to gods. Or perhaps it was the other way around. Also in the most ancient religions and also old religions, there were a lot of priestesses, because apparently women are more open to the voice of gods/godesses. You can still see that aspect in some religions especially things like shamanism. (Sorry, sidetrack )

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

A third question: If this difference is cultural, as you suggest, why didn't the culture change sooner in various places? We have observed massive culture shifts within tiny spaces of time, such as changes in religion that have swept through whole countries in a matter of just a few years, and political changes that have tossed aside whole ways of life in no time. Why, in all the turmoil and change of thousands of years of civilization (and if you believe modern scientific information on the origins of humanity, hundreds of thousands of years before that), was this bit of "culture" not changed too, in more than a tiny handful of places and times?

I don't think I understand your question. But if I understand part of it the correct way, then I would like to point out that the societies that stayed close to nature always had a bigger role for women than the societies who embraced a "technical society". In the culture of the native Americans it was even possible for women to kick their partners out, if I'm not mistaken. But in our societies divorce was something a woman couldn't get herself. Allthough off course she could get kicked out by her husband and then it would be her disgrace, not his. (sorry, sidetrack again )

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

*Shoots Mari full of poisoned arrows, throws hand grenades on her and scatters the remains all over the place with lightsabers.*

Maybe I got a little carried away.

Ouch... Yeah perhaps a little, you could also just have just have used a chainsaw on me after pushing me in front of a train or something

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

For instance, my Mom tells me how to do even the very simplest things that I already know how to do and have been doing for years. Sometimes, I feel insulted to think, "how could she doubt that I knew how to do that?" But according to that book, this is because women tend to just want to help men and this is one of their ways of trying to help people. No harm is intended- the desire is common and very innocent. So learning what that book taught me, I realized that my Mom meant nothing by this and so we get along very well now in spite of things like that.

My father does the same thing! He keeps repeating things to me that I already know and when I say: yeah, got that the first time, he is like: well better said it once too often then once too less (It is too late to translate Dutch into correct English ) But my mother always says that he just does that because he loves me, so I guess it's OK.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And men tend to be very achievement oriented and doers, and will hence tend to try offering solutions when women just come to them for sympathy.

Argh! My boyfriend used to do that and my friend does it as well! It's awful when you just want to complain and get things of your chest and they are like: yeah, so what do you want me to do about it?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The problem, Lief, is that (if we take a Belgian female politician as an example) you can't get 40% of a person. She will either be in favour of war or not. So, you are extrapolating from surveys to individuals, which doesn't make sense. We don't recruit our leaders by random sample. They are carefully selected to ensure existing vested interests are preserved

The other thing to say is that the choice of measurement (support for a war) is subjective and arbitrary. It's also what's called a "surrogate" measurement, because what you're really interested in is (I presume) whether a woman can be trusted to defend her country. So, if you want to be scientific about politics, there needs to be a clear statement of exactly what it is you are looking for and an objective means of assessing it.

It would be interesting to run the same poll, but with "stupid" and "intelligent" as the sample populations instead of men and women. Or rich and poor for that matter. My guess is you would get some consistent patterns

Yep, that's why those things are often relative; because you can give it more then one interpretation. And it is very easy to use numbers to give a wrong impression. For example: out of 40 people 31 people hate black cats (giving the impression people don't like cats that are black.) But if you include the fact that of those 40 people 38 people hated cats in general, or are supersticious, you have a whole different story...

And I wanted to go to bed early today so for a change I wouldn't be late for college... that's what I get for thinking: "let's check Entmoot quickly before going to sleep"

[Mari]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

what I mean is that if you have to lose a parent, you're going to need your mother most if you are still very young. There it is. The cruelest statement of all time.

In Dutch there is the expression "mothers-child" which sort of means being (too) dependent of your mother and in general preferring your mother over your father when you have to turn to someone. (that sounds harsh...)
My point: some people might need their mothers most, but there are also "fathers-children". And in these times it happens more often that the father stays home while the mother is out working (not that often, but still it happens)
So I guess it depends a bit.
But in the case of the military: the person who is in the military will probably be the one who is "out" most, so if that person would be the mother, it might be the other way around.

I don't think the statement is that cruel, it is a general opinion shared by many. (please note that I do not necessarily agree or disagree with it)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The problem, Lief, is that (if we take a Belgian female politician as an example) you can't get 40% of a person. She will either be in favour of war or not. So, you are extrapolating from surveys to individuals, which doesn't make sense. We don't recruit our leaders by random sample. They are carefully selected to ensure existing vested interests are preserved

Women might be pacifists and still quite capable at many elements of the job. So they could still get to high places and easily maintain a gender-related lacking of aggression. Which might very well slow our country's reaction time significantly, in times of crisis.

I'd also point out again the problem of women being too aggressive, which has been noted in the political science branch. It seems to be a dual problem.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The other thing to say is that the choice of measurement (support for a war) is subjective and arbitrary.

It is a good pointer as to which gender is more aggressive. But as has been pointed out in my sources of evidence, this kind of data has shown up consistently since World War 2, when political scientists began seriously taking these studies for the first time. So this has always been visible as regards aggression and war.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It's also what's called a "surrogate" measurement, because what you're really interested in is (I presume) whether a woman can be trusted to defend her country. So, if you want to be scientific about politics, there needs to be a clear statement of exactly what it is you are looking for and an objective means of assessing it.

As this data covers many wars and has been taken in many, many countries, it is clear that women are more aggressive. The statistic speaks for itself.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It would be interesting to run the same poll, but with "stupid" and "intelligent" as the sample populations instead of men and women. Or rich and poor for that matter. My guess is you would get some consistent patterns

I doubt it. Not with those questions. "Which are you, stupid or intelligent?" "Are you rich or poor?" You'd get too many dishonest answers to get reliable data . But I'm guessing you're joking .

But I agree with you that you can run studies and get some pretty consistent information. For example, most blacks in our country lean toward liberalism and the Democratic Party. Republicans tend to be young, rather affluent white males. There is data that indicates these kinds of things. But you won't find that consistently throughout all countries polled. There are a number of very conservative African countries. So there's no argument for saying that that is racial.

But because the data regarding women spans almost every country polled, and has remained consistent no matter which war we're talking about them favoring, and crosses religious and cultural barriers, there is a very strong indication that this is a significant gender difference.

[Nurvingiel]

The problem I have with this discussion is that yes, men and women have physical differences, different brains, and are socialised differently, but what is often important in a situation is that individuals are different, not that men and women are different.

This quote outlines my difficulties:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Women might be pacifists and still quite capable at many elements of the job. So they could still get to high places and easily maintain a gender-related lacking of aggression. Which might very well slow our country's reaction time significantly, in times of crisis.

The problem here, is that this statement overemphasises the differences between men and women, but ignores other important factors, such as patriotism and self-preservation.

Here's a good example. Argintinia invaded the British colony of the Falkland Islands in 1982. The Argentine President, Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri, probably thought Margaret Thatcher would be reluctant to go to war as well, partly because of the great distance between England and the Falklands, and partly because of British foreign policy generally being to retreat from foreign colonies.

However, he was wrong. We all know how this conflict ended - Britain reasserted its sovereignity in the Falklands and Argintinia retreated.

I'm sure Matthew Thatcher would have reacted similarly. Or, if this hypothetical man did not, it wouldn't be because he was a man, but because he is a different individual than Margaret Thatcher, with different beliefs and experiences, and is therefore prone to different reactions.

This example shows how its not gender is not important, it's the individual qualities of each person. Whether or not these differences stem from gender or another factor is irrelevant.

If you think a woman Prime Minister of Canada wouldn't defend her country, with deadly force if needed, you are sorely wrong. If Condoleeza Rice were the President of the USA, do you really think she'd let anyone invade her country unchallenged? Do you think Tarja Hallonen, Finland's current President, would let Russia walk all over them? No way.

[Lief Erikson]

The only times of crisis are not times when you're being directly invaded. There are other kinds of crisis situations where a firm hand is needed. Iran and North Korea are two modern day examples. The Cuban Missile Crisis was another good example. Women would not have been as likely to confront Russia as Kennedy was.

When your territory is directly invaded, you fight or you are conquered. It's very simple, so I'm not surprised many women would be more ready to support war, in those circumstances. But there are other kinds of situations which could have grave consequences, and which don't involve direct invasion.

During the Persian Gulf War, a lot of Israeli and Turk women supported the war. Their countries were directly threatened. In most of the other countries, the gender gap was much more pronounced, because Saddam wasn't a direct threat to those countries. He was an indirect or long term threat, because of the oil he got access to by invading Kuwait. But women in most countries didn't feel that was enough to go in. Far more men did.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

yes, men and women have physical differences, different brains, and are socialised differently

I'm very glad we're agreed on that now . Though I still think that in most places, socialization isn't a huge factor in determining gender roles. My view on that is partly as it is because this isn't an influence in the families I know. It also, though, relates to other evidences that I have previously cited.

But I know Mari's experience has been different, so I'm sure socialization can have an influence in some places.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

what is often important in a situation is that individuals are different, not that men and women are different.

If the vast majority of men and women are significantly different, that means there are going to be significant differences between the personalities of the vast majority of individuals. That includes politicians, and that is where the problem lies.

Originally Posted by Mari

1) In nature, the females are usually considered to most fierce creatures when they fight to protect their children. That women might hesitate to go to war doesn't mean that they would make bad defenders. In fact, I think you can make a point about women being more able to defend what they love and "nurture" than men. It might be my misunderstanding of the word nurturing, but isn't protecting and defending inherent to nurturing?

That women might hesitate to go to war might slow our country's reaction time in crisis, which would be a problem.

And I know that what you say is true about a number of other species. But if you're going to compare us to animals, it makes sense to compare us to the species that are closest to ours in DNA. Compare us to gorillas or apes for example, if you will. We still are our own species, and bound to have differences from theirs, but that might work.

Now among gorillas, males dominate the social structure. They also are the military. They fight to defend their females, and there is one silverback male who dominates the group.

And among chimps:

Originally Posted by Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College

Chimps are intelligent animals with generally pleasant personalities. However, the males are less peaceful than the smaller females. This behavior difference is typical of most primate species, including humans.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_7.htm

This would actually be an additional evidence that these observed significant differences between human men and women are genetic differences inherent in our species. It serves as an additional explanation for why men have always, with only a very few exceptions, dominated human civilizations.

Originally Posted by Mari

2) In the hunter-gatherer stage it was the job of men to sustain their families by finding food. Which left the women in charge of the defending part. Allthough this last statement is just what I remember from history-class, but it does seem rather logical.

I don't think it's true. You'll have to find some evidence for that one- sorry, I'm not killing you . I'm just asking for some evidence .

Look at human history as far back as our ability to record goes, and you'll see men in the military, not the women. It seems unlikely that women were the aggressive defenders in the hunter-gatherer stage, when they were physically weaker.

In Indian tribes, the men were both defenders and leaders. I think that in the hunter-gatherer phase, they almost certainly fulfilled both functions as well. Of course, if a woman was being hunted by some wild animal, she might defend herself out of necessity. But men have always both done the hunting and protected the women from wild animals and other humans, as long as we've had the ability to record it.

Originally Posted by Mari

As I tried to explain earlier, it was not a personal study. There was an article in a scientific magazine about the two sides of the brain, their functions and other stuff and it also contained a test to see which side of your brains you mostly use.

Well, I cited earlier the book of a licensed psychotherapist MA MFT who wrote about his experience and findings on the issue, and he came up with the opposite conclusion.

Originally Posted by Mari

Before, men had to go hunting and left the organization to women but when it wasn't necessary to go out, the women would work the land (which is still the case in some African countries) and now the men had time to organize. Later on when it became more like a community, the council of elders often contained several women (it is a fact that women usually live longer than men) and elders usually had the largest say in the community. So gradually the matriarchical (is this the correct spelling?) society became a patriarchical one especially with the coming of new technologies.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Feminist Joan Bamberger notes that the historical record contains no reliable evidence of any society in which women dominated (Bamberger 1974), though there are many known matrilineal societies.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

the existence of any true matriarchal societies (as opposed to matrilineal or matrifocal societies) remains controversial among scholars. [Bolds added.]

Originally Posted by Mari

Interesting fact is that with the change of the matriarchical society into a patriarchical society, the main focus of religion shifted from godesses to gods. Or perhaps it was the other way around.

It's interesting to note that the major female goddesses: Anat, Tanit, Ishtar, and some others, goddesses who were worshipped in a very, very strong way in the ancient world, exhibited as some of their primary and primal characteristics strongly male focuses: sex and violence. It's well known that men tend to focus on those more than women, being more physical than women.

There are whole genres of films and books made for men and other genres made for women. They're designed for those genders because authors and film makers know who will buy them. There are romantic comedies which are much more about relationships and romance, and then there are more male oriented formula fiction films or books that focus heavily on sex and violence.

And even where there were major female deities, in all the cases I'm acquainted with (Sumerian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Egyptian), there was an officially higher ranking male deity.

I can't think of any instances where there weren't, though at times a female goddess has been worshipped more strongly in a society than their male leader god.

I don't think that there was any shift from matriarchal to patriarchal society, because I don't think there was ever any big matriarchal movement. There have definitely been goddesses, though.

Originally Posted by Mari

Also in the most ancient religions and also old religions, there were a lot of priestesses, because apparently women are more open to the voice of gods/godesses. You can still see that aspect in some religions especially things like shamanism.

I know that there were priestesses and sacred prostitutes. That is true. And there also were priests.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm very glad we're agreed on that now . Though I still think that in most places, socialization isn't a huge factor in determining gender roles. My view on that is partly as it is because this isn't an influence in the families I know. It also, though, relates to other evidences that I have previously cited.

You don't think socialisation (definition) has much of an influence?

After having read the definition, now what do you think?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If the vast majority of men and women are significantly different, that means there are going to be significant differences between the personalities of the vast majority of individuals. That includes politicians, and that is where the problem lies.

I disagree that men and women are significantly different. The physical differences (including the brain, and hormones) don't have very much of effect. How much do these differences contribute to one's overall humanity

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That women might hesitate to go to war might slow our country's reaction time in crisis, which would be a problem.

This is not based on any direct evidence, just the assumption that since women citizens supported war less than men citizens, a leader would follow the same pattern. I think a woman with good military intelligence in a leadership role would act appropriately in a crisis - as much as any man would anyway.

I can only think of one woman leader who faced a crisis, and that was Margaret Thatcher. A sample size of one isn't quite good enough.

Like I said before, women should have a chance to screw up the planet as much as male politicians do!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And I know that what you say is true about a number of other species. But if you're going to compare us to animals, it makes sense to compare us to the species that are closest to ours in DNA. Compare us to gorillas or apes for example, if you will. We still are our own species, and bound to have differences from theirs, but that might work.

I don't think a comparison to animals is relevant in this case. We're not talking about basic behaviour here, we're talking about higher level decision-making, planning, and other qualities that as far as we know, other animals don't possess.

I hope you have better table manners than a chimpanzee.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I know that there were priestesses and sacred prostitutes. That is true. And there also were priests.

Sacred prostitutes? What religion was that?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

You don't think socialisation (definition) has much of an influence?

After having read the definition, now what do you think?

Oh, I know it has a big influence on people. I just don't think it has a big impact on gender roles, for reasons I have already stated.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I disagree that men and women are significantly different. The physical differences (including the brain, and hormones) don't have very much of effect. How much do these differences contribute to one's overall humanity

I think they contribute a lot to the way people behave. Women being more social and men being less so, is one example. Women tending more toward emphasizing relationships and men leaning toward physical things, for another. Men being focused generally upon personal achievement, and sometimes feeling insulted when women try, helpfully, to offer advice. Men's most common problem with women is the feeling that they are being "too controlling," and women's most problem with men is that they "never listen." The ways in which gender differences impact men and women go on and on and have major impact upon their relationships.

This all happens naturally. Socialization has an immense impact on people, but most parents treat their children in an even handed way, allowing them to be themselves to a large extent as regards what activities they favor and want to commit to. That isn't true all around the world, but it is certainly true here in the West nowadays, and the vast majority of women still fulfill their gender roles.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

This is not based on any direct evidence, just the assumption that since women citizens supported war less than men citizens, a leader would follow the same pattern.

I have already provided evidence that the difference between men and women is genetic. According to the Genetics Organization, men have always led nations and been their militaries throughout world history. According to the data I've presented from the political science branch, which you asked me to show was taken across many cultural, national and religious differences, and which I showed you was, in fact, taken with those differences taken into consideration, men have shown themselves to be consistently more aggressive than women. According to genetic evidence taken from looking at all the other primates, most of our closest relatives have the same genetic differences. Though we are our own species and so may be different from the other primates, this still is at least a suggestion that it's genetics we're dealing with here.

You can see other, smaller evidences too all the time. Formula fiction, for instance, is designed for the different genders. It is made the way it is because it sells. The producers know, based on sales, that men like action books and movies, and women like those that focus more on relationships. This again shows the consistent gender differences in our society, though granted, there are also people who hate formula fiction period because of the lack of sophistication in the plot structures, among other reasons. Not that that means that those people are going to be different in gender roles, necessarily.

I linked a psychotherapist's book too, where he talks about his experience.

The political science branch has always known and accepted, based upon many different polls and studies, that men and women are significantly different.

So I've presented a lot of evidence on this subject, and from many different sources. It all suggests that women and men have significant genetic differences. And that has implications in the political arena.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think a woman with good military intelligence in a leadership role would act appropriately in a crisis - as much as any man would anyway.

If the differences between men and women are genetic, then it is more likely that a man be able to respond to a crisis appropriately than a woman. And women in politics is likely to slow down our country's reaction time.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I can only think of one woman leader who faced a crisis, and that was Margaret Thatcher. A sample size of one isn't quite good enough.

I agree with you that there have been some wonderful politicians who have been women.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think a comparison to animals is relevant in this case. We're not talking about basic behaviour here, we're talking about higher level decision-making, planning, and other qualities that as far as we know, other animals don't possess.

We were talking about aggression v. nurturing. The evidence is very strong that men are more aggressive and women more nurturing, according to the studies and polls done in the political science department. This evidence regarding primates simply suggests that these basic instincts- aggression v. nurturing- are genetic differences in our species. It is one additional evidence to the other evidences I have already cited. We're talking about basic instincts here, with the primates. Humans have basic, gender related instincts and characteristics too, and under the surface, those would logically influence people's more sophisticated decision-making and planning. Genes do influence people's decision-making and planning, as they, along with socialization, are key in the development of people's personalities.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I hope you have better table manners than a chimpanzee.

*Looks elsewhere, whistling.*

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Sacred prostitutes? What religion was that?

There were several that had that. Sumerians, Babylonians, Carthaginians, and there is evidence that the Canaanites had a large system of religious prostitution among men.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Oh, I know it has a big influence on people. I just don't think it has a big impact on gender roles, for reasons I have already stated.

Let's agree to disagree on that one.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think they contribute a lot to the way people behave. Women being more social and men being less so, is one example. Women tending more toward emphasizing relationships and men leaning toward physical things, for another. Men being focused generally upon personal achievement, and sometimes feeling insulted when women try, helpfully, to offer advice. Men's most common problem with women is the feeling that they are being "too controlling," and women's most problem with men is that they "never listen." The ways in which gender differences impact men and women go on and on and have major impact upon their relationships.

I haven't seen any shred of evidence for that in my own life. I also haven't seen any rigorous scientific studies on the matter (what was the one you referred to in an earlier post?).

You probably have seen evidence in your own life, and probably have read a study or two, and this is probably why we have such diametrically opposite beliefs.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This all happens naturally. Socialization has an immense impact on people, but most parents treat their children in an even handed way, allowing them to be themselves to a large extent as regards what activities they favor and want to commit to. That isn't true all around the world, but it is certainly true here in the West nowadays, and the vast majority of women still fulfill their gender roles.

I think children are often raised inequally; I have no idea to what extent though.

If anything I do in my own life happens to coincide with a gender role, that is sheer coincidence. The idea that basic aminal instincts that may or may not exist will override my individual capacity for reasoning and decision-making is unacceptable to me.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I have already provided evidence that the difference between men and women is genetic. According to the Genetics Organization, men have always led nations and been their militaries throughout world history. According to the data I've presented from the political science branch, which you asked me to show was taken across many cultural, national and religious differences, and which I showed you was, in fact, taken with those differences taken into consideration, men have shown themselves to be consistently more aggressive than women. According to genetic evidence taken from looking at all the other primates, most of our closest relatives have the same genetic differences. Though we are our own species and so may be different from the other primates, this still is at least a suggestion that it's genetics we're dealing with here.

I... don't care that men are statistically more aggressive then women. And I don't believe this quality means men are more suited to federal politics.

What's the Genetic Organization study, and why are they looking at men almost always national leaders throughout history?

We already know this is the case. However, I think you should be more careful about what inferences you make from historical records. In this case, I think it's like tasting from an expired milk carton to see if you like the taste of milk - what is old does not reflect the current reality. Yes, we can learn a lot from history, but it is not always reflectant of the way people behave today.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You can see other, smaller evidences too all the time. Formula fiction, for instance, is designed for the different genders. It is made the way it is because it sells. The producers know, based on sales, that men like action books and movies, and women like those that focus more on relationships. This again shows the consistent gender differences in our society, though granted, there are also people who hate formula fiction period because of the lack of sophistication in the plot structures, among other reasons. Not that that means that those people are going to be different in gender roles, necessarily.

I don't think the worst genre of literature is a very good example.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I linked a psychotherapist's book too, where he talks about his experience.

I appreciate your thourough links, but there's only so much time I'm willing to put into this debate. The only book I want to read right now is "Lost in a Good Book" by Jasper Fforde, but what I should be doing is finishing an essay due Wednesday.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The political science branch has always known and accepted, based upon many different polls and studies, that men and women are significantly different.

Political science is still only one branch of science.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So I've presented a lot of evidence on this subject, and from many different sources. It all suggests that women and men have significant genetic differences. And that has implications in the political arena.

So, do you think that women should not enter federal politics, but that municipal and provincial politics would be acceptable as they do not deal with the country's defence?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If the differences between men and women are genetic, then it is more likely that a man be able to respond to a crisis appropriately than a woman. And women in politics is likely to slow down our country's reaction time.

There is no actual evidence for this statement. I am quite sure the studies you linked did not include an examination of women world leaders reaction during conflict.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree with you that there have been some wonderful politicians who have been women.

Also there have been wonderful men politicians. The women and men's respective awesomeness was independent of their gender.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

We were talking about aggression v. nurturing.

<snip>

I know, but human beings are not just animals reacting to situations on instinct, we have a great deal of brain power and we use it to make complex decision, have personalities (well, most people ), likes and dislikes, and other qualities. Given these other aspects, I don't think it's important whether or not women are more nurturing or whatever.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

*Looks elsewhere, whistling.*

Hahaha. Fortunately, chimpanzees are pretty dexterous and intelligent animals.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There were several that had that. Sumerians, Babylonians, Carthaginians, and there is evidence that the Canaanites had a large system of religious prostitution among men.

Interesting.

[Mari]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in592330.shtml
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article....ticle_id=79083

I can't help thinking: what if Bush had been a woman? Would he still be this (warning: personal opinion ahead) stupid and overly agressive?

I am almost ready to surrender my arguments, because allthough I just KNOW there is something not right about the twist Lief is trying to give this whole thing, I just don't know how to counterpart anymore. Not that I'll ever agree with you Lief, no matter how much political scientific evidence you are going to bring in this discussion, sorry
I just don't think you can measure a persons/ womans potential of being a good political leader based on an average. The women who actually get that high in the government will have had to proof themselves as not being average a long time before they got to that point up high. They made a choice to go into the hard world of politics and in order to survive that long they had to do that wholeheartedly, whereas there are male politicians who only became politicians because their daddy's were and their daddy's before them and others simply bought their way in (off course, not everyone is like this) but I don't think there are many women who can pull this off.
No solid proof though. Just my thoughts.
On a whole different note: how exactly are women in high politics going to slow decision making down? I am not thoroughly familiar with even my own countries system, but don't they usually vote or something? And if all the guys are going to vote in favor of a war (as they are supposed to do since that is in their genetics if I understand everything correctly) then who cares about a few women of whom a few will vote against, seen their nurturing state and a few in favor, because they are overly agressive?
Speaking of American politics, I really should read up on the election thread. Might find something interesting happening over there with Hilary in the race and all.

[Insidious Rex]

So Lief when do we start testing the womens to see if we should ALLOW them to be leaders in our society... Clearly just allowing them to run for office and be leaders is harmful to our society and therefore should be banned right?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Mari

I just don't think you can measure a persons/ womans potential of being a good political leader based on an average.

Completely true! That's why I emphasize the difference of individuals, not of genders.

You don't elect a gender, you elect a leader.