Gender Issues

[Earniel]

Supposing that this 'agressive-nurturing difference' is defined genetically, then I think we're the wrong species the test that theory on either way. As a species, we mix genetical-defined behaviour a lot more with learned behaviour then most animals. Much of what makes us human is something we have learned from other people, which has much more different defining factors than our genetic inheritance. I think it's incredibly difficult -if not too difficult- to say that a tendency is natural or learned behaviour.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

that it's a challenge where to start.

But I'll start with Leif, since he's made himself so prominent. And I'll start with his sources.

What is this "The Genetics Organization"? Doesn't come up on my Google, except for you.

You can't (as has been pointed out) view the opinions of women in power as the same as the opinions of women voters. That's because most women vote for men. If women themselves don't insist on having women to represent them, the women elected are not representing women, do you see? They're representing their districts or other constituencies, and that's a different job.

You can't even discuss the "personal aggressiveness" of elected women, except as you have a large sample size, tested for that. You don't have that, do you?

If people who identify themselves as 'political scientists' are a branch, what is the original tree? Long on "political" and short on "science", if you, as their fruit, give any indication. However, you're not big enough a sample, so we'll have to hold that generalization for more data, as well.

I'd like to see any original source on the Cuban Missile Crisis that compares Kennedy's response to that of a female. Fascinating reading, I feel sure.

Show me a citation that demonstrates Republicans are young men. Average age of Republicans in Congress, maybe?

changing topics...

As for the need to keep women out of combat in Iraq, so their children won't be traumatised. Hum. I could point out that their children have, many of them, support systems featuring daycare providers that see them for more hours of consciousness than their mothers do.

Or, I could take the approach of pointing out that the "poverty draft" means that their parents may have restricted choices about taking jobs that are entirely "safe and comfortable", even if non-military.

Or, I could take the opportunity to mention that such nice considerations are pretty irrelevant for familes actually LIVING in war zones. Among which I might need to include Manhattan, depending on how things go.

So many choices for debate. So little time.

[Nurvingiel]

Sisterandcousinandaunt: That was awesome. And welcome to the board. Feel free to have a go at any logical fallacies I may present.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Supposing that this 'agressive-nurturing difference' is defined genetically, then I think we're the wrong species the test that theory on either way. As a species, we mix genetical-defined behaviour a lot more with learned behaviour then most animals. Much of what makes us human is something we have learned from other people, which has much more different defining factors than our genetic inheritance. I think it's incredibly difficult -if not too difficult- to say that a tendency is natural or learned behaviour.

I also doubt that genetics are the source of any aggression/nurturing differences between men and women. Would this not be due more to different levels of testosterone?

Or is there an "aggression gene" or something.

According to Google, as Siscuzaunt found, there is no such thing as "The Genetics Organization". That doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist, but it is going to be hard to examine their publications if they aren't readily available on the internet.

I know it seems we're picking on you Lief, but you are the only one here who seems to be arguing against women in federal politics.

Are you seriously advocating the abscence of women in federal politics!? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Lief Erikson]

I'm afraid I've run out of time to continue this debate. I may pick it up again at some future date, but for now, school is setting in hard and I can't any longer afford the time this is taking.

It has been fun . Thanks, everyone, for giving me a lot of intellectual stimulation for a long time!

Sorry I don't have time currently for a last response. Maybe this weekend I'll be able to get in a final response. Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks again for the pleasure of discussing these issues with you all .

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I also doubt that genetics are the source of any aggression/nurturing differences between men and women. Would this not be due more to different levels of testosterone?

Yes, I think that biological factors like hormones most likely play a bigger role in this debate than only genetics.

[Lief Erikson]

*Tires skid to a halt.*

Before I go!

My last post!

I'm going to respond to everyone, and that will be that!

And then you'll shoot all my arguments down while my back is turned . *Sniffles.*

Go ahead . But anyway, I've got to get out of here. School is brutal. So my last post:

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

What is this "The Genetics Organization"? Doesn't come up on my Google, except for you.

Forgive me, my bad .

Originally Posted by The Gender Organization

Men are different from women. That would seem to be self-evident. They are different in aptitude, skill and behaviour, but then, so is every individual person. So why do we make such a fuss about it? It seems not unreasonable to suggest that the sexes are different because their brains are different, but then no two human brains are the same. It is suggested that our culture is in trouble because many women have been brought up to believe they should be as good as a man. Well, why not?

We will only touch on these topics briefly. There is enough material for a dozen books. Suffice it to say that all the studies report on the way boys and girls are, not how they got to be that way. Or rather how they were at the time of the study. Commonality across cultures and species implies some biological basis. The fact that the situation is changing reflects the power of socialisation.

http://www.gender.org.uk/about/00_diffs.htm

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You can't (as has been pointed out) view the opinions of women in power as the same as the opinions of women voters. That's because most women vote for men. If women themselves don't insist on having women to represent them, the women elected are not representing women, do you see? They're representing their districts or other constituencies, and that's a different job.

Not all politicians are delegates. Wherever there is personal power in the hands of the individual, in proportion to the amount of power the individual possesses, this point remains solid.

Genetics often are influential in the formation of people's personalities. Them and upbringing and socialization, of course. But genetics are the part of the personality that isn't changable and is also very different (as I have produced evidence already from many sources to support) in a man than it is in a woman.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You can't even discuss the "personal aggressiveness" of elected women, except as you have a large sample size, tested for that. You don't have that, do you?

I agree with you that specific studies on women in office would be highly relevant. I have good reason to believe that they already have been performed, because I was taught in my political science class that there is a problem that has been noted in the political science branch that women tend to try becoming extra aggressive in order to prove that they can be as aggressive as any man. So some women in politics tend to extreme aggression in politics.

I wasn't taught about women in politics specifically being generally more nurturing than men. But there is a lot of evidence I have already produced on this thread that women are genetically less aggressive and more nurturing than men, so if that is, as the evidence suggests, a genetic trait throughout the vast majority of women, then it logically would influence women in politics too.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

If people who identify themselves as 'political scientists' are a branch, what is the original tree? Long on "political" and short on "science", if you, as their fruit, give any indication. However, you're not big enough a sample, so we'll have to hold that generalization for more data, as well.

Thanks a lot.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I'd like to see any original source on the Cuban Missile Crisis that compares Kennedy's response to that of a female. Fascinating reading, I feel sure.

I never said or implied that I had a source for that. I mentioned this only as an example of a crisis situation where having a more nurturing female leader might not have been a good thing for our country.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Show me a citation that demonstrates Republicans are young men. Average age of Republicans in Congress, maybe?

I said this is the dominant trend among Republicans. Not that this is all Republicans.

Originally Posted by HeartheIssues.com

If anything, the data on party identification among whites shows the extent to which the Democratic Party has to rely on the minority vote to build winning electoral coalitions. Less than 30% of non-Hispanic whites have identified as Democrats in the Minority Relations polls, while Republican support has been around 36% (save for a perhaps aberrant reading of 47% in the June 2004 poll). Whites, like Hispanics, are also more likely to identify as independents than Democrats, although not quite to the degree that Hispanics do.

http://www.heartheissues.com/bushwhi...inorities.html
There are several statistics on the page I've just linked, from the same source, that help to better illustrate my point.

Here's an additional interesting bit:

Originally Posted by Essentials of the American Government

Women . . . particularly unmarried women young and old, are more likely [than men] to be Democrats, and they often provide Democratic candidates with their margin of victory.

So whites tend to be more often Republican, and unmarried women tend to be more often Democrat. But as for specifically "young, white males," my source was Essentials of American Government by Tim Chervenak. Here's a useful point from the same book about women.

From the time that the earliest public opinion polls were taken, women have been found to hold more negative views about war and military intervention than do men, and more strongly positive attitudes about issues touching on social-welfare concerns, such as education, juvenile justice, capital punishment, and the environment.

sisterandcousinandaunt, it's good to meet a new debater on these threads.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Supposing that this 'agressive-nurturing difference' is defined genetically, then I think we're the wrong species the test that theory on either way. As a species, we mix genetical-defined behaviour a lot more with learned behaviour then most animals. Much of what makes us human is something we have learned from other people, which has much more different defining factors than our genetic inheritance. I think it's incredibly difficult -if not too difficult- to say that a tendency is natural or learned behaviour.

That's where the evidence from the Gender Organization comes in handy. The Political Science branch statistics show that the difference between men and women exists, though it doesn't try to say whether that's for reasons of socialization or reasons of genetics. The Gender Organization makes the point that the consistency of male dominance in cultures and civilizations throughout the world indicates genetics. Because if this was a learned behavior, we'd see a lot more variation among cultures and civilizations across the geography of the world.

Comparing the close resemblance to our species to that of primates, how the males tend to be more aggressive in most primates and the females more nurturing, also is a supporting evidence for this being a genetic trait.

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Are you seriously advocating the abscence of women in federal politics!? Inquiring minds want to know!

It was the same when I was trying to work out for myself whether or not torture should be legal. I took the side that I knew no one would agree with and argued from it at great length, after creating a whole thread on the subject, in order to figure out what my views on it actually are. I still haven't completely formed a view of my own on this, yet.

The main thing that's still holding me back from really believing fully that women shouldn't be allowed in politics is that there have been some glowing examples of marvelous female leaders. Just a few that I know of, but those few are so good that they make me very hesitant to finally decide that women shouldn't be in politics.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I know it seems we're picking on you Lief, but you are the only one here who seems to be arguing against women in federal politics.

It never seemed to me that you were picking on me, Nurv. I've never seen you pick on anyone.

Originally Posted by Mari

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

Don't worry- I totally understand. I'm the same way, sometimes sure of myself for personal reasons but unable to prove it in a way that will convince others, and then I have to stuff my case or/and do more research. I never expect to actually convince anyone of any of my arguments' accuracy, anyway. This whole pursuit for me is a practice at sharpening my mind and broadening my knowledge and understanding. And a process of having fun and getting to know new people, too.

Speaking of which, it has been great to meet you for the first time, Mari!

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.

Agreed. I was talking about doing it based on genetics rather than based on an average, of course. Different and pretty consistent genetics are common to the vast majority from each gender.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

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.

I'm not arguing that these kinds of instincts will "override" reasoning so much as "underlie" reasoning. Genetics don't determine choice alone. Socialization is also an influence, and I think that the soul has the final say. These are all underlying factors. Gender tends to be a factor that influences the personalities and dispositions of almost everyone in a consistent and unchangable way. People can change their beliefs and gain new experiences that alter their values. So socialization and culture are very fluid. People can't change their genetic encoding, though, and it is a very important, consistent influence.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

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.

I think it generally does. I already talked about crisis situations and times when the enemy is likely to attack, though, and the country is in greater danger.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

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.

In this case, it's not me who is making those inferences, but the Gender Organization. They said that the fact that men have dominated just about every culture and civilization throughout human history indicates that this is because of the genetics, and hence the different genders, of men and women. So that's not my inference, but their's. Though I happen to agree with them . They also said that the changes you mention that we see in modern times are due to socialization, which I also believe.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

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.

Well yes. I wasn't saying you should read the whole book I linked. I don't even like the author's writing style, and neither have I read the whole book. I definitely wouldn't throw that on you. I only linked one chapter, anyway, which was published on the Internet. If you don't want to read it though, it's no big deal to me. The source is still just as useful .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Political science is still only one branch of science.

It still is a whole branch. That's big. And what better branch of science to examine women's tendencies and leanings in politics?

But if you know of another branch of science that strongly disagrees with this one, please tell me about it.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

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

The utility of the example is in the marketing. The one genre is marketed for women and the other for men. They purposely design them for those genders because they sell. It's the same with formula fiction films. While I certainly won't argue against your claim that they're the worst genre of literature , I don't think that the quality of the writing is that important to the issue at hand. What matters in this case is that they present an example of another gender related overall difference of interest between men and women.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

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?

That might work fine. I haven't thought about that one at all, or researched it, but it sounds fine.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

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.

True, and I would like very much to see such a study. My point was that if gender roles are genetic, as the evidence I've been presenting indicates, then these gender roles are likely to be present in a lot of women in politics as well, since they will probably have the same genetic differences from men that other women have.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

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

Why thank-you .

*Weeps.*

That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me . . . thank-you!



It has been good to meet you, sisterandcousinandaunt, and to everyone here, it has been a fun debate . Very intellectually stimulating. Thanks for making the thread, Nurvi; it has been both very interesting and very enjoyable!

[Butterbeer]

ere' before you leg off, Lief -

answer me this:

where should women be then?

[hectorberlioz]

The situation: you're riding in your car, and [NAME] is sitting in the passenger seat talking to one of your friends on a cell phone. So when your friend asks [NAME] how you two liked his chili, you reply "it was horrible beyond belief" in a joking manner.

Now here's the crossroad:

If [NAME] was your mom, instead of giving your reply to the friend on the phone, she would give you a sharp "George! How could you!" AS IF YOU REALLY MEANT IT!

Of course, if it was your brother, he'd just convey the same sentiments as you over the phone and everyone would have a good laugh

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I'll have to respond in pieces.

First, The Gender Organization. Thank you for the link.

The Gender Organization has no identity posted on its website, that I could find. Nothing like, "A research institution affiliated with Charing Cross Hospital" or such like. However, all the articles are copyright, and attributed to Jed Bland, so I looked for Jed Bland. Here is what he says of himself in a comment written to an organization concerned with access to facts.


I have been engaged for the past ten years in researching the literature on gender and sexual dimorphism, independently of any academic institution. Consequently I have to pay for it myself.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/openacc...ter=20040701jb

I find references to him other places as an "activist," and ads for his books, which are concerned with transvestism and issues confronting transexuals.

So. Here is what I ask myself. Should I be taking the evidence presented by Mr. Bland as fact, or not? Does my education and experience as a woman (doubtless longer than his, if he has any) enable me to evaluate these issues at least as well as he does?

I believe it does. I believe that, however skilled his reading, and pure his intentions, his interpretations are subject to bias.

http://www.gender.org.uk/derby/biblio.htm

There IS such a thing as "science". It has all kinds of fussy rules about sample size, replicability, peer review, and test design, as well as some swell mathematics to evaluate it. It's been a long time since I looked at anything that necessitated a strong grasp of multivariate statistics, but I still remember enough to remember there were rules involved.

Perhaps political "scientists", if they are getting above themselves, should, for the sake of the kind of grammatical nitpicking so dear to JRR himself, call themselves something different.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The situation: you're riding in your car, and [NAME] is sitting in the passenger seat talking to one of your friends on a cell phone. So when your friend asks [NAME] how you two liked his chili, you reply "it was horrible beyond belief" in a joking manner.

Now here's the crossroad:

If [NAME] was your mom, instead of giving your reply to the friend on the phone, she would give you a sharp "George! How could you!" AS IF YOU REALLY MEANT IT!

Of course, if it was your brother, he'd just convey the same sentiments as you over the phone and everyone would have a good laugh

That's a role difference. And a comment, I'm afraid, on your evaluation of your mother's sense of humour.

Are none of your friends female? Several of mine are, and I assure you, we are able to joke about cooking without any gender confusion at all.

Too bad your mother isn't here so we could see how accurate your perception, in her case, would be. She might surprise you.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

people are fuzzy on the meaning of the word "genetic."

It is a "genetic" issue that you cannot cross a lion and an eagle and get a griffin. (However badly you want one)

Humans have no gills. That is a genetic characteristic of humans. It is true of all finished humans.

MOST humans have brown eyes. That is also a genetic characteristic of humans. But there are things, who experience themselves as human, who have blue eyes.

How shall we categorize them?

If you say, "The color of the eyes is not essential to the definition, humans may have eyes of several colors." then we can let the blue-eyed ones in, kwim?

So. Leif claims (this is rhetorical, I don't have time or resources to chase down all his sources, but I'm suspicious) that "SOME women are ..." shall we say, passive? or "lack decisiveness" or some such? Therefore passiveness is a genetic characteristic of female humans. Therefore it is a characteristic of female politicians, even if they mask it by overcompensating to be overly aggressive.

The premise does not demand the conclusion. It doesn't even really suggest it, as far as science permits us to evaluate it. The farthest we can go is to agree that, "More research would be necessary to evaluate this premise."

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I'll have to respond in pieces.

First, The Gender Organization. Thank you for the link.

The Gender Organization has no identity posted on its website, that I could find. Nothing like, "A research institution affiliated with Charing Cross Hospital" or such like. However, all the articles are copyright, and attributed to Jed Bland, so I looked for Jed Bland. Here is what he says of himself in a comment written to an organization concerned with access to facts.


I have been engaged for the past ten years in researching the literature on gender and sexual dimorphism, independently of any academic institution. Consequently I have to pay for it myself.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/openacc...ter=20040701jb

I find references to him other places as an "activist," and ads for his books, which are concerned with transvestism and issues confronting transexuals.

So. Here is what I ask myself. Should I be taking the evidence presented by Mr. Bland as fact, or not? Does my education and experience as a woman (doubtless longer than his, if he has any) enable me to evaluate these issues at least as well as he does?

I believe it does. I believe that, however skilled his reading, and pure his intentions, his interpretations are subject to bias.

You didn't look far enough, when researching the website's source. It was an organization made by the Derby TV/TS Group, not some freelancer. Mr. Bland was just one individual working for this larger group.
http://www.gender.org.uk/derby/index.htm
But I'll stop responding now. I really don't have time, and I already sent my official last post .

http://www.gender.org.uk/derby/biblio.htm

There IS such a thing as "science". It has all kinds of fussy rules about sample size, replicability, peer review, and test design, as well as some swell mathematics to evaluate it.

As does Political Science.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

It's been a long time since I looked at anything that necessitated a strong grasp of multivariate statistics, but I still remember enough to remember there were rules involved.

And in Essentials of American Government, the author, a political scientist named Tim Chevernak, goes over all the things you mentioned- replicability, sample size, test design, etc. They are fully aware of those rules and follow them closely.

With all due respect, how much do you know about Political Science? Based on what (aside from me) do you criticize the profession?

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

where should women be then?

It's not like there aren't any jobs outside the government or military. Not that I'm sure of my views on their role in those places either, you understand.

[Lief Erikson]

Bother. This is so addictive. I really am trying to vanish!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

The Derby group is a self-help organization concerned with the problems of transvestites and transexuals... they publish small books and monographs. But Jed is their moving force.

I don't suppose that pointing out that I was a field associate for what was then "The Gay Rights National Lobby" before you were born would give me any credentials sufficient to evaluate Mr. Brand? Or that since long before THAT I've been a published writer. Or that I used to teach college statistics in the Suny system to evaluate math? Or that I'm an elected official now to evaluate political science?

And you'd have to take my word for it, because this isn't an appropriate forum for posting my CV.

I'm just tempermentally allergic to poorly evaluated sources.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

That's a role difference. And a comment, I'm afraid, on your evaluation of your mother's sense of humour.

Are none of your friends female? Several of mine are, and I assure you, we are able to joke about cooking without any gender confusion at all.

Too bad your mother isn't here so we could see how accurate your perception, in her case, would be. She might surprise you.
Brooke

O come now, wasn't that bit of mine even the least bit funny?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The Derby group is a self-help organization concerned with the problems of transvestites and transexuals... they publish small books and monographs. But Jed is their moving force.

I don't suppose that pointing out that I was a field associate for what was then "The Gay Rights National Lobby" before you were born would give me any credentials sufficient to evaluate Mr. Brand? Or that since long before THAT I've been a published writer. Or that I used to teach college statistics in the Suny system to evaluate math? Or that I'm an elected official now to evaluate political science?

And you'd have to take my word for it, because this isn't an appropriate forum for posting my CV.

I'm just tempermentally allergic to poorly evaluated sources.
Brooke

Brooke, seeing as you're citing yourself now as the refutation to my sources, I think that your credentials are relevant to this discussion. So would you please help me out on a few points, as I check out what you're telling me?

I'll need your full name, the name of the college at which you were Statistics professor, and it would be helpful if you told me what class(es) you taught too. If you don't remember the classes because it being a long time ago, I can do without them, I expect.

I'd also appreciate knowing what your position as elected official is, exactly, and where you're serving. With who would be helpful too, for me to know. And anything else you think may help me in double-checking your credentials.

I'd also like it if you could give me details that would help me double-check your connection to "The Gay Rights National Lobby".

Knowing what some of the books you've published are would also help.

I'd appreciate this information very much . It is important information for us to know, since you are citing yourself in order to refute my case.

Thanks!

~Lief

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

O come now, wasn't that bit of mine even the least bit funny?

Thanks.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

this wouldn't be an appropriate place to post my CV.

And maybe I'm a paperhanger from Dayton named Earl...how would you know?

Although perhaps you are unaware, you have cited yourself as a source throughout this whole debate. You, and your understanding of "the political science branch."

But you have no credentials that *I* recognise, so you'll have to show up with more in the way of actual fact than your general understanding (or misunderstanding) of things that you assure us are "common knowledge among political scientists".

And, in all sincerity, we could agree that this was addictive. Hope you get your stuff done.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

this wouldn't be an appropriate place to post my CV.

And maybe I'm a paperhanger from Dayton named Earl...how would you know?

Precisely. That is why your personal citation is not evidence at all, until you can provide the evidence I am asking for.

If you don't want to provide any way of verifying your claims about yourself, please don't attempt to use yourself as evidence.

If you did have a job as an elected official, with a job (conveniently relevant to discussion, as, apparently, is all your expertise) evaluating political science, I'd have thought you'd be aware of something this basic as regards citations.

Yes, now I am suddenly shifting into accusation. I don't know you. But I have taken several political science classes, and you have demonstrated ignorance on certain points of political science that are the basics, taught in low levels of the profession. I can provide evidence for each of the claims I am about to make about political science, which you have demonstrated ignornance on.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Leif claims (this is rhetorical, I don't have time or resources to chase down all his sources, but I'm suspicious) that "SOME women are ..." shall we say, passive? or "lack decisiveness" or some such? Therefore passiveness is a genetic characteristic of female humans. Therefore it is a characteristic of female politicians, even if they mask it by overcompensating to be overly aggressive.

In this segment of your writing, you say, "Lief claims," that women are less aggressive than men. You state in this paragraph of your writing that you are suspicious of these claims.

This shows clearly that you haven't taken Political Science 180 or Political Science 110. This is a basic fact about the Political Science profession that is taught in low-level classes. I have already cited this fact from two Political Science textbooks.
For instance, in "Essentials of American Government," the book says, "poll after poll reveals that women hold very different opinions from men on a variety of issues, as shown in Table 10.1. From the time that the earliest public opinion polls were taken, women have been found to hold more negative views about war and military intervention than do men . . ."

This is a basic fact. You should have been fully acquainted with this basic fact I was presenting, if you were in a position to "evaluate political science," whatever job that specifically is, that you're referring to.

Even if you knew about this basic fact and disagreed with it, because you are supposedly an evaluator, you would not portray it as "Lief claims" it is true, but would rather, understanding what the data is, state that even though the data says this, it is flawed for such and such reasons. Based on your expertise. Instead, you say that you are suspicious of my sources, which would be just absurd if you knew the first thing about Political Science.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

If people who identify themselves as 'political scientists' are a branch, what is the original tree?

This indicates you're mocking my use of the term "Political Science Branch," which is used everywhere. Just type the term down on Google and you'll see it all over the place. That you would attack my use of such a commonplace term indicates that you have little or no experience. Even if you disagreed with much that the Political Science "Branch" teaches because of all your experience, you wouldn't mock my use of a commonplace term.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

There IS such a thing as "science". It has all kinds of fussy rules about sample size, replicability, peer review, and test design, as well as some swell mathematics to evaluate it. It's been a long time since I looked at anything that necessitated a strong grasp of multivariate statistics, but I still remember enough to remember there were rules involved.

Perhaps political "scientists", if they are getting above themselves, should, for the sake of the kind of grammatical nitpicking so dear to JRR himself, call themselves something different.

The fact that you didn't know the basic facts from Political Science 180 that they use sample size, replicability, peer review, test design and all the rest indicates that you again have a woeful lack of knowledge about the branch. Your claim that they don't use these aspects of test-taking indicates that you don't know the first thing about them.

In The Essentials of American Government, Chapter 10, the political scientist goes over these things. This is the basics.

There are other parts of your posts which indicate insincerity.

In post 50, you say that "The Gender Organization has no identity posted on its website, that I could find. Nothing like, 'A research institution affiliated with Charing Cross Hospital' or such like. However, all the articles are copyright, and attributed to Jed Bland, so I looked for Jed Bland."

In the rest of your post, you treated this as just one person talking by himself, based on his experience. Then, when I provided information that there was actually a company involved, you suddenly shifted your ground, saying, "But I did look. The Derby group is a self-help organization concerned with the problems of transvestites and transexuals... they publish small books and monographs. But Jed is their moving force."

You never mentioned this in your original post. You only spoke of Jed, and you shifted your ground when I confronted you on it, claiming that you'd known what I was saying all the time. You also have said that Jed Bland is the moving force behind the group, something you provided no evidence for until, "I don't suppose that pointing out that I was a field associate for what was then 'The Gay Rights National Lobby' before you were born would give me any credentials sufficient to evaluate Mr. Brand?"

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Although perhaps you are unaware, you have cited yourself as a source throughout this whole debate. You, and your understanding of "the political science branch."

Here is another point. Although you should have had professional training to know that citing yourself without leaving any way of verifying the citation is ridiculous, instead of trying to argue the point, your response is basically, "well, you do it!" Which happens to be untrue, but that's not so important to my point. I can't see people of professional training responding to their claims being invalidated by saying, "well, you do it!"

Originally Posted by sisterandmotherandaunt

And maybe I'm a paperhanger from Dayton named Earl...how would you know?

I also find it interesting that you suddenly are so specific in the details of what you might be, when while you were talking about what you claimed you were, you gave only generalities.

Now, in addition:

I have met some elected officials. I have also met professionals. I'm sure that several people here have. Now, when professionals and elected officials enter an argument about which they have personal expertise (take inked, for example), they tend to provide a great deal of data and information backing their position. Professionals are professionals because they know a lot, and they are analytical, intelligent thinkers. They provide evidence to back their position aside from simple personal experience, because having attained that position, they learned a lot on the way.

So sisterandcousinandaunt, either you are not a politician, or you are the most ignorant one I have ever heard of. Your whole style and manner of approaching this debate had indicated the former.

So I'm calling you a liar, unless you suddenly completely change your tune here and contribute real, professional data to the debate AND, most importantly, provide clear information from which we can verify your claims about your own identity.

~Lief