Gender Issues

[Nurvingiel]

This thread is an off-shoot of the Homosexual marriage II thread, where we got talking about gender issues as related to that debate.

This is the thread for any and all gender issues you'd like to discuss.


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.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Actually, there have been problems noted with women in office that seem to spread throughout the gender. Most women are nurturing and most men aggressive.

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.

Secondly, the statement implies that the trait supposedly possessed by most women causes problems for the gender. Why? What problems? What did you mean by all this anyway Lief? This too is completely baseless.

[Lief Erikson]

My strongest evidence on this matter comes from the political science profession. I've been taught in my college Political Science class that this is accepted throughout the political science profession, and female politicians know it's true as well. That's why, according to my liberal, Democratic Political Science Professor Stew Frame, who is personally in support of women being in political positions, there's a dual problem among many female politicians. While many are nurturing and not very aggressive (which can be a problem in times of national crisis. Take Jeanet Rankin, for instance, the first woman in the Congress. She voted against US involvement in both WW1 and WW2), many others, who are well acquainted with the statistics about women's generally being not very aggressive, tend to attempt to prove that it is not true as regards them. Consequently they become overly aggressive and cause lots of problems, trying to prove that they can be as aggressive or strong a leader as any man.

So that's a reverse kind of problem that has also been noted in the political science profession about women in politics. They tend to be either overly aggressive or overly nurturing, without all that much between the two extremes. That's what's taught in the political science branch, as learned from their statistical studies.

As I mentioned, the professor who taught me this personally approves of women being in politics because in his view, having more pacifism in the government is just going to be helpful. I disagree, though, for I don't want our government being pushed over the edge in violent aggression, or held back from responding in crisis because of too much attempting reconciliation. Of course men can be on one extreme or the other too, depending on the person, but they don't as a gender tend toward the extremes anywhere near as much as women do.

So now to more sources of evidence to back my claims, aside from the one professor.

One citation is International Politics on the World Stage, eleventh edition, by John T. Rourke, page 67. He doesn't attempt to say whether the observed differences between the genders are based on biological differences between men and women or socialization (I have different sources that provide evidence that biology is a key difference between men and women's personalities, that I'll get to soon), but he definitely makes the point from a number of studies that women tend to be more nurturing and less aggressive than men.

My next citation is Essentials of American Government by Tim Chervenak, pages 346 and 348. Here's a quote from that book:

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, and more strongly positive attitudes about issues touching on social welf-are concerns, such as education, juvenile justice, capital punishment, and the environment. [bolds added]

So what is commonly accepted even among the liberals in the political science branch is a major evidence supporting my claim.

According to the Genetics Organization, major differences between roles of men and women have been observed across the vast majority of civilizations and cultures in our world, and these differences tend to be the same. Men consistently have been the leaders and the fighters in the military, the aggressive ones, while women have tended to take care of the children and take more social type roles.

If men and women were mentally pretty much the same, you would see a roughly equivalent number of societies in the world where women were the leaders and military to the number where men fulfilled that function. History shows no such sameness. In fact, there are very few societies in which women have had much of a role at all- let alone a dominant one. This is a strong evidence that the observed differences between men and women aren't cultural, but are rather biological, because otherwise you would see many more matriarchal societies in history and societies where women were in the armed forces.

For another evidence (though a much smaller one), here's an excerpt about male and female brains differences from a book written by licensed psychotherapist Thayer White MA MFT:

Originally Posted by Left Brains-Right Brains

Let me simplify - the verbal, sorting, detail-oriented side of the brain is the left, whereas the spatial intuitive nonverbal side is the right. Who is more verbal, the average man or woman? By a wide margin, of course, the answer is the woman. She speaks twice as many words as the man and has done so even before the age of two. Boys and men are much more nonverbal, usually preferring physical spatial activities even as small toddlers. So the evidence is clear that women hang out more in their left brains, whereas men tend to hang out more in their right brains.

He goes on with more evidences and descriptions of the differences. I don't care very much for his writing style, but he has 23 years of experience. Here's the full section from his book:
http://www.helpself.com/brain.htm

[Mari]

There is a trilogy written by Thea Beckmann about what a country would be like if it was ruled by women. It is described as a peaceful country without hunger or poverty. Off course later on a country ruled by men discovers this country and since there is hunger and poverty and war in their country they wage war on "the female country".
Lief, you say you do not agree with women in the government because they are too extreme which can be dangerous in certain situations. You probably mean situations like the terrorist attacks (caused by men who would die partly for the thought of sharing a heaven with 40 virgins, not taking in consideration that after one time they won't be virgins anymore) or natural disasters (how long did it take for the Bush-administration, which is a dominantly male administration, to take action after Katrina?) or evil dictators who are rumored to have atomic weapons (invented by a man, the dictators and their organization also being male) or something of the sorts?
You also mention that the first woman in the Congress voted against participation in WW1 and WW2, but how many men voted against? That is something you do not mention but is necessary information if you want to make a fair judgement.
I am sure there may be biological evidence or something to support the claim that men and women are different, but I cannot agree with your political views. By the way, I mostly use my right side brains according to some test as apparently do a lot of women. There are also a lot of men using their left side more. Once again, that was according to some test I made and not exactly a biology book, but still I think there are some contradictorary results to be found even in official sources.
On a whole different note, I just watched the Hunchback of the Notre Dame again after many years and the evil judge Frolo is actually burning down Paris because he is *how to put this nicely?* in physical love with Esmeralda... off course he claims it is her fault for bewitching his senses and not the fault of his own body and mind for betraying him...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mari

There is a trilogy written by Thea Beckmann about what a country would be like if it was ruled by women. It is described as a peaceful country without hunger or poverty. Off course later on a country ruled by men discovers this country and since there is hunger and poverty and war in their country they wage war on "the female country".

And realistically, they would conquer it pretty easily. That's one of the major problems of having women as leaders and defenders.

Originally Posted by Mari

Lief, you say you do not agree with women in the government because they are too extreme which can be dangerous in certain situations. You probably mean situations like the terrorist attacks (caused by men who would die partly for the thought of sharing a heaven with 40 virgins, not taking in consideration that after one time they won't be virgins anymore) or natural disasters (how long did it take for the Bush-administration, which is a dominantly male administration, to take action after Katrina?) or evil dictators who are rumored to have atomic weapons (invented by a man, the dictators and their organization also being male) or something of the sorts?

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.

Originally Posted by Mari

You also mention that the first woman in the Congress voted against participation in WW1 and WW2, but how many men voted against? That is something you do not mention but is necessary information if you want to make a fair judgement.

Well, when this is the first woman in Congress we're talking about, you could always say that it's only one woman anyway, and so doesn't prove anything. The studies I referred to from the political science branch are my more solid evidence. My only reason for mentioning Jeanet Rankin specifically is that she has the distinction of being the first woman in Congress, and feminist movements everywhere love her.

Originally Posted by Mari

I am sure there may be biological evidence or something to support the claim that men and women are different, but I cannot agree with your political views. By the way, I mostly use my right side brains according to some test as apparently do a lot of women. There are also a lot of men using their left side more. Once again, that was according to some test I made and not exactly a biology book, but still I think there are some contradictorary results to be found even in official sources.

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).

Originally Posted by Mari

On a whole different note, I just watched the Hunchback of the Notre Dame again after many years and the evil judge Frolo is actually burning down Paris because he is *how to put this nicely?* in physical love with Esmeralda... off course he claims it is her fault for bewitching his senses and not the fault of his own body and mind for betraying him...

He was indeed a stinker in that movie .

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Political Science

Contradiction in terms, mate.

Women who are currently successful, or have been successful in politics in the past, have to fight their way up a patriarchy to get there. This weeds out a vast number of women. Therefore, you are not comparing like with like when you compare men in power and women in power.

For every Janet Rankin, I will show you a Margaret Thatcher. (or a Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Angela Merkhel, Queen Elizabeth II, etc etc)

A lot is made of how men and women differ, e.g. in brain structure and penis existence, and I'm sure many of these things have substance to them

However, it has been my experience that, in terms of professional performance the similarities are far, far greater than the differences.

IMO it has been a major restriction on our society that women have not been able to make the same contributions as men over the centuries.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Women who are currently successful, or have been successful in politics in the past, have to fight their way up a patriarchy to get there. This weeds out a vast number of women. Therefore, you are not comparing like with like when you compare men in power and women in power.

Though, also according to the political science branch, fighting their way up that patriarchy often causes women to become overly aggressive, just so that they can prove themselves equal to any man. Like Condoleeza Rice, when she urged President Bush to "punish France, ignore Germany, and forgive Russia," at the time of the Iraq War.

But you make an interesting point, and maybe it's true.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

For every Janet Rankin, I will show you a Margaret Thatcher. (or a Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Angela Merkhel, Queen Elizabeth II, etc etc)

I don't think there is a big "etc., etc." The prominent women will be the more successful, and more aggressive ones, so it would be easier for you to find specific examples than it would be for me. Hence I rely on broader, more far reaching studies which also are more important in the long run.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

A lot is made of how men and women differ, e.g. in brain structure and penis existence, and I'm sure many of these things have substance to them

However, it has been my experience that, in terms of professional performance the similarities are far, far greater than the differences.

Do you work in politics? I do favor male-female equality in the work place.

I've seen a big difference between men and women in my life, and have learned to treat the two genders differently from the painful experience of making some women mad at me, as a result of my treating them like I'd treat men. I'm more careful now, partly because I've now read part of Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, and that has helped a lot with gender relationship problems in my life.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

IMO it has been a major restriction on our society that women have not been able to make the same contributions as men over the centuries.

Agreed. In terms of the vast majority of jobs, I definitely agree. And perhaps there are some jobs too in our country which would be better suited to women and which men fail at all the time. Those jobs should perhaps go over to women.

I believe women should have the right to vote, so women's suffrage and feminism in the beginning were great. And I still approve of the efforts of some feminists to get femininity more celebrated in culture. Those feminists realize that they don't have to be masculine, but rather they try to celebrate femininity, and I think that that's very wholesome for society.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Men are from Mars, women are from Venus,

... and political scientists are from Uranus

Hey, I made a joke.

But seriously, if we're wanting to study gender differences systematically then I don't think political science has too much to offer.

What do you think of the Catch-22 implicit in the whole "if you're nurturing, you're not up to it; if you're up to it, you're too aggressive" thing?

The best book I ever read about all this stuff was The Flounder, by Gunter Grasse.

Edit: I don't work in government, but I do work for government from time to time, so I have come into contact with politicians regularly over the past ten years. I should add that the true leaders, the charismatic and highly effective people that rise to the very top, tend to be very different from the "also-rans".

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

... and political scientists are from Uranus

Good one.

Remember Holst's subtitle: Uranus, the Magician

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

... and political scientists are from Uranus

Hey, I made a joke.

But seriously, if we're wanting to study gender differences systematically then I don't think political science has too much to offer.

So you think all of the studies cited by the books I have quoted are faulty?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

What do you think of the Catch-22 implicit in the whole "if you're nurturing, you're not up to it; if you're up to it, you're too aggressive" thing?

I think it has nothing to do with what I've been saying . What I said was that according to the studies of the political science branch (what better branch might there be to study women in politics?), women tend to the extremes. Either overly aggressive or overly nurturing. Not much in between. What your "Catch-22" says is that they're all in between, which is decidedly not what the studies show, and is baseless.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Edit: I don't work in government, but I do work for government from time to time, so I have come into contact with politicians regularly over the past ten years. I should add that the true leaders, the charismatic and highly effective people that rise to the very top, tend to be very different from the "also-rans".

Okay. I'll think about this more and review my evidence. I want to believe you, because I don't want to be in the way of any Elizabeth 1st getting into politics. If the vast majority of women are weeded out and the system is set up in such a way that only those highly fit for office can get in, maybe it's a good thing for the system to remain as it is. I'm just not sure you're right, because of the problems noted in the political science branch. So I'll think about this some more. Thanks for sharing your experience.

[sun-star]

Just to be clear, Lief, do you think women shouldn't hold political office?

[hectorberlioz]

Of course he doesn't.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Just to be clear, Lief, do you think women shouldn't hold political office?

I don't know. I'm still thinking about it carefully.

There is clear evidence that men and women are very different from one another. There is also strong evidence that men tend to be more aggressive and women more nurturing. Women not being aggressive enough could definitely cause problems in crisis situations. There also has been a problem noted in the political science profession that some women become overly aggressive in an attempt to prove that this evidence that women are more nurturing doesn't apply to them, and so they can worsen situations in the opposite way.

I tend to think men are biologically designed to fulfill leadership roles, and that is supported by the point the Genetics Organization makes, that across almost every culture and civilization in history, they have had those roles. If women and men were equally capable of fulfilling those roles, you'd see a lot more places and times where women dominated.

So that's what the available evidence says. But I also know that there are exceptions. Some women have done very, very well in office. Not many at all, but a few.

That small minority of highly successful women in office is what gives me pause in saying that women shouldn't be in office. If it weren't for Queen Elizabeth 1st, "King" Hatchepsut, and others Gaffer mentioned, I wouldn't hesitate much at all in saying they shouldn't be in office. But I know that there have been some very successful women there, so while statistics prove true in the overall and in general, they don't necessarily hold true for every single person.

That's what's causing me trouble. And I'm weighing in my mind, "are the problems that exist with many women in politics, which have been noted by the political science profession, outweighing the benefits for our civilization of allowing those highly successful women to hold office? Or do the benefits from those few highly successful women outweigh the problems caused by the many?"

Gaffer's personal experience is helpful to me, as I weigh these issues in my own mind. So I don't really have an answer for you yet, sunstar. I'm still dwelling on this matter.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Just to be clear, Lief, do you think women shouldn't hold political office?

What I've been doing is defending this statement I made, which was quoted by Nurvingiel: "Actually, there have been problems noted with women in office that seem to spread throughout the gender. Most women are nurturing and most men aggressive."

So I'm defending my point about there being problems with women being in politics. But I am still personally undecided as to whether or not the best solution to those problems is banning women from politics.

[hectorberlioz]

I don't have a problem with women in high office, but I do think that women in the military - and I have all the respect for the women that are in the military - is not a smart thing.

If we were an ancient civilization, women in the military would be considered idiotic for the simple reason that if our young women had to fight, who is going to have the babies?

Maybe our situation isn't that drastic now, and I'm not a screamer on the issue...but...

And then there's the draft thing. Only men would be drafted, and women would not. Thats the way it should be, IMO, but there you see an example where "men and women being equal" can't possibly mean men and women doing all the same things equally well.

[sun-star]

Thanks for your answer, Lief.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Mari

There is a trilogy written by Thea Beckmann about what a country would be like if it was ruled by women. It is described as a peaceful country without hunger or poverty.

I can't believe that this is realistic. Although I'm a woman, I always preferred to work with men because of the catfighting that all too often went on in groups of women. I'm not saying ALL women do this - this is just a straightforward observation from my own personal experience. Many others that I've talked to feel this way, too. That's probably why the word "catfighting" was made up - lots of people have experienced it. I'm not trying to trash women; I'm just saying that I really doubt that that situation in the trilogy would happen.

[Lief Erikson]

For me, the women in the military issue has never been a matter of "who will make the babies?"

But I am convinced that men and women are biologically, genetically different from one another in complementary ways. Men were encoded to be more aggressive and more physically big and strong. They were mentally and physically built with the power to be hunter-gatherers and leaders. Our species needed those attributes in men, from the early phases of our existence. Another part of the human species was needed that could be more nurturing. That is essential, too, to our species' survival. Hence the biological and equally important and vital differences between men and women, in my view.

So trying to say that men and women are totally equal is wrong. Men aren't going to be as good as women in some things, and women not as good at men in some things. The two genders complement one another, but neither has everything, as they would have to have if they were to be "equal." The genders are equal in that they are equally valuable, but they are unequal in the same way that a computer technician might not be able to do the same thing an architect could. Those are two different, but very important, types of skills. But the difference is not to say that one skill is more valuable than the other.

For this reason, I think that applying the draft to women would be just hideous. That would be utterly terrible for our civilization. Women weren't designed to do that kind of thing, and perhaps there are a few exceptions, as there are with women in leadership roles, but the evidence I have produced on this thread shows that the vast majority are definitely not designed for it. So applying the draft to women would be horrible.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I can't believe that this is realistic. Although I'm a woman, I always preferred to work with men because of the catfighting that all too often went on in groups of women. I'm not saying ALL women do this - this is just a straightforward observation from my own personal experience. Many others that I've talked to feel this way, too. That's probably why the word "catfighting" was made up - lots of people have experienced it. I'm not trying to trash women; I'm just saying that I really doubt that that situation in the trilogy would happen.

I heard that before. One woman who tried to get to know me said that she preferred friendships with men rather than women because in her words, "women have so many complicated issues." I've also been asked by a woman before to help peacefully resolve a personality clash between her and another couple women. And I successfully did, which was cool.

I'm not a woman, so I don't feel I have as much right to bring this argument about female relationships up. I've heard women argue it before, though, and claim from their understanding of female psychology (being women and knowing them) that only men should be in high political office.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I can't believe that this is realistic. Although I'm a woman, I always preferred to work with men because of the catfighting that all too often went on in groups of women. I'm not saying ALL women do this - this is just a straightforward observation from my own personal experience. Many others that I've talked to feel this way, too. That's probably why the word "catfighting" was made up - lots of people have experienced it. I'm not trying to trash women; I'm just saying that I really doubt that that situation in the trilogy would happen.

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.

[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.

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.


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.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Though, also according to the political science branch, fighting their way up that patriarchy often causes women to become overly aggressive, just so that they can prove themselves equal to any man. Like Condoleeza Rice, when she urged President Bush to "punish France, ignore Germany, and forgive Russia," at the time of the Iraq War.

But you make an interesting point, and maybe it's true.

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.

For example, if someone has to fight tooth and nail to earn respect in their chosen profession, they might become aggressive about it. Aggression could be the only way they can succeed.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't think there is a big "etc., etc." The prominent women will be the more successful, and more aggressive ones, so it would be easier for you to find specific examples than it would be for me. Hence I rely on broader, more far reaching studies which also are more important in the long run.

As tempted as I am to start naming a bunch more women politicians, like I said before, I'd like to avoid that.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Do you work in politics? I do favor male-female equality in the work place.

Politics excepted, apparently. But I'll wait until you weigh-in officially on whether or not you think women should go into politics.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I've seen a big difference between men and women in my life, and have learned to treat the two genders differently from the painful experience of making some women mad at me, as a result of my treating them like I'd treat men. I'm more careful now, partly because I've now read part of Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, and that has helped a lot with gender relationship problems in my life.

I can't stand that stupid book, probably due to our afforementioned differences in attitude.

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

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Agreed. In terms of the vast majority of jobs, I definitely agree. And perhaps there are some jobs too in our country which would be better suited to women and which men fail at all the time. Those jobs should perhaps go over to women.

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.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I believe women should have the right to vote, so women's suffrage and feminism in the beginning were great.

I'm glad you feel that way, now I don't have to beat the stuffing out of you.

Okay, I wouldn't really have beaten you up. You're all the way in California.

Sexism is one of the few things that really gets me angry. One of the few people that I have lost my temper at is this sexist guy who I used to train with in karate. Man, I can't stand that guy. But he doesn't train any more so it doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And I still approve of the efforts of some feminists to get femininity more celebrated in culture. Those feminists realize that they don't have to be masculine, but rather they try to celebrate femininity, and I think that that's very wholesome for society.

I agree with you about femininity. I believe there is a sexism in our society that's directed at feminity more than women. Instead, like you said, we should celebrate feminity as a society.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I don't have a problem with women in high office, but I do think that women in the military - and I have all the respect for the women that are in the military - is not a smart thing.

If we were an ancient civilization, women in the military would be considered idiotic for the simple reason that if our young women had to fight, who is going to have the babies?

Maybe our situation isn't that drastic now, and I'm not a screamer on the issue...but...

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.

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

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And then there's the draft thing. Only men would be drafted, and women would not. Thats the way it should be, IMO, but there you see an example where "men and women being equal" can't possibly mean men and women doing all the same things equally well.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So you think all of the studies cited by the books I have quoted are faulty?

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

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.)

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think it has nothing to do with what I've been saying . What I said was that according to the studies of the political science branch (what better branch might there be to study women in politics?), women tend to the extremes. Either overly aggressive or overly nurturing. Not much in between. What your "Catch-22" says is that they're all in between, which is decidedly not what the studies show, and is baseless.

You could make the argument that women are nurturing and men are aggressive with respect to politics. (I'd disagree, but at least you've made a reference to relevant studies.)

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.

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.

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.

In other words, it's completely faulty to say, that female politicians are mainly nurturing and male politicians are mainly aggressive, and therefore all women and all men are also respectively nurturing and aggressive.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Okay. I'll think about this more and review my evidence. I want to believe you, because I don't want to be in the way of any Elizabeth 1st getting into politics. If the vast majority of women are weeded out and the system is set up in such a way that only those highly fit for office can get in, maybe it's a good thing for the system to remain as it is. I'm just not sure you're right, because of the problems noted in the political science branch. So I'll think about this some more. Thanks for sharing your experience.

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?

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm not a woman, so I don't feel I have as much right to bring this argument about female relationships up. I've heard women argue it before, though, and claim from their understanding of female psychology (being women and knowing them) that only men should be in high political office.

I think we should also try to avoid second-hand arguments.

If you want to also make this argument though, of course you can. (The argument is ridiculous, but you can actually make this argument, unlike some random, unnamed people who aren't posting in this thread. )