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 .

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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. )

[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?

[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.

[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.