Gender Issues

[Lief Erikson]

It is important to our national security that we have the ability to stick out wars we're engaged in and to win them. It's also important that we have the ability to engage in the right wars. I know that men won't always get us into the right wars or be able to win them once we're in them. And being more likely to enter the right wars means also being more likely to enter the wrong ones. But unfortunately, we'd also be more likely to lose whatever war we fight, or to be attacked if we delay. I do believe that many men support peace and I think that that is very important to our national security too- it keeps us from overtaxing ourselves or being as likely to hit the wrong targets. But I think men tend to be better designed than women to make these leadership decisions. This is not a constant- some women are far better at making these kinds of decisions than some men. And some men's aggression does make them stupid. I think that as a whole though, the genders are designed to function in this way and there are a great deal of evidences (of which I have listed several above) that indicate this.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

And since in spite of doom-sayers, Western-originated liberal democracy has survived the test of time, triumphing over the challenges of dictatorial militarism, Fascism, and Communism, then maybe we should keep laying our winning hand, and even try to expand it as much as we can, instead of regressing to the level of our (failed ) opponents. I'd be much happier if the less aggressive sex had more influence in places like Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan.

I wouldn't equate Western-originated liberal democracy with women's having the right to vote. Democracy existed a lot longer than women had the right to vote, so arguing against the latter does not necessitate arguing against the former.

But on the issue of our current form of government standing the test of time, I don't really believe that it has yet. It's still called "the great experiment," and for good reason. Time has not yet passed on this one. On the other hand, the system that existed in the Medieval Ages survived for over a dozen centuries. It would be much easier to argue that their system survived the test of time than it would be to argue that ours has, seeing as our form of government has only been around for two or three hundred years at most.

And if one includes those two or three hundred years since our democracy's beginning, one has to include the wars we fought against Britain. This was in a stage of British history where they had a very powerful parliament. They had a king too, of course, but the parliament and their people voted in favor of war against us, and we ended up fighting two wars against the British. They were part of the liberal democracy tradition too, right? And then there also was the Civil War between the Confederate States and the Union. Both were democracies, although I grant you not precisely the same as what we have now.

If these cases don't count as clashes between democracies because the democracies weren't liberal enough (and the Confederates were actually fighting for less authoritarianism in government than we held to in our democracy, not more), then we're reducing even more the time that the Western liberal democratic government has existed. We're cutting it down then to about one century. Just to show that wars between democracies are not unheard of . They nearly wiped our country out, twice.

Originally Posted by Mari

Accepting that you're right, isn't it a good thing that it takes more time to convince women? It means the government has to really think it's arguments through and they can't rush into a foolish war. It might teach them some precaution. (Is that correct English?)

And before you start saying that sometimes there is no time for thorough consideration, like for example after Pearl Harbor, it is my believe that in such extremities, women are fully capable of saying yes to war. Mainly because Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks happened in a country they felt more or less safe. You defend what you feel is yours. And after attrocities are commited against them or their country(men) people are easier up for a war.

I agree that government should really think through its arguments and shouldn't rush into wars. I think that men are psychologically the better equipped of the two genders to make the decision on when it's time for war, though. I agree that some women are quite ready to handle all the same things as men, but I do believe that most of them are not. Which I don't see as a bad thing- I think both genders are equally valuable and necessary to the human race, with different and complementary abilities. I don't think men can do the same things as women any more than I do that women can do all the same things as men.

Originally Posted by Mari

It might teach them some precaution. (Is that correct English?)

Yes, that is correct English.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This is not a constant- some women are far better at making these kinds of decisions than some men. And some men's aggression does make them stupid. I think that as a whole though, the genders are designed to function in this way and there are a great deal of evidences (of which I have listed several above) that indicate this.

I don't think it has anything to do with the way "the genders are designed to function", it's simply upbringing. The leaders of today's world (ages 45 to 65) were brought up in a culture that was just begining to see women as equal to men on the intellectual/leadership level.

I don't think any parent in 1955 told their daugher, "one day you might grow up to be president", but I'm sure many do now. Fast forward to a time when the children of today are in their 50s and 60s, and I'd imagine that women in leadership postions will be more or less 50/50.

[Lief Erikson]

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

So the Gender Organization argues that men's leadership throughout history and human cultures, as well as the parallels with our primates' social behavior, indicates that male leadership has come from biology.

Here's a more clear source about the biological psychological parallels we have with our primates:

Originally Posted by Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College

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

Here is the link for that one.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

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

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

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

Again to show the commonality of the gender difference across cultures:

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.

The book "Essentials of American Government" by Tim Chevernak says also that political science polls have repeatedly shown that women are less aggressive than men.

Women tend to be more nurturing than men, however. Which is also essential for humanity. The combination is a necessary and complementary one that was structured in the way it was biologically for the benefit of our species and those that are genetically closest to ours. This is what all of the evidence points toward, however much modern culture might want to reject ideas that our ancestors have held to throughout the existence of the human race. But modern ideas about the complete psychological equality of men and women are, according to the Gender Organization, reflecting "the power of socialization."

To me, this accumulation of evidence is enough to point, in this case, toward a counter-culture conclusion as the most logical one available.

[Earniel]

It sounds to me, Lief, that about the only thing you think about when you hear the word 'woman' is 'gentle and caregiver'. If you ask me that's rather an overly romantical view. (resisting the urge to say: "well, looks like men still don't understand us" and obviously failing. )

I would also like to point out that you have to be careful in the extent that you let biology rule our behaviour. Sure, males have biologically more testosteron, which is has clear links with aggression, but humans are so much a special behavioural case, that I don't know whether you can rely so massively on biology alone. The human psychological upmake is far more complex.

Also, because women are traditionally more inclined to stay at home and look after the kids because of the society, doesn't mean it is more naturally right.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

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.

I'd be more interested in where the discrepancies come from. Ranging from 7% to 86%, that's quite a gap. Clearly, biology is NOT the defining and sole answer. What about the influence of history or the structure of the society in question? Your assumption conveniently excludes them.

(Also I tend to be carefull about polls making assumptions for such large and diverse population groups. I don't know how this poll was made, but interviewing 100 persons does never quite give an accurate view of 10 million, let alone half the human population.)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

It sounds to me, Lief, that about the only thing you think about when you hear the word 'woman' is 'gentle and caregiver'. If you ask me that's rather an overly romantical view. (resisting the urge to say: "well, looks like men still don't understand us" and obviously failing. )

In every one of the recent posts I've submitted (don't have the time to look at all of them) I qualify my statement to say that it's a general truth and that there is variation. Some women make superb leaders and fighters.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I would also like to point out that you have to be careful in the extent that you let biology rule our behaviour. Sure, males have biologically more testosteron, which is has clear links with aggression, but humans are so much a special behavioural case, that I don't know whether you can rely so massively on biology alone. The human psychological upmake is far more complex.

Yes, and the fact that these gender roles have been seen to exist throughout human history, across cultures, societies and nations, indicates that it functions well. The modern ideas of equality are a product of socialization, according to the Gender Organization.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Also, because women are traditionally more inclined to stay at home and look after the kids because of the society, doesn't mean it is more naturally right.

In the post I submitted above, I submitted a lot of evidence that it isn't only social expectation, but is dominantly biology. It might just be social expectation for some individual cases, of course, but not in general. And it's the way the overall population votes that makes a big impact in voting booths or polls.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I'd be more interested in where the discrepancies come from. Ranging from 7% to 86%, that's quite a gap. Clearly, biology is NOT the defining and sole answer.

I agree that biology is absolutely not the only reason people vote the way they do. Though it's worth noting about the size of the difference that more married women vote for war than unmarried women, according to "The Essentials of American Government". So that implies that a greater biological difference exists than the polls take into account.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

What about the influence of history or the structure of the society in question? Your assumption conveniently excludes them.

No, my assumption actually doesn't. I cited poll results from Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, Turkey and the Americas to prove that my claim crossed political, religious and cultural boundaries. I additionally cited the Gender Organization, which said that inequality in law between men and women has existed throughout human history, and then I cited feminist Joan Bamberger who said that there was no reliable evidence in human history of any woman dominated society. Those references show that society difference, religion difference, culture and all the rest do not change the results one receives. These are very strong evidence that male/female differences are genetic rather than societal and that we were programmed to have different complementary and equally necessary talents.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

(Also I tend to be carefull about polls making assumptions for such large and diverse population groups. I don't know how this poll was made, but interviewing 100 persons does never quite give an accurate view of 10 million, let alone half the human population.)

This isn't a single debatable poll. I've cited two American Government textbooks which presented the male/female voting difference as a known and accepted fact and also showed some of the data. This is accepted in the Political Science Branch. Though I grant you that none of the textbooks attempt to draw my conclusions from the data. Neither do any of the sources I've referenced. Which is only to be expected, of course, considering the modern political culture. But that doesn't change the data.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm exhausting this thread and my brain with these monolithic posts! Maybe I should pipe down a bit.

[Mari]

I think you ARE this thread. You are the only one who keeps saying that maybe women should be excluded from politics or leading functions.
I don't recall everything said in this thread, but I don't think there was anyone holding the same views.
So don't worry about long posts.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Some women make superb leaders and fighters.

But unlike their male counterparts you regard them as rare and exceptions.

Yes, and the fact that these gender roles have been seen to exist throughout human history, across cultures, societies and nations, indicates that it functions well. The modern ideas of equality are a product of socialization, according to the Gender Organization.

The fact that it functions doesn't mean it is the best solution, or the only possible, functional configuration for humanity. Also, socialisation is not something exclusively belonging in the modern world.

Though it's worth noting about the size of the difference that more married women vote for war than unmarried women, according to "The Essentials of American Government". So that implies that a greater biological difference exists than the polls take into account.

Er, I don't quite get what you're intending to say with this. Because married women vote differently than unmarried women, this implies a biological difference? You're saying marriage changes women's biology? Funny, I never saw that one coming...

No, my assumption actually doesn't. I cited poll results from Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, Turkey and the Americas to prove that my claim crossed political, religious and cultural boundaries.

I disagree it proves that. All you have found is a certain trend in voting, to say that that trend is established by something that goes beyond ideological boundaries, and name that something biology is quite a step further. You bypass any investigation into the reasons of women and men to vote like they do, and go straight to the conclusion that this must be because of biology.

I additionally cited the Gender Organization, which said that inequality in law between men and women has existed throughout human history, and then I cited feminist Joan Bamberger who said that there was no reliable evidence in human history of any woman dominated society.

Which -as far as I'm concerned- doesn't really prove anything at all, or perhaps only that our history has run along the lines of 'might is right', not present ability. Whether or not a women-dominated society existed doesn't matter in the issue. It is only an extreme possibility, it disregards any society where women were equally eligable for high or influential posts or where women had equal rights.

These are very strong evidence that male/female differences are genetic rather than societal and that we were programmed to have different complementary and equally necessary talents.

But then again the full process and influence of genetics on human behaviour is far from completely understood. I think that 'that programming' may very likely be more diverse than how you see it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

The fact that it functions doesn't mean it is the best solution, or the only possible, functional configuration for humanity. Also, socialisation is not something exclusively belonging in the modern world.

Yes, but when this pattern is shown to be continuous throughout history, socialization becomes less likely. Sure it is undoubtedly an influence, but this pattern's being so widespread, according to the Gender Organization, indicates that biology was involved.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Er, I don't quite get what you're intending to say with this. Because married women vote differently than unmarried women, this implies a biological difference? You're saying marriage changes women's biology? Funny, I never saw that one coming...

No . That married women are more likely to vote for war than unmarried women shows that husbands may have influenced their spouses toward a more favorable position on war. Which shows that the polls don't show as much anti-war position among women as would exist without the male influence. Which further underlines the likelihood of a biological factor.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I disagree it proves that. All you have found is a certain trend in voting, to say that that trend is established by something that goes beyond ideological boundaries, and name that something biology is quite a step further. You bypass any investigation into the reasons of women and men to vote like they do, and go straight to the conclusion that this must be because of biology.

The evidence from the political science polls goes across national, cultural, social, political and religious boundaries. That's why having it taken from so many different varied nations is important. It shows that this crosses ideological boundaries, and that indicates biology.

But I cited other sources in addition to the Political Science Branch to provide additional support and show more angles of this.


I know others here obviously disagree with the case I've set out, but I don't really have anything more to add right now beyond what I've already said, and I believe that the strength and variety of the evidences and sources I've used makes my argument very well founded. So I think that makes us at rather an impasse. So I think I may take another break from this thread. I'm sure the debate will pop up again sometime, though .

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I know others here obviously disagree with the case I've set out, but I don't really have anything more to add right now beyond what I've already said, and I believe that the strength and variety of the evidences and sources I've used makes my argument very well founded. So I think that makes us at rather an impasse. So I think I may take another break from this thread. I'm sure the debate will pop up again sometime, though .

You know, at our home we have this silly/funny habit of yelling 'speculation!' when we're watching documentaries and the narrator says something that is more assumed, or guessed than actually supported by evidence. Sometimes we try to beat eachother to it. It probably sounds rather silly, but we find it kinda fun.

Anyway, I tend to have this same urge repeatedly while reading your arguments. So yeah, I think we have reached an impasse. I find your arguments speculative and not enough proven, and likely you think likewise of mine. At this point we're bound to just go into repeating our arguments over and over and over again, at best differently phrased. I've said what I wanted to say, so I'm pretty much done too.

[Nurvingiel]

I just want to point out that before you use Political Science as the foundation for your beliefs on women's voting rights, remember that it's an art and not a science.

[GrayMouser]

Okay, so women shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues of war, and men shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues of health care, education, welfare, and criminal justice (since men are much more naturally criminal, you'd want to exclude them from this area).

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Anyway, I tend to have this same urge repeatedly while reading your arguments. So yeah, I think we have reached an impasse. I find your arguments speculative and not enough proven, and likely you think likewise of mine. At this point we're bound to just go into repeating our arguments over and over and over again, at best differently phrased. I've said what I wanted to say, so I'm pretty much done too.

Time may mend the impasse. When were all in our 60s and 70s we'll get to see how the genders balance out. I'm betting on 50/50.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Time may mend the impasse. When were all in our 60s and 70s we'll get to see how the genders balance out. I'm betting on 50/50.

And if time hasn't by then, I'll just have to resort to hitting Lief with my walking stick and throwing my fake teeth at him until he comes around.

[Insidious Rex]

Dont do that! Youll blow his gender concepts about females and aggression. Now be a good girl and follow your biological stereotypes. You are allowed to pout and brood and flirt but that’s about it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Okay, so women shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues of war, and men shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues of health care, education, welfare, and criminal justice (since men are much more naturally criminal, you'd want to exclude them from this area).

I was thinking the exact same thing when I read Liefs response. The logic leads to these conclusions if you are going to truly be consistent. Just goes to show you why it’s a seriously bad idea to annihilate voting rates based on a single issue.

[BeardofPants]

Wait... I never got the memo on the nurturing bit; if someone could fill me in on what exactly my role is supposed to be as the childless freak that I am?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Wait... I never got the memo on the nurturing bit; if someone could fill me in on what exactly my role is supposed to be as the childless freak that I am?

Just be sure to give your boyfriend the impression from time to time that he is in control. Guys need that.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Okay, so women shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues of war, and men shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues of health care, education, welfare, and criminal justice (since men are much more naturally criminal, you'd want to exclude them from this area).

I find the criminal justice one a bit silly . More male testosterone in pushing home points and making arguments in court cases would be a good thing. But on the other three you make a good point. I think that we might well do better with more female dominance in those professions. Not necessarily in the voting booth- I think that men were genetically more designed to be leaders than women, overall, and I believe that that is shown by the numerous evidences I already provided. But in terms of having high ranking positions in those three professions and dominance in the work field in those areas, we probably would be better off with women than with men. That's certainly a possibility well worth considering.

[Nurvingiel]

Mostly from What if you owned your own country?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, as I said earlier, I don't know how those cracks would be arranged but they would exist to take into account these women in both politics and the military. I hope that it could be done effectively and successfully.

I still don't see how this is more efficient than simply letting both men and women into the military based on some relevant criteria like combat fitness.

However, I think this is the basis of our disagreement. You feel that the most important criteria is gender, so that is the first selector. After that other qualities/skills applicants possess would mean they would carry on in the army. I place other qualities/skills ahead of gender, so they are the first selector instead. What do you think?

Let's look at this a different way. Let's just say that all women's eyes, for whatever reason, are incapable of properly looking through a rifle's scope. Not possessing this ability is unacceptable in the army. Therefore, no woman can be in any part of the army where she would have to use a rifle. The limitation is based not on the fact that she is a woman, but because she can't physically use a rifle. If a man couldn't use a rifle either, he would face the same restrictions. Therefore it's not about gender, but about ability. Do you see the difference here?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree with you on that. I think that the difference of genitals is completely irrelevant. I was referring to psychological differences, and I see those as extensive.

I see what you mean now.

We actually know very little about the human brain and how the mind works, so you should be extremely careful about what judgements you make about people based on perceived psychological differences.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I am very saddened to hear that. Your respect and good opinion have always meant a great deal to me.

I'm going to wait until after this debate before I make any adjustments to my level of respect for you. It may not change.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I tried to explain myself in a number of recent detailed posts in the Gender Issues Thread. They weren't addressed to you but to others with the same position, so I don't know if you've read them. I don't think I have anything more to add to that.

Point me to any post I've overlooked, but I do have a couple of comments on your arguments from this thread.

1. Political Science

Political science is an art, not a hard science. The scientific aspect of this dicipline is the methodology used for surveys, studies, writing papers, etc. Academically, political scientists try to be as rigorous as possible, presenting data with statistical significance etc.

Political science being an art doesn't make it any less valid, but it is important to remember that it is an art, and that means there is a lot in this field (as with psychology, for example) that we simply cannot study properly. This matters. We may never reach an answer to questions like "to what lever does our culture affect political leanings?"

In this thread, you've made a few statements along the lines of "this study shows that women vote for war less often, therefore they should not be in politics," or some such. But what is the scope of the study? What is the sample size? How diverse was the sample size? These things affect what kind of conclusions you can draw from the answers.

More importantly, consider carefully what conclusions it is appropriate to draw from a study. If the study concludes that women politicians vote to go to war less often, what exactly is that telling you? Be careful not to overreach what the study has actually covered.


2. Different Votes for Different Folks

With the women and war example again, let's assume for the sake of argument that women support war less than men. Let's also assume that this is bad for the country.

Lawmakers, then, decide that women will not vote on a bill pertaining to war, while men don't get to vote on, say, whether or not education is mandatory.

Problems with giving adults different voting rights will be endless, and I do mean endless.

A. Women today will never stand for this crap.

Suggesting different voting rights would be political suicide, and if it ever happened, there would be rioting in the streets.

B. The nature of elections

Unless the voting is on California-style direct-democracy bills, there would be no way to differentiate between the feminine and masculine elections. We usually vote for a representative to the Senate or Parliment. How would you decide who gets to vote then?

What about on a highways bill? Do women or men vote on roads? How would you decide?

There are a whole load of other problems I can think of, but I'll just start with these.

C. The costs and benefits of this dual voting system.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

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.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that the useless data (see below) was actually correct. That means that if women are not allowed to vote on matters of war, the country will trend more towards being in favour of war. However, this does not reflect the wishes of the entire nation, thus defeating the entire purpose of democracy. Now, if it's not democracy you care about, why bother giving anyone the vote? I mean, if you don't want to know what your people think, why ask? Also, your above quote implies that it's bad to not support war. But if you prejudge what the outcome of a vote should be, you again defeat the purpose of democracy - questions at the polls must be completely neutral so that you can allow the country to make up its own mind. By imposing these restrictions, you are defeating this goal.


A note on statistical significance

Statistical significance is important. It decides if data from the group surveyed indicates a meaningful difference in the population as a whole. (More detail on this concept here.)

<stats rant>

Let us examine these numbers:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

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%.

These numbers are utterly and completely useless. They tell us nothing. Why? Because they are not, say it with me folks, statistically significant. "But," I hear you protest, "Most of the percentages for men are higher then that for women." Doesn't matter, all the numbers are devoid of meaning.

Now, if these numbers are actually significant, give us the real stats and then we'll talk. </stats rant>