This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Australia has their first female Prime Minister, and people are celebrating. Should they be?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Heckler, if someone presents an reason, relating to particular types of brain matter lighting up when doing 2d and 3d spatial problems, and how men have more of this type of brain matter, leading to their superior skills at spatial problems, how do you continue to claim that it's either not provable or not intrinsic? I could understand if you suggested it was irrelevant, but to claim it's not intrinsic is illogical.
With regards to 'proper' cultural explanations, I already gave a summary of why we don't have female treasurers, although we have female representatives in numerous other positions in ministry / government. It's not 'proper' in the sense that it doesn't explain why women dislike it.
I simply mean a starting point for discussion about the topic.
As far as baselines go, I still fail to see why the 'baseline' isn't 'where things are now', especially by your renewed definition of what you mean.
A close relationship with your mother is cultural
, and while I accept what you're saying as truth for a large majority of Americans,
I don't think I believe that this is a main cause of the split
, nor do I accept it as a proper reason.
I don't agree with your statements. Firstly, the parent/child bond is innately biological. Culture has sprung up to dwarf that influence, perhaps, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an intrinsic bias towards one parent of the species or the other.
Secondly, given that you're spending so long thinking about what the ideal should be, what do you think the reasons for the split are? I've had my views - it's primarily about interest and willingness, and that you could look at the number of applicants and proportion of successful applicants from each gender to quantifiably demonstrate (or disprove) that. What's your view, and what evidence can you use to back it up?
Edit: Anyway guys, I'm off for most the day. Have fun while I'm not around.
Post by
Heckler
Men and women are equally political. That's the assumption.
Yes, but this isn't meant to be the final conclusion, it's the question (are men and women politically equal?). As of yet, I have no answers that I accept as proper or true, so I'm going to assume that there if there were no sexism, they would be equal (this is less an opinionated assumption, and more a derivation of the definition of sexism).
there is a difference between there not being any reasons, and us not knowing them.
Edit:
I'm not trying to say reasons don't exist -- I am saying that I can think of plenty of improper cultural reasons that
do
exist, enough of them to convince me that an intrinsic reason or a proper cultural reason isn't necessary to explain the split, because there's a lot of existential sexism in our culture that I see every day.
In addition, the age group where elected officials generally come from grew up in a generation where these sexisms were even worse, and obviously had an effect on them. Even if all I were celebrating is that a new generation who grew up in a less sexist environment is moving into politics, that's something to celebrate. I acknowledge that a lot of sexism has been eliminated, but that doesn't mean the damage it did to culture and society also disappear with it. Those things take time to 'grow out of' for lack of a better word, so again, even if this is all I'm celebrating, that we're growing out of the damage that we stopped causing 30 years ago -- that's reason to celebrate.
what do you think the reasons for the split are?
I can work on a post about this later on, I'm a bit busy today, and this will require research and sourcing (unless you just want an off the cuff response)
Post by
Squishalot
Yes, but this isn't meant to be the final conclusion, it's the question (are men and women politically equal?). As of yet, I have no answers that I accept as proper or true, so I'm going to assume that there if there were no sexism, they would be equal (this is less an opinionated assumption, and more a derivation of the definition of sexism).
But, for example, I could ask "are men politically more skilled than women?" and justify starting off with a 100/0 baseline. And state that I have no proper or true answers yet, but acknowledge that even if there was no sexism, that there are reasonable biological justifications for a bias.
I can work on a post about this later on, I'm a bit busy today, and this will require research and sourcing (unless you just want an off the cuff response)
Off the cuff is fine, I don't need huge amounts of evidence to back up what you think, I'd like to hear what you think first. We can get into all that later if/when we disagree.
Post by
Heckler
But, for example, I could ask "are men politically more skilled than women?" and justify starting off with a 100/0 baseline. And state that I have no proper or true answers yet, but acknowledge that even if there was no sexism, that there are reasonable biological justifications for a bias.
'reasonable biological justifications' would qualify as an intrinsic sexism, so if your baseline ended up finding one, then it served the same purpose as my 50/50, but it assumed one existed. The reason I'm using 50/50 is because it's based on the assumption that
no sexism of
any
kind
(that is, no steering factors that are based on gender) exist, intrinsic, cultural, or otherwise.
Now, before this sparks a debate, I'm not saying that 50/50 is 'correct' -- just restating the justification for its use, and why I find it better than the 100/0 one you just suggested, as a tool for analysis.
Off the cuff is fine, I don't need huge amounts of evidence to back up what you think, I'd like to hear what you think first. We can get into all that later if/when we disagree.
Warning: This got longer than I expected.
Ok, well really quickly (and unsourced with little recent research), there were obvious institutionalized sexisms 100 years ago (suffrage, inability to hold certain positions, etc). Some of these persisted while others were abolished. I would think at this point, we've succeeded in getting rid of most institutionalized sexism, at the governmental (legal) level, however they did damage and created (or maintained and promoted) cultural sexisms of their own. Simply abolishing them didn't get rid of these lasting effects. I've already covered this, celebrating the fact that newer generations are not showing evidence of these sexisms serves as possible proof that they are in decline seems proper enough for me.
In addition, there's plenty of cultural sexisms that no one sees as absolutely improper. I proposed to my wife, for example, not the other way around. Had it been the other way around (had she proposed to me), it would have felt 'off' and I'm sure it would have raised some eyebrows. I don't understand why this is completely, but I do know it to be true, so I played the game as it was designed to be played (in addition, I'm not sure if my wife would have ever proposed to me if I hadn't). This small and seemingly harmless example points to a cultural sexism somewhere, I'm personally affected by it, and I don't even know its source.
Little girls play with dolls, little boys play with GI Joe's -- this probably has explanations in both biology and in culture. I'm sure not many people see this as improper, but it is proof of a cultural sexism without a thorough explanation (by this I simply mean, even if it has an intrinsic biological basis, it is fueled by culture -- parents buy little girls pink dresses and dolls long before they're old enough to make that decision for themselves).
So now, I didn't go into those two things above as proof of a split, only to provide credence to the fact that sexisms can exist somewhat involuntarily, and can seem harmless even if they are identified. Politics, for a very long time, and only until recently, has been a Man's game -- not just culturally, but legally. This is no longer the case legally, but culture reacts slowly, and you don't have to go back many generations to find a common cultural belief that Politics was
not
a woman's place (many things other than the kitchen also fit into this category). So recent were these changes that I believe many of them are still being passed through families culturally, possibly involuntarily. This entire conversation serves as proof enough for me... I don't see any reason whatsoever that gender should have any more impact than handedness, yet I've spent multiple lines of text defending that basic premise.
I have to wonder why that premise seems so outlandish? In my opinion, it has a lot to do with why the 'joke' told by HsR earlier about 'women and culinary arts' exists at all (by which I mean, if sexism were truly considered wrong and truly abolished, this 'joke' wouldn't make any sense). Sexism is still quite real, there is still a very widespread accepted notion that men are simply superior to women. Some religions actively promote this idea (priesthood), and many of them have basis in the Adam and Eve story, which has Eve not only necessarily inferior to Adam (he came first, she came from him), but also blames the negative choice on Eve (not to mention the numerous other sexist things in the Bible).
These things are why I'm wary of ever making the assumption that there is a difference between genders in any given argument (or as HsR would probably like me to say "why I choose to assume there is no difference"). Past assumptions of this nature have been wrong, and wholly improper. In this specific case, I don't see any grounds to make a judgment. I have literally no reason to think it is right and proper that females should feel less willing, or be considered less able to serve in politics. Given the level of 'properness' that feelings of sexism still have today (referencing HsR's joke), as well as the still-active religious sexisms, it's no wonder that an 80-20 split happens.
My point all along has been that it's so easy to look around and find
improper
sexist reasons which explain the 80-20 split, that there's no
need
for an intrinsic reason to exist. When I combine this with my baseline 50/50 that I believe would happen if there were literally no sexisms in the world, it's not hard to attribute any deviation from 50/50 to an improper cultural sexism. Before I can even get to a point in my analysis where I make a decision about what is "ideal" I can identify several improper cultural sexist steering factors that make me believe that what we have now is more male-heavy than ideal, regardless of what ideal is.
I take the fact that there is even a single female in Congress as evidence of this. It was illegal before, which explained why it was 100/0. It is legalized and women start winning. If it had stayed 100/0, and females never won (or perhaps won a few and then proved themselves so incompetent that it quickly returned to a 100/0) I would take that as possible evidence that men are just 'better.' But this isn't happening, anywhere. Women (now that they have the chance) are proving themselves to be just as likely to succeed or fail than men in this field once they're elected, giving credence to the fact that 50/50 may actually be right.
Because of this, every woman that climbs over these sexisms and gets into political office, and goes on to show that she is just as good at it as a man, not only takes away from an unjustified position that men are 'better,' but adds to the argument against it. So, I find this as reason to celebrate -- it's a step in the right direction. There have been 33 women in the U.S. Senate
ever
. Some of these were appointments made after their husbands died. Contrary to popular opinion at the time, the world did not end. These appointments helped make it possible for women to actually be elected by hammering away at that improper assumption.
I can't really tl;dr this post but I'll try: If I had any reason to believe that men were better than women, I wouldn't be making my argument. I have
plenty
of reasons to believe that men
are
equal to women, and that there are
widespread
sexist attitudes which believe otherwise. These sexist attitudes are
more than sufficient
to me to explain the current split (given the democratic nature of the selection process), and therefore anytime the current split moves toward the female (which is in the direction of 50/50), I see that as
evidence that these attitudes are in decline
. This is sufficient reason to celebrate.
(Please keep in mind that if someone, anyone, could point out a
proper
sexism which should steer me away from my beliefs, I might change my stance. I might agree that 100/0 is 'proper' and every female is a step in the wrong direction. As of yet, no one has even come close to providing this.)
Post by
Squishalot
After all that.... what happened to answering the question?
Post by
Heckler
Ugh, I suppose I'll delete the post. Can you restate what I didn't answer? If it's simply "what do I think the reasons for the Split are" -- the post was meant to describe the general sexist attitudes that are still considered proper and acceptable, or the cultural sexisms that still exist now as a consequence of more severe sexisms in the past. If a general response wasn't what you wanted, I'm not sure what you did want.
These attitudes very existence leads to the general belief and or acceptance that men are better at any generic skill than women (and in this case, politics, its more severe than the generic case for the historical reasons I described above).
The reasons for the split are
the general attitudes of cultural sexism that are still widely accepted as 'okay' (as highlighted by the points above) and because the congress is chosen democraticially, wher these cultural sexisms are given the chance to show.
Post by
241026
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
No, it's a good post, don't delete it.
what do you think the reasons for the split are?
The reasons for the split are the general attitudes of cultural sexism that are still widely accepted as 'okay' (as highlighted by the points above) and because the congress is chosen democraticially, wher these cultural sexisms are given the chance to show.
That's not really a reason for the split. Do you think equal numbers of males and females are applying and more females are getting rejected?
Post by
Heckler
ok, edits made above to address the question. Hopefully it's sufficient, although I'll admit that it's very generalized (as a consequence of the 'off the cuff' nature -- I'm by no means an expert in anything I'm talking about, usually I make that clr up front before joining a discussion, but I don't think I did that here).
Okay really, how far are you guys going to take this? Just agree on something and move on...
I don't see anything wrong with a thorough discussion =) In addition, I like typing out posts like these because they help me sort out my own thoughts on the subject... which I think is altogether positive.
That's not really a reason for the split. Do you think equal numbers of males and females are applying and more females are getting rejected?
No, I don't think more females are applying. The sexisms I'm describing and the effect I'm describing encompass everything from females feeling that they shouldn't run to voters feeling that they shouldn't vote for females.
Post by
Squishalot
Just seems like a very wishy washy sort of reason. "It's everything about our sexist past" (paraphrased) doesn't really narrow down why it's 80/20 specifically.
I mean, what elements of our sexist past have washed up this way?
Is it lack of interest, caused by our sexist past?
Is it because people won't vote for female representatives?
Is it because females don't have the political education?
Is it because men ostracise the females in Congress?
Is it because men ostracise the females long before they get to Congress?
Specifics.
Post by
Heckler
Fair enough, you said you wanted an off the cuff response, and thats what you got. If some otherwise serious person made a racist joke like HsR's sexist joke, I think it would have gone over worse than the sexist joke did.
Sexism is still 'acceptable' in some regard, it's not gone, not by any means. It's
less
than it was, but the fact that it used to be worse is enough to explain the 80/20 still existing (especially given the upward trend in the 20% since suffrage was granted).
As to all your specifics, I think every one of those could be argued as truth, but its the overall effect of all of them that ends up causing the split. Every step along the way from regular joe (sexist phrase) to congressman (sexist phrase) has some sexist undertone both on the part of the candidate and on the part of the voters. The net sum of all these small effects causes an advantage to males in politics.
Once they get elected, I think the sexisms start to matter less. 'Success' or 'Failure' however you would measure it then becomes a measurable quantity. I've never seen any reports that men are 'better' than women at being Congresspeople among the current Congress. Both of my Senators are female, one of my favorite senators is Barbara Boxer, and one of my favorite representatives is Nancy Pelosi. No one looks at any of these people and claims that they are worse at their job as a consequence of their gender. The split is not caused by their performance, its caused by things along the way that have little or nothing to do with actual performance or data points (this is both on the part of the candidates and the voters).
Post by
Squishalot
I know, you think they all impact the split. But apologies if I wasn't clear before, but that's what I'm looking for. I know you think the 80/20 split is there because of our sexist past, but that's not telling me much about which bits you think are and aren't an impact.
General question - how would you measure political performance, as far as 'success or failure' is concerned? Sarah Palin? Bill Clinton? George Dubya Bush?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I never understood how "-man" was sexist.
Does that make "wo
man
" sexist too?
That's just how language evolved. Spanish does the same thing only even more so, because all of their nouns have gender. It's a grammatical norm. That doesn't make following it a sexist thing to do.
Post by
Heckler
As for specifics, they would less be me saying "sexism exists here and here and here" and more me saying "sexism exists in some percentage of the population and is considered acceptable, and therefore any decision which
may
be impacted by sexism,
will
be impacted by sexism in those proportions." I realize this probably isn't satisfactory, but from this perspective, listing specifics seem more a test of knowledge of the political process and less an examination of sexism -- given that I've never ran for Congress, my knowledge wouldn't be sufficient to make it useful anyways.
How to measure political performance? Tough question. I can list reasons why I like the congresspeople I like, and maybe that would help. I honestly don't have an objective measuring stick for political skill, I'm not sure one exists.
I like Barbara Boxer because she seems brave, she speaks out on hard issues, and seems to be very consistent in her views and actions. This consistency helps to convince me that she isn't being controlled by outside sources. When someone makes hypocritical statements, or acts in a way that reveals an incomplete or short-sighted viewpoint, I lose respect for them.
For example, by quitting the Governorship of Alaska, Sarah Palin lost a large chunk of the small amount of respect I had left for her. She embodies a lot of the qualities I don't like about America, and while most of these have nothing to do with her political skill (and none have anything to do with her gender, except her own sexisms), the big one that does is that her statements, views, and actions all reveal a very shallow depth of knowledge or interest in the actual content, and much more interest in garnering popular support by saying the proper buzzwords at the proper times. However, I will admit that this, in and of itself, is a political skill of sorts -- just not one I like.
I was too young during Clinton's time to make any meaningful judgment -- I started paying attention to politics in ~2001 when I turned 18. G.W. was an awful president and an awful politician... there's not many Republicans who will still claim allegiance to him. To me, he proves how far name recognition and party affiliation can get you in America. The only thing G.W. was good at was showing up to a bad situation in a bomber jacket with a bullhorn and posing for photos. People just ate that up.
The examples you picked beg for a partisan response. If I search for a Republican that I respect, I would point to pre-2007 John McCain. His views were rarely pre-determined by party lines and he was not afraid to do what h thought was right, even if it wasn't popular. (In my opinion, he threw all of this away during the 2008 election -- cashed it in for the support of his base, and lost anyways).
That's just how language evolved. Spanish does the same thing only even more so, because all of their nouns have gender. It's a grammatical norm. That doesn't make following it a sexist thing to do.
I would largely agree with this, I only think it would qualify as sexist if someone had a reasonable reason why it offended them, asked you to use "congressperson" instead, and then you continued to say congressman just to irk them. But in any communication class I've taken, I've always been taught to avoid gender specific terms simply to avoid unnecessary tensions.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That's just how language evolved. Spanish does the same thing only even more so, because all of their nouns have gender. It's a grammatical norm. That doesn't make following it a sexist thing to do.
I would largely agree with this, I only think it would qualify as sexist if someone had a reasonable reason why it offended them, asked you to use "congressperson" instead, and then you continued to say congressman just to irk them. But in any communication class I've taken, I've always been taught to avoid gender specific terms simply to avoid unnecessary tensions.
I'd call that mean, or uncaring, or insensitive, or rude. Not sexist.
You should see how much gender neutrality is butchering the language, from a writer's perspective. I can't begin to tell you how ugly "to each their own" looks to me :P
Post by
Heckler
You should see how much gender neutrality is butchering the language, from a writer's perspective. I can't begin to tell you how ugly "to each their own" looks to me :P
lol, I feel for you? =) I'm definitely not a writer, the only time I think about it is if I'm consciously trying, like in a resume, or a letter to the editor, or job application... something where I don't want my audience to have any reason to assume me presumptuous. Personally, it's not something I even notice unless I'm really trying to see it.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.