Men make the world VIOLENT, Women make it full of SEX

[rmcrobertson]

Charlotte Perkins Gilman, "Herland."

Joanna Russ, "The Female Man."

Joan Sloniczewski, "A Door Into Ocean."

Ursula K. Le Guin, "The Left Hand of Darkness."

"James Tiptree," The Women Men Don't See," and "Houston, Houston, Do You Read?"

Sometimes, when I hear the mean-spirited dumbassery from the likes of Limbaugh (even conceding the mean-spirited dumbassery from Camille Paglia and Andrea Dworkin), I go for the whole speam-bank theory.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

These stats are a little outdated:
(as of 2002)

WOMEN IN POLITICS: A look at various public offices
http://www.freep.com/news/politics/wchart29_20021029.htm

October 29, 2002

Seats held by women 2002
U.S. Senate: 13 (13 percent)

U.S. House: 60 (13.8 percent)

State executives: 89 (27.7 percent)

State senates: 404 (20 percent)

State houses: 1,276 (24 percent)

[nb]U.S. Senate in 2002: [/b]
A record 13 (10 Democrats, 3 Republicans) women serve in the U.S. Senate, including Debbie Stabenow, a Lansing Democrat.
11 women (8 Democrats, 3 Republicans) are running in 9 states in next week's elections. Three are incumbents.

U.S. House in 2002:
Women hold 60 seats, including Michigan Democrats Lynn Rivers of Ann Arbor (who lost her primary election against incumbent John Dingell) and Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Detroit.

In 435 House elections, 124 women (78 Democrats, 45 Republicans) are running.
Female governors 2002:
Jane Dee Hull (R-Ariz.)
Judy Martz (R-Mont.)
Ruth Ann Minner (D-Del.)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)
Jane Swift (R-Mass.)

==========

A comparison to a few other countries:

Canada: http://www.idea.int/quota/displayCountry.cfm?CountryCode=CA
Number of Women in Lower House:
Election Year: 2004
Number of Women Elected: 65 of 308 , 21.1%

Number of Women in Upper House:
Election Year: 2000
Number of Women Elected: 34 of 105, 32.4%

United Kingdom: http://www.idea.int/quota/displayCountry.cfm?CountryCode=GB
Number of Women in Lower House:
Election Year: 2001
Number of Women Elected: 118 of 659 , 17.9%

Number of Women in Upper House:
Election Year: 2001
Number of Women Elected: 117 of 713, 16.4%

Australia: http://www.idea.int/quota/displayCountry.cfm?CountryCode=AU
Number of Women in Lower House:
Election Year: 2001
Number of Women Elected: 38 of 150 , 25.3%

Number of Women in Upper House:
Election Year: 2001
Number of Women Elected: 22 of 76, 29.0%

Sweden: http://www.idea.int/quota/displayCountry.cfm?CountryCode=SE
Number of Women in Lower House:
Election Year: 2002
Number of Women Elected: 157 of 349 , 45.0%

More info here: http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/statistics.htm

=====

Tons of stats: UNECE - Gender Statistics Website for Europe & North America
http://www.unece.org/stats/gender/web/

=====

GenderGap website: http://www.gendergap.com

=====

US Census information: http://www.census.gov/population/www/index.html

=====
RACE
Total population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281,421,906 100.0
One race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274,595,678 97.6
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211,460,626 75.1
Black or African American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,658,190 12.3
American Indian and Alaska Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,475,956 0.9
Asian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,242,998 3.6
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . 398,835 0.1
Some other race. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,359,073 5.5
Two or more races. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,826,228 2.4

HISPANIC OR LATINO
Total population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281,421,906 100.0
Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,305,818 12.5

 

[rmcrobertson]

So, in other words, the point that women--for all their advances--remain very much in the minority with regard to power in this country was absolutely correct.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

US Census information on Male/Female ratios, broken down by race
http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t11/tab01.txt

 

[Bob Hubbard]

We divide things into male/female white/black white/nonwhite etc.
What i'm looking for here is the more accurate breakdown.
The comparison of genders and races accordingly.

Of more importance, is the question "WHY?"
Given that women are 51% of our society in the US, why is only 13-30% of our elected leaders female? Is it because they've been 'kept down' as some will suggest?
Is it because of problems with the existing system that heavily favors established incumbents over newcomers? Or, do they simply not run for any of several reasons?

If they aren't running, why not?
If they are, and are losing, why are they?

Legally, they are equal. It is the implimentation of that 'equality' that is lacking, IMHO.

 

[loki09789]

We divide things into male/female white/black white/nonwhite etc.
What i'm looking for here is the more accurate breakdown.
The comparison of genders and races accordingly.

Of more importance, is the question "WHY?"
Given that women are 51% of our society in the US, why is only 13-30% of our elected leaders female? Is it because they've been 'kept down' as some will suggest?
Is it because of problems with the existing system that heavily favors established incumbents over newcomers? Or, do they simply not run for any of several reasons?

I think that it is a matter of 'sociopolitical evolution' so to speak ( I don't know if that is even a legitimate phrase, but it works for what I mean here). Women, in the USA at least, are late comers to the 'power party' and don't have the long history of networking and weren't part of establishing the 'standards' (read the unspoken ones, not the 'equal/legal' ones) that make up the 'secret of my success' in the puzzle palaces of corporate, political or any other institutional structure in America. Even in education, where teaching use to be considered 'women's work' because they had that 'mothering instinct', administrators and deans/board leaders were traditionally men.

Same for minorities based on ethnicity or color or what ever. African Americans/Blacks didn't really get legally recognized until fairly late in the game and had/have an uphill battle of preconcieved notions (both internal and external) to overcome. Same during the industrial revolution, potato famine...or any major influx of a 'group' into American culture (whether 'in' geographically or socially or both). The Western Euro types that made of the earliest influx set the standard and didn't want to let in the slavs, italians, irish, polish, baltic region types..... because it threatened their 'way of life.' So we end up with all the fun 'phrases' for these ethnicities, colors, genders, religions that either came with the influx or were created because of fear/threatened feelings by those who were here 'first.'

In each case, progress is there, but it is extremely unfair to compare their progress to that of the 'type' that the founding fathers had in mind when they structured the foundation of constitution.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Although I think there are a host of reasons why there isn't 50/50 power in our government (I've met a number of misogynists who truly seem to think women are inferior, for example) (what their mothers think of them I have no idea), one solid reason is the problem of personal and private lives.

It is still a serious challenge for a woman to try and have/raise a family, and pour her energies into a career, especially something as all-encompassing, time-consuming, and image-related as politics. Most families still are based on the Mom-as-caretaker model. I'm not saying it's bad for moms to be caretakers, but if I am considered the primary person in charge of taking care of the kids, and my spouse also has a job, that limits my time and energy.

I have witnessed more male professors tell me why women don't get ahead in academics, and why I shouldn't have kids because it would ruin my career, and how they are often surprised at how much time and energy child care actually takes, because their wives just took care of the family while they had the time to immerse themselves in their own piece of esoterica.

So, I think a tiny bit of it is still expectations and division of labor in homes.

 

[loki09789]

It is still a serious challenge for a woman to try and have/raise a family, and pour her energies into a career, especially something as all-encompassing, time-consuming, and image-related as politics. Most families still are based on the Mom-as-caretaker model. I'm not saying it's bad for moms to be caretakers, but if I am considered the primary person in charge of taking care of the kids, and my spouse also has a job, that limits my time and energy.

.

Ahhhhh the "suppose to" thing. Yup. Though harder to measure because it isn't like measuring income levels, populations or participation is the "Mr. Mom" factor that has changed too.

My son's mom and I don't live together but he lives with me. I love being a Dad and always wanted to have him live with me once I was done with my degree and had a 'real job.' Well now it is so.

Last summer I sent him out to his Mom's by plane and all the other 'two family' people were watching their children leave. I was the only guy and listened to all the 'his father this..' comments or 'her dad that...' comments. You should have seen the looks when I could contribute with the "Yeah, his mom ...." all because it was "suppose to" be that the father was the 'other parent.' It was funny to watch them start to realize that the things they were talking about (basically the readjustment when the kids return, the 'disney dad' syndrome so to speak) wasn't so much about gender as much as it was about 'roles.' In a kid's mind the 'other parent' is always the ideal because they get to fantasize about what it would be like there. The 'roles' would flip if the set up was the other way around. I sort of forced that issue just by being there...

I love watching people buck the "suppose to" stuff. Keep drivin' on.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Props to you, loki! I'm glad you "represented" with the moms.

 

[kenpo tiger]

You guys constantly amaze me. Forget the stats, which, by-the-by, I love seeing from you, Kaith. Forget the literary citations from Robertson and Paul (!). Forget Peach with his stir-the-pot statements (I'm still puzzled by your statement about no women want to get rid of unborn fetuses - explanation or amplification would be appreciated). Random for being, well, random...

You are all feminists. Yes. You. The Testosterone Tribe. Your moms should be very very proud of you. Evolved males -- what a concept!

*big tiger hugs to you all*

(Oh. Rape statistics will always be invalid because most women have been socialized to feel shame and guilt, regardless of the fact that they did not "ask for it". Nothing more humiliating than being put on trial yourself, as Robertson pointed out re: the Kobe Bryant circus.)

 

[Feisty Mouse]

kt, I think what PM meant (although please jump in, PM), is that no group of women hates unborn children and is trying to get rid of all of them. (Unlike pro-life or pro-choice groups.) I don't know of a group of women activists who hate fetuses and are trying to get rid of them.

 

[deadhand31]

Ok, to say the statement that is the title of this thread is a little misinformed. We really can't say that a world run by women would be more peaceful. We also can't say that a world run by women would be the same, or more warlike. Yes, it might be true that women never started wars. However, that's a very moot point. Regrettably, despite advances in women's rights, women tend to be the minority of our society. Most of the governing is done by men. There are few countries that have women in their highest governing office (if any, there are none to my knowledge). Who's to say that if women were in the higher governing offices, they wouldn't cause war? We won't know, until the day comes that everyone can be considered truly equal.

 

[bignick]

alright...the important thing people are missing here is...if sex is so prevalent when women are in charge.......why aren't we putting them in charge?

:uhyeah:

 

[Kane]

alright...the important thing people are missing here is...if sex is so prevalent when women are in charge.......why aren't we putting them in charge?

:uhyeah:

Good Question! I think its time for women to take charge so we can have sex with our enemies instead of killing them like bononbos . Seriously though, that is exactly what bonobos do when having a despute. I am tired of having a chimp-like society where we have to kill each other. :snipe2:

 

[PeachMonkey]

kt, I think what PM meant (although please jump in, PM), is that no group of women hates unborn children and is trying to get rid of all of them. (Unlike pro-life or pro-choice groups.)

KT, Feisty summarized my point exactly. No group advocates the destruction of fetuses for its own sake.

 

[kenpo tiger]

There are few countries that have women in their highest governing office (if any, there are none to my knowledge). Who's to say that if women were in the higher governing offices, they wouldn't cause war? We won't know, until the day comes that everyone can be considered truly equal.

There have been a few: Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir. Only one who might remotely have been considered warlike is Mrs. Meir, and that is a case of inheriting some one else's policies (like Clinton).

 

[Phoenix44]

If you want to show that they don't have equal rights, then show a trend among judges to dismiss rape cases because "she obviously wanted it", or perhaps a leniency in sentencing for rape cases.

KOBE BRYANT

The only case I'm aware of where the sexual history of the victim was admissable--which made it intolerable to the victim, who withdrew her case.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Wow, sounds like the judge was being the ultimate jerk in allowing that as evidence. Her withdrawing the case because of that is unfortunate; I'd have liked to see the judge get told through the appeals process, but that would be long and costly. I hope stuff like that isn't the norm.

 

[PeachMonkey]

I started a new thread to discuss the Kobe Bryant thing. For now, I'll simply say that it's an oversimplification to *simply* say that the judge allowed evidence of the accuser's sexual history.

 

[rmcrobertson]

MARGARET THATCHER and INDIRA GHANDHI weren't aggressive and "warlike," in any way?

Say what?