Greetings, before beginning I would like to thank Vagabond for the outstanding job and effort being put into these debates. I would also like to thank
the judges in advance for their fair consideration. Also a warm welcome to my most accomplished opponent MemoryShock, the best of luck to you sir.
I believe this will prove a most fascinating debate as we delve into the now often taboo world of political correctness to broach one of those
subjects that modern day decorum usually frowns upon.
Are women in politics held to different behavioral standards than men?
We will begin by examining the ‘Glass Ceiling’, a term to describe a very real, yet invisible barrier where because prejudices are often unspoken
and denied, there appears to be no barrier there, yet in reality there is.
We will discover that ‘politically-correct' is a hyphenated word for a reason. That still do this day vast numbers of people do not believe
politically-correct is in fact correct at all.
By delving into our ancient past and roots, the traditional Patriarchal society as put forth by Roman Patrician law, and the religions fostered by
Abraham’s teachings, the great Patriarch of Judaism, Christianity and Islam we will discover why still even at the founding of our nation, women
were not even given the right to vote, let alone run for political office because these instilled beliefs and views run so deep.
That even though the suffrage movement in the early 1900’s led to women finally being able to vote and run for office that long held prejudices and
preconceptions not just in the minds of men, but women too, keep a glass ceiling in place that make it much harder for women to advance in politics
and that there is a dual set of standards by which women are judged and held to account.
We will learn how Prohibition that ‘dry’ period during the 1920’s where alcohol became illegal and led to a period of the lawless gangster
bootleggers and speakeasy illegal saloons, nightclubs and bars, and one of the most violent periods of American history was thought by many to be the
result of awarding women the vote, and women becoming active in politics.
That still to this day many men and women too, question the ability of women to make as wise and pragmatic decisions as men.
I will illustrate the dual standards often employed where men and women are judged by completely different standards for the same exact type of
behavior.
We will even delve into the scientific world of the very real physiological differences between men and women.
I will draw upon such notable things as even in Victorian England where a Female Monarch ruled, that it was still a patriarchal society where women
didn’t even have the right to vote and men were still granted the right to beat their wives under the “Rule of Thumb” where a switch cut off a
tree for beating them could not be thicker than a man’s thumb.
That in the history of our world about the only matriarchal societies thought to ever exist are mythical ones like the Amazonians.
Though my opponent might find it convenient otherwise, I shall not limit the debate to one nation, but shall display that there are still some places
on this earth where women are in fact still not allowed to vote, or run for office!
I will even display that at the very heart of all this prejudice there still is a sovereign nation where no one is allowed to vote! Further still that
this place known as the Holy See and Vatican popularized these prejudices through religion, a religion that is still very much deeply entwined with
the political process today.
That while most of the earth’s nations finally began to allow females to vote, and run for office predominantly in just less than the last hundred
years, that those patriarchal beliefs still taint the political landscape today with a glass ceiling, making it much more difficult for women to rise
to positions of political power, and even once they have, that they are in fact judged by a different set of behavioral standards than men.
I will display that still to this day religious and conservative voting blocks still play a critical role in politics, and that the patriarchal
beliefs and notions put forward in their scriptures still influence voters, and politicians alike.
My opponent will no doubt try to point out those few exceptions to the rule, and claim the glass ceiling has been broken, and I wish him luck as while
he will no doubt tell us attitudes, predispositions and prejudices are changing, that, such statements in and of themselves are proof positive that
prejudice and dual standards do still very much exist.
I will ask my opponent now to include answers to these Socratic Questions in his opening statement.
Socratic Question #1: Do you believe that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have significantly influenced today’s laity and congregants to embrace
Patriarchal concepts.
Socratic Question #2: Do you believe “It’s a man’s world?”
Socratic Question #3: It has been 90 years since the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was enacted eliminating gender bias in voting, do you
honestly feel that less than one century is enough to change attitudes regarding women in politics is sufficient to reverse 45 centuries of
Patriarchal dominance and rule?
Socratic Question #4: How do you explain that the male to woman ratio is one to one among voting age adults according to the 2010 U.S. Census, yet
only 17 of the 100 U.S. Senators are women, and that only 72 out of 435 of the lower House of Representatives members are female?
Socratic Question #5: Each Congressional Representative and each Senator list their religion as part of their credentials and resume, only one member
of the current congress has not disclosed their religion, in all other cases they are from denominations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of
which have patriarchal concepts at their core, do you really believe that their religious beliefs then ‘preclude’ them from having patriarchal
attitudes, the favor men and men’s rights over women and women’s rights put forward through their religions as opposed to our national laws?
The more we delve into this subject the more obvious it will become that we have a long way to go nationally and as a species before we could ever
claim the ‘glass ceiling’ is no longer there. Only 16% of the current congress is female despite the fact that 50% percent of the voting age
population is female. Only 17% of the Senate is female despite the fact that 50% of the voting age population is female.
There is obviously something at play here that is preventing women from attaining anything close to parity, and it certainly can’t be because women
don’t desire careers in politics as surely they do.
So it leads to the troubling question that this debate is all about, can men really be that much smarter, or that much better at exuding leadership
qualities, and gaining confidence and trust from the masses, or are women facing an invisible barrier where they are judged by dual behavioral
standards.
This is the problem with the politically-correct dictum, as it dissuades people from speaking their minds. America and the World have a lingering 800
pound guerilla in the room and its called sexism.
Thanks to one and all for following along, in what is arguably one of the most important topics and problems facing society.
In a world where we desperately need better leadership and answers, the only thing that might in fact be preventing it, is not fully considering
everyone who has answers and wants to lead, well, at least when they are a woman!
Round 2: Protoplasmic Traveler vs MemoryShock: Gender Bias in Politics?, page
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 33 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 33 times
Topic started on 12-11-2010 @ 01:05 AM by The Vagabond
The topic for this debate is "Female politicians are placed at a disadvantage by unequal standards of behavior.”
Protoplasmic Traveler will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
MemoryShock will be arguing the "Con" position.
The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
There is a 10,000 character limit per post- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).
Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.
Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.
Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.
The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.
This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.
Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request for a 24 hour extension should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.
In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.
If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.
Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.
In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.
All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.
Protoplasmic Traveler will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
MemoryShock will be arguing the "Con" position.
The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
There is a 10,000 character limit per post- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).
Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.
Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.
Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.
The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.
This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.
Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request for a 24 hour extension should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.
In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.
If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.
Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.
In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.
All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.
reply posted on 16-11-2010 @ 09:26 PM by MemoryShock
I would like to begin by thanking The Vagabond, The Readers and of course ProtoplasmicTraveler.
Debate Title - "Female politicians are placed at a disadvantage by unequal standards of behavior.”
My opponent has decided to narrow the breadth of this debate by suggesting, quite prolifically, that "disadvantage", as used in the debate topic, is necessarily defined by the discrepancy between the number of women who hold a political office and their male counterparts. While such a measuring stick is indeed a relevant aspect to the topic, it doesn't suggest anything about the behaviour towards a female she has taken office. Indeed, the topic is ambiguous enough to allow for considerations of advantage/disadvantage after a women has taken office and how behavioural standards effect the capacity of a female office holder to perform her job in addition to any behaviours during a campaign and/or election.
My opponent also goes into relevant depth regarding the historical reality of gender roles and how religion and societal mores/values have impacted current female candidates and their attempts to gain office.
Rest assured, I have no interest in debating whether or not history has imposed restrictions, either direct or indirect, on women. That much is a given and impossible to argue unless one wants to push the point that it was advantageous for a woman to maintain such gender roles (which there is when speaking about survival, comfort levels and potential indirect influence upon the male leadership).
The history lesson will likely prove insightful and interesting, however, the feudal system has no bearing on what advantages or disadvantages are applied today.
Indeed, the topic is centered on whether or not their are current disadvantages to the state of gender interaction within the modern day political playing field and as we will see throughout the course of this debate, the political playing field is not just simply defined as "how many woman hold office". I will likely get more into this
in my next post.
With regards to historical norms, I am more interested in the trend of the past hundred or so years which suggest greatly that the attitudes and perceptions of the past will likely become archaic in the future. Such change in our national and global preconceptions actually provide an advantage to current and future female candidates, regardless of current percentages of office holders.
As we can see by the above report from 2009, there has been stimulated debate and attention regarding the role of women in Latin politics from local to national. The growing means of our society to communicate and the strengthening attention being given to gender equality has resulted in proactive measures to increase participation by women in Latin regions. Such is an advantage afforded women in these regions as the current behavioural standards have deemed these measures necessary.
While traditional gender roles may provide a somewhat implicit discouragement to woman pursuing political careers and subsequent success, the proactive measures displayed here represent a huge advantage to current and future female politicians.
I will thank my opponent to not assume my conveniences.
My opponent seems well prepared to discuss the history of the Patriarchal Standard but as we progress further into the debate, I will show that this attention is misleading when one takes a look at regional boundaries and the progress made in the past century.
Yes, 2000 years is a long time when placed into perspective of the last century but there have been many advances in that time period and the technology in place now was not apart of the time period my opponent is asserting. I respect our human history but I see no relevance as to what happened five hundred years ago when communications took weeks or even months to occur when one compares our capacity for real time communication in our modern day.
In the past, communication of candidates and election processes were limited to newspapers, radio and television which were all more or less limited in their ability to deliver non biased information and worked more as a means of projecting views and attitudes rather than informing the public. During this debate, we will look
at the strategies employed by past campaigns which will highlight the subtle manipulation of public perception and as well demonstrate that, within the world of politics, it is merely that campaigns were designed to show the public what they thought the public wanted to see based on generational preconception. This is an effective tactic as the majority of the public was unable or unwilling to delve deep into the political issues and as such were/are more inclined to vote with ideas and attitudes that were familiar to their situations.
But such is not the case any longer.
Current behavioural standards have born out the idea that the public is more than comfortable with women in positions of power. And these behavioural standards are being propagated more than ever with the advent of the internet. It is certainly true that it is easier for the populace to read up on and research modern day politicians and candidates. As well, with the new found ease in communication, it can most certainly be stated that the archaic gender roles that may still subtly effect the decisions of people today benefit today's female politician as discrepancies in how our society was run and the public drive for equality have helped boost the number of female politicians and the number of aspiring female candidates.
I will also briefly and throughout the debate reinforce the idea that the two party system is more of a hindrance to potential candidates than it is anything to do with a realistic global bias against women. The two party struggle is largely centered upon the allocation of taxpayer money towards differing inclined legislation and social management. Not the maintenance of gender bias.
Answers to the Socratic Questions are as follows:
No.
No.
Yes. Reason being that advances in technology and communications have made moot the reasons why historical gender roles and attitudes were assumed and enforced during those many centuries.
Regional beliefs and a slow integration of the major parties to deviate from a formula that has been used in the past.
Throughout this debate, I will indeed highlight the power of 'name recognition' as well as subtle similarities of our candidates. As well, we will highlight the economic disparity inherent in some of our major political offices, which may be more of an important factor than in the nomination of a candidate than gender bias.
Yes. There are many factors involved in the political process and such will be demonstrated throughout the course of this debate.
Socratic Question #1 - What is the rate of incumbency retention of political office?
Socratic Question #2 - After a woman has won a political office, how would you quantify any advantage or disadvantage she has in doing her job?
Socratic Question #3 - What other factors, besides gender, may negatively effect a woman from gaining office and working with her colleagues?
Socratic Question #4 - As we have seen in the past century, many women have been elected and appointed political office (some major leadership roles as well). Would you say that it is impossible for there to ever be a woman majority in the House And Senate, specifically referencing the United States?
Socratic Question #5 - What relevance does religion have in the selection of female candidates for office?
To close out my opening argument, I would like to reiterate that it is certainly a viable approach to view that current behaviours are indeed advantageous to current and future female politicians in politics and we shall certainly continue to view many examples which highlight this trend.
Debate Title - "Female politicians are placed at a disadvantage by unequal standards of behavior.”
My opponent has decided to narrow the breadth of this debate by suggesting, quite prolifically, that "disadvantage", as used in the debate topic, is necessarily defined by the discrepancy between the number of women who hold a political office and their male counterparts. While such a measuring stick is indeed a relevant aspect to the topic, it doesn't suggest anything about the behaviour towards a female she has taken office. Indeed, the topic is ambiguous enough to allow for considerations of advantage/disadvantage after a women has taken office and how behavioural standards effect the capacity of a female office holder to perform her job in addition to any behaviours during a campaign and/or election.
My opponent also goes into relevant depth regarding the historical reality of gender roles and how religion and societal mores/values have impacted current female candidates and their attempts to gain office.
Rest assured, I have no interest in debating whether or not history has imposed restrictions, either direct or indirect, on women. That much is a given and impossible to argue unless one wants to push the point that it was advantageous for a woman to maintain such gender roles (which there is when speaking about survival, comfort levels and potential indirect influence upon the male leadership).
The history lesson will likely prove insightful and interesting, however, the feudal system has no bearing on what advantages or disadvantages are applied today.
Indeed, the topic is centered on whether or not their are current disadvantages to the state of gender interaction within the modern day political playing field and as we will see throughout the course of this debate, the political playing field is not just simply defined as "how many woman hold office". I will likely get more into this
in my next post.
With regards to historical norms, I am more interested in the trend of the past hundred or so years which suggest greatly that the attitudes and perceptions of the past will likely become archaic in the future. Such change in our national and global preconceptions actually provide an advantage to current and future female candidates, regardless of current percentages of office holders.
The project "Strengthening Governance with a Gender Perspective and the Political Participation of Women at the Local Level in Latin America", has contributed to greater debate around the issue of women’s political participation at the local level in the political, academic and media fields.
United Nations/UN Women[1]
As we can see by the above report from 2009, there has been stimulated debate and attention regarding the role of women in Latin politics from local to national. The growing means of our society to communicate and the strengthening attention being given to gender equality has resulted in proactive measures to increase participation by women in Latin regions. Such is an advantage afforded women in these regions as the current behavioural standards have deemed these measures necessary.
While traditional gender roles may provide a somewhat implicit discouragement to woman pursuing political careers and subsequent success, the proactive measures displayed here represent a huge advantage to current and future female politicians.
Though my opponent might find it convenient otherwise, I shall not limit the debate to one nation, but shall display that there are still some places on this earth where women are in fact still not allowed to vote, or run for office!
I will thank my opponent to not assume my conveniences.
Sweden has the second highest percentage of female parliamentarians in the national parliament. 45.3 percent of the elected candidates were women in the 2002 election. This means that 158 seats of the total 349 seats are taken by women. And in the cabinet, almost 50 percent of ministers are female (10 out of 22). Today all the parties acknowledge the importance of involving women in politics and have well defined goals for women’s participation in politics. As such, we can conclude that Sweden has been very successful in encouraging more women to take part in politics.
[2]PDF
My opponent seems well prepared to discuss the history of the Patriarchal Standard but as we progress further into the debate, I will show that this attention is misleading when one takes a look at regional boundaries and the progress made in the past century.
Yes, 2000 years is a long time when placed into perspective of the last century but there have been many advances in that time period and the technology in place now was not apart of the time period my opponent is asserting. I respect our human history but I see no relevance as to what happened five hundred years ago when communications took weeks or even months to occur when one compares our capacity for real time communication in our modern day.
However, there is no longer unanimous agreement about these rules – and not only among women: A survey conducted in November 2004 by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada showed that 55 percent of Canadians wanted to see major changes to political institutions to make them more open and Democratic.Among the proposed changes, increasing the number of elected women representatives received the most support (9 out of 10) because, according to survey results, Canadians associated it with a well functioning political system.
[3]PDF
In the past, communication of candidates and election processes were limited to newspapers, radio and television which were all more or less limited in their ability to deliver non biased information and worked more as a means of projecting views and attitudes rather than informing the public. During this debate, we will look
at the strategies employed by past campaigns which will highlight the subtle manipulation of public perception and as well demonstrate that, within the world of politics, it is merely that campaigns were designed to show the public what they thought the public wanted to see based on generational preconception. This is an effective tactic as the majority of the public was unable or unwilling to delve deep into the political issues and as such were/are more inclined to vote with ideas and attitudes that were familiar to their situations.
But such is not the case any longer.
Current behavioural standards have born out the idea that the public is more than comfortable with women in positions of power. And these behavioural standards are being propagated more than ever with the advent of the internet. It is certainly true that it is easier for the populace to read up on and research modern day politicians and candidates. As well, with the new found ease in communication, it can most certainly be stated that the archaic gender roles that may still subtly effect the decisions of people today benefit today's female politician as discrepancies in how our society was run and the public drive for equality have helped boost the number of female politicians and the number of aspiring female candidates.
I will also briefly and throughout the debate reinforce the idea that the two party system is more of a hindrance to potential candidates than it is anything to do with a realistic global bias against women. The two party struggle is largely centered upon the allocation of taxpayer money towards differing inclined legislation and social management. Not the maintenance of gender bias.
Answers to the Socratic Questions are as follows:
Socratic Question #1: Do you believe that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have significantly influenced today’s laity and congregants to embrace Patriarchal concepts.
No.
Socratic Question #2: Do you believe “It’s a man’s world?”
No.
Socratic Question #3: Omitted For Count
Yes. Reason being that advances in technology and communications have made moot the reasons why historical gender roles and attitudes were assumed and enforced during those many centuries.
Socratic Question #4: Omitted For Count
Regional beliefs and a slow integration of the major parties to deviate from a formula that has been used in the past.
Throughout this debate, I will indeed highlight the power of 'name recognition' as well as subtle similarities of our candidates. As well, we will highlight the economic disparity inherent in some of our major political offices, which may be more of an important factor than in the nomination of a candidate than gender bias.
Socratic Question #5: Omitted For Count
Yes. There are many factors involved in the political process and such will be demonstrated throughout the course of this debate.
Socratic Question #1 - What is the rate of incumbency retention of political office?
Socratic Question #2 - After a woman has won a political office, how would you quantify any advantage or disadvantage she has in doing her job?
Socratic Question #3 - What other factors, besides gender, may negatively effect a woman from gaining office and working with her colleagues?
Socratic Question #4 - As we have seen in the past century, many women have been elected and appointed political office (some major leadership roles as well). Would you say that it is impossible for there to ever be a woman majority in the House And Senate, specifically referencing the United States?
Socratic Question #5 - What relevance does religion have in the selection of female candidates for office?
To close out my opening argument, I would like to reiterate that it is certainly a viable approach to view that current behaviours are indeed advantageous to current and future female politicians in politics and we shall certainly continue to view many examples which highlight this trend.
reply posted on 17-11-2010 @ 07:12 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by MemoryShock
My fellow members, the very fact that this question exists, and is being asked is proof positive that gender discrimination takes place and men and women are held to dual behavioral standards in politics.
We would only be asking this question if there was a real problem.
Men and women are held to different standards of behavior.
This question is not unique to ATS, a Google search will render thousands of studies and hundreds of books written on the subject.
No one would read or buy these if there was no problem.
Socratic Question #1: If you truly feel that there is no bias against women and they are not held to dual behavioral standards, how do you explain why so many authors, bloggers, and government bodies are concerned as evidenced by websites, blogs, books, and official reports on this phenomenon?
My opponent chooses to ignore the underlying lynchpin of religion in one nation after another founded ‘Under God’ or by the “Grace of God”. He seems to be living in a fantasy land where he imagines this all important religious underpinning to the vast majority of societies plays no role in fostering Patriarchal concepts and attitudes.
www.america.gov...
The United States is not even 250 years old, and the Patriarchal Christian and Roman concepts it is largely founded on are thought to be over 2,000 years old.
Patriarchal societies have so instilled those concepts of gender inequality that it did lead to the founders of our nation denying women the right to vote and to run for political office.
Yes, just because a U.S. Congress Person lists their religion on their bio doesn’t mean they are religious.
They disclose it to appeal to those voters who are religious and insist on knowing if they are too.
My opponent is being reckless and dismissive by stating he does not believe religion can be a factor in gender bias.
The notion of there being no gender bias is simply all about politics!
Socratic Question #2: Can you honestly say you as a man you have no biases or prejudices against women in any way shape or form?
The physical and physiological differences between men and women are so pronounced, that each gender is assigned its own name for a very real reason.
If there were no prejudices on the part of men against women, and no dual standards applied, we men would all be wearing short cotton and linen skirts in the summer time, since they sure are a lot more airy and comfortable.
We men would routinely powder our faces to hide age marks and wrinkles, paint our lips to make them look fuller, wear sheer clinging silks and nylons to accentuate our curves, and shade our eyelids.
We clearly don’t though, except for Transvestites who are ‘pretending’ to be women!
They don’t do this to redefine what a man should be, they do this to gravitate towards another standard, that which a woman is considered to be.
Socratic Question #3: Assuming as a male you do not wear dresses, high heeled stiletto shoes and makeup, can you explain why you don’t?
The differences between men and women are so pronounced that its very rare that a man wakes up the next morning after drinking heavily and finds a stranger in their bed and exclaims “Oh no I brought home a dude by accident”
My opponent says:
At the founding of our nation, we had muskets, superior to the Native American’s bow and arrows, yet when Indians attacked it is doubtful that anyone in the house said “Mom, honey, those pesky Indians are in the barn again grab the musket and go get rid of them”
Socratic Question #4: You are in a woman’s home or sharing a home with a woman and spending the night with her, she wakes you up and says “I hear a strange noise; I think someone has broken into the house, I am going to go check” do you protest and insist checking yourself, or would you ‘accept’ she wants to do it herself?
Now here is what my opponent fails to recognize, notions of Chivalry have not died, and in fact many ‘modern’ women ‘yearn for’ and ‘appreciate’ men who are chivalrous, they enjoy the man opening the door for them, helping them sit down, standing when they leave the table, and being on their most genteel behavior when around them.
Socratic Question #5: You have invited a woman to dinner, and you are driving her there in your car, when you park at the restaurant she says “Hold on don’t get out I want to get your door for you!” would you agree to this and 'let' her?
Clearly my opponent is in denial if he imagines the tradition of dual standards for men and women has miraculously disappeared, that men no longer try to stare down the low cut blouse, or luxuriate in the scent of flowery perfume, or appreciate feminine, silken and sheer garments on a woman, even though they would never wear them themselves.
Isn’t how we dress a form of behavior?
Certainly it is.
My opponent seems to be so far removed from reality when it comes to these not just lingering, not just firmly entrenched but actually truly desired dual behavioral standards that he has failed to even understand the true crux of the questions.
Politics is actually not limited to government, as politics is also defined as: “The total complex of relations between people living in society” www.merriam-webster.com...
Politics is in fact 85% of everything in life, as politics is nothing but achieving a consensus amongst people. Achieving that consensus as to whether ‘he’ should get the door, or ‘she’ should get the door.
The dual behavioral standards go so deep, politics, the word itself is derived from the Greek word politika, which was in fact a neuter specific word to men!
I contend that the mere notion that there is no dual standard of behavior for women, in politics, is in fact politics itself, the politically-correct attempt to convince women that they are not being discriminated against, when in fact every man alive knows that they are!
Clearly the women though have not fallen for this, why else would we be debating this question and there are so many studies and books on it.
Unrealistic, cavalier and disingenuous attitudes like my opponent’s who pretends, yes pretends, that these dual standards no longer exist, for purely political purposes, to win a debate no less, we can in fact see, just how serious and how real this is.
In answer to your Socratic Question #1:
My understanding that this was a debate, and not a grade school quiz! Please hire a secretary to do your research, I can recommend a couple “good” women for the job!
In answer to your Socratic Question #2:
Using the dual standards of the Madonna and the Whore, the advantage for the whore, is men will do almost anything for simply the hint of sex, so the flirtatious woman can often tempt men into becoming quite pliable in their own position and desires.
The disadvantage is since she has been placed on an exalted pedestal as a politician, many will spurn her, if she fails to act with the utmost virtue and discretion.
In answer to your Socratic Question #3:
Those other factors such as education, social status, prior-experience etc., are irrelevant to the debate.
You have in fact conceded in asking this question that gender is a real issue that can negatively affect a woman.
In answer to your Socratic Question #4:
Nothing is impossible. However the fact that something is possible does not make it probable.
You have though clearly displayed once more through your own question by selecting the word "Impossible" that it virtually is.
Especially when the current numbers aren't even 20%!
In response to your Socratic Question #5:
The examples are endless, Orthodox Jews do not believe men and women should be in the same room or space when women are menstruating, Mormons do not believe women should attempt to dominate men. In Israel "Modesty Busses" segregate men and women using public transportation for religious reasons.
news.bbc.co.uk...
Women must board through a separate rear door!
Denying how religion plays into the equation, is irresponsible, and simply a failed attempt to be 'politically-correct'.
Because one does not offend someone with words, for the sake of politics, does not mean they feel and think something entirely the opposite and are conspiring towards that end.
This is why a glass ceiling exists.
My fellow members, the very fact that this question exists, and is being asked is proof positive that gender discrimination takes place and men and women are held to dual behavioral standards in politics.
We would only be asking this question if there was a real problem.
Men and women are held to different standards of behavior.
This question is not unique to ATS, a Google search will render thousands of studies and hundreds of books written on the subject.
No one would read or buy these if there was no problem.
Socratic Question #1: If you truly feel that there is no bias against women and they are not held to dual behavioral standards, how do you explain why so many authors, bloggers, and government bodies are concerned as evidenced by websites, blogs, books, and official reports on this phenomenon?
My opponent chooses to ignore the underlying lynchpin of religion in one nation after another founded ‘Under God’ or by the “Grace of God”. He seems to be living in a fantasy land where he imagines this all important religious underpinning to the vast majority of societies plays no role in fostering Patriarchal concepts and attitudes.
The typical American believes in God (92 percent)
www.america.gov...
The United States is not even 250 years old, and the Patriarchal Christian and Roman concepts it is largely founded on are thought to be over 2,000 years old.
Patriarchal societies have so instilled those concepts of gender inequality that it did lead to the founders of our nation denying women the right to vote and to run for political office.
Yes, just because a U.S. Congress Person lists their religion on their bio doesn’t mean they are religious.
They disclose it to appeal to those voters who are religious and insist on knowing if they are too.
My opponent is being reckless and dismissive by stating he does not believe religion can be a factor in gender bias.
The notion of there being no gender bias is simply all about politics!
Socratic Question #2: Can you honestly say you as a man you have no biases or prejudices against women in any way shape or form?
The physical and physiological differences between men and women are so pronounced, that each gender is assigned its own name for a very real reason.
If there were no prejudices on the part of men against women, and no dual standards applied, we men would all be wearing short cotton and linen skirts in the summer time, since they sure are a lot more airy and comfortable.
We men would routinely powder our faces to hide age marks and wrinkles, paint our lips to make them look fuller, wear sheer clinging silks and nylons to accentuate our curves, and shade our eyelids.
We clearly don’t though, except for Transvestites who are ‘pretending’ to be women!
They don’t do this to redefine what a man should be, they do this to gravitate towards another standard, that which a woman is considered to be.
Socratic Question #3: Assuming as a male you do not wear dresses, high heeled stiletto shoes and makeup, can you explain why you don’t?
The differences between men and women are so pronounced that its very rare that a man wakes up the next morning after drinking heavily and finds a stranger in their bed and exclaims “Oh no I brought home a dude by accident”
My opponent says:
Reason being that advances in technology and communications have made moot the reasons why historical gender roles and attitudes were assumed and enforced during those many centuries.
At the founding of our nation, we had muskets, superior to the Native American’s bow and arrows, yet when Indians attacked it is doubtful that anyone in the house said “Mom, honey, those pesky Indians are in the barn again grab the musket and go get rid of them”
Socratic Question #4: You are in a woman’s home or sharing a home with a woman and spending the night with her, she wakes you up and says “I hear a strange noise; I think someone has broken into the house, I am going to go check” do you protest and insist checking yourself, or would you ‘accept’ she wants to do it herself?
Now here is what my opponent fails to recognize, notions of Chivalry have not died, and in fact many ‘modern’ women ‘yearn for’ and ‘appreciate’ men who are chivalrous, they enjoy the man opening the door for them, helping them sit down, standing when they leave the table, and being on their most genteel behavior when around them.
Socratic Question #5: You have invited a woman to dinner, and you are driving her there in your car, when you park at the restaurant she says “Hold on don’t get out I want to get your door for you!” would you agree to this and 'let' her?
Clearly my opponent is in denial if he imagines the tradition of dual standards for men and women has miraculously disappeared, that men no longer try to stare down the low cut blouse, or luxuriate in the scent of flowery perfume, or appreciate feminine, silken and sheer garments on a woman, even though they would never wear them themselves.
Isn’t how we dress a form of behavior?
Certainly it is.
My opponent seems to be so far removed from reality when it comes to these not just lingering, not just firmly entrenched but actually truly desired dual behavioral standards that he has failed to even understand the true crux of the questions.
Politics is actually not limited to government, as politics is also defined as: “The total complex of relations between people living in society” www.merriam-webster.com...
Politics is in fact 85% of everything in life, as politics is nothing but achieving a consensus amongst people. Achieving that consensus as to whether ‘he’ should get the door, or ‘she’ should get the door.
The dual behavioral standards go so deep, politics, the word itself is derived from the Greek word politika, which was in fact a neuter specific word to men!
I contend that the mere notion that there is no dual standard of behavior for women, in politics, is in fact politics itself, the politically-correct attempt to convince women that they are not being discriminated against, when in fact every man alive knows that they are!
Clearly the women though have not fallen for this, why else would we be debating this question and there are so many studies and books on it.
Unrealistic, cavalier and disingenuous attitudes like my opponent’s who pretends, yes pretends, that these dual standards no longer exist, for purely political purposes, to win a debate no less, we can in fact see, just how serious and how real this is.
In answer to your Socratic Question #1:
What is the rate of incumbency retention of political office?
My understanding that this was a debate, and not a grade school quiz! Please hire a secretary to do your research, I can recommend a couple “good” women for the job!
In answer to your Socratic Question #2:
After a woman has won a political office, how would you quantify any advantage or disadvantage she has in doing her job?
Using the dual standards of the Madonna and the Whore, the advantage for the whore, is men will do almost anything for simply the hint of sex, so the flirtatious woman can often tempt men into becoming quite pliable in their own position and desires.
The disadvantage is since she has been placed on an exalted pedestal as a politician, many will spurn her, if she fails to act with the utmost virtue and discretion.
In answer to your Socratic Question #3:
What other factors, besides gender, may negatively effect a woman from gaining office and working with her colleagues?
Those other factors such as education, social status, prior-experience etc., are irrelevant to the debate.
You have in fact conceded in asking this question that gender is a real issue that can negatively affect a woman.
In answer to your Socratic Question #4:
As we have seen in the past century, many women have been elected and appointed political office (some major leadership roles as well). Would you say that it is impossible for there to ever be a woman majority in the House And Senate, specifically referencing the United States?
Nothing is impossible. However the fact that something is possible does not make it probable.
You have though clearly displayed once more through your own question by selecting the word "Impossible" that it virtually is.
Especially when the current numbers aren't even 20%!
In response to your Socratic Question #5:
What relevance does religion have in the selection of female candidates for office?
The examples are endless, Orthodox Jews do not believe men and women should be in the same room or space when women are menstruating, Mormons do not believe women should attempt to dominate men. In Israel "Modesty Busses" segregate men and women using public transportation for religious reasons.
Husbands left heavily pregnant wives or spouses struggling with prams and pushchairs to fend for themselves as they and all other male passengers got on at the front of the bus.
news.bbc.co.uk...
Women must board through a separate rear door!
Denying how religion plays into the equation, is irresponsible, and simply a failed attempt to be 'politically-correct'.
Because one does not offend someone with words, for the sake of politics, does not mean they feel and think something entirely the opposite and are conspiring towards that end.
This is why a glass ceiling exists.
reply posted on 18-11-2010 @ 03:45 PM by MemoryShock
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The United States is not even 250 years old, and the Patriarchal Christian and Roman concepts it is largely founded on are thought to be over 2,000 years old.
As I stated in my opening, the past 250 years have integrated technology and communications systems within our society that have revolutionized social interaction and has changed perception in a way that was never possible. Access to radio, television, telephone and now the internet has been a crucial part of gaining and researching information by which old myths and perceptions have been discarded in favor of reality, including the archaic notion that women are 'inferior' to man. If women no longer believe such a thing and no longer need to live as if they did, then the spectrum of opportunity opens up greatly and exponentially.
Socratic Question #1: If you truly feel that there is no bias against women and they are not held to dual behavioral standards, how do you explain why so many authors, bloggers, and government bodies are concerned as evidenced by websites, blogs, books, and official reports on this phenomenon?
I do not truly believe that there are no dual behavioural standards. I acknowledged that I wasn't going to debate the reality of such in my opening as it is a given. What I am arguing is whether or not these standards are a static disadvantage for female politicians - which it is not.
Socratic Question #2: Can you honestly say you as a man you have no biases or prejudices against women in any way shape or form?
No. That is not to say that in an objective atmosphere that I would inherently negate a perspective because of such. Rather, it is to say that I view my mother with a certain prejudice/bias that isn't applied to other females.
Socratic Question #3: Assuming as a male you do not wear dresses, high heeled stiletto shoes and makeup, can you explain why you don’t?
Yes.
Socratic Question #4: You are in a woman’s home or sharing a home with a woman and spending the night with her, she wakes you up and says “I hear a strange noise; I think someone has broken into the house, I am going to go check” do you protest and insist checking yourself, or would you ‘accept’ she wants to do it herself?
I would check myself though I very likely wouldn't "lose time" trying to convince her.
Socratic Question #5: You have invited a woman to dinner, and you are driving her there in your car, when you park at the restaurant she says “Hold on don’t get out I want to get your door for you!” would you agree to this and 'let' her?
Absolutely. Ever hear of a conversation piece?
Please hire a secretary to do your research...
The above quoted is a portion of my opponent's answer to my first Socratic Question and I would like to point out that there is no direct answer. I would also like to point out to my opponent that I already had some figures when I decided to ask the question. I am content with leaving a mild deviation of the rules as it stands, however.
Since 1954, the average incumbent reelection rate in the House is 93%.
[1]
In sum, incumbents tend to win because they enjoy significant advantages over their challengers. The widely-accepted conventional wisdom about these advantages is that they make congressional elections unfair. It is true that it is difficult to beat an incumbent, but that is generally the case not simply because the incumbent enjoys the perks of office and has a large campaign bank account. Members of Congress are reelected because their constituents have not been provided with a compelling reason to vote for someone else.
[2]
The purpose of giving some attention to incumbents is the inherent advantage they posses due to name recognition and familiarity - despite gender. As shown in the above excerpts, incumbents who run retain their office by a very significant amount. Can we attribute this to the idea that mostly men hold office and that the populace is more inclined towards a male politician? While it is true that less women have decided to pursue political careers than men in the past, it is also true that the amount of attention many people give to the candidates and their platforms is far less than the attention they give to their own personal lives and as such are usually left to decide their vote based on ideological propagation of the candidates and name recognition.
A female incumbent enjoys this behavioural advantage as much as their male counterparts.
Unrealistic, cavalier and disingenuous attitudes like my opponent’s who pretends, yes pretends, that these dual standards no longer exist, -Snip-
Not only am I not pretending that these dual standards don't exist, I will now present an example of how this dual standard may have proved to be a huge advantage for a female politician whose last campaign failed to result in election.
Love her or hate her, Americans seem to be intrigued by former Alaska governor and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. First indications of this appeared when her book Going Rogue topped national bestsellers' lists. Now, her fame is showcased in the success of her new reality show on the TLC network, "Sarah Palin’s Alaska." According to About.com, the series has quickly become the most watched debut in TLC history, having attracted 5 million viewers. [3]
Palin did not win her dual campaign with McCain. Whether it was due to her ineptitude or her gender, or even if due to Obama's charisma, there is little disadvantage in translating her political career into a very profitable post election career. Palin has enjoyed much success by writing a best seller, signing a contract with Fox and through the creation of a reality show. Further, she commands up to $100,000 for commissioned speeches. But all of these successes only serve to highlight the fact that she is very influential amongst an upstart political party.
The former governor and 2008 vice presidential candidate backed scores of congressional and gubernatorial candidates this election, a sought-after endorsement that helped lift several Republicans to victory.
[4]
Her failed campaign as a Vice President candidate, perhaps in part due to gender bias (as my opponent is more willing to look at gender, calling other factors "irrelevant to the debate") has resulted in a huge amount of personal and professional success as she is still very politically motivated and, as demonstrated above, has been instrumental in the successful campaigns of other politicians.
So where is the disadvantage to this female politician?
Indeed, when one takes a look at the political spectrum, it is disingenuous to categorize it into merely an either/or analysis since, as my opponent mentioned, politics is a wide ranging application in our societal structure. Here, we are seeing that what may be a disadvantage in a narrow set of perceptions can actually be an advantage over the long term, or in different application.
Advantage/Disadvantage is merely perception...not a centuries old ingrained inclination as my opponent is asserting. Politics is not the pursuit of gender equality through numerical representation, rather it is the pursuit of a system of rules and the propagation of a societies collective finances for the benefit of the whole. While it would be ideal to have every minority represented equally, the truth is that we as a society only require that the everyone is treated equally in the face of the law and in provided opportunity. However, the presence of minority, in an ideal world, allows for different perspectives and concerns to be presented and considered as a means to achieve societal equilibrium of sorts.
But we do not live in an ideal world. Is this because of gender bias? No. It is more closely related to economic status than it is gender. The inequilibrium we see is more the result of money being tossed in the political playing field for legislation that favors money than it is about social equality.
The glass ceiling is a fallacious concept as there are numerous ways for a female to communicate and influence, even with a campaign that results in non election. The glass ceiling is a misleading abstract that fails to quantify all of the factors involved with the election process and as well the capacity for impact after an election that results in an appointment to office. I can appreciate the idea that my opponent would like to keep the discussion along the lines of gender bias and social norms but the reality is that this is a varied situation and such a static perspective does not account for the many and varied influences our reactions create.
My next post will take a look at the increasing numbers of female politicians and how successful or 'failed' campaigns can have an influence on not only other women but on legislation as well.
Socratic Question #1 - How has modern technology effected societies perception of the traditional gender roles?
Socratic Question #2 - Does gender bias in the day to day interactions of 'average' citizens preclude the capacity for objective reasoning in a professional capacity?
Socratic Question #3 - How does Sarah Palin's status as a female and politician, with regards to the last two years, qualify as a disadvantage?
Socratic Question #4 - Regarding the link you provided regarding the different bus doors for men and women in Israel, has Israel ever had a female Prime Minister?
Socratic Question #5 - Are there regions in the world where religion influences politics more than others?
reply posted on 19-11-2010 @ 02:50 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by MemoryShock
I wonder if and when my opponent will get serious about this debate.
He admits to erroneously posing a non-specific Socratic Question that resulted in him being given a very direct answer while claiming to have had the statistics he was looking for through this Red Herring.
He desperately tries to score procedural points through this while misrepresenting the value of the information he first conspired to withhold in favor of such a ploy.
He claims the incumbency rate for reelection is 93% when in fact 12 incumbent Senators, 32% chose not to even run for the 37 Senate Seats in this election.
Of the 25 incumbent Senators running 6 failed to win reelection, so 16% lost.
Combined the incumbency rate of reelection for the 2010 Senate is only 51%!
en.wikipedia.org...
In the House of representatives 435 seats were available with 37 incumbents, 8% choosing not to run. 52 incumbents 12% running in the house lost their reelection. Over all 20% of House incumbents were not reelected.
When it comes to my opponent’s incumbent argument he states:
Statistics do not support this statement!
In the house incumbents, Ann Kirkpatrick, Betsy Markey, Suzanne Kosmas, Melissa Bean, Debbie Halvorson, Dina Titus, Carol Shea Porter, Mary Jo Kilroy, Kathy Dahlkemper, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin all lost to men.
Colleen Hanabusa, Vicky Hartzler, and Nan Hayworth were the only women to defeat incumbent men.
en.wikipedia.org...
Women are in fact loosing ground at a greater rate than men; based on current statistics a woman is 4 times more likely to loose her seat in the House than a man!
Incumbent rate of retention is in fact 77% for both houses combined and not 93%.
My opponent tries to manipulate perception by using selective and outdated data to present a false picture and argument, this fails when placed under the examination of current and accurate data.
My opponent’s failures to form some kind of factual cohesive presentation did not stop there, he then goes on to cite a single example of a woman in politics that he claims shows there is not only progress, but displays there are no dual standards.
His example Sarah Palin, who not only holds no political office, whatsoever but…
Evidently she spent way too much money on her dresses!
www.independent.co.uk...
Leading to:
www.newsweek.com...
In the annals of American politics not one male politician has had the cost of their wardrobe come into question let alone have that then be attributed through polls to their sagging numbers and election defeat.
Not only did polls reveal voters held Palin to dual standards, but that even her own running mate did as well.
My opponent claims the numbers are trending upwards for women in office, when in fact they are trending downwards!
In fact women have not gained enough ground yet to even win this:
news.yahoo.com...
It will be harder, there are going to be fewer women in the next congress.
Conservative Republican Neoconservative gains, whose religious dispositions, are still inclined to view women as Eve, that trouble causing female who got us all kicked out of the Garden of Eden will now have a majority!
They often believe like Eve, women may spend too much money on dresses and embarrass you!
It is not technology that has driven women into the work place and politics in increasingly larger numbers since the 1970’s but a stagnant living wage, inflation, and economic necessity.
Women who can not even receive equal pay as men, has caused more women to run for congress and focus on women’s issues.
Once there, women lack the numbers and influence to change the attitudes of men that are biased against leveling the playing field for men and women.
Since is was not technology but economics that drove more women from their homes and families, ultimately a societal breakdown caused by the breakdown of the nurturing and familiar education process that this phenomenon has compromised, may actually end up creating a greater crisis than an economic one, forcing women back out of the employment market and politics to resume their traditional nurturing role within the familiar unit.
A natural remedy then considering the female gestates and economically pragmatic choice, since they do not earn equal pay to men for equal work.
My opponent’s eloquent epitaphs, flowery euphemisms, and overly verbose depictions are all simply meant to deflect from the numbers that are actually showing losses and not gains for women.
He would like to claim political funding is a problem, that women may not be funded to the same extent, which is of course also because of dual standards.
My opponent confesses, he holds ‘select’ women to different standards, would insist on protecting and sheltering women in a threatening situation where both have the same technology that makes them equal in supposed behavioral based outcomes, while conceding stepping outside of the dual behavioral standards for men and women would cause others to comment in a public setting.
He struggles for singular examples, since there is no plurality of examples for instance:
Responding now to his Socratic Question #4:
Yes, one, Golda Meir, no other female prime minister as been elected since, however importantly this is likely due to Meir’s personal behavior best described by Former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion who frequently referred to her as “The best man in government” establishing that it was necessary to behave like a man, and not a woman to command the Israeli people’s respect. A respect no other woman has since captured since 1974.
While another Female Prime Minister has not been elected in the last 36 years, the Modesty busses, forcing segregation of men and women for religious reasons in Israel’s public transportation are in fact more recent inventions that are reflective of the increased power of an ultra-religious demographic.
Yes, if one concludes that the average person is like you, that admit you set different standards for select women, would act unilaterally in specific situations precluding objective discussion on shared strategies with a female partner, and are aware deviation from dual standard social norms causes emotionally driven reactions on the part of others.
Another poorly thought out question that does not specify in what arena she could be disadvantaged in as a female and a politician. Presuming it an arena based question, she would be disadvantaged in the NBA, and NHL arenas to the point she could not participate, but could in Roller Derby.
IWhen an anonymous online member of a dating site claims to be a woman when contacting me, I ask for first a photo and then a voice recognition call to make sure I am not talking to a man.
Yes all non-communist nations.
For my opponent:
Socratic Question 1: Did you vote in the November 2, 2010 U.S. Election?
Socratic Question 2: Have you ever researched the cost of a male political candidate’s wardrobe?
Socratic Question 3: Why do awards shows like the Academy Awards and Grammys result in ‘red carpet’ reviews and critiques on TV Shows and Periodicals of the fashions the women wear to these events but not what the men wear?
Socratic Question 4: Which major U.S. Television Networks have a Female CEO?
Socratic Question 5: Respectively Donnie and Marie Osmond were a little bit rock n’ roll, and a little bit country. Is it conceivable that their Mormon upbringing and faith played some part in preventing them from fully embracing those genres to the extent of being a Satanic Heavy Metal performer, and Country Superstar Diva?
In the next round, I will show how deepening societal breakdown may cause increasing numbers to conclude that patriarchal standards result in an overall healthier and prosperous balanced society.
I wonder if and when my opponent will get serious about this debate.
He admits to erroneously posing a non-specific Socratic Question that resulted in him being given a very direct answer while claiming to have had the statistics he was looking for through this Red Herring.
He desperately tries to score procedural points through this while misrepresenting the value of the information he first conspired to withhold in favor of such a ploy.
He claims the incumbency rate for reelection is 93% when in fact 12 incumbent Senators, 32% chose not to even run for the 37 Senate Seats in this election.
Of the 25 incumbent Senators running 6 failed to win reelection, so 16% lost.
Combined the incumbency rate of reelection for the 2010 Senate is only 51%!
en.wikipedia.org...
In the House of representatives 435 seats were available with 37 incumbents, 8% choosing not to run. 52 incumbents 12% running in the house lost their reelection. Over all 20% of House incumbents were not reelected.
When it comes to my opponent’s incumbent argument he states:
A female incumbent enjoys this behavioural advantage as much as their male counterparts.
Statistics do not support this statement!
In the house incumbents, Ann Kirkpatrick, Betsy Markey, Suzanne Kosmas, Melissa Bean, Debbie Halvorson, Dina Titus, Carol Shea Porter, Mary Jo Kilroy, Kathy Dahlkemper, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin all lost to men.
Colleen Hanabusa, Vicky Hartzler, and Nan Hayworth were the only women to defeat incumbent men.
en.wikipedia.org...
Women are in fact loosing ground at a greater rate than men; based on current statistics a woman is 4 times more likely to loose her seat in the House than a man!
Incumbent rate of retention is in fact 77% for both houses combined and not 93%.
My opponent tries to manipulate perception by using selective and outdated data to present a false picture and argument, this fails when placed under the examination of current and accurate data.
My opponent’s failures to form some kind of factual cohesive presentation did not stop there, he then goes on to cite a single example of a woman in politics that he claims shows there is not only progress, but displays there are no dual standards.
His example Sarah Palin, who not only holds no political office, whatsoever but…
Evidently she spent way too much money on her dresses!
McCain's running mate – now hit by revelations of a lavish shopping spree – is starting to hurt his poll ratings. David Usborne reports
www.independent.co.uk...
Leading to:
McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech Tuesday night, but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request.
www.newsweek.com...
In the annals of American politics not one male politician has had the cost of their wardrobe come into question let alone have that then be attributed through polls to their sagging numbers and election defeat.
Not only did polls reveal voters held Palin to dual standards, but that even her own running mate did as well.
My opponent claims the numbers are trending upwards for women in office, when in fact they are trending downwards!
In fact women have not gained enough ground yet to even win this:
Denise DiStephan Denise Distephan – Wed Nov 17, 7:32 pm ET
The Nation -- Women fell two votes short on Wednesday to coming closer to getting paid the same as men for the same work
The bill, which will not be brought up again in this Congress, faces more of an uphill battle in the next one
news.yahoo.com...
It will be harder, there are going to be fewer women in the next congress.
Conservative Republican Neoconservative gains, whose religious dispositions, are still inclined to view women as Eve, that trouble causing female who got us all kicked out of the Garden of Eden will now have a majority!
They often believe like Eve, women may spend too much money on dresses and embarrass you!
It is not technology that has driven women into the work place and politics in increasingly larger numbers since the 1970’s but a stagnant living wage, inflation, and economic necessity.
Women who can not even receive equal pay as men, has caused more women to run for congress and focus on women’s issues.
Once there, women lack the numbers and influence to change the attitudes of men that are biased against leveling the playing field for men and women.
Since is was not technology but economics that drove more women from their homes and families, ultimately a societal breakdown caused by the breakdown of the nurturing and familiar education process that this phenomenon has compromised, may actually end up creating a greater crisis than an economic one, forcing women back out of the employment market and politics to resume their traditional nurturing role within the familiar unit.
A natural remedy then considering the female gestates and economically pragmatic choice, since they do not earn equal pay to men for equal work.
My opponent’s eloquent epitaphs, flowery euphemisms, and overly verbose depictions are all simply meant to deflect from the numbers that are actually showing losses and not gains for women.
He would like to claim political funding is a problem, that women may not be funded to the same extent, which is of course also because of dual standards.
My opponent confesses, he holds ‘select’ women to different standards, would insist on protecting and sheltering women in a threatening situation where both have the same technology that makes them equal in supposed behavioral based outcomes, while conceding stepping outside of the dual behavioral standards for men and women would cause others to comment in a public setting.
He struggles for singular examples, since there is no plurality of examples for instance:
Responding now to his Socratic Question #4:
Regarding the link you provided regarding the different bus doors for men and women in Israel, has Israel ever had a female Prime Minister?
Yes, one, Golda Meir, no other female prime minister as been elected since, however importantly this is likely due to Meir’s personal behavior best described by Former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion who frequently referred to her as “The best man in government” establishing that it was necessary to behave like a man, and not a woman to command the Israeli people’s respect. A respect no other woman has since captured since 1974.
While another Female Prime Minister has not been elected in the last 36 years, the Modesty busses, forcing segregation of men and women for religious reasons in Israel’s public transportation are in fact more recent inventions that are reflective of the increased power of an ultra-religious demographic.
Socratic Question #2 - Does gender bias in the day to day interactions of 'average' citizens preclude the capacity for objective reasoning in a professional capacity?
Yes, if one concludes that the average person is like you, that admit you set different standards for select women, would act unilaterally in specific situations precluding objective discussion on shared strategies with a female partner, and are aware deviation from dual standard social norms causes emotionally driven reactions on the part of others.
Socratic Question #3 - How does Sarah Palin's status as a female and politician, with regards to the last two years, qualify as a disadvantage?
Another poorly thought out question that does not specify in what arena she could be disadvantaged in as a female and a politician. Presuming it an arena based question, she would be disadvantaged in the NBA, and NHL arenas to the point she could not participate, but could in Roller Derby.
Socratic Question #1 - How has modern technology effected societies perception of the traditional gender roles?
IWhen an anonymous online member of a dating site claims to be a woman when contacting me, I ask for first a photo and then a voice recognition call to make sure I am not talking to a man.
Socratic Question #5 - Are there regions in the world where religion influences politics more than others?
Yes all non-communist nations.
For my opponent:
Socratic Question 1: Did you vote in the November 2, 2010 U.S. Election?
Socratic Question 2: Have you ever researched the cost of a male political candidate’s wardrobe?
Socratic Question 3: Why do awards shows like the Academy Awards and Grammys result in ‘red carpet’ reviews and critiques on TV Shows and Periodicals of the fashions the women wear to these events but not what the men wear?
Socratic Question 4: Which major U.S. Television Networks have a Female CEO?
Socratic Question 5: Respectively Donnie and Marie Osmond were a little bit rock n’ roll, and a little bit country. Is it conceivable that their Mormon upbringing and faith played some part in preventing them from fully embracing those genres to the extent of being a Satanic Heavy Metal performer, and Country Superstar Diva?
In the next round, I will show how deepening societal breakdown may cause increasing numbers to conclude that patriarchal standards result in an overall healthier and prosperous balanced society.
reply posted on 20-11-2010 @ 05:31 PM by MemoryShock
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
He admits to erroneously posing a non-specific Socratic Question that resulted in him being given a very direct answer while claiming to have had the statistics he was looking for through this Red Herring.
It should be noted that the above quoted is a lie. My socratic question was very direct and resulted in no direct answer at all.
He desperately tries to score procedural points through this while misrepresenting the value of the information he first conspired to withhold in favor of such a ploy.
He claims the incumbency rate for reelection is 93% when in fact 12 incumbent Senators, 32% chose not to even run for the 37 Senate Seats in this election.
Of the 25 incumbent Senators running 6 failed to win reelection, so 16% lost.
Combined the incumbency rate of reelection for the 2010 Senate is only 51%!
It is my opponent who is misrepresenting facts. The percentages I gave exclude the number of politicians who choose not to run as there can be no valid voter interpretation upon a candidate who is not on the ballot.
I would ask my opponent to be a bit more careful with his interpretation of the facts.
In the house incumbents, Ann Kirkpatrick, Betsy Markey, Suzanne Kosmas, Melissa Bean, Debbie Halvorson, Dina Titus, Carol Shea Porter, Mary Jo Kilroy, Kathy Dahlkemper, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin all lost to men.
Colleen Hanabusa, Vicky Hartzler, and Nan Hayworth were the only women to defeat incumbent men.
It should also be noted that, while the upward trend is indeed continuing, the losses by females as shown above is more likely attributed to the general discontent of the nation towards the Democratic Party. It was not unexpected that the Republicans would retake the House this past election. The House incumbents who lost were all Democrats and two of the women to defeat incumbent men were Republican - showing that the losses were more likely the result of party lines than any gender bias.
he then goes on to cite a single example of a woman in politics that he claims shows there is not only progress, but displays there are no dual standards.
I will again state that I am not arguing that there are dual standards in place for men and women. I will again state that I am arguing whether or not the dual standards represent an inherent disadvantage for female politicians - there isn't.
His example Sarah Palin, who not only holds no political office, whatsoever but…
Sarah Palin is still a politician and qualifies as a valid example per the debate topic. Regardless of how she chooses to spend her money she has turned a failed campaign into a very lucrative television and political career. Advantage - Palin.
Conservative Republican Neoconservative gains, whose religious dispositions, are still inclined to view women as Eve, that trouble causing female who got us all kicked out of the Garden of Eden will now have a majority!
And yet Palin's influence and endorsement helped gain election victories for several Republicans.
Women who can not even receive equal pay as men, has caused more women to run for congress and focus on women’s issues.
An unequal standard that has resulted in more women in politics and a greater focus on women's issues? Indeed, it sounds like the debate topic...women enjoy more participation and success because of this unequal standard.
My opponent is being very contradictory in his responses to my Socratic Questions 4 and 2 of the last post -
however importantly this is likely due to Meir’s personal behavior best described by Former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion who frequently referred to her as “The best man in government” establishing that it was necessary to behave like a man, and not a woman to command the Israeli people’s respect. A respect no other woman has since captured since 1974.
Yes, -Snip-
My opponent states that Meir was referred to as 'the best man for the job, demonstrating that it is indeed possible to be objective to gender in a professional capacity and then in the next answer explicitly states that it is impossible for such objectivity due to social gender perceptions.
Answer to Socratic Question #1
IWhen an anonymous online member of a dating site claims to be a woman when contacting me, I ask for first a photo and then a voice recognition call to make sure I am not talking to a man.
I would also like to point out that there is no direct answer here, but an actual avoidance of the question.
I am inclined to think that my opponent is not taking them very seriously.
Socratic Question 1: Did you vote in the November 2, 2010 U.S. Election?
No. The act of voting does not mean that analysis and considerations did not occur.
Socratic Question 2: Have you ever researched the cost of a male political candidate’s wardrobe?
No.
Socratic Question 3: Why do awards shows like the Academy Awards and Grammys result in ‘red carpet’ reviews and critiques on TV Shows and Periodicals of the fashions the women wear to these events but not what the men wear?
fficial&client=firefox-a" target="_blank" class="postlink">Google Search Results For "Red Carpet mens fashions" [1]
Socratic Question 4: Which major U.S. Television Networks have a Female CEO?
Lifetime.
Socratic Question 5: Respectively Donnie and Marie Osmond were a little bit rock n’ roll, and a little bit country. Is it conceivable that their Mormon upbringing and faith played some part in preventing them from fully embracing those genres to the extent of being a Satanic Heavy Metal performer, and Country Superstar Diva?
It is certainly conceivable though I would like to offer as a means of perspective that I had a Mormon upbringing (ditched religion at 18) and played in a garage punk band by the name of "Schindler's Pist" for a short period of time when I was 17.
I am struggling to find the relevance of the question though.
My opponent is indeed all over the place and has been shown to misrepresent my expressions and data as well. Some of my opponent's examples and rhetoric I am struggling to find cohesion with as to the debate topic. I understand full well that we as a society have different perspectives regarding the genders but society as a whole expects a more objective and professional behaviour from its' leaders and aspiring leaders. As such, the general 'dual standard' is mostly inapplicable in today's world. Women are progressing towards equality and while my opponent would choose to look at the microcosm that is the 2010 elections, which was likely motivated more on party lines than gender, we can see that the trend is continuing upwards. In fact, this may be a unique period in history where the inequality demonstrated by the number of women compared with men in office represents an advantage as this inequality has been noticed. And there is nothing more likely to gain consideration and change than perceptions of inequality. Indeed, in a seemingly paradoxical twist, the unequal standards of behaviour will benefit female politicians in the many years to come as more women will participate and women's issues will continue to be a concern.
The social, economic, and political roles of women and men have been transformed in
dramatic ways. In 1981, the first woman was nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.
The term the gender gap came into use for the first time following the 1980 presidential
election. Relatively few women held elective office. Only 23 women served in Congress in
1981, making up 4.3% of members (CAWP 2009a).
In contrast, a record number of women hold elective office today. A total of 90 women
serve in Congress, making up 16.7% of members.
[2]PDF
*The exact numbers have likely changed since the publishing of the sourced document.
However, voter prejudice is no longer thought to be a barrier to women's candidacies. Studies show that women are not disproportionately likely to lose their races (Darcy, Welch and Clark 1994; Burrell 1994; Seltzer, Newman and Leighton 1997).² For example, Darcy and Schramm (1977) found that gender had little or no effect on the performance of men and women candidates in general election races for the U.S. House of Representatives in the early 1970's once incumbency status was taken into account.
[3]
There are definite discrepancies when one chooses to look at the numbers based solely on gender. However, this does not translate necessarily to disadvantage. As well, there are many factors to consider when analyzing the differences.
Regional mores and values, the relatively new presence of women in politics and the continued societal integration of new perceptions regarding the gender roles. As well, the publicity gained from a women's political campaign indeed has an effect on societal perception as well as can inflect legislative actions, as a female candidate is speaking to voters and their concerns. Such concerns do not go away if a female candidate loses an election.
Socratic Question #1 - Would Palin's success be possible in the centuries without the technological means for instantaneous communications?
Socratic Question #2 - How does Sarah Palin's status as a female and politician, with regards to the last two years, qualify as a disadvantage in the realm of politics?
Socratic Question #3 - Is it possible that a voter attention to the party line was more of a factor in the 2010 elections then any consideration based upon gender?
Socratic Question #4 - Who was the highest ranking female, regarding political status, in American history?
Socratic Question #5 - How did Bill Clinton's Lewinsky scandal effect Hilary Clinton's political career?
reply posted on 22-11-2010 @ 04:50 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by MemoryShock
“When you have no basis for an argument abuse the plaintiff” Macus Cicero
Let us begin with the 2002 Sweden source.
In Sweden no men or women are elected to ‘parliament’. The voters vote on parties not candidates. There are 8 political parties in Sweden, and the party wins the seats, the party leadership then decides which party members will serve in the Rigsdak. Sweden doesn’t have a parliament; there national assembly is called the Riksdag, the outdated article is not correct in any of its basic presentations.
7 of those political parties have bylaws that state 50% of all appointees must be women. The parties are appointing that number of women to fill the seats based on that 50/50 by rule.
In 1974 when the parties first instituted these bylaws women held 51% for that first Parliament, but the Christian Coalition Party then amended its bylaws so that the distribution of seats would not be 50/50
Female representation went down. It went a little further down too in 2010.
www.riksdagen.se...
Unless the Christian Coalition, one of the most popular in Sweden reinstitutes the 50/50 bylaw, women will never achieve parity there.
My opponent’s outdated Canadian Opinion Poll of 2004 must be read carefully to understand that 55 percent of respondents wanted to see change in the political institution where 9 out of 10 of those respondents or roughly 49.5% of all Canadians wanted to see an increasing number of elected women as an indication of a healthy political system.
51% of Canadians are women!
By law Canada reserves 45 seats in their House of Commons for women. Women currently have 51 seats, 18% of the House of Commons as of the last general election in 2008. This is down from 57 seats from the general election of 2006.
webinfo.parl.gc.ca...
The United States, Sweden, and Canada are trending down.
Incumbents who loose their primary battles within their parties “Choose” not to run by necessity in the general election. They were still incumbents though. Nor did my opponent specify such an omission.
If you follow the link my opponent provided when first using that 93% number as a statistic you will now find this:
informationknoll.wordpress.com...
My opponents own source does not agree with him!
So all we have really so far from my opponent is a lot of outdated information.
He is now guessing at why so many female incumbents lost from a whole host of possible factors excluding gender bias. Though he continues to concede gender bias exists.
We don’t know what voters were thinking when they voted female incumbents out of office for men at a 4 times greater rate than men being voted out of office for females. This despite the fact that there were 6 times more men than women to be voted out of office.
Here is where my opponents argument breaks down, women had 6 more tries at bat, to knock a male out, than men did to knock a woman out, and the women still lost at a 4 times greater rate to the opposite sex!
He continues to cite Sarah Palin for some bizarre reason who holds no political office and is the endless target of ridicule by talk show hosts, news anchors, politicians, and most Americans who simply see her as the woman who spent too much money on her dresses and can see Russia from her house!
He claims Palin’s endorsement helped gain election victories for several Republicans, yet fails to cite which Republican is saying “And I owe it all to Sarah”.
He of course also fails to consider or to quantify what politicians might have lost because they were endorsed by Palin.
Smoke and mirrors!
He ignores the fact that both men and women often do not think women are as pragmatic and sensible when it comes to all important security questions like the War on Terror.
He especially does not want to have to factor in this aspect:
From “Confessions of a Homeschool Dad The no-holds-barred confessions of a Christian Husband, Father, and Provider living, working, and homeschooling in Texas.”
homeschoolblogger.com...
Technology is also being employed to perpetuate these kinds of dual standards. This man is not alone:
homeschoolblogger.com...
My opponent neglects that many men resent the fact that they can not earn a sufficient enough income to keep their wives at home, and would prefer their children have a woman’s parental supervision before and after school. That men fear female politicians because they fear the independence of women, that make domestic partnerships much more of a partnership than a dictatorship as they were in centuries and decades past. Those men feel these new transgendered roles tend to lead to a lot more give and take and failed expectations creating a higher divorce rate.
So if men and women are finding it increasingly harder to stay together for prolonged periods of time, how could men find it easier to vote for women?
The truth is they aren’t, and the stagnant and declining statistics show that.
Would her success as a disgraced governor resigning office over “Trooper Gate” as a defeated female politician who cost her running mate the election by buying too many dresses, who holds no political office and is basically the equivalent of a Soccer Mom Budweiser Girl at fringe political rallies be possible? No, Budweiser and Soccer aren’t that old!
She holds no political office, and is not a politician, is not running for a political office at the present, so her status as a female in a realm she is not a part of is irrelevant. Without a specific office being sought, so one can quantify the demographics of the voters, there is no way to quantify or qualify this question.
Not in my opinion since, most primaries feature at least one female candidate, if more Females had gotten through the process by not loosing out to men, then even if it was, more females would have been elected to office.
Nancy Pelosi who has since had a loss of status, and it should be considered that loss of status can be directly attributed to her leadership of the Democratic Party. I contend this is largely based on her many well documented cosmetic surgeries taking her away from her crucial duties!
Not good, it led many democratic primary voters to conclude if she was no longer good enough for Bill, she was no longer good enough for them!
SC #1: As a former punk rock musician please list your own views as how women are treated in the punk rock world.
SC #2: Please list whether you have ever contemplated the size of Dolly Parton’s chest.
SC #3: Please list a male politician if one who, you have contemplated the size of their chest.
SC #4: Is Lifetime Network your first choice for news, opinions and sports?
SC #5: The Hollywood Gossip Rag (Proto) hears you are dating some new special someone, please list if you hold open doors for her when entering or leaving a building.
It should be noted that the above quoted is a lie. My socratic question was very direct and resulted in no direct answer at all.
“When you have no basis for an argument abuse the plaintiff” Macus Cicero
Let us begin with the 2002 Sweden source.
Sweden has the second highest percentage of female parliamentarians in the national parliament. 45.3 percent of the elected candidates were women in the 2002 election.
In Sweden no men or women are elected to ‘parliament’. The voters vote on parties not candidates. There are 8 political parties in Sweden, and the party wins the seats, the party leadership then decides which party members will serve in the Rigsdak. Sweden doesn’t have a parliament; there national assembly is called the Riksdag, the outdated article is not correct in any of its basic presentations.
7 of those political parties have bylaws that state 50% of all appointees must be women. The parties are appointing that number of women to fill the seats based on that 50/50 by rule.
In 1974 when the parties first instituted these bylaws women held 51% for that first Parliament, but the Christian Coalition Party then amended its bylaws so that the distribution of seats would not be 50/50
Female representation went down. It went a little further down too in 2010.
The allocation of seats following the 2010 election has now been determined, both as regards proportionality between the eight political parties and as regards the members who are to occupy them. Of the 349 elected members of the Riksdag, 192 are men (55 per cent) and 157 are women (45 per cent).*Translated
www.riksdagen.se...
Unless the Christian Coalition, one of the most popular in Sweden reinstitutes the 50/50 bylaw, women will never achieve parity there.
My opponent’s outdated Canadian Opinion Poll of 2004 must be read carefully to understand that 55 percent of respondents wanted to see change in the political institution where 9 out of 10 of those respondents or roughly 49.5% of all Canadians wanted to see an increasing number of elected women as an indication of a healthy political system.
51% of Canadians are women!
By law Canada reserves 45 seats in their House of Commons for women. Women currently have 51 seats, 18% of the House of Commons as of the last general election in 2008. This is down from 57 seats from the general election of 2006.
webinfo.parl.gc.ca...
The United States, Sweden, and Canada are trending down.
It is my opponent who is misrepresenting facts. The percentages I gave exclude the number of politicians who choose not to run as there can be no valid voter interpretation upon a candidate who is not on the ballot.
Incumbents who loose their primary battles within their parties “Choose” not to run by necessity in the general election. They were still incumbents though. Nor did my opponent specify such an omission.
If you follow the link my opponent provided when first using that 93% number as a statistic you will now find this:
Despite the media narrative that it’s an “anti-incumbent” year, I predicted on Tuesday that more than 90% of incumbents would be reelected in the House. According to Politico.com, 390 incumbent House members ran for reelection this year and 51 were defeated. Thus, 86.9% of House incumbents won reelection. Looks like I was off by 3%.
informationknoll.wordpress.com...
My opponents own source does not agree with him!
So all we have really so far from my opponent is a lot of outdated information.
He is now guessing at why so many female incumbents lost from a whole host of possible factors excluding gender bias. Though he continues to concede gender bias exists.
We don’t know what voters were thinking when they voted female incumbents out of office for men at a 4 times greater rate than men being voted out of office for females. This despite the fact that there were 6 times more men than women to be voted out of office.
Here is where my opponents argument breaks down, women had 6 more tries at bat, to knock a male out, than men did to knock a woman out, and the women still lost at a 4 times greater rate to the opposite sex!
He continues to cite Sarah Palin for some bizarre reason who holds no political office and is the endless target of ridicule by talk show hosts, news anchors, politicians, and most Americans who simply see her as the woman who spent too much money on her dresses and can see Russia from her house!
He claims Palin’s endorsement helped gain election victories for several Republicans, yet fails to cite which Republican is saying “And I owe it all to Sarah”.
He of course also fails to consider or to quantify what politicians might have lost because they were endorsed by Palin.
Smoke and mirrors!
He ignores the fact that both men and women often do not think women are as pragmatic and sensible when it comes to all important security questions like the War on Terror.
He especially does not want to have to factor in this aspect:
From “Confessions of a Homeschool Dad The no-holds-barred confessions of a Christian Husband, Father, and Provider living, working, and homeschooling in Texas.”
Why Women Shouldn't Vote
October 23, 2006 in Current Events by Nota Chance | 84 comments
You know, I've always been rather leery of a woman voting. I mean, they're such emotionally driven creatures that most of them don't have a logical bone in their body.
Don't get me wrong – the way that women were created is just right. I'm just saying that there is a reason that they were created as >helpers to men.
homeschoolblogger.com...
Technology is also being employed to perpetuate these kinds of dual standards. This man is not alone:
I agree that women in general focus less on the important issues and more on surface value. But you can't prevent all women from voting just because many (most?) are lacking in the critical thinking department.
homeschoolblogger.com...
My opponent neglects that many men resent the fact that they can not earn a sufficient enough income to keep their wives at home, and would prefer their children have a woman’s parental supervision before and after school. That men fear female politicians because they fear the independence of women, that make domestic partnerships much more of a partnership than a dictatorship as they were in centuries and decades past. Those men feel these new transgendered roles tend to lead to a lot more give and take and failed expectations creating a higher divorce rate.
So if men and women are finding it increasingly harder to stay together for prolonged periods of time, how could men find it easier to vote for women?
The truth is they aren’t, and the stagnant and declining statistics show that.
SC #1 - Would Palin's success be possible in the centuries without the technological means for instantaneous communications?
Would her success as a disgraced governor resigning office over “Trooper Gate” as a defeated female politician who cost her running mate the election by buying too many dresses, who holds no political office and is basically the equivalent of a Soccer Mom Budweiser Girl at fringe political rallies be possible? No, Budweiser and Soccer aren’t that old!
SC #2 - How does Sarah Palin's status as a female and politician, with regards to the last two years, qualify as a disadvantage in the realm of politics?
She holds no political office, and is not a politician, is not running for a political office at the present, so her status as a female in a realm she is not a part of is irrelevant. Without a specific office being sought, so one can quantify the demographics of the voters, there is no way to quantify or qualify this question.
SC #3 - Is it possible that a voter attention to the party line was more of a factor in the 2010 elections then any consideration based upon gender?
Not in my opinion since, most primaries feature at least one female candidate, if more Females had gotten through the process by not loosing out to men, then even if it was, more females would have been elected to office.
Socratic Question #4 - Who was the highest ranking female, regarding political status, in American history?
Nancy Pelosi who has since had a loss of status, and it should be considered that loss of status can be directly attributed to her leadership of the Democratic Party. I contend this is largely based on her many well documented cosmetic surgeries taking her away from her crucial duties!
Socratic Question #5 - How did Bill Clinton's Lewinsky scandal effect Hilary Clinton's political career?
Not good, it led many democratic primary voters to conclude if she was no longer good enough for Bill, she was no longer good enough for them!
SC #1: As a former punk rock musician please list your own views as how women are treated in the punk rock world.
SC #2: Please list whether you have ever contemplated the size of Dolly Parton’s chest.
SC #3: Please list a male politician if one who, you have contemplated the size of their chest.
SC #4: Is Lifetime Network your first choice for news, opinions and sports?
SC #5: The Hollywood Gossip Rag (Proto) hears you are dating some new special someone, please list if you hold open doors for her when entering or leaving a building.
reply posted on 23-11-2010 @ 04:33 PM by MemoryShock
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
In Sweden no men or women are elected to ‘parliament’. The voters vote on parties not candidates.
7 of those political parties have bylaws that state 50% of all appointees must be women. The parties are appointing that number of women to fill the seats based on that 50/50 by rule.
Regardless, the policy implementation is advantageous to women as it guarantees representation. And I think we are mincing numbers here as we truly can't expect a literal 50/50 representation of gender - in any system.
The point does stand, however, that Sweden has a system that is near leading the world in female representation and while I still contend that female appointments are not the end all be all in defining political advantage, it is certainly a relevant distinction.
Sweden is not the only country to have a "50/50 rule" -
This is despite the existence of the 50/50 program: a campaign which aims to meet the Southern African Development Community Protocol on Gender and Development, which commits countries to work towards the goal of having 50 percent women in political and decision-making positions by 2015.
With assistance from the 50/50 campaign a significant number of female politicians were successful in the country's 2009 presidential elections. Of the 237 female candidates who ran, 38 were elected to office, resulting in a total of 43 female MPs nationwide, according to Maulidi.
[1]
Women in Africa are more and more becoming a part of the political system. What does this indirectly suggest?
That even in undeveloped countries, gender bias is falling by the wayside. That even if we consider the slight loss of female representation in the United States this past election, that there is indeed a global trend that is asserting not only women's rights but a woman's right to participate in leadership positions for the progression of their (and our) society.
The country made history in 2008, when 56 percent of the politicians it sent to Parliament were women, far surpassing a national quota set at 30 percent. Two years before that, women were elected to a third of all mayoral-level posts. Women lead a third of Rwanda's ministries. They protect public assets – the head of the tax authority and the auditor general are women. Every police office in Rwanda has a "gender desk" to take reports of violence against women, as does the national Army.
[2]
Despite the media narrative that it’s an “anti-incumbent” year, I predicted on Tuesday that more than 90% of incumbents would be reelected in the House. According to Politico.com, 390 incumbent House members ran for reelection this year and 51 were defeated. Thus, 86.9% of House incumbents won reelection. Looks like I was off by 3%.
My opponents own source does not agree with him!
Is my opponent really going to cite a difference of 3.1% as a relevant point of contention?
Interesting.
He ignores the fact that both men and women often do not think women are as pragmatic and sensible when it comes to all important security questions like the War on Terror.
I wonder if there is any support for such a statement. Indeed, there is much attention being given to 'new measures' motivated by the money to be made from government contracts. Is that 'sensible and pragmatic'? And if so, I am unsure I agree with the idea that women can't be as motivated by money as their male counterparts.
My opponent neglects that many men resent the fact that they can not earn a sufficient enough income to keep their wives at home, and would prefer their children have a woman’s parental supervision before and after school. That men fear female politicians because they fear the independence of women, that make domestic partnerships much more of a partnership than a dictatorship as they were in centuries and decades past. Those men feel these new transgendered roles tend to lead to a lot more give and take and failed expectations creating a higher divorce rate.
My opponent bases such a wide sweeping generalization upon the presentation of a blog source? I see no stats and no numbers beyond the quoting of one male, the homeschooledblogger.
Would her success as a disgraced governor resigning office over “Trooper Gate” as a defeated female politician who cost her running mate the election by buying too many dresses, who holds no political office and is basically the equivalent of a Soccer Mom Budweiser Girl at fringe political rallies be possible? No, Budweiser and Soccer aren’t that old!
Yes, but how much money has Palin made for Tea Party speeches (a political venture) for those dresses?
For the record, I find any attention on Palin's wardrobe to be mystifying on behalf of my opponent.
Again, we find my opponent being contradictory, this time in Socratic Questions 3 and 4.
Answer to Socratic Question #3
Not in my opinion since, most primaries feature at least one female candidate, if more Females had gotten through the process by not loosing out to men, then even if it was, more females would have been elected to office.
Answer to Socratic Question #4
Nancy Pelosi who has since had a loss of status, and it should be considered that loss of status can be directly attributed to her leadership of the Democratic Party. I contend this is largely based on her many well documented cosmetic surgeries taking her away from her crucial duties!
My bolded.
My opponent declares that his opinion is that party lines were not more of an effect on the recent elections as gender was. But in the very next answer, he clearly goes out of his way to diminish Pelosi's accomplishment by citing a Party Line.
Socratic Question #5 - How did Bill Clinton's Lewinsky scandal effect Hilary Clinton's political career?
Not good, it led many democratic primary voters to conclude if she was no longer good enough for Bill, she was no longer good enough for them!
Really? Bill Clinton has one of the highest profile sex scandals in American Political History and not only did Hilary maintain the relationship but has risen to her current position of Secretary of State. My opponent's answer perplexes me, to say the least.
SC #1: As a former punk rock musician please list your own views as how women are treated in the punk rock world.
In my opinion, the social interactions within the genre are pretty much based upon the individuals I have encountered. There are dominant females in every social circle as well as there are submissive females in every social circle. Aside from the usual attention to gender attractions, I find no real specific attention to gender roles.
SC #2: Please list whether you have ever contemplated the size of Dolly Parton’s chest.
Yes. It is difficult to not notice something the size of Manhattan on one female. A rodeo I never considered focusing on any further though.
SC #3: Please list a male politician if one who, you have contemplated the size of their chest.
Arnold Schwarzenegger. I find it interesting that steroids can result in an appointment via election to a Governor Office.
SC #4: Is Lifetime Network your first choice for news, opinions and sports?
No.
SC #5: The Hollywood Gossip Rag (Proto) hears you are dating some new special someone, please list if you hold open doors for her when entering or leaving a building.
Yes. As well, She has held doors open for me. There is perhaps further commentary on the use of personal information, albeit generally, that I will refrain from quoting.
My opponent again seems to be struggling with this topic. I am not seeing any assertion beyond gender generalizations that support an identification and communication of disadvantages to female politicians based on the current behavioural standards. Indeed, there seems to be a focus on the fact that behavioural standards exist and not much analysis from my opponent on how this actually effects female politicians.
I will now turn the debate over to my opponent for closing arguments.
reply posted on 24-11-2010 @ 01:06 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by MemoryShock
There has been a lot of negativity in this debate from my opponent as he critiques my critique of his overly verbose soliloquies, reliance on outdated and faulty research, out of context presentations of it and the drudgery of his repetitious opinions absent any statistics to back them up.
Trying to substitute style for substance, the truth remains no matter how artfully he attempts to present an argument does not make it a sound argument.
His presentation is one that is typically employed by positivists who see gender only in an empirical way. The reliance on observable categories in this fashion based on variables such as voters, male/female heads of state, and political representatives is all about their unwillingness to accept that gender is all about social roles and power differentials.
They refuse to believe that these social roles and power differentials effects perception in how voters see the world and fail to consider that gender is a conceptual and analytical construct of categories.
Part of my opponent’s increasing rancor stems from his own admissions through answers to Socratic questions posed to him that have repetitively exposed that outside of the confines of this debate that social roles and power differentials effect his own personal interactions with members of the opposite sex.
Positivists try to only discuss and analyze the position of men and women in politics, where women are relative to men by pointing out that women comprise a fractional minority and then positing sexist and masculinist explanations for the significant absence of women in the political arena.
The positivist despite this does not even see what they are positing is sexist and masculinist because the positivist’s arguments are typically based on feminist perspectives that focus on gender as the primary category of analysis.
This transformational attempt of being at times dismissive and other times contemptuous of the effect of gender roles is however gender role specific.
Much of my opponent’s malice is attributable to the fact that his over reliance on categorical statistics has not established the trends he promised they would. When examined by utilizing the most current data, women are clearly trending downward, from the dates of his sources written with the feminist perspective as they have actually trended to today.
I have poured over congressional and parliamentary roles to glean the most current information, by tabulating the true numbers, I have gone so far to correspond internationally with Sweden to understand it’s political system of apportionment where women’s roles in the legislative body are not a direct reflection of specific choice by the people but the disconnected parties who actually receive the vote, even while displaying that the party that does not employ a 50/50 rule in that apportionment does not apportion anywhere close to 50/50 when unbound by feminist agenda.
My opponents example of supposed female dominance of the legislative body in Rwanda is in fact rendered mute once one becomes aware of the fact that Rwanda is a Presidential Republic where only the President who happens to be male, can enact laws and formulate policy. For instance Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was a Presidential Republic.
My opponent’s attempt to use categorical analysis to establish positivist’s trends has by extension of these more contemporary and current studies been rendered untenable.
Since the late 1990's women in parlimentary legislative bodies world wide have declined from 15% to 12%.
He has tried to focus on style over substance to overcome the positivist reliance on categorical analysis that often belies the substance of their presentations, I have encouraged him down that path as to display two vital things, (1) his reluctance and inability to deal with the non-measurable factors stated in my opening, largely non-measurable because of how forced feminist political correctness promoted by positivists sullies the atmosphere where honest answers regarding gender bias could be extracted absent stigmas. (2) Artful and overly verbose presentation is not masterful when enmity and negativist emotion seep increasingly from its seams as evidenced by him repetitively pointing out those alleged occurrences where theoretically points might be scored on technical procedure as opposed to substance and veracity of information.
His strategy can not in fact acknowledge that Sarah Palin first felt the pressure of feminine standards to be fashionable and presentable and thus sought a new wardrobe at great economic expense in order to meet these socially constructed standards on the national political stage, only to be pilloried for it, nor that had she not presented herself in suitable stylish feminine attire she would have been ridiculed for it.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson famously noted that the dual standard the press uses is a “Double Blind” test where women politicians need to prove themselves as competent but also feminine, tough but also caring.
Men are simply presented by the media in regards to the substance of their political stance.
Hilary Clinton was a victim of the coverage gap in the first month of her Presidential candidacy Obama had 59 headline stories as opposed to Clinton’s 36, even though Clinton had a 10% lead in the polls at the time. Kay Schlozman a political science major at Boston College says “The media clearly comment on different aspects of women as opposed to men.” She contends that the media is harder on women candidates, when Clinton was asked if she felt this way she responded “On balance, I think the answer is yes”.
My opponent has conceded that the network media is dominated by male owned enterprises.
Gender is essentially a system of power and inequality. Gender is a social construction to differentiate from the biological functions of sex, to instead focus on the social and political aspects of behaviors prescribed for a particular sex by individual societies that are taught and learned through socialization. Different cultures have different sets of taught behaviors that are deemed appropriate for the two sexes.
Men are most often taught and then equated with strength, ambition, aggressiveness, rationality and independence, roughness and intelligence.
Women are often taught the opposite of what it means to be male, women should be weak, demure, cooperative, emotional, soft, dependent, dumb, lack ambition and be caring.
Regardless of the specific stereotypes they are set up as a dichotomy: With only two genders, each being what the other is not; they are intended through social construction to be directly opposite and mutually exclusive with no third choice.
Hence as I quoted previously former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion often publicly stating that former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir when in office was “The best man in Israeli Politics”.
Gender is a system of power that divides men and women as masculine and feminine that exclusively places men and masculinity above women and femininity. Gender dichotomy is not a unique example of polar opposites in western thought, where most everything is broken down to two mutually exclusive choices of non-relational categories.
One could argue that while Clinton went on to receive political appointment that it could have had much more to do with her husband’s formidable political machine which is an integral part of overall Democratic Strategy as a concession and ode to his own power and relevance as opposed to his wife’s who was rejected by the voters.
Palin on that same national stage for the highest office(s) received no such appointment even though the Democratic President did appoint several Republicans into Cabinet level positions.
One could argue that Clinton had been absorbed into an alliance, based on her husband’s clout, and the President had no such respect of Palin, neither viewing her as a potential threat to Party or his incumbency and was disinclined to absorb her into his administration.
Palin’s worth as a fund raiser has not been backed up by any statistic, but is simply an opinion held by my opponent.
This is true for his opinion that technology is transforming gender distinction when all it is doing is broadcasting gender distinction.
Meanwhile my opponent has studiously ignored the religious underpinnings of the matriarchal society, and masculine thinking itself that is clearly manifest in its current and exclusive dominance of the political world.
Nor does he acknowledge the socioeconomic conditions and traditional feminine roles that could further reverse the trend.
Classic example being World War II when so many American men were called to fight, women were forced into the work place doing traditional male jobs, and told that they did have the strength and wherewithal and responsibility to perform them, only at War's end to be replaced by the returning men, being told that they lacked the strength and ability to function in them as good as men, and their true responsibility was in the home and with the family.
Clearly gender bias based on dual behavioral standards and social constructs does disadvantage the female based on examples like the above and the fact that world wide women only hold 12% of parliamentary seats, and often by appointment or allocation and not direct election, and that six nations still prevent women from voting or holding office at all.
It is generally accepted by both men and women that gender bias disadvantages women in politics.
Positivists’ arguments that are deliberately selective and disingenuous in their nature, as my opponent has so amply displayed, do in fact thwart further progress for women, by deliberately ignoring the real impediments barring it.
My opponent has failed to establish his arguments.
There has been a lot of negativity in this debate from my opponent as he critiques my critique of his overly verbose soliloquies, reliance on outdated and faulty research, out of context presentations of it and the drudgery of his repetitious opinions absent any statistics to back them up.
Trying to substitute style for substance, the truth remains no matter how artfully he attempts to present an argument does not make it a sound argument.
His presentation is one that is typically employed by positivists who see gender only in an empirical way. The reliance on observable categories in this fashion based on variables such as voters, male/female heads of state, and political representatives is all about their unwillingness to accept that gender is all about social roles and power differentials.
They refuse to believe that these social roles and power differentials effects perception in how voters see the world and fail to consider that gender is a conceptual and analytical construct of categories.
Part of my opponent’s increasing rancor stems from his own admissions through answers to Socratic questions posed to him that have repetitively exposed that outside of the confines of this debate that social roles and power differentials effect his own personal interactions with members of the opposite sex.
Positivists try to only discuss and analyze the position of men and women in politics, where women are relative to men by pointing out that women comprise a fractional minority and then positing sexist and masculinist explanations for the significant absence of women in the political arena.
The positivist despite this does not even see what they are positing is sexist and masculinist because the positivist’s arguments are typically based on feminist perspectives that focus on gender as the primary category of analysis.
This transformational attempt of being at times dismissive and other times contemptuous of the effect of gender roles is however gender role specific.
Much of my opponent’s malice is attributable to the fact that his over reliance on categorical statistics has not established the trends he promised they would. When examined by utilizing the most current data, women are clearly trending downward, from the dates of his sources written with the feminist perspective as they have actually trended to today.
I have poured over congressional and parliamentary roles to glean the most current information, by tabulating the true numbers, I have gone so far to correspond internationally with Sweden to understand it’s political system of apportionment where women’s roles in the legislative body are not a direct reflection of specific choice by the people but the disconnected parties who actually receive the vote, even while displaying that the party that does not employ a 50/50 rule in that apportionment does not apportion anywhere close to 50/50 when unbound by feminist agenda.
My opponents example of supposed female dominance of the legislative body in Rwanda is in fact rendered mute once one becomes aware of the fact that Rwanda is a Presidential Republic where only the President who happens to be male, can enact laws and formulate policy. For instance Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was a Presidential Republic.
My opponent’s attempt to use categorical analysis to establish positivist’s trends has by extension of these more contemporary and current studies been rendered untenable.
Since the late 1990's women in parlimentary legislative bodies world wide have declined from 15% to 12%.
He has tried to focus on style over substance to overcome the positivist reliance on categorical analysis that often belies the substance of their presentations, I have encouraged him down that path as to display two vital things, (1) his reluctance and inability to deal with the non-measurable factors stated in my opening, largely non-measurable because of how forced feminist political correctness promoted by positivists sullies the atmosphere where honest answers regarding gender bias could be extracted absent stigmas. (2) Artful and overly verbose presentation is not masterful when enmity and negativist emotion seep increasingly from its seams as evidenced by him repetitively pointing out those alleged occurrences where theoretically points might be scored on technical procedure as opposed to substance and veracity of information.
His strategy can not in fact acknowledge that Sarah Palin first felt the pressure of feminine standards to be fashionable and presentable and thus sought a new wardrobe at great economic expense in order to meet these socially constructed standards on the national political stage, only to be pilloried for it, nor that had she not presented herself in suitable stylish feminine attire she would have been ridiculed for it.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson famously noted that the dual standard the press uses is a “Double Blind” test where women politicians need to prove themselves as competent but also feminine, tough but also caring.
Men are simply presented by the media in regards to the substance of their political stance.
Hilary Clinton was a victim of the coverage gap in the first month of her Presidential candidacy Obama had 59 headline stories as opposed to Clinton’s 36, even though Clinton had a 10% lead in the polls at the time. Kay Schlozman a political science major at Boston College says “The media clearly comment on different aspects of women as opposed to men.” She contends that the media is harder on women candidates, when Clinton was asked if she felt this way she responded “On balance, I think the answer is yes”.
My opponent has conceded that the network media is dominated by male owned enterprises.
Gender is essentially a system of power and inequality. Gender is a social construction to differentiate from the biological functions of sex, to instead focus on the social and political aspects of behaviors prescribed for a particular sex by individual societies that are taught and learned through socialization. Different cultures have different sets of taught behaviors that are deemed appropriate for the two sexes.
Men are most often taught and then equated with strength, ambition, aggressiveness, rationality and independence, roughness and intelligence.
Women are often taught the opposite of what it means to be male, women should be weak, demure, cooperative, emotional, soft, dependent, dumb, lack ambition and be caring.
Regardless of the specific stereotypes they are set up as a dichotomy: With only two genders, each being what the other is not; they are intended through social construction to be directly opposite and mutually exclusive with no third choice.
Hence as I quoted previously former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion often publicly stating that former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir when in office was “The best man in Israeli Politics”.
Gender is a system of power that divides men and women as masculine and feminine that exclusively places men and masculinity above women and femininity. Gender dichotomy is not a unique example of polar opposites in western thought, where most everything is broken down to two mutually exclusive choices of non-relational categories.
One could argue that while Clinton went on to receive political appointment that it could have had much more to do with her husband’s formidable political machine which is an integral part of overall Democratic Strategy as a concession and ode to his own power and relevance as opposed to his wife’s who was rejected by the voters.
Palin on that same national stage for the highest office(s) received no such appointment even though the Democratic President did appoint several Republicans into Cabinet level positions.
One could argue that Clinton had been absorbed into an alliance, based on her husband’s clout, and the President had no such respect of Palin, neither viewing her as a potential threat to Party or his incumbency and was disinclined to absorb her into his administration.
Palin’s worth as a fund raiser has not been backed up by any statistic, but is simply an opinion held by my opponent.
This is true for his opinion that technology is transforming gender distinction when all it is doing is broadcasting gender distinction.
Meanwhile my opponent has studiously ignored the religious underpinnings of the matriarchal society, and masculine thinking itself that is clearly manifest in its current and exclusive dominance of the political world.
Nor does he acknowledge the socioeconomic conditions and traditional feminine roles that could further reverse the trend.
Classic example being World War II when so many American men were called to fight, women were forced into the work place doing traditional male jobs, and told that they did have the strength and wherewithal and responsibility to perform them, only at War's end to be replaced by the returning men, being told that they lacked the strength and ability to function in them as good as men, and their true responsibility was in the home and with the family.
Clearly gender bias based on dual behavioral standards and social constructs does disadvantage the female based on examples like the above and the fact that world wide women only hold 12% of parliamentary seats, and often by appointment or allocation and not direct election, and that six nations still prevent women from voting or holding office at all.
It is generally accepted by both men and women that gender bias disadvantages women in politics.
Positivists’ arguments that are deliberately selective and disingenuous in their nature, as my opponent has so amply displayed, do in fact thwart further progress for women, by deliberately ignoring the real impediments barring it.
My opponent has failed to establish his arguments.
reply posted on 25-11-2010 @ 12:10 PM by MemoryShock
My opponent has consistently attempted to take the stance that societal gender roles are an implicit proof that female politicians are at a
disadvantage. Consistently, my opponent has used generalized rhetoric to support his position and consistently, my opponent has presented ill thought
out questions while choosing to mostly ignore my answers as well as statistics citing them as wrong, misleading, outdated and whatever other form of
cursory dismissal.
My opponent has dismissed the Sweden and Rwanda examples by stating that these governments are not a true representation of the voter.
My opponent seems to not have a grasp of the debate topic which stipulates female politicians and not voter behaviour.
My opponent also has neglected the broad range of interpretation inherent in the debate topic.
Disadvantage is perception. Female politicians enjoy a greater advantage as opposed to females in the general workforce. Female politicians have enjoyed much influence and success in politics relative to the history of their genders capacity to participate in societal leadership positions.
And it is indeed true that in some cases, the dual behavioural standards have provided a benefit to female politicians. To revisit a link in my opening argument -
The dual standards have resulted in a recognition of the discrepancy of gender representation which have lead to proactive measures to change such a distinction. The benefit and advantage to female politicians is undeniable.
I must wonder why my opponent had opted to not make comment on such, choosing instead to focus his attention to one election year rather than to broaden his perspective to note the progress made by women in the political realm (indeed all throughout society) over the past century. When compared to my opponent's attention to history, the changes and benefits to women are undeniable and show a clear spike in female participation.
My opponent uses generalized statements regarding gender roles and societies impressions of how a female is raised and taught as opposed to a male. He however neglects the idea that our political systems are a different social arena than the general populace experiences and that this particular social arena is usually kept to higher standards of conduct.
Perhaps due to the Thanksgiving Holiday I am keeping this closing argument brief but I certainly am of the opinion that, while my opponent has succeeded greatly in discussing in general that there is a difference in how each gender behaves, that there is no relevant support for his position that these behavioural standards necessitate an inherent disadvantage for female politicians.
Indeed, international examples as well as the very recent integration of females into the top aspects of American Office, either the pursuit of and/or the occupation of demonstrates very clearly that there are many advantages for the female politician in today's political spectrum.
I again thank The Vagabond, The Reader and of course, my opponent, ProtoplasmicTraveler.
My opponent has dismissed the Sweden and Rwanda examples by stating that these governments are not a true representation of the voter.
My opponent seems to not have a grasp of the debate topic which stipulates female politicians and not voter behaviour.
My opponent also has neglected the broad range of interpretation inherent in the debate topic.
Disadvantage is perception. Female politicians enjoy a greater advantage as opposed to females in the general workforce. Female politicians have enjoyed much influence and success in politics relative to the history of their genders capacity to participate in societal leadership positions.
And it is indeed true that in some cases, the dual behavioural standards have provided a benefit to female politicians. To revisit a link in my opening argument -
The event, organized by the United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (UN-INSTRAW), analyzed the achievements and the challenges in increasing women’s political participation in local and municipal governments in the light of the results of the project “Strengthening Governance with a Gender Perspective and the Political Participation of Women at the Local Level in Latin America,” implemented by the Institute and financed by the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation to Development (AECID). [2]
The dual standards have resulted in a recognition of the discrepancy of gender representation which have lead to proactive measures to change such a distinction. The benefit and advantage to female politicians is undeniable.
I must wonder why my opponent had opted to not make comment on such, choosing instead to focus his attention to one election year rather than to broaden his perspective to note the progress made by women in the political realm (indeed all throughout society) over the past century. When compared to my opponent's attention to history, the changes and benefits to women are undeniable and show a clear spike in female participation.
My opponent uses generalized statements regarding gender roles and societies impressions of how a female is raised and taught as opposed to a male. He however neglects the idea that our political systems are a different social arena than the general populace experiences and that this particular social arena is usually kept to higher standards of conduct.
Perhaps due to the Thanksgiving Holiday I am keeping this closing argument brief but I certainly am of the opinion that, while my opponent has succeeded greatly in discussing in general that there is a difference in how each gender behaves, that there is no relevant support for his position that these behavioural standards necessitate an inherent disadvantage for female politicians.
Indeed, international examples as well as the very recent integration of females into the top aspects of American Office, either the pursuit of and/or the occupation of demonstrates very clearly that there are many advantages for the female politician in today's political spectrum.
I again thank The Vagabond, The Reader and of course, my opponent, ProtoplasmicTraveler.
reply posted on 7-12-2010 @ 02:18 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by MemoryShock
Whatever works my friend, you did a great job at sticking to your strategy start to finish, and I commend you for that superb effort.
I feel privelaged to have gotten a chance to debate on what I feel is truly an important topic, and to as always show the women of the world, if you can count on any man letting you down in the clutch it's me proto!
I am excited to see you advancing forward to the next round, and I hope you do equally well there if not better.
Really special thanks to Vagabond who has taken on the sometimes thankless responsibility in managing these awsome debates.
I would insist they pay you double, except I know you aren't getting paid at all, except for the satisfaction of your own fine efforts to volunteer and make these debates possible. I salute you for that, and thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Whatever works my friend, you did a great job at sticking to your strategy start to finish, and I commend you for that superb effort.
I feel privelaged to have gotten a chance to debate on what I feel is truly an important topic, and to as always show the women of the world, if you can count on any man letting you down in the clutch it's me proto!
I am excited to see you advancing forward to the next round, and I hope you do equally well there if not better.
Really special thanks to Vagabond who has taken on the sometimes thankless responsibility in managing these awsome debates.
I would insist they pay you double, except I know you aren't getting paid at all, except for the satisfaction of your own fine efforts to volunteer and make these debates possible. I salute you for that, and thank you from the bottom of my heart.
reply posted on 8-12-2010 @ 12:42 AM by The Vagabond
reply to post by The Vagabond
Protoplasmic Traveler deserves a lot more positive word than he got in the official judgments. One fine moment in particular was in his second post, when he turned MemoryShock's 4th Socratic Question against him.
Protoplasmic Traveler deserves a lot more positive word than he got in the official judgments. One fine moment in particular was in his second post, when he turned MemoryShock's 4th Socratic Question against him.
Pages: ^^TOP^^
