I do telephone polling for my local Conservative candidate. I have spoken to lots of men and women who support choices across the spectrum including "none of the above". I have yet to hear a man describe Harper as "scary". There are men who disagree with his policies on the economy, on the environment, on crime, and on immigration. Some call him names. But they don't call him "scary".

On the other hand, virtually every woman who isn't going to vote Tory tells me she thinks Harper is scary. My response is always "That's interesting. Why do you feel that way?". They *NEVER* have a reason. Most of them can't name a single policy that they disagree with (most can't name any policy at all), but he's still "scary". To me, it's the logical result of the Left's "Big Lie" campaign - if you tell people that Harper has a "secret agenda", and that he's cruel and controlling, they'll eventually swallow it.

Excellent essay, EBD. On the matter of your "what accounts for such significant differences" question, I'd have to say that I think that it is entirely the result of the 125 genes (57,740,000 bases), on the Y chromosome, that are not present in slightly over half of the members of our species. I mean, sure, that's a gross over- simplification of the significant political issues at hand, yet, still, I think that any theory that does not account for that reality is necessarily incorrect. It's like the World Trade Center collapse: any theory that does not account for the heat- deformed failed cross-tie tangs that were found in the rubble is necessarily incorrect.

Kevin, I was in my car most of the day, and in the afternoon I caught the tail end of Christie Clark filling in for Adler, when she had an extended phone-in section in which people said quickly who they were going to vote for, and for what reason.

She was clearly surprised by the near-unanimous onslaught of people who said they'd be voting for Harper. It was all kinds of different people. There were a couple for the NDP, but that was it, not one person said they'd be voting Liberal (that I heard). The two female callers who said they'd be voting NDP both referred to being "scared" by his hidden agenda, and suggested that other people should be scared too. In other words, what scared them was something they *didn't* actually know, and had no evidence of, but they'd obviously heard, through the media, that this scary stuff to come was as good as a done deal.

What can you say? Marketing works, and the CBC and other outlets have been selling the idea that there's somethin' in the woodshed -- guess they're pparently they're too scared to say exactly what it is. I'm sure they know, of course, they just don't want to scare people. *cough cough*

I wonder if maybe women, as a demographic, aren't a little bit more gullible to this fear-mongering, tied in as it is to various coming-soon dangers to women's rights, etc.

Vitruvius, genes probably have something to do with it.

But then again, you're the guy who suggested a one-vote-per-testicle system.

Or was that me...?

∫˜÷§>¢

Kevin, I hear where you're coming from. I remember back during the Reform Party days, discussing politics with my best friend, a man who would stand as my Best Man at my wedding (just to give you a clear idea how good a friend this person is -- and still is).

During our discussion, he said he wouldn't be voting for Reform. I queried, "Why?" He answered, "Preston Manning is too extreme."

When I actually pressed the point, literally reading off Reform policy objectives from their web site, he didn't disagree with a single one. But, he'd bought into the Big Lie of the Liberals and MSM. A shame how people don't put enough mental muscle into their political thought -- literally wasting their vote. This discussion took place probably 10-12 years ago, yet I recall it to this day -- my disappointment that such a good friend of mine, who I hold in high esteem, could think in such shallow political terms.

Good news is, he's a full fledged conservative supporter today. :)

good job, CJ. You won him over! just another 15 million voters to go. Keep up the good work!

Go Harper!

That was you, EBD, I suggested the one vote per $1,000 of taxes paid in the jurisdiction since the last election system. But seriously, if I may switch from the microscopic to the macroscopic scale, the most significant result from the introduction of the above- mentioned 125 genes is singular. While both males and females can upon principle do the same things, for example each can contribute one haploid (an egg in the case of females, a sperm from males) to the necessarily preconditions for a diploid, it remains the case that there is a single macroscopic thing that females have that males don't: wombs.

That's why when barbarians fight, the opponents try to kill or in-fecundate as many of their enemy's females as possible. If you wipe out 90% of your enemy's males, the remaining 10% can easily contribute all the sperm needed to match all the available eggs; sperm are like yeast. But if you wipe out 90% of the ovens then you can't bake bread.

Thus it seems natural to me, never mind the problems that evolution can't explain, that evolution can explain that by natural selection the concomitant variances that accompany the possession of the oven would tend to result in females that are more interested in baking, even while the males are more interested in, say, butchering.

It's the old emotional v. physical dichotomy again. For example, it's not necessarily the case that females and males are relatively more or less aggressive, it's just that females tend to be more emotionally aggressive, males more physically aggressive.

And that, I think, leads back to your question. There is, in my opinion, a significant degree to which females, even the radical feminists, even if it is subconscious and stridently denied, judge their axiological position in terms of the bread, or to return from the metaphor, the children, while males, on the other hand, have an axiology that tends to be both somewhat disconnected from, and somewhat counter- balancing to, that position. All for the good of the species, don'cha know.

Something tells me Harper wasn't a huge ladies man in his days as a bachelor. Harper lacks a certain charm which leaves him somewhat vulnerable to scare tactics.

When I said "a single macroscopic thing", I meant to
say "a singular macroscopic thing". Sorry 'bout that.

EBD, I'm all in favour of a one-vote-per-testicle system, as long as the virtual balls of those women who are willing to actually advert their attention to, become informed about, and make intelligent decisions concerning political matters get to count.

Those women whose biological and social influences cause them to buy into and propagate, over play dates, Tupperware exchanges and business lunches alike, such simplistic thought-poison as Harper = scary, and those who believe that Harper's intelligence makes him dangerous in some way - an astonishing and utterly nonsensical assertion that I have heard from two women whose wisdom and counsel I would seek out and value in every other domain of discourse - ain't got none.

I think the answer to this question is found by looking at the common characteristics at the margins between opposite genders. The area of overlap between attitudes among tomboy girls/average men and metrosexual males/average women. What characteristics are common to women and metrosexual men? What common characteristics are shared by tomboys and men?

When looking at voting patterns, I suspect that there is a higher correlation between the attitudes among those with these common characteristics than gender alone. For instance many Toronto men vote progressive and rural women vote conservative. But a progressive man contacted by pollsters is unlikely to admit to "scary" as the primary reason for not voting coservative.

As for the power of feminists, I am at a lost on that one. Most women I know support the traditional aims of voting, equality and marital partnership but few identify with the modern feminist agenda. Ironically, feminists are as rigid in their beliefs about a woman's place and abusive towards free thinking women as the men they accuse of being misogynists. I think that this radical feminism will literally die off and be replaced by a more moderate version.

There's probably a higher percentage of women who actually believe TV ads for cosmetics et al and TV 'personalities' promises of awesomeness if only they buy, or buy-in to the product.

As opposed to men, who know deep down that drinking Bud or buying that hot car won't *really* make them popular with females. They just like to entertain the concept as it feeds their egos.

Perhaps a larger percentage of women are more emotion-based and are thus more likely to be manipulated. Have I offended women with this theory?

Excellent argument, Lynnh. The differences are certainly at the margins, after all, at a minimum, the vast majority of our genetic material is shared, independent of individual. The differences are remarkably small. Still, the genetic differences between the XX-chromosomed and the XY-chromosomed are, on average, greater than the genetic differences between the same-chromosomed of the so-called "races".

Still, it remains the case that it happens at the margins, as you said, and there the effects of trends and fashions and marketing can corrupt the natural balance and produce cross-over situations like those you have described. Perhaps the best we can do is to discuss the archetypes, as a proxy for the individuals, though that does leave open the question of why some individuals are more susceptible to such situations, and others less so.

Yet I think we're straying from EBD's central topic, namely (at least in part) that the data says that females uniformly support (and traditionally have supported) the right side of the political isle less than they do the left side, while males do the opposite. I don't think that's a margin issue.

Vitruvius;

I'm with you at least somewhat. For most of human existence, females were dependant on males for food. Being physically limited by pregnancy will do that to you. I can't imagine any female 10 thousand years ago who wouldn't have thought that sharing was a great idea when the men came home with the catch.

I would think that men would be less giving. Anyone who tried to take some of the bounty, outside of the other males who participated in the catch, or their mates and off spring, would likely have gotten a spear stuck in them for their trouble.

Does a 100 thousand years of thinking that way seep in the genes? I'd be surprised if it didn't.

Let's keep in mind, Bob, that even if it is true that females were and/or are dependent on males to bring home, in some sense, the bacon, it remains that case that males are dependent on the females to bring home the, how shall I put this: males. As Mark Twain said, "What would men be without women? Scarce, sir, mighty scarce". Or perhaps, if you prefer, here are James Brown and Luciano Pavarotti singing It's a Man's World, which contains the notable line, "What would a man be, without a woman or a girl at his side?"

I don't see a fundamental problem between males and females tending to cluster slightly on either side of the isle, maybe that's just a natural balance. What I find more interesting, and this is something that Exetaz has mentioned in other threads, is the degree to which the various special-interest shysters and fraud-artists participate in unethical marketing manipulations of the populace in order to create unnatural disagreements to benefit from in terms of power, or financially, instead of working toward amalgamating the (in some cases disparate) natural skills of the genders toward a shared (modulo the differences) central pragmatic norm.

I see what you are saying Vit but voting tends to be as highly determined on where you live as gender. The larger the city, the more likely it is to be progressive.

Regarding food- if you look at hunter/gatherer societies, women provided at least an equal share of the food supply. The teeth of our ancestors indicate a diet heavily dependent on grains. Even today in Asia, Africa and S.America women are the primary growers and harvesters. Men and women were likely equal partners in providing food.

Protection, on the other hand, has always been the domain of men. But today the government has largely become the protectors of both children, women and men. That may be Dion's problem. The collapse of the Liberal's women voters may be because of his lack of traditional masculine traits.

Fascinating conjecture about the situation the Liberal party currently faces, Lynnh, I think you may be correct. Also, I think the differences between the hyper-urban and the normal polulation are fairly clear. We know what happens when we put too many rats in too small a maze. And on the matter of my free-wheeling bloviating in my comments herein, please don't take me too literally, I come here to think, not to argue.

Well it's about time for me to cash in my chips tonight, folks, thanks to EBD and Kate for the impetus to think about this again; but before I go I'd like to leave you with these thoughts: four out of five folks who can be legitimately labeled aspergian are males. Four out of five engineers are males. Four out of five engineers are aspergian.

Note that the union minus the intersection of the these subsets is not the empty set, nor is it the case that a team of engineers does not benefit from the presence of a strong female (quite the opposite, in my experience) yet it remains the case that this striking anomaly in the normative dichotomy between the genders is due to, we now know, about a dozen genetic anomalies. Some of the results are generally beneficial, other more incapacitating forms less so.

My closing point then is this: if a dozen genetic anomalies can produce that kind of variance between the relative portions of the participation of the genders in those various ventures, to what degree must not the variation of a whole half of one of our twenty-three chromosomes produce a significant natural variation in matters of ventures genderous?

Such a big issue, so little time. But I'll try: trying to convince a woman to vote Conservative might be fairly compared to walking into a Hell's Angels clubhouse, explaining to them that extortion, murder, car theft rings, and dealing coke are somewhat bad things, and expecting them to close up shop and become law abiding citizens. It's not that they don't know that voting Liberal is wrong, it's that they don't care, and indeed profit immensely from it.

A third of women last election claimed to be undecided 48 hours prior to the election. When a female caller calls my local AM talk radio show and starts with "I'm nonpartisan, but..." the host cuts her off, he's heard it 10,000 times. Both are evidence that women aren't exactly proud to be Liberals and know what they are doing is wrong.

Anecdotally, where are these 20% of women who actually do vote Conservative? I've never met one. The last one I dated was typical: complained that our conservative mayor wanted to raise property taxes $50. Fine, except that his opponents want to raise them $200.

In the broader scope, women are not unique in practicing identity politics. Similar ethnic and sexual orientation cleavages exist.

If you surveyed the sampling of the 55,000 female members of REAL Women that were at the Ottawa conference this w/e( Barbara Kay was a speaker) you would find heavy Harper support, and respect for Palin. Harper does not scare the women who are tuned into the important issues in Canada.
The fem-lib agenda has done it's job of indoctrination, and as someone has mentioned there is likelihood of so-called 'progressive' women more concentrated in cities, especially with universities. I say so-called progressive because I fear the breakdown of traditional family is actually regressive. Our country is doomed if we continue the slippery slope.The Libs and NDP have appeal to these women.Let's say Dion does not threaten the feminists...no explanation required. He's one of them...in several ways.

No offence taken Piper Paul. On the contrary, I accept the differences between men and women as a good thing. Fem theory of being threatened by the differences, and 'empowering women' at the expense of mutual respect is the downfall of the 'movement'.
BTW there were men at the REAL Women coference too.The atmosphere is conducive to mutual respect.

And hey...I think PMSH is good looking! He looks especially good in the family pix!

I agree with Lynnh's points and would add a few.

It is so ironic that feminist activism has succeeded in this country merely by replacing one form of "patriarchy" ("oppressive, abusive, selfish") with another - a "benevolent, caring, sharing" government-funded one. The changes the feminists have wrought, however, are far-reaching, having been institutionalized and normalized through the implementation of one government program and policy after another that supports their worldview. The practical effect of these policies and programs - from more women having to work outside the home (no "choice" here) to social and fiscal policies that have all but made men superfluous - has been that many women have merely accepted the status quo, and are too damn busy keeping all the balls in the air to even have time to question it.

Most of my female friends are both social and fiscal conservatives, the latter derived from the former in that an emphasis on family as the basic unit of society concurs with the principle of subsidiarity. So I would add secularization as one of the factors coming into play here - with faith in God and family having been replaced with faith in government. And if a higher percentage of women than men vote based on "what's best for me and my kids" that would account for a lot of the discrepancy EBD noted.

As for what accounts for the difference in interests - among my female friends, both liberal and conservative, I'm rather alone in my interest in politics and political philosophy - I don't know. Maybe the fact that as a kid I could climb the highest tree in the neighborhood faster than any boy has something to do with it...;0)

Of course men prefer more lax abortion laws! What better way to get yourself "off the hook" for being responsible to the woman you get pregnant and the child you father than to pretend you support a "woman's right to choose"?

Men suffer no consequences from abortion. Their child, however, ends up dead and the woman might walk away unscathed. She could, on the other hand, be rendered infertile, face infection, severe pain, and possibly die.

Misogynists support abortion. Those who *truly* respect women support life.

This is related:
"Libs not drawing women voters"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080924.wElectionpoll25/BNStory/Front

Something tells me Harper wasn't a huge ladies man in his days as a bachelor. James

On the other hand I'm certain that Bill Clinton was a huge ladies man in his days as bachelor.

Can you see a difference?

lynnh: "As for the power of feminists, I am at a [loss] on that one."

Not so hard to explain. For the past almost 40 years, under Librano governments and watered and fertilized by the MSM and university "Women's Programs," aka Feminist Programs, the radical feminist agenda has been propped up and funded, even though, in reality, it has very little life of its own: Real life and growing up, forming a family and having to care for children and pay the bills soon put the lie to much of the radical feminist agenda.

As so many Canadians seem prone to brain-washing, the radical feminists and their allies in government, the educational system, and the media have done a real number on them.

James: "Something tells me Harper wasn't a huge [lady's] man in his days as a bachelor."

So what--that has relevance for Stephen Harper's abilities as Prime Minister? (At least he's focused on his governmental duties and not on what/who's under his desk...)

I rather suspect that the reason he's considered "scary" is that because he doesn't project a macho personality and isn't reactionary when he's accused by the MSM of being unattractive to women, his political opponents (anyone left of centre, especially radical feminists) and his detractors in the media are able to put an overlay on his personality. It suits them to demonize him and too many people just don't/won't see past the malicious charade.

I actually find Stephen Harper very attractive.

Why? Because he's authentic. He is his own person. He doesn't try to be someone he isn't. He's smart. He's focused. He's a good leader. He's a faithful family man. He's not playing a game. He's not into mind games and end games. He doesn't play to the gallery.

I might not want to go out with him (well, that's a moot point--he's married and I'm a lot older than he is), but I sure as heck want him to head Canada's government. As a political leader, I find Stephen Harper by far the most attractive man on the ballot. And not scary at all.

In fact, the really scary ones are Dee-Yawn or Botox Brain Laydown as PM. Please wake me up from THAT nightmare.

Teh problim is, womens is stoopid. M'kay?

Posted by EBD -- "This Gallup poll, for example, taken in 2005, found that in the US, Canada, and Britain more women than men favour stricter abortion laws."

This poll, discussed by " Dr. Winseman [who] leads Gallup's research and consulting services that assist faith communities in helping their members become more engaged" says that 72% of Canadians either want our laws to remain unchanged or want LESS strict laws [not sure what that would be].
As for women: Dr Winsemean says "About equal percentages of men and women in all three countries would like to see their country's abortion laws made less strict. [...] among Canadians the percentages are 20% of men vs. 21% of women.", whereas MORE strict has 24% & 25% respectively.

No difference, if you understand polls.
In other words, you lose your credibility to anyone who actually checks the link you provide [which link says it all, really -- http://www.gallup.com/poll/16663/Most-Canadians-Britons-Satisfied-Abortion-Laws.aspx ]

Is EBD Vitruvius?

Please permit me, if this has been stated above (I didn't read through every post) or becomes rambling and quasi-incoherent (thinking while I write):

Why do women tend towards Liberalism? Because at heart they are conservative in nature. Sound odd? Not really. Women do have some differences in men due to biologically driven outlooks -- they are programmed to behave in a way that provides for a monthly period which depletes their systems to some extent (the only organism which does this), a long pregnancy, a dangerous and daunting childbirth, and a long period of tending to very dependant young. These are the biological facts of life for women, and it creates a very emotionally conservative nature -- women worry about the future and try to provide against it; they have not, for the majority of human history, had the luxury of risk taking; they will respond (often in very emotional ways) against threats to the status quo or what they deem as their well being -- it ties into their children's well being, maternal instinct, gotta protect the bun in the oven and the little chicks just hatched -- and without momma...

Now, how has this intensely emotionally conservative nature become the property of the progressive left? Simple as that term "scary". During the course of the culture wars, the liberals have managed to convince women that the "change" to be adopted was good change, a change towards the protection of women (and children) against the risk-taking, dangerous attitudes of (you guessed it) men (especially conservative men) who would endanger hearth and kinder on some warlike will to power endeavor. That the "scary" conservatives would also use a woman's natural impluses to "enslave" them into a lower economic status, and would "force" them to bear more children than they (the women) felt they could safely provide for or children that would need extra provisions was a given (this is the real method of selling abortion to women; it has always been about frightening women into thinking they might not be able to support said baby rather than appealing to convenience, although that ploy works on some, granted).

In short, they used scare tactics aimed directly at women's very conservative inner natures.

Does this make sense?

Please permit me, if this has been stated above (I didn't read through every post) or becomes rambling and quasi-incoherent (thinking while I write):

Why do women tend towards Liberalism? Because at heart they are conservative in nature. Sound odd? Not really. Women do have some differences in men due to biologically driven outlooks -- they are programmed to behave in a way that provides for a monthly period which depletes their systems to some extent (the only organism which does this), a long pregnancy, a dangerous and daunting childbirth, and a long period of tending to very dependant young. These are the biological facts of life for women, and it creates a very emotionally conservative nature -- women worry about the future and try to provide against it; they have not, for the majority of human history, had the luxury of risk taking; they will respond (often in very emotional ways) against threats to the status quo or what they deem as their well being -- it ties into their children's well being, maternal instinct, gotta protect the bun in the oven and the little chicks just hatched -- and without momma...

Now, how has this intensely emotionally conservative nature become the property of the progressive left? Simple as that term "scary". During the course of the culture wars, the liberals have managed to convince women that the "change" to be adopted was good change, a change towards the protection of women (and children) against the risk-taking, dangerous attitudes of (you guessed it) men (especially conservative men) who would endanger hearth and kinder on some warlike will to power endeavor. That the "scary" conservatives would also use a woman's natural impluses to "enslave" them into a lower economic status, and would "force" them to bear more children than they (the women) felt they could safely provide for or children that would need extra provisions was a given (this is the real method of selling abortion to women; it has always been about frightening women into thinking they might not be able to support said baby rather than appealing to convenience, although that ploy works on some, granted).

In short, they used scare tactics aimed directly at women's very conservative inner natures.

Does this make sense?

Posted by: unknown jane -- "Does this make sense?"

Nope.
Have you been listening to Bible Spice?

Palin On Foreign Policy
Katie: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience ... why [does] that enhance your foreign policy credentials?
Sarah: Well, it certainly does, because our next door neighbours are foreign countries, they are in the state that I am the executive of

It gets worse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg

yeah, dizzy, the proximity of Alaska to Russia is a dumb answer, for sure.

But the interview was a setup too, eh?

She needs to be tougher and say to Katie Couric, et al, "Katie, just so I can better perspective on your question, just what do you mean by foreign policy experience ... what is Obama's foreign policy experience, Governor William Jefferson Clinton's foreign policy experience, LBJ's, JFK#1, and JFK#2 (excluding of course collusion with the nation's enemies" ....

... and like that.

"She needs to be tougher and say to Katie [..] just what do you mean by foreign policy experience"

That's one step above "So's your mother" in the tough leagues of repartee. If you listen to the short excerpt, Katie went on to ask about any negotiations she might have taken part in.

Palin's a bust, and even her most vehement supporters are starting to clue in to that --
"It probably won't come as any surprise that one of the reasons that former prisoner of war John McCain decided to enlist Bible Spice from the Great White North as his running mate was because she had already been given the sign of the cross and a big ol' wink from Dobsonite wing of the party. Her evangelical background, as well as her hardline stance on abortion, combined with her skepticism regarding evolution, scientific inquiry, gravity, and the existence of verbs made her mighty desirable to the Jesus folk.... in a purely spiritual way. And without the vote of the evangelicals the McCain campaign was just going to be so much whacking off with no happy ending to come on November 4th.

But as any fan on 1 Timothy 2:12 could have told them: this will not end well.
And now, the sheep are leaving in droves"
http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/09/25/suffer-the-godbotherers/

Er, what foreign negotiations did Obama take part in? Gore then, Bill Clinton when he first ran, JFK#1 or JFK#2 (excluding of course treasonous collusion with the enemy).

Most recent presidents were governors before running for POTUS. Foreign policy just was not on the menu.

This is a setup, nothing less.

As to experience, well that's been covered ad nauseun: she simply has more executive experience than either of the other 3 candidates. That's a simple fact.

However, as mentioned, I agree that the proximity to Russia was a very dumb answer.

Best to be open and honest and just say, er, "as governor (and mayor before that) foreign policy wasn't on the menu ... and of course, push back on THE BIG ANCHOR and ask for details of foreign policy credentials of MSM's own candidates.

Theory: If her nickname is barracuda perhaps she's being poorly coached ... ... to be nice to these MSM guttersnipe hypocrites, which is what they are.

The different here is only subject of talk and topic for example some one ask you a question and you do answer it well
now in today politic world if you do not know at first I am man or woman you only look at answer if you know I am man you look at differntly and if I woman who run the country you look at her differently

this is only for few month after that as so many big company men and women are working then nobodcy look at gender and nobodly look at having fun with co worker because all is serious meeting talk and less is to personla issue

while some may confuse these two together

if Polin in day one do not talk abut LIPSTICK nobody can consider her as women or femisnss or otehr words

if you focus to answer to topic and in serious talk so many must be said and only men and woman need concentration honest opion and enough knowlefe and research to get the answer

now made it this if you are woman and you do not know the answer and come to your office with revealing cloht for first or secnd time may boss give you ok to go ahead just give me the answer tommorrow but again majority of smart men never buy womenhood as key for put down or put up easy you msut has enough qualification to answer to question and show you can do the job some one offer you again each person has their own charcter to run the leadership andmanagment tactis this is nto too much to gender of them
output of job made who is winner
everybody may have good or bad day sometimes!

again I do not think this is really matter men or women for job but also qualification is key

Hi there, dizzy!

You first quoted my statement "This Gallup poll, for example, taken in 2005, found that in the US, Canada and Britain more women than men favour stricter abortion laws," and then wrote "You lose your credibility to anyone who actually checks the link you provide."

There's no room for interpretation. You are incorrect.

The report says -- in nice clear type, no less -- "In the United States and Great Britain, women are somewhat more likely than men to favour stricter abortion laws, while in Canada, men and women seem to be of the same mind on the issue."

There's even a handy little bar graph showing the percentage responses by gender to this question:

"Would you like to see abortion laws in this country made more strict, less strict, or remain as they are?"

The percentage who say *MORE* strict:

US: Women 41 percent, men 33 percent.
Great Britian: Women 37 percent, men 25 percent.
Canada: Women 25 percent, Men 24 percent.

This was the only stat I referred to. I did so not to open up the abortion issue, but rather entirely in the context of pointing out the fundamental absurdity of the (sub) cultural p.o.v. which treats certain views as being self-evidently "anti-woman" even though more women hold those views than men.

You are certainly entitled to refer to other stats and figures from the same poll in the interest of rounding up some sort of case for whatever point you wish to make, but you are not entitled state that I inaccurately quoted the data.

You lied, dizzy. You implied that I gave incorrect data. You are either willfully dishonest or in error.

You're welcome to clarify which of the two it is.

Unknown Jane, (1:33)

Great comment, very insightful, thanks for that. I'd never thought of it, the idea that women are more conservative than men, and that the promised or implied provisions of big-state government address their concerns in that way, but it's obviously true that, historically-speaking, risk-taking is not as productive for women because it jeopardizes the vulnerable who are in their care.

For most of our evolutionary history men could succeed, in the passing on of genes sense, without having to stay rooted in one spot with accrued resources, whereas for women with offspring -- i.e. every single one of our female ancestors going back millions of years -- such chance-taking with regard to resources was not tenable.

In that sense, the worst-- scariest -- imaginable possibility for women would be that resources would dry up. Since the 60's or so, those resources are increasingly seen as being provided by government, which might explain the evident efficacy of the whole "scary" meme as wielded by big-state-promoting politicians.

Thanks again for your thoughtful comment, I appreciate it.

"You lied, dizzy. You implied that I gave incorrect data."

You do want this to apply to Canada, don't you?
I didn't imply you "gave incorrect data" , I SAID "you lose your credibility" -- by saying "in the US, Canada, and Britain more women than men favour stricter abortion laws"
In Canada the difference [21/20] is not statistically valid, you fail to provide the context that larger percentages [25/24] favor less strict laws, and that most are happy.

Ironically, Canada & abortion is your best case for an issue "not actually divided along gender lines".
The rest of your post was of no interest to me. I may have assumed you are anti-abortion, but since I didn't say so, no apology is in order.

Re:
"Is EBD Vitruvius?

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at September 26, 2008 1:21 PM"

Ha! Ha ha ha! No, he's not. Surely, you jest!

Since we're on the subject of chromosomes, testicles, virtual testicles, yeast, ovens, and voting tendencies, where does that leave the Gay (both men and women) vote, which is likely more left leaning than any female vote? Do they still qualify for the "one-vote-per-testicle" (includes virtual testicles, to be fair to the testicularly challenged)?

Let us turn to Antonia Zerbisias who lately act as social scientist.

Antonia's latest literary productions are very good reading as they go against everything that Marxists have ever come up with.

According to Marxist doctrine position people occupy (amount of money they make) in industrial system determines their moral and political values (this is why communists coined the phrase of class struggle).

According to Antonia it is the other way around; it is because of their convictions "male chauvinist pigs" make more money than "more progressive" men and women.

According to Antonia men are born "male chauvinist pigs" and their views have nothing to do with the simple fact that men who make more money can afford to think that their wives might spent more of their time taking care of their homes and children than men who cannot earn enough to make the ends meet.

Good work Antonia, keep it up. When you are done with Marx could you please please let us know what book Liberals and NDP types are going to use when they try to sell us their next Utopia???

Better still, why don't you write a book from feminist perspective that Taliban Jack could use when he becomes Pime Minister of Canada.

http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/

It's a man's man's world
A groundbreaking study (PDF) from the University of Florida seems to have buried the long-held misconception that women make a fraction of what men do because they choose careers or jobs that don't pay as well. For example, male parking jockeys who look after your car make more than the educated teaching assistant who cares for your kid.

But here's the thing. Not only do men make more than women — regardless of job category, as the study shows — but, if they're sexist in their thinking (like believing women should stay at home) they make more than men who are more progressive.

This, from today's treeware column:

It pays big time — about 52 per cent better — to be a "traditional" guy who believes that a woman's place is in the home, baking pies and making babies. That's an average of $11,930 (U.S.) a year more than what a non-sexist male earns, at least among lower-to-middle-class workers.

Why that is so is anybody's guess, and points to the need for more research.

But there's no guessing as to the huge discrepancies between what sexist men make and what progressive men make. Not according to a University of Florida study, which tracked 12,000 workers between from 1979 to 2005, published in this month's Journal of Applied Psychology.

Sexism puts you ahead of the herd. But only if you're a man, of course.

As for exactly how much more Mr. MCP (that's male chauvinist pig, in '70s women's lib speak) makes than women, well, that depends. If she's a feminist, the difference is a mere – hah! – 62 per cent. If she is more the wifey-wifey type, it's a stunningly oinky-oinky 71 per cent.

The thing is, the difference between what a progressive male makes and what women make doesn't amount to all that much, at least relative to what macho men pull in. We're talking a couple of thousand, at most. Less than 10 per cent.

So what accounts for the gap?

The researchers posit that high-test guys, the ones who make more, tend to stick together. They hire and promote like-minded males and, like animals in the wild, tend to cull the weaker of the species.

The other possibility is these guys might project more self-confidence, which means they do better in salary negotiations.

Or, because they see themselves — or more to the point, are seen — as the sole or primary breadwinners, they are more highly compensated.

Hardly surprising. It wasn't all that long ago that the excuse for paying women less was simply that their salaries were not seen as essential to the family.

Some things really haven't changed.......

Dizzy: The point I was making does apply to Canada as well. The numbers in the poll show more Canadian women than men are in favour of stricter abortion laws, but I'll entirely grant you the point that the Canadian numbers are statistically, a dead-heat. It doesn't change the point: Even if an equal number of women and men hold a particular view, it's still absurd to label/constantly imply that said particular view is self-evidently an attack on women.

FWIW, my position is roughly anti-abortion, but pro-choice; I'm certainly not going to physically restrain a woman going for an abortion.

I find the views on the extremes of both sides unsettling -- on the pro-life side, there are those who say that if a 12-year old is raped she should not be allowed to get an abortion, for example -- but in general I find the views on the other side to be more unsettling because the arguments are so chillingly blithe. One of linked-to commenters at bread n'roses exemplifies this: she responded to Elizabeth May's statement "It is always a deeply difficult decision. It is not a form of birth control" with "Me, I turned cartwheels of joy after my abortion. It was a dead simple decision. And another bulletin. Abortion is birth control. What the f*** is it if it's not that?"

She's entitled to her own views; what's troublesome is the unwavering, strangely-entitled demand by many feminists that any human moral sense be excised from the public debate. Read Rebick's reaction to May's -- pro-choice -- statement for evidence of that.

That's exactly my view, EBD: anti-abortion, pro choice, although I've never worded it this succinctly.

You may be surprised to learn that none other than Bill Clinton said, "It should be legal ... and rare". And I believe Hillary expressed a similar view.

The problem, of course, is that abortion has been "sacramentalized" by the radical left. It shouldn't be.

Regardless of your view on the issue, you can't escape the fact that, given the amount of public education and awareness and the available technology (including the morning after pill), the scale of abortion in our society is a kind of holocaust.

Finally, it is my view that, except in the relatively rare instances of protecting the health of the mother and rape, it should certaintly not be publicly funded.

Feminists need to write a book that Taliban Jack could use as a template when he becomes Prime Minister of Canada.

Instead of fighting Conservatives all they have to do is offer Canadian women better alternatives.

I could offer them few hints when it comes to issues of; human reproduction, abortion and rearing children.

They could try to steal opening chapters from "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley

http://www.huxley.net/bnw/

All that they have to do is introduce few minor modifications to original plot and instead of a state owned and state run central hatchery with complicated machinery they could introduce a pig farm located just north of Toronto, owned and financed by Ontario provincial government and operated by LGBT Network.

Toronto lesbians would donate their own eggs, homosexuals would donate their sperm and in that farm, genetically modified pigs inplanted with human embrios would gestate and deliver human babies in litters of five at the time.

Initially this pig farm would serve the needs of LGBT community and Ontario radical feminists. Once they solved all wrinkles of this process they could expand their production and completely revolutionise and industrialise baby production around the World.

When they accomplish that task feminists could lobby the provincial government to ban pregnancy and childbirth as an unlicensed competition that is undercutting government's effort to eliminate defective genes from genetic code of the human race. I am quite sure that if they were to push hard enough they could force Ontario government to legislate compulsory abortions for all women in Ontario.

This small alteration of Aldous Huxley's literary productions would take his book from the shelves of science fiction and place it in modern science category.

To increase appeal of that book they could blend in historical events like; declining birth rates, infertility crisis in Canada, enactment of gay marriage, three parents on birth certificate decision of Ontario Court of Appeals.

Home bread making was once a chore that all women had to somehow cope with. With advances of civilisation all bread production in industrialised World has been shifted from homes to dedicated bakeries. Genetically modified pigs could make similar revolution in human reproduction process and practice.

If raising kids is another burden that Canadian feminists want Canadian women to do away with they could continue along the same path as Aldous Huxley did in his book.

If they decide that Canadian women could still use children as human pets while off-loading mundane tasks than they could introduce Canadian women to kibbutz concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

"In the 1920s kibbutzim began a practice of raising children communally away from their parents in special communities called "Children's Societies" (Mossad Hinuchi). The theory was that trained nurses and teachers would be better care-providers than amateur (and busy) parents. Children and parents would have better relationships due to the Children's Societies, since parents would not have to be disciplinarians. Also, it was hoped that raising children away from parents would liberate mothers from their "biological tragedy." Instead of spending hours a day raising children, women could thus be free to work or enjoy leisure."

EBD --
I've always assumed that pro- & anti- abortion meant abortion rights.
Those "cartwheels of joy" are like joy at being rescued from drowning -- it doesn't mean you are pro-almost drowning.
Apart from equality of numbers, this issue IS divided along gender lines if you consider salience.
That's probably why old-timers like Judy Rebick consider an opinion against abortion to be an attack on all women -- because it is an attack on what they regard as a basic right.
And it wouldn't matter whether the opinion was held by men or women.

Dizzy ~

Pro and anti-abortion *does* mean abortion rights, but only in the context of the current binary, inflamed debate. In the *real* world peoples' feelings on all sorts of issues are complex and real and undeniable and in-the-world. The act of merely feeling or acknowledging the moral edges of the abortion debate is *not* tantamount to an attack on women, any more than an emotional/moral acknowledgment of the sadness and hearbreak and broken lives of those in the criminal justice system is a formal statement of opposition to the idea of incarceration, punishment and reparation.

Regarding Rebick, it's understood here that she considers the anti-choice view to be an attack on all women, and an attack on what "they" (women) regard as a basic right. But again, I find her language problematic and hammer-fisted and almost...greedy in it's demands, and that's the sort of language I was addressing. I can understand that Rebick has a right to deem the opinions of the substantial numbers of pro-life women to be an attack on pro-choice women, but how could it be an attack on all women? Isn't that a ridiculous appropriation of the term? Are pro-life women attacking themselves by having heartfelt views?

Rebick is entitled to stump for her own views, but her apparent "right" to demand that others who are on the same side as her frame the issue entirely in terms that suit her own thinking is contentious, false and disingenuous in equal measure. It's effective, though, and that, I suspect, is entirely the point. But it's slightly anti-human, and I don't see that one has to be anti-human, anti-individuation to be pro-woman.

Consider her reaction to May after May stated that she was unequivocally pro-choice: Rebick wrote an angry public letter withdrawing her support for the Green Party simply because May also said abortion "is a difficult decision" for a woman to make, and that framing all discussion of the matter entirely in the slogan "a woman's right to choose" had the effect of trivializing the issue. Now, those were May's personal views, straight up, and I believe, based on conversations I've had over the last twenty years, that many pro-choicers, including women who've had abortions, wouldn't disagree with her two statements -- they're not even provocative to a non-dogmatic, reasonable person, IMO. And when it gets to the point where someone who is unequivocally pro-choice is assailed merely because she sincerely sees or senses or feels or voices what she sincerely sees are the moral dimensions inherent in the issue, and in her own perceptions, that's bordering on interpersonal fascism. It suggests an inflamed state where the jingoistic binarism of hyperventilating identity politics has simply run out of bounds with the ball. It certainly crosses the bounds of reason to suggest that a person's moral/theological/ontological being is in esse an outrage simply because that person has opinions that differ from yours.

I take your point about where the issue is separated along gender lines -- only women can get pregnant -- but it's dehumanizing to suggest that men -- or old people, or the handicapped --on either side of the issue have no right to have or voice their own heartfelt personal theological/ontological view on that or any matter. Those who make that case that other people have no such right to their own thoughts on this particular issue typically invoke the spectre of some army of hairy/fundamentalist men looking to intrude on a women's space, but that's just a case of stereotyped, politically-utile projection overwhelming reasonableness and humanity and common grace, a strange entitlement which extends far beyond the specific issue in question. People *feel*, and politics shouldn't be a weapon to try to stop that.

Take the assertion that the issue is -- MUST be -- divided on gender lines to it's logical conclusion: If men's opinions on pregnancy and abortion/childbirth are utterly illegitimate/irrelevant/a violation against women, a display of their --violent -- lack of understanding, etc etc, and if they have no say because it's not their body, doesn't it follow that men should bear no responsibility for children who are born, since it's the woman's choice to keep the baby?

A right to abort at any time during pregnancy means there's also a right to give birth, so in real, legal terms, a woman's right to choose includes, tucked-in under the logical radar, a concomitant de facto prerogative to legally FORCE a man's involvement, in terms of child support, etc., without him having a choice.

Ladies' choice, to be sure.

BTW, I'm just exploding a few issues here; I don't consider that a man has any right to force a woman to do or not do anything.

'Anyone notice that in both the States and Canada, two of the most vociferous "defenders" (sic) of "women's rights"--and certainly two of the loudest voices--are two single women with no children?

Judy Rebick and Gloria Steinem.

(Yes, Steinem is now a widow, having married at the age of 66 to David Bales, which made her a stepmom to Christian Bales of Batman fame. Throughout the very active feminist/women's rights phase of her life, however, she was single and childless.)

I want to know what the heck gives these harpies the "right" to speak for "all women"? What a groundless conceit on their parts.

Both Steinem and Rebick have been cossetted in their respective womyn's ghettoes, nicely insulated from the real world by government largesse--especially in the case of Ms. Rebick--and neither one of them, patently, speaks for me or countless other married women with husbands they love and children whose welfare they happily care about and share.

Neither Steinem nor Rebick know, firsthand, about all the "choices" or facets of women's lives, especially after they marry and have children, so I wish to heck they'd ST_U about "women's rights." They're imposters. They're poseurs.

I think it's a universal tactic of any "group" to lay claim to a set of members by virtue of certain characteristics (gender, age, politics) because one cannot hope to prevail without superior numbers. The fact that many of the select have never chosen to belong to such groups is irrelevant. Therefore, self-identified feminists claim to speak for women, Mohamed Elmasry claims to speak for Muslims and the Sierra Club for environmentalists. Until the internet and blogs such as this one made it possible for individuals to express themselves, organizations could get away with claiming they represented legions, and the occasional protest (you don't speak for me) was seldom heard. I believe that some of the vitriol directed at Ms. Palin is motivated by the bitterness of certain groups who thought they had their corner of the demographic pie firmly in hand. Now they discover that many women have gone about fashioning their own varied and successful lives entirely without their permission.

Real choice is difficult to define. We are not ever entirely free of influences and limits that are not within our control. Women have involved themselves politically in order to move the boundaries so that the range of choices increased. I am old enough to compare my lot as a young girl with that of young women today--and I find the modern situation much more favorable. In my 20's I had to fight quite hard to have a credit card issued in my own name instead of my husband's, even though I earned more money and was responsible for most of the family finances. This may seem like a small matter, but without economic independence, personal autonomy is not possible. So, while I have great issues with the leftish cadre who claim the banner of feminism, I do not dismiss the brave efforts of the earlier feminists who risked far more than the odd snide article in the press to fight for women's rights. The battle is not won--one only has to look at countries where women can be killed for minor offences at the whim of the patriarchy or girls whose sexual parts are mutilated in gruesome procedures. True feminists (indeed true humanists) should direct some of their concerns and energies in that direction and worry a little less about cultural tolerance and political correctness.

Ms. Palin, instead of being reviled by the left, intellectual bunch, should be considered a success story--the result of decades of social change that has required so much hard work. She is successful. She has the choice to be a Mom and a productive person. She can be beautiful and strong and yet aspire to one of the most prestigious and important positions in the world. The ones who are dismissing her for her appearance, her views and her family, are doing the same thing that earlier feminists so deplored--trying to trivialize because of gender and physical attributes. To be cast as a frontierswoman--is that such a bad thing? Our grandmothers hunted and killed for meat. Is that not more admirable than going to the supermarket for factory-farmed skinless chicken breasts?

I find the "dry-stick", resentful, intellectual woman image so revered by the left just as objectionable as the Betty Boop view of women in the past. Neither allow the scope that includes the vast spectrum of women, their abilities and their needs. Some of us climb mountains and some of us grow gardens--are these not things to be celebrated? Some of us strive to be intellectuals and some of us clean pig barns. Is the one any less valuable to society than the other? I think some women are falling into the same pits of delusion as their male counterparts--that holding a particular position or a set of carefully sanitized opinions make you superior somehow.

I accept that in my life(which at the moment seems to have gone on for such a long time and at others seems to have vanished in a blink) some of my choices were limited by my gender. (I became a teacher instead of a doctor.) But I was also limited by other traits such as intelligence, physical capacity, finances, location...etc. For me to blame what I have become on such outside (and real) limitations, is to admit that I had no power to figure out how to work around such things. We all make good decisions and bad ones. Regret is something we all have to deal with successfully in order to move forward. Your personal regrets don't need to become society's fault. Sometimes, shit happens. So while I respect and am grateful for all the work that feminists have done to make my life richer and broader in possibilities, it is not up to them to select which women fit their view of what women should be. We are. That's it. We can have differing opinions but the viciousness that has emerged over Ms. Palin, disappoints me immensely. I cannot think that Betty Friedan would be trashing her the way some of the women, who have reaped the benefits of the work of the pioneers (without having done very much to merit them) are doing now. I consider myself a feminist, but these women do not speak for me.

Sorry. In my earlier post--I went a bit off topic (though it is sort of related). Anyway, I find the NDP scary--not Stephen Harper. I have no trouble voting for the conservatives. If I do not agree with them on all issues, I have the ability and the right to keep urging them to do better.

EBD, I wish I could write as clearly and wisely as you. Thank you.

Rita, thank you for your eloquent comment, which is very much on topic, and for sharing your wisdom.

The word "feminism" has definitely been co-opted and appropriated by a narrow group of women who are very left, very pro-state, somewhat anti-family, angry with men as a category, and almost always urban. Despite their claims they are not entitled to speak for all women, something made crystal clear by the quality of the women they apparently feel entitled to savage.

If you haven't read it already, I recommend the article by Christina Hoff Sommers, linked-to in the post -- particularly her descriptions of Hannah More, the 18th century conservative feminist whose name has been essentially excised from feminist doctrine by the more recent time-bound, highly political tribe. More's approach, and her life, sounds not dissimilar from your own, based on your comment.

Thanks again for your thoughtful comment. You're far too modest, though - I prefer your comment to mine. /:>)>