I was just looking at the stats for America's Debate, and 74% of the registered members are male while only 26 % are female. Do you think that's just a coincidence? If it is not, why do you think that less women are interested in politics than men?

Edited to add: I just found this PDF report with statistics on voter turnout, and it shows that the proportional number of women who vote during each election has exceeded the proportional number of men who vote since 1980.

My hunch is that it has to do more with who uses the internet, not interest in politics by itself.

You'll notice not only are most of our members male, they also fall between the ages of 16 and 30 years old.

So where are all the old ladies? We need you

This "OLD LADY" is here Jaime

I think we also have to look at level of participation and dedication, though. How many women are regular posters here, for example, compared to the percentage of male participants who stick around? And if one looked at the longest-standing members of the forum, I'll bet you'd find at least gender parity, if not a slight tip toward the female. So it looks to me like the women here, regardless of overall numbers, tend to be more persistent or more faithful, while the men tend to be more prone toward joining, getting off a post or two, then being unable to commit. Does this sound anything like real life???

I think it's just that more men like to argue about politics. Doesn't mean women are less interested, just less prone to wrangling with strangers. Good point about commitment though.

Old ladies, huh? Is 48 good enough?

I'm not actually sure if any hard and fast gender generalizations can be made, really, but it does seem to me that women tend to take more interest in the process, perhaps because they were excluded from it for so long. Can you imagine, for example, a League of Men Voters? There's probably equal interest in party politics, but I suspect there's still more involvement by men in campaigning and proselytizing. Obviously (and sadly), there are still more men actually running for office (and getting elected), which really has to change.

Izdaari: I'm also 48 - and if anyone dared to call me an "old man", I'd hit them with my walker.

Or, consider that women could be less interested in politics than men. God forbid there should be differences between the sexes. If women aren't interested in running for office to the degree that men are, who is anyone to say that's wrong? Man, let people live their lives.

In my experience, I've noticed a few subtle differences between the sexes - - though they haven't necessarily extended to their respective levels of interest in politics. If women aren't interested in running for office (which is debatable), I wouldn't consider it "wrong", just unfortunate - and dangerous. Look what male-dominated politics has wrought for the past few millennia...

After extensive scientific investigation, I have come to the conclusion that putting women and politics together in the same test-tube is a very very bad idea!!!

This equation characterises the main thrust of my scientific conclusions: -

Politics x Women = Maggie Thatcher

PS: Wetrz, I like you new sig!

Was that supposed to be funny? If so, the humor was lost on me. Must be because I'm female.

CONSTRUCTIVE DEBATE. CONSTRUCTIVE. C-O-N-S-T-R-U-C-T-I-V-E.

I think women tend to be less confrontational, in general. They (speaking in generalities, obviously) take things a lot more personally than most men. A group of boys have an argument, they 'take their football home' and say it's forever. Usually, they're back to playing football the next day. A group of woman have an argument, and it could go on for years. This can lead to an avoidance of all things confrontational- such as debate or politics!

BTW...I didn't get the Margaret Thatcher joke either

Jon Bon...you just came into a thread full of women who are interested in politics and compared us all to Maggie Thatcher!

I'm hurt.

Anyhow, I think that the non-confrontational argument definitely could pertain to the low female membership stats on the site, and it may have something to do with the reasons why there aren't many women running for office, but there are so many different kinds of women that I think it's not entirely accurate, and even if it is...those personality traits of avoiding conflict and remembering conflict could prove to be a great asset, particularly when combined with the male aspects. We need to mix it up a bit!

Not me. I'm flattered by it.

I agree
There is one more thing I'd like to 'throw out there', though (regarding women, politics, debating). Women tend (generally) to allow their personal relationships to take over their lives. How many of us have lost touch with friends due to new boyfriends marriage, and especially 'the Motherhood'? Likewise, politics and discourse take a back seat.

Men usually permit themselves to be more well-rounded (can't think of a better phrasology here) and don't take personal relationships to the point where it runs their lives to the exclusion of everything else.

There is alot of misrepresentation of the female here, and what is representative is scary. Strong , educated women are reffered as a Maggie Thatcher, women are less confrontational? Women tend to allow personal relationships to take over their lives?

Who is kidding who? It is pure apathy with hundreds of years of brainwash that allow/promote and deride women to NOT contribute to the daily events that shape their lives, and backlash that they might be lesbian or freakish or nonsexy for doing so and therefore rejected by males for being smart and aware, not sexy attributes to many a man, intimidated. We collectively bought this and now it will take decades to get out of, but one needs to stop making excuses for ones own ignorance.

Sorry - can't comment on that for fear of more wrist-slapping

But seriously, there is a gender perception in politics, just as in bitches, which sees successful women as bitches, or perhaps somehow lacking in attributes which society considers to be feminine. I must have heard a hundred jokes and one-liners comparing Maggue Thatcher to a man. Because of the inertia which centuries of gender subjugation has created, women who do utilise the theoretical equality whuich they have won are deemed to have embraced masculinity at the cost of their own femininity. It is as though public success and the wielding of power, whether political or corporate, is incompatable with our collective cultural construct of womanhood.

I tend to agree with you, and I think that this is an image that was encouraged by second wave feminists...women sacrificing their femininity for the promise of career.

Third wave feminism played a role in changing that, but there is still a lot of work to do in that regard, and the realm of politics hasn't seemed to be effected much at all.

Ahem ... for some reason i can't edit my post above - possibly because it has already been quoted.

For: -



Please read: -



That'll teach me not to check what I write before posting!

I can comprehend the 'collective contruct of womanhood', though I see it as false and predispositioned, actually ridiculous.
I have had a problem with understanding which attributes are feminine and which masculine and what femininity did women sacrifice and how did women 'embrace masculinity' at the cost of their femininity? Or sacrifice femininity for the promise of a career? Not directed at these to quotes, I understand you both.

I believe femininity is being a woman. What are they talking about? Short skirts or having children, getting married or being in charge of a company? Being assertive?
This was a mistake of the masses with feminism, the idea that women were trying to be men, when in fact women were trying to have the same opportunities and wages a men, and still be considered women, and have a place in society as such, and as birth givers. A little extra, not excluding.

Well, you quoted JonBon, so I can't explain the quote from his perspective, if that's what you're asking about, but I did generally agree with JB, and I will explain my thoughts on the matter.

In my opinion, second wave feminism didn't necessarily cause women to "embrace masculinity," but it did, in a sense, look down upon traditional feminine roles. Women were expected to embrace the idea of career and reject traditional feminine practices in an attempt to prove that women and men were essentially the same and that women did not have to subscribe to roles that were imposed by society.

The reason for this was Jon Bon's idea of the "collective cultural construct of womanhood." Ideas that aren't necessarily a "truth" when it comes to women but have been continually encouraged by society, particularly the media. You touched upon this a bit in another thread.

I agree that women don't have to subscribe to any imposed roles, but it's my feeling that women should be revered no matter what role that they choose in society whether it be as a stay at home mom, a porn star, or a politician. I tend to embrace the third wave of feminism more readily, because it encourages that thought pattern. Don't get me wrong, the second generation had its place, but I think that it's time to move beyond that.

Regardless of my feelings, there is still a barrier there for women in politics. It's one of the last remaining Boy's clubs out there, and I think that JonBon's description of the reasons behind that are accurate.

I don't know if that answered your question or not.