# Are women a minority? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 21, 2003, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018 "2003-01-21T18:26:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![TaxGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@TaxGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TaxGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/21 "2003-01-21T23:28:32Z")
It bothers me greatly when people simply compare the percentage of any group [women, blacks, homosexuals, etc.] in an institution [government, “corporations,” the military, academia, etc.] with the percentage of that group in the population at large and automatically cries foul when the two numbers don’t match up. Some folks make a profession out of this. I agree that a mismatch is evidence of a problem (so that greater scrutiny is warranted to determine whether the mismatch is due to discrimination), but it does not automatically mean something is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![B.Serum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/b.serum/32/14266_2.png) [@B.Serum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Serum)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/22 "2003-01-21T23:33:25Z")
> [@](#): > > In order for one’s interests to be represented, there has to be a representative that finds those interests interesting; and I just don’t think males can (to a large enough degree) represent female interests. Why not? What interests specifically? ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/23 "2003-01-21T23:36:53Z")
> [@](#): > > [Women are a historically disenfranchised group is] the idea behind it yes. A silly idea, other than in the most narrow definition of the word, that they didn’t have the power to vote. Women have always been powerful, and today enjoy great power. Silly? I suspect that your understanding of history and current events differs from mine. Just for grins, can you plunge into your knowledge of history and answer a few simple questions? [ul][li]What is coverture?[/li][li]Under English common law, what types of property did a woman remain in control of after marriage?[/li][li]In what year did the state of New York pass a law allowing a maried woman to own property separate from her husband?[/li][li]What was the Comstock law? When was it lifted?[/li][li]What is the significance of _Pennsylvania v. Addicks, 1813_?[/li][/ul] I could go on, but I suspect that the list above will provide more than enough silliness. **erl** As a matter of pure principle, there is absolutely nothing to prevent a group of 600 wealthy white men from governing our nation in perfect representation of the diverse citizenry. As a matter of practical experience, many disenfranchised groups have found that such an expectation is unlikely to be met with reliable consistency. Thus, while pointing to an underrepresentation among legislaturs does not necessarily imply an underrepresentation **by** legislatures, it can be seen as an indication that the concerns of a group are not being given voice equal to their weight in the population. ---
**Author:** ![TaxGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@TaxGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TaxGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2003, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/24 "2003-01-21T23:44:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Spiritus Mundi:\*As a matter of pure principle, there is absolutely nothing to prevent a group of 600 wealthy white men from governing our nation in perfect representation of the diverse citizenry. As a matter of practical experience, many disenfranchised groups have found that such an expectation is unlikely to be met with reliable consistency. Then why do so many women keep voting for so many men? Don’t the women that vote know more about who the right person to represent them is than you do? Your position itself could be seen as rather anti-woman (i.e., “women don’t know what’s best for them”). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/25 "2003-01-22T00:06:58Z")
Women now outnumber men in law schools. Since the occupation of lawyer is a favorite stepping stone into politics, we will likely see many more female politicians in the not too distant future. I’m going to stick my neck out here, but I’d venture that not too many women feel they need to have AA direction at them these days. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/26 "2003-01-22T02:49:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Your position itself could be seen as rather anti-woman (i.e., “women don’t know what’s best for them”). Sure. It could also be seen as advocating a Palestinian State in Ohio. Just because someone sees it doesn’t mean that I have said it. > [@](#): > > Then why do so many women keep voting for so many men? Ah – you ask a pertinent question. Why is it that since women are represented on the ballots in direct proportion to their presence in the population that they do not receive the according percentage of votes? Oh, wait, women **aren’t** represented proportionally on the ballots. Goodness, what a startling revelation. > [@](#): > > Don’t the women that vote know more about who the right person to represent them is than you do? Well, now we get into all kinds of theories of representational government that aren’t really on topic for the OP. Really, though, where in my post have you imagined that I was declaring for whom women should vote? Once again, just because you see it doesn’t mean I have written it. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/27 "2003-01-22T05:02:43Z")
> [@](#): > > A. Mr. Man is keeping her down. > B. Women do not seek these positions as aggressively as men. > C. Both of the above > D. Other: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ D Other. Mr “we’re already in charge” looks around for who to promote, and ,perhaps unconsciously, picks those who look like him. Which would explain why the managers in my agency are almost without exception, white men while the professional ranks below them are predominantly not white men. erislover, It’s possible for men to represent women. But it’s also possible for women to represent men. The problem is not so much that 51 % of the successful politicians are not women. The problem is that there are plenty of low level female politicians and aides to politicans. But few female governors or mayors. Are those women not interested in seeking higher office, or does money and support go more easily to the men? I don’t know the answer for sure, but I suspect that there has been at least one woman who wanted to run for president, but knew she’d never be able to get on the ballot. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/28 "2003-01-22T05:54:58Z")
> [@](#): > > _Spiritus noted sarcastically_ > Oh, wait, women aren’t represented proportionally on the ballots. Goodness, what a startling revelation. Again I run into it here because of the semantic overlap. Do you mean **females are not running for office** , do you mean **female interests are not the point people on ballots run with** , or some sort of combination? > [@](#): > > _doreen explained_ > The problem is not so much that 51 % of the successful politicians are not women. The problem is that there are plenty of low level female politicians and aides to politicans. But few female governors or mayors. Are women so politically unified that we could simply solve the problem by tossing a few chicks on the ballot? Honest question, because that’s what I seem to be getting here. **If a majority is underrepresented then what is the problem?** This seems to be the most twisted logic short of announcing a patriarchy. 51% of the population can, in principle and almost in fact (population distribution of course presents some issues), control our government. So it isn’t so much that I think or don’t think that women are well-represented (I don’t know one way or the other), but for those who say they are, how is this so? ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/29 "2003-01-22T06:37:51Z")
**erl** The question I was responding to: **Then why do so many women keep voting for so many men?** My observation: **candidates on the ballots that I see are predominantly male. In most elections, I have a choice to either vote for a man or not vote.** The point: **TaxGuy** has put forth a red herring. One cannot reasonably draw the conclusion that women prefer male representatives from the fact that they vote for male representatives, since there is often no female for whom they might vote. > [@](#): > > This seems to be the most twisted logic short of announcing a patriarchy. 51% of the population can, in principle and almost in fact (population distribution of course presents some issues), control our government. Certainly, if 51% of the people acted as a perfectly monolithic voting block. They don’t, so they don’t. I’m not really clear on what your position is, here. Are you of the mind that since we have a representative form of government it is not possible for any group to be underrepresented? Or is it the specific mathematics of a 1% majority that trouble you? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/30 "2003-01-22T07:13:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Certainly, if 51% of the people acted as a perfectly monolithic voting block. They don’t, so they don’t. Right, **Spiritus** , right. Then why should we expect proportional representation as a body count is my question—we’re not talking affirmative action here. I know women are not a unified voting block: this is what makes me wonder about people saying “women are underrepresented”—in what way are they underrepresented if, in fact, they are not so unified as to be a something to represent? In which case I can only understand a flat body count as “underrepresented”, but this shouldn’t be an issue based on a representative political system, which completes our vicious circle here where we return to an analysis of political representation. I mean, hell, _Libertarians_ are underrepresented. Greens are underrepresented. Politically speaking, there is no “women block” as far as I understand it, so to say they are underrepresented is a red herring or a distortion of democratic government. I am trying to understand the issue. Where am I going astray? Now, in cases of, say, executive officers this is a salient point as CEOs are not elected based on a popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![burundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ec8ea/32.png) [@burundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burundi)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/31 "2003-01-22T13:58:46Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Hey You!_ > A. Mr. Man is keeping her down. > B. Women do not seek these positions as aggressively as men. > C. Both of the above > D. Other: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Something closest to C. While I wouldn’t call it “Mr. Man,” the good ol’ boy system is alive and kicking, and, for the most part, it does remain a “boys’” system. I also think that women tend to pursue high-powered positions less aggressively than men. Let me clarify that: women who _are or want to become parents_ tend to pursue high-powered positions less aggressively than men. Women are still the primary caregivers in most families. And many, many women want to be the primary caregiver, which is perfectly okay. It’s just that it’s hard to fulfill that function when you’re working 80 hour weeks at the office. I don’t think that this is “Mr. Man” keeping women down; I think it’s a decision that families make based on what they feel is best for them. And there’s nothing wrong with it. But it does have the effect of hampering the woman’s career while she’s at home with the kids or while she works a lower-paying, lower-stress job, so she can be available if the kids need her. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/32 "2003-01-22T14:55:04Z")
**ultrafilter** : > [@](#): > > Yes, but the reason that they’re a protected class is because they’re historically disenfranchised. Exactly. Which is hardly an unusual situation. Blacks in South Africa were not exactly a minority, they were just oppressed. Using the term “minority” as a stand-in for “disenfranchised” or “oppressed” is mindless blithering. \*\*RexDart \*\* > [@](#): > > That’s the idea behind it yes. A silly idea, other than in the most narrow definition of the word, that they didn’t have the power to vote. Or own property. Or decide where to live. Or count their wages as their own. Or sign a contract. Or be held only to the same laws that restrict the conduct of men. Or attend schools and universities. Or establish credit in their own name. Or make equal use of public recreational facilities. Or get paid equal wages for the same work. Or be considered legally eligible to accept [certain] jobs. Or open bank accounts without the reasonable expectation that someone else could empty them without their permission. Or keep their own name if they marry. Or screw as consenting adults other consenting adults. And those are just the official legal ones, and hardly an exhaustive list at that. And that’s only in the United States, founded during the fucking enlightenment. And it ignores rights women didn’t have that men would have no use or applicability for, like the right to seek out or distribute information on how not to become pregnant every time you screw, or the right to terminate an unintended pregnancy. > [@](#): > > Women have always been powerful, and today enjoy great power. They may not always choose to pursue that power in the most visible way, by running for office and wielding power publicly. By being historically the primary caretaker for young children, women have always had the power to shape the moral and intellectual landscape through their influence over the next generation of adults. Women have been highly present in upper-class intellectual and social circles for the last few centuries, and so have helped to shape the world around them and their own lives through their social influence. What’s your point? Children themselves have always been powerful and enjoy great power too. Advertisers target them because they control a lot of spending, directly and indirectly, and the children of wealthy families often control more resources than lower-income adults. That hardly changes the fact that our culture is not a Childocracy or that children are a class of people controlled and kept under the power of adults. > [@](#): > > Sure, their roles have been restricted in the past, but so have men’s. Women today enjoy arguably _more_ freedom than men. Women are generally free to exercise the choice to pursue a career, and at some point to abandon that career entirely or go part-time while they raise a family. It’s socially acceptable for women to do this. For men, the choice is work, work, work, or starve. Women’s freedom to abandon their careers to pursue a family rides the back of the men who will be supporting them when they quit their job. That’s the social situation as it’s accepted today. Women have no freedom to be stay at home moms riding the backs of men except insofar as men voluntarily provide those backs. > [@](#): > > Women may be underrepresented in the visible aspect of the political decision-making process, but are my no means powerless. Robin Morgan, editor of _Sisterhood is Powerful_ (the famous little white book with the red female sign + clenched fist on the cover), would agree with you that women are by no means powerless. And they’ve come a long way ::inserts obligatory Virginia Slims “baby” smilie:: and most of these oppression and disenfranchisements have faded to a shadow of their former selves, although those shadows still persist and the work ain’t done. Umm, lemme guess, you and **december** have some kind of bar bet going here? ---
**Author:** ![TaxGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@TaxGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TaxGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/33 "2003-01-22T15:39:49Z")
When I observe Someone doing X, I tend to think as follows: “Someone must believe for whatever reason that doing X is better than doing all the possible alternatives to X. Who am I to say that Someone should be doing Y instead? Someone chose to do X over Y, so Someone must have thought that doing X was better than doing Y.” So, **Spiritus Mundi** , why are you all upset that more women aren’t in government? Women must believe for whatever reason that not running for office is better than running for office. Who are you to say that women should be running for office instead? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/34 "2003-01-22T16:12:55Z")
I don’t think **Spiritus** is telling women what to do, **TaxGuy**. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/35 "2003-01-22T16:19:22Z")
by Taxguy > [@](#): > > So, Spiritus Mundi, why are you all upset that more women aren’t in government? Women **must** believe for whatever reason that not running for office is better than running for office. Women _must_ believe that? Is that the only reason you can think of that explains the disparity? ---
**Author:** ![TaxGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@TaxGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TaxGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/36 "2003-01-22T16:35:49Z")
You gonna make an argument, **you with the face**? ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/37 "2003-01-22T16:51:51Z")
**erl** I thought I was clear in my first post, but since so many people seem unclear on my meaning let me rephrase: **there is no necessary implication between underrepresentation among legislators and underrepresentation by legislatures, however a large discrepancy coupled with a historical pattern of oppressive laws can be seen as an suggestive.** Really, the number of women in Congress is not high on my list of concerns, I was merely responding to a thread of inquiry started by **Eljeffe** and **irishgirl**. > [@](#): > > in what way are they underrepresented if, in fact, they are not so unified as to be a something to represent? Why do you equate monolithic voting patterns with representation? Gender seems to be a reasonable criteria from which to explore legal treatment since it is inherent, clearly evident to a casual observer, has been used historically to descriminate between the rights of individuals, etc. Why should the fact that not every **X** votes the same prevent us from exploring the disparate treatment of **X** in our laws? **Taxguy** I will happily respond to any questions you have about a position that I have actually taken. I am curious, though, are you under the impression that the only requirement for having one’s name placed upon the ballot in a general election is deciding that “running for office is better than not running for office?” ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/38 "2003-01-22T17:04:06Z")
> [@](#): > > You gonna make an argument, you with the face? Sure, how about this one. Men have been in political control for decades. Only until recently were women even allowed to vote, let alone run for office. A certain amount of inertia precludes overnight cures of any large disparity, but that doesn’t mean it can all be explained by your “women just don’t want to be in office!” argument. The masculine landscape of the political arena may not deliberately shut out females, but the whole saying that “like begets like” applies here. If a predominately male party is looking to nominate someone for candidancy, for instance, and the choice comes down to two equally qualified people who happen to be of opposite genders, which one do you think will get the most heat for being away from the kids? Which one do you think will have to work harder to be taken seriously? So which one do you think will be chosen? The same qualities that are called ambition and drive in a man are often called selfishness and bitchyness in a woman. But if she isn’t “selfish” and “bitchy” she is seen as weak and ineffectual. Case in point: Hillary Clinton. She is no different than any male politician, but because she is an ambitious woman she is often called a bitch by her opponents. This makes her gender revelant in a way that isn’t for a man, and because most of the players are men, it counts against her. So the stage is set. If the perception out there is that politics is a man’s game, then women tend not to gravitate to it. Those who do, tend to face hurdles that keep them from climbing the ladder. Gender roles enter the picture. So do societal expectations. There are probably mulitple reasons why there is a gender gap in politics. Reducing it down to “women must believe blah-blah” is oversimplistic. ---
**Author:** ![Strange\_Biller](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ab097/32.png) [@Strange\_Biller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strange_Biller)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/39 "2003-01-22T17:43:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RexDart \* > \*\*…Women have always been powerful, and today enjoy great power. They may not always choose to pursue that power in the most visible way, by running for office and wielding power publicly. By being historically the primary caretaker for young children, women have always had the power to shape the moral and intellectual landscape through their influence over the next generation of adults. Women have been highly present in upper-class intellectual and social circles for the last few centuries, and so have helped to shape the world around them and their own lives through their social influence. > > Sure, their roles have been restricted in the past, but so have men’s. Women today enjoy arguably _more_ freedom than men. Women are generally free to exercise the choice to pursue a career, and at some point to abandon that career entirely or go part-time while they raise a family. It’s socially acceptable for women to do this. For men, the choice is work, work, work, or starve. Women’s freedom to abandon their careers to pursue a family rides the back of the men who will be supporting them when they quit their job. That’s the social situation as it’s accepted today. > \*\* I don’t post here much but I do lurk sometimes and I just had to comment on this post, the most revitionist justifying bunch of foolishness I have read in quite a while. We’ll start from the beginning: Women have always been powerful? I don’t think I even need to address that, but I will. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that in the entire rest of the world, women have always been _more_ powerful than men. Not so in America, where they only earned the right to VOTE in my grandmother’s lifetime. By being the historical primary care-giver they have been able to exert power through shaping the next generations? Then why is our current president pro-life when his mother (and wife) are pro-choice? And even if that were true, which I dispute greatly, why should women be relegated to a role in which change takes them 20 years in order to “shape an entire generation” when men can do it in Congress _right now?_ Women have been present in upper class social and intellectual circles for several centuries? How would that explain why there are few to no women authors present in the American literary canon, and that women were either barred from the best colleges or not allowed to participate in certain programs until recently? “Sure, their roles have been restricted in the past, but so have men’s.” What are you talking about? What roles have men been restricted from? Specifically, what roles of POWER have men been restricted from that _women_ kept them out of? Regarding whether or not men have the choice to stay at home with the children while the mother goes to work, well, YOU may think it’s not an option, but that’s the way my wife an I did it - I take care of the kids and she’s an attorney. This works for us - no one has prevented us from doing this and no one has tried. But 100 years ago, I could have stayed with the children, but my wife could not have been an attorney. To try to argue that women are equal now is one thing (I disagree, BTW), but to try to argue that they have never been disenfranchised is ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018/40 "2003-01-22T18:13:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > Why should the fact that not every **X** votes the same prevent us from exploring the disparate treatment of **X** in our laws? Obviously, it wouldn’t. That was never my point. My point was to explore what it meant for an apolitical group to be politically underrepresented. I can’t seem to parse it. The only sense I can make of it is an issue of bodies in the positions, which really doesn’t seem to be what we would normally characterize as being _politically underrepresented_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-women-a-minority/150018.md?page=3)