The missing word is "sororal" (?!?)

You do have a major potpourri here. Let me confuse the issue further.

In spite of my earlier statement about the broad band widths of both female and male variability, there is good hard biological evidence for gender-specific differences in the way men and women think - in the organization of the brain, even before birth and independent of hormones. That's what makes the existence of transsexuality such an enigma. There was a PBS series years ago with the same title as this entry that explicated this matter in some detail. This is why I believe we've gone overboard with the notion of gender-neutral child-rearing - but that's another issue.

There are no such biological differences across other demographics; all remaining variation, e.g. modern east African versus 17th-century Euro-American versus 19th century Chinese, can be attributed to cultural environment. But that doesn't make the differences any less significant than the biological differences.

Can you see the can of worms you've opened? First, why would you want a House of Representatives with almost 900 members? Second, how fine are you going to draw those demographic lines? Shall we have an equal number of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans in that Hispanic category with maybe a few Castilians and one or two Basques thrown in? And even if we throw out ethnic origin and recognize that, for the most part, we're all hybrids of one sort or another, and we only want to equalize along biological/gender lines, what ARE we going to do with those troublesome transgendered individuals?

It's just not as simple as babies and beards. Women can indeed grow beards; ask any electrolysis technician. I don't know of any instances of men birthing babies, but I do know of (a very few) instances of men successfully nursing babies, and in some more civilized countries, men may take paternity leave. I've seen urinals in women's bathrooms. When I had my diaper service, there were stay-at-home dads partnered with moms who worked outside the home.

In my not-so-humble opinion, if we wish to honor diversity, then we'd better leave it to chance and the volition of the individual voters and potential candidates and not try to legislate what the gender mix of the government should be. After all, we don't legislate the gender mix of any other profession - why politics?

"Blue in a Red State"

You raise some good questions. Let me throw a few more into the mix. Societal structures have a male bent, true. These structures have not emphasised peace, and have only half-heartedly championed values of community, responsibility, care for others, and the like. Is there a way to revise societal structures in a more female bent? In a more Hispanic bent? In a more African bent?

I agree that most divisions we imagine between human beings are artificial. But that doesn't mean society should be organized to allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa. There are societal imperatives that can be recognized even beyond the bathroom :). Men cannot bear children. Women cannot grow beards. If we support each other in our differences then identifying them becomes healthy and less prone to pissing (there I go again) people off. Women get maternity leave. Men get thick shaving cream.

Beyone that I believe that men and women have different basic motivations, modes of operation, priorities and imperatives in life. This is not to say those of men are more important than those of women or vice versa. In fact, the two are inextricably bound and mutually dependent. So much so that imbalance is the greatest threat, as we can see in our perhaps overly fraternal world order today.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the fact that there were no "founding mothers" may be a significant factor in society's blights. If you were there in late 1700s, and were given equal respect and consideration, not in some patronizing pretense of sameness with men, but in respect for your differences from men as a woman, what would you have said? What would you have insisted upon? What consitutional protections would you have wanted? What rights would you have wanted conferred? How would you have organized the sharing of power?

Curious about this - do you know:
fatherly is to motherly as brotherly is to sisterly
-but-
paternal is to maternal as fraternal is to ____ (what? I can't find the word?)

Jason

You have this wonderful forum - no need for apology! It's important for us to hash this stuff out and not have to worry about the walking-on-eggshells effect. I had assumed my 'mister!' would communicate that I wasn't making a judgment about you personally. Anyway, I believe that some of what stands in the way of women in politics is women as mothers. The two structures are hard to reconcile, particularly when children are a certain age. I wonder about your requirements for slots for women. Would we add race to the equation? Also, I feel that in some ways the gender thing is an artificial split, as Susan mentioned, since many like-minded people are male and female. Maybe fewer women are interested in leading in the U.S.A. style, or in any style at all. If our founding fathers designed the government, isn't it somewhat inevitable that the structures have a male bent? The Supreme Court is the one federal branch where there is no race for election, opinions are a matter of intellectual, historical, and interpretive reflection, and people do not really follow one leader. Hmmm.

Sorry for my clumsy attempt. I was trying to convey my perspective on what I heard from Marianne. I was defintely not trying to set blame, nor do I believe Marianne was. I thought it was interesting to hear Marianne speak of the need for a rising up of female sensibilities. I think Marianne is listening closely and she doesn't seem to think there is enough hissing. She speaks of a need for women to come into power, not Condi Rice kind of pseudo-male power, but real feminine-rooted power. I have no business talking about it really, since I'm not able to articulate well what that means except from my obviously male perspective.

One of the business magazines I read, Business Week I think, had an issue dedicated to the emergence of the feminine in business. It was about women forging new, unconventional (i.e. non-male) paths and styles in running businesses. This is good, although the approaches have yet to converge within a single enterprise of any significant size. Smaller businesses or husband-and-wife businesses share power perhaps. Women business leaders have had to exit the male-dominated business world and build their own businesses in order to operate from their female sensibilities. Power is not shared in most businesses.

Government is different. Power is shared. History tells us that our government was conceived by males and dominated by males until early last century. Our government is still run mostly by males. Balance is needed badly. Not Condi Rice or Margaret Thatcher kind of balance, but Marianne Williamson and Dot Maver kind of balance.

I hear you that many women have little interest in the kind of structure that is our government. What kind of structure do you think would work? I could dream a little, but I'm sure you could go further:

What if we doubled the number of congresspeople and senators, requiring one male and one female rep. for each district, and two male and two female senators for each state?

What if a man and a woman shared the presidency?

What if the Supreme Court were required to be balanced with the chief justice alternating between a male and a female judge each year or two?

If Dot Maver were president, or even half-president, Iraq would not have happened.

I know these kinds of changes to our government structure are probably not going to happen any time soon, if at all. I only state them to illustrate my perspective, and to think out of the (very constrained, often unconstructive) box for a moment.

Emily, I know Jason, too; I knew him intimately before he was even born. We all know one another because of the ideological bond we share; we are all brothers and sisters in peace, and we can be frank with one another.

I, too, saw Marianne, and if I may rephrase Jason's remarks, I think what she is saying is to forget all this equality crap because men and women are NOT equal, but rather complementary. And if Marianne won't accept the Presidential nomination, wouldn't she make a terrific Secretary of State or [in a whisper] Secretary of Peace?

Marianne described my generation as "convenience activists," but some of us are not the dynamo type that she is. The very idea of "walking the halls of Congress" scares me to death, and I'm grateful that she's there to put on that kind of display. Just as there is a range of male energy types, there is just as broad a range of female energy types. Some of us have been too busy "being the change we want to make" to get on the platform or into the streets. I agree with Emily that the female energy is there whether or not it is noticed.

I have wondered myself if the rest of the "make love not war" generation with whom I came of age had copped out; in fact, that was the topic of my first contribution to this website. How could we have reached the sorry state in which we find ourselves if we had exercised adequate vigilance? Some people think we "traded our hash pipes for coke spoons" (Marion Zimmer Bradley) and bought in to the commercialism that is blasted at us every waking moment.

Then I went to Earth Day, and there they were, the flower children come of age, aged to cronehood, doing what I have tried to do: teach the community how to live a sustainable lifestyle, both by demonstration and by example. And guess what? They were wondering why the younger generation is so apathetic! It's just the generation gap all over again, along with a touch of passing the buck. Skin color is not the only demographic we have to cross in order to be able to work together productively and in harmony, "each according to her abilities, and each according to her needs."

"Blue in a Red State"

Jason

For anyone other than Jason reading this, we know one another, we are friendly, and we are working together. Nevertheless, Mister!

Since I know you to be an intelligent and married person, I will assume that the female sensibilities you refer to are meant only to describe Condoleeza Rice, Audrey on 24, or perhaps Dame Edna? I didn't hear Marianne Williamson, unfortunately, but did she mention where Daddy was? The female sensibilty is a different construct than that of a male: we protect, we speak out, but not, for the most part (despite Condoleeza) in a male style. That's why Mother's Day started as a day for peace: women have been activists for ages, in our own ways. Surely you cannot blame starvation on women? You must be aware of the many constraints on mothers and other women; and the many single moms around the world. We are only human. But if you can't hear the hissing, you're not listening closely. Many of us have no interest in the competitive-style corporate-driven political system. I think it's crucial that people consider their own roles, their own responsibilities. Some will be interested in politics; others won't. I don't know where these unflustered, pill-popping women are, but when I meet one, I'll be in touch! From your partner in peace, with a small hiss. I'm off to pop a pill.