Would You Let Your Sister Vote For This Man?

New at Reason: Cathy Young goes on a bender about gender.

Comments

[s.m. koppelman]

Cathy Young makes half a point. The Salon headline struck me as stranegely patriarchal--echoing the practice more common in developing-world democracies (though it exists here too) of men dictating who their wives and daughters vote for, often casting their ballots for them.

But she's being disingenuous about Schwarzenegger's misogynist statements. For one thing, no, there shouldn't be a statute of limitations on past statements. The individual (remember the individual?) should decide whether a 25-year-old interview still says something about a candidate. For Ms. Young, bygones are bygones. For others, they might not be.

For another thing, there's that 2001 Premiere article in which Mr. Schwarzenegger was reported to have copped a feel (and in once case, pinched a nipple) of three separate London TV interviewers on a single publicity swing. In late 2000. That came along with the anonymously-sourced stories of him being caught giving oral sex to a woman who wasn't his wife in a trailer on the set of "Eraser", as well as feeling up co-stars and making some rather impolitic remarks throughout the '90s, to wit:

A female producer on one of Schwarzenegger?s films tells of a time when her ex-husband came to visit the set. When she introduced the man to Schwarzenegger, the star quipped, ?Is this guy the reason why you didn?t come up to my hotel room last night and suck my cock??

And then, just this year, there was this chestnut:

In his current movie, "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines," Schwarzenegger bashes a female terminator in the head with a urinal. "How many times do you get away with this -- to take a woman, grab her upside down and bury her face in a toilet bowl?" Schwarzenegger said last month. "The thing is, you can do it because in the end, I didn't do it to a woman -- she's a machine! We could get away with it without being crucified by who knows what group." [emphasis mine]

Maybe not many Californians--men or women alike--care about any of this. And maybe there's a point of some kind to be made that men should be as bothered by this as NOW wants women to be, but with her selective approach to citation, I don't think that's her point. The way I'm reading this, it sounds like Ms. Young is turned off by the idea that an issue might be more relevant to large swaths of an electorate based on their gender. People have opinions on things based on aspects of who they are. Telemarketers oppose "do-not-call" lists. Petroleum executives sometimes favor offshore drilling near resorts. Maybe all of this bugs her and it's Reason's recently-discussed bad-editor problem that's to blame for it not coming through.

Does the collection of anecdotes about Mr. Schwarzenegger mean proscripively that "women" as a class "shouldn't" vote for him? No. Women, men and intergender persons are all individuals, each free to make their own decisions. But Schwarzenegger's demonstrated, recorded attitutes toward women are probably relevant to quite a few women and men who should be free to make up their own minds. In turn, journalists like Ms. Young at Reason or Tim Grieve over at Salon are free to engage in advocacy one way or another. Ms. Young's arguments would have carried more water, though, if she had acknowledged that there are standing allegations of misogyny that most decidedly aren't old enough to be covered by a typical statute of limitations. Why a supposedly libertarian writer is even trying to rig an argument the other way is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

"there shouldn't be a statute of limitations on past statements."

Right, you shouldn't be allowed to change your mind. You should stupidly cling to whatever decision you made 25 years ago.

And what's your opinion on Roman Polanksi?

[Keith]

Ron,

When you mention the sausage party at sci.physics, I don't see men escaping social life - I see them engaging in social intercourse via different means. Arguing about nothing for the sake of talking? Sounds like any coctail party conversation to me. That the medium of exchange is written and electronic vs. vocal and in person is irrelevant. The people of like interests are still interacting with one another.

[Ron Hardin]

Being governor isn't a job because it's not defined. A man will do it differently from a woman. There are choices everywhere in what the job will consist of. Gender goes everywhere; we are not as neuter as clams, as Marge Piercy put it. So it goes into deciding about it.

As for voters, women vote much differently from men. They prefer government programs that hedge their having to rely on their husbands, for instance; the men tend to vote more of a leave-me-alone ticket. Men are not worried about nonsupport; women are. A campaign in turn panders to the differing interests.

For instance, feeling women up does not play well with one sex; the other thinks it's amusing but isn't going to say anything. Which sex is which? No profiling, now.

[Ron Hardin]

Keith,

On giving up social life. Paglia suggests that math and physics is interesting to men because it's an escape from women. It's an area where, once and for all, something can finally be settled. It may be an obscure thing, but settled it will be. Men go for that.

Women are comfortable, and interested, with things unresolved, and many things ongoing, more of a soap opera deal. This has huge advantages - for instance they make better horse trainers because they don't need to settle it when Dobbin says that he's going to kill her. Oh why don't we just do something else, she would say. The man would get killed.

So she doesn't settle whether Dobbin wants to kill her. That love of and interest in irresolution is a social life.

The men arguing in sci.physics about whether it is possible to lean your bicycle without steering it to lean have no social life, and the endless argument is not social. It is interested in settling something, and that's all.

[Warren]

I think there's a bigger point to be made here.

Schwarzenegger is a political pussy.

It would be one thing, if the guy were still standing behind his past pursuit of happiness. How refreshing would it be to hear a significant candidate for governor say something like "Yes, I still enjoy having sex. I don't drink as much as I used to because of the hangovers, but that's why I smoke more pot now. I think it's important for the sake of the children that they know the dangers of sex and drugs. The already know these things are a lot of fun, it's silly to try to deny that. They need to know how much pain can result from irresponsible behavior and how to behave responsibly so that they can have fun without hurting themselves." Alas, this is not to be, he is now engaged in full throttle backpedaling and denial.

[Phil]

Seems like people are trying really hard to paint Arnold as Hollywood's own Rocco Siffredi, and I don't think it's sticking all that well. And I agree that the headline on the Salon piece is awfully patronizing. "Little girls don't know who to vote for...better watch out for 'em." I'm anti-recall, so I'm hardly pro-Arnold (being that I'm in the porn business, I'd be likely to vote for Mary Carey if I lived in CA), but he seems like a guy whose sexism is rooted in being rich and famous, conditions which, let's be honest, do help you get laid a lot more than the average person, if you're looking.

[Rod]

Sorry Ron,

You're generalizing (and incorrectly, also).

While it's accurate to say that a woman may govern differently from a man, it is equally valid (and even more accurate) to say that a particular woman will govern differently than some other woman, just as a particular man will govern differently than some other man.

If this weren't true, then you should be able to vote for any man (or woman) on a ticket and expect the same results as would be provided by any other member of the same gender.

Also, you cannot generalize about the types of government that would be preferred (or overseen) simply because of gender. I know (and know of) many men who prefer the hands on government you attribute to women, and many women who prefer the hands off government you attribute to men.

The qualifications of an individual trump the perceived qualities of the generalized member of some defined group (or would in a rational world).

[Plutarck]

First of all, on sex and gender:

Well no one else has said it yet, I think, so I will - sex and gender are different things. One is a biological fact, the other a social role.

On just not-so-old-fashioned sex:

I honestly ask, how is having consentual sex (in a group or not) with a willing partner in any way 'piggish'? I don't understand the use of the term here at all - it just doesn't fit with any other way I've heard it used.

If the story is true, the woman walked into a gym naked - which, as far as I know, was meant in some manner for some degree of arousal of sexual interest. Unless it was a really, really different time and place, I'm pretty sure about that - unless she was just a rather weird-acting sort of individual.

...so, I just don't follow. It might be many things, but I don't see how it could be described as "piggish".

On social lives:

Ron Hardin - I'm sorry, but while that may have some predictive value, you cannot seriously think it is anything nearing a universal about sex or gender - do you?

First of all, on the concept of "resolution", if it were true then why do so many women talk about "closure"? Is not "closure" precisely resolution?

Every human seeks both resolution of some things, to move past some things which apparently cannot be resolved, and to have some things be an ongoing process that cannot meaningfully be said to ever be "resolved" - male and female, masculine and feminine, and any other sort of person you could come up with.

But I'm afraid you resort to terrible feats of logic in declaring what is or isn't a social life, declaring something which only is a small part of social interaction as "irresolution" as being all and no less nor more of what social life actually means.

Far more importantly and rather trivial, is the fact that of all things to pick as being settled, Physics and Mathematics are perhaps the worst subjects you could possibly pick - at least once you get the least bit deep into the subjects!

There are indeed countless problems in Mathematics that have never been solved - like trying to figure out a formula to find all the prime numbers, as one easy to understand example - and in Physics you even have principles that state that it is absolutely impossible to know "everything" because not all facts can be known from the observation of all other observable facts! Furthermore, Physicists are often famous for how they absolutely reject stating pretty well anything with total certainty - it seems a necessary trait to be a good physicist that you accept that not only could you be wrong, but you can never actually "know", in any absolute sense, that you are right!

According to every mathematician I've heard of, mathematicians generally actuall agree seemingly only about "the real numbers", and damn near nothing else. And I've hardly heard of physicists, as a general rule, being much better.

How on earth could any such thing be consistant with things being settled? Science is the worst possible field you could ever enter if you want to completely settle anything, because it is the absolute defining quality of Science is that anything and everything must remain forever open to being proven wrong - nothing is sacred, nothing is beyond questioning, and you must be willing to reject absolutely anything if the evidence demands it. Indeed, Science is the ultimate uncertainty, the ultimate unending process, the ultimate process without end.

If women wanted irresolution and men wanted resolution, then men would be undertakers and women would be scientists. But I'm quite sure that while men are more commonly undertakers than women, I do recall that men are also more commonly scientists and mathematicians - and, most difficult to deal with of all, the vast majority of men and women are neither undertakers nor scientists.

Finally, if the people on usenet weren't interested in being social and just wanted to settle something (and how is seeking resolution of some particular conflict not social?), then A) far more should have realized that nothing ever gets absolutely settled, and B) they should just be arguing with themselves, or with absolutely no one at all. It is a part of being social that you have some interest in what other people think and believe, and whether or not they like or agree with you.

Further, men are famously more commonly athletes than women - including in team sports. Are such team sports as baseball and football not social? And what of fraternities and brotherhoods? If these be not social, what possibly could be?

[Plutarck]

Oh, btw - the previous was quite stream-of-consciousness and not edited. I was also a wee bit distracted, so I apologize for any lack of reading-quality that results.

[Ron Hardin]

Plutarck, it's a rather good generalization. Nothing keeps women from posting to sci.math and sci.phyics, and it's not a matter of having to be an expert (because the people there are morons). It takes interest, is all. The statistic again: zero women for a thousand. Check it out.

Women do not argue about how a gyroscope balances in their spare time, or whether power could be drawn from earth rotation using one. They don't obsess on the problem.

[Homer]

Ron,

It is not a good generalization, by any means. The kind of generalization that you do is wrong, pure and simple.

That there are actual differences between men and women is inarguable (and being a man, I rejoice in those differences more often than not).

To counter your examples:

First, how do you know (for a fact) that every single one of the posters in that newsgroup are men? Did you interview each and every one of them in person? Are you guessing based on screen names (and bear in mind that there are a number of women who use male or neutral names online)?

Second, even if it is true that all of them are indeed male, you are generalizing from a sample of about .00002% of the online population. There is NO meaningful correlation that can be determined from such a small sample set.

Third, as a matter of fact, there ARE women who discuss how a gyroscope balances in their spare time, among other similar topics of discussion. Even if you have not heard (or heard of) such women, it does not justify such a gross level of generalization. Although not much better, it would probably be more accurate to say that the population of liberal arts majors do not argue about how a gyroscope balances. And such a group most definitely includes men, as well.

[fyodor]

As long as there are elections, candidates will play on people's prejudices for votes. And as long as people have brains, they'll have prejudices.

[Ron Hardin]

Hey Cathy baby, we are men and women. It almost always matters which you are. That has to go in the theory somewhere.

As to interests: the experiment has been done. The results are in. Wander over to usenet groups say sci.math or sci.physics. You will find there people who are morons in these fields for the most part, but intensely interested in it. They argue endlessly. No question is settled, but the earnestness is undeniable. I haven't checked for quite a while, but I'd bet that out of the last thousand posts in each group, there are zero women.

It's not ability or talent that keeps women out of science and math but lack of interest. Women don't want to give up a social life, whereas men want to escape it. That sort of produces a big difference when added up over a few thousand days. At the highest levels, it matters that you give up your social life.

You will find though that the difference in interests produces wonderful talents. I myself suggest Vicki Hearne's _Bandit_ the chapter on gender, ``Beastly Behaviors.'' The whole book is good.

[Rod]

The point is that unless you're looking for sex (or a mate), gender is irrelevant to the discourse of the ability of an individual to perform a particular task. That there are actual differences is not relevant if members of both sexes want to be a governor (for example).

As for having a brain = having prejudice, anyone who actually *uses* their brain judges a person as an individual, not as a member of some amorphously defined 'group'.

[Anonymous]

Judgeing a person as an individual also on the time of night and the part of town you're in.

[Ron Hardin]

Homer,

It samples the entire online population. Posting in sci.math and sci.physics is itself the test. Nothing is extrapolated. Anyone can post there.

Certainly there are women who know about gyroscopes and can answer the question. But they're not interested enough to post about it. They have another avocation. The men there don't. They argue about it instead.

[David]

Interesting use of the word "pssy" above, Warren, in a debate about gender and stereotypes.

Just an observation.

[fyodor]

Plutarck,

I'm not so sure that the way people use gender and sex are that clearly delineated. In fact, where's what dictionary.reference.com has to say:

Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of ?masculine,? ?feminine,? and ?neuter,? but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.

[kevrob]

Decades ago, some used to say "Let's elect women, and we won't have war any more."

Three data points:

* Indira Ghandi

* Golda Meir

* Margaret Thatcher

Mrs. T. was especially reviled for rationalizing the bloated non-defense programs that women were supposed to prefer to bad, nasty guns.

Maybe it will take a tough woman executive to pull a "Nixon-goes-to-China" on U.S. non-defense spending.

Kevin

[nm156]

Mrs. T might be a Lady, in the titled sense, but she has/had bigger balls than most of the male members (sorry) of her party combined.