The nature vs. nurture debate about gender.

Another in a series of paradoxes:
So-called "gender" feminists assert a blank slate theory: that men and women are inherently the same. Apparent cognitive and behavioral differences between men and women are purely a product of women’s subordination in a repressive patriarchy, they say, and should gradually disappear as women rise to a more equal footing with men.

But if the opposite were true, it could mean that we've been doing feminism all wrong – which could explain a lot about the movement's widespread stall after nearly forty years of trying to realize its promise.

Neuroscience has revealed gender differences in every major part of the brain. Many studies show brain regions that manage emotions, reasoning and even motor control are not the same in men and women. There are also huge gender differences in hormones that affect brain chemistry. One theory asserts that gender differences in brain function and chemistry largely cancel each other out so as to preclude gender differences from being seen in behavior.

Is gender insulting to women leaders?

Another in a series of paradoxes:
Gender denial by women in power seems to be seems to all too common in 21st century America. Responding to a question about her gender, Drew Faust, Harvard’s first female president, replied, "I’m not the woman president of Harvard, I’m the president of Harvard." N.Y. Times blogger Judith Warner agreed, arguing that attributing the newly appointed Faust’s notoriety as "a people person" to her gender "is to cut Faust off at the knees."

Yet gender is clearly an issue surrounding Dr. Faust’s appointment. It brings the number of female Ivy League Presidents to 50% - nearly to the percentage of women in the general population. Dr. Faust replaced a man who alienated many with his imperious style and his comments about gender differences. Dr. Faust, it is said, listens and makes people feel heard and included.

A N.Y. Times reporter researching an article recently found very few female CEO's willing to say anything about gender. Could it be that women executives still regard their gender as a professional liability?

Counter-veiling arguments.

Another in a series of paradoxes:
Last October, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said full-face veils (niqabs) worn by women were a "mark of separation" keeping women from fully participating in society. Blair was backing House of Commons leader Jack Straw, who had requested that a group of Muslim women meeting with him remove the veils that prevented him from seeing any part of their faces except their eyes. Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi also said "it is important for our society" that women should not be hidden behind veils. Is this more than just another example of men telling women how to dress?

A preliminary issue about the veil is choice. Some veiled women insist that the choice is their own, but it seems apparent that for most veiled or burqa-clad women in the world the choice is religiously or culturally imposed. Removal of the veil in public would subject many women to social ostracism, beatings or death. So the veil issue is both about personal choice and about Western acceptance of a non-Western religious rule.

The controversy over veils in driver’s license photos was the subject of a recent dinner conversation. One of the participants, a male lawyer, argued that if a fingerprint could somehow be encoded onto an identification card, it would allow a woman who chose to be completely veiled for her driver’s license photo to nonetheless be uniquely identified in a traffic stop by police equipped with a fingerprint reader. This would eliminate the concern about identification that currently prevents some veiled women from obtaining driver’s licenses in the U.S. A woman who was part of the conversation countered that a full veil would still constitute a safety hazard, as it would obstruct both the peripheral vision and hearing of the driver.

Another male participant said that as a democracy that cherishes the full participation of all citizens in nearly all aspects of our governance and social values, we should show our collective disapproval of cultural norms that significantly restrict the full participation of either gender. Although the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution was never enacted, gender equality guides our public policies and values. We should impose those values on some of the privileges of citizenship, such as a license to drive a car, so as to discourage cultural practices that foster gender inequality.

A fourth member of the dinner group, a woman, said that we should follow the China model. The U.S. doesn’t approve of the Chinese government’s human rights policies, but has decided that making China a full player in the world economy will distribute economic power within Chinese society. The resulting affluence will be a force for freedom and democracy, and the people will demand change. Similarly, we should allow veiled women to drive so that they will have greater mobility and not be prisoners in their own houses. Once these women have a taste of freedom, they will demand change within their religions and cultures. Preventing them from driving will only maintain the separation of these women from mainstream Western culture and inhibit change.

Although the intersection between personal choice and practices imposed by long-standing and deep power inequities is difficult to navigate, it is a fundamental question in dismantling a hierarchy. What rules do you think we should impose on veil wearers?

To procreate or not to procreate? That is the question.

Another in a series of paradoxes:
A recent exchange between Senator Barbara Boxer and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlights one difficulty in staking out a clear vision of women’s roles in the twenty-first century: women, like men, make different choices and do not share a single set of priorities. In a Senate hearing, Boxer tried to say that many of the Iraq War policymakers do not have as much as stake as the military families whose sons and daughters face death and injury in battle. Secretary Rice's supporters later complained that Boxer seemed to be criticizing Rice for not having children.

This conflict between two women policymakers illustrates the challenge of devising policies that improve the outcomes of the seemingly impossible choices currently facing many working parents, while at the same time not shifting the discrimination onto those choosing not to procreate. Should people of either gender who choose not to procreate have the priorities of their workplaces set my those who do, or vice versa?

Finally, the Boxer-Rice exchange also demonstrates how procreation and children are still regarded as women's issues. If the exchange had been between two men, it would have generated much less attention and criticism. It shows how far we still have to go to achieve gender equality. (Another lesson from the Boxer-Rice exchange is how quickly policy conversations can turn into partisan political fights that distract from the real issues. One of Rice’s supporters, Rush Limbaugh, rolled out the Clarence Thomas lynching metaphor to describe Boxer’s treatment of Rice.)

The 26 percent rule

Looking for some illustrations of how the 26 percent rule described in the book Upside Down would work? Here's some examples from 2004:

Women made up forty-seven percent of the Washington State Senate and thirty-two percent of the House in 2004. The combined percentage of both chambers remained the highest in the nation, even though they have dipped slightly since their peak in 1994. In theory, the Senate could use the twenty-six percent rule unmodified. The House could use just over half of thirty-two percent, or women’s votes equal to at least seventeen percent of the total number of House members. Because women constituted a much higher percentage of Democratic legislators than of Republicans, and Democrats controlled the House while Republicans controlled the Senate, the consequences of the rule for the two chambers would be quite different. These results illustrate two ways in which the rule would affect a number of other states.

To pass legislation in the ninety-eight member House using the rule at seventeen percent, Democrats would need just seventeen votes. There were twenty female Democrats in 2004. To affect women’s influence in the House, the rule would have to be introduced at twenty-one percent. This way, the Democrats would have to strike a bargain with at least one Republican woman in order to pass bills. After an increase of just one Democratic woman, House Democrats would be freed from their obligation to seek support from Republican women for two years. After that, either the failsafe provision or growth in the number of female legislators would keep raising the bar. For the Republicans, a gain of just four more seats, coming from either gender, would give them control of the House. However, they would need to increase the women in their ranks from the existing number of eleven to at least ten more to earn a two-year respite from having to seek support from Democratic women in order to pass bills.

In the forty-nine member Senate, Republicans had a one vote majority in 2004, but Democrats had more than twice as many women. Using the twenty-six percent rule unmodified would require Republicans to routinely beg six Democratic women to join in their votes, which would severely limit their ability to govern. Lowering the introductory percentage to just eighteen instead would force them to get support from only two Democratic women, which would make it possible to forge reasonable compromises on legislation and fulfil the purpose of the rule. As the Washington example illustrates, the rule’s initial percentages would have to be tailored to the circumstances of each state legislature.

There are seventeen states in which, unlike Washington, the twenty-six percent rule could be enacted by a majority of voters. For most legislative chambers the rule initially would be adjusted to begin one to three percentage points above half the current percentage of women’s representation in that chamber.

In states where the majority party has a lopsided majority, a high percentage of women legislators, or both, implementation at just above half the existing overall percentage of women in each chamber would not change present practices. In the Democratic controlled California Senate, implementation of even the unmodified twenty-six percent rule would not immediately change anything. Out of a total of forty members, there were eleven women in 2004 – all Democrats. The rule would serve only to encourage the minority party to work harder to increase the number of women legislators in its ranks in preparation for a return to power. The value of highlighting the opposition’s lack of attention to women’s issues, combined with the erection of a device that would reduce the risk of a reversal of political fortunes, might make the rule attractive to Democratic Senators.

In the California Assembly, and in both houses of the Massachusetts legislature, the unmodified twenty-six percent rule would force their Democratic leaders to work with one Republican woman. Just over half the total percentage of women in the California Assembly in 2004 was sixteen percent, but the rule would not be effective unless introduced at twenty-six percent because most of those women were Democrats.

In Republican controlled Arizona, North Dakota (House only) and South Dakota, and Democratic controlled Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma (Senate only) and Nevada (House only), legislatures faced situations similar to the Washington House. Introducing the rule at a percentage just a point or two above half the existing percentage of women in each chamber would change nothing. It would take an increase of approximately five percentage points above half the existing percentage to force the majority party to seek agreement with one woman from the minority party. The Nevada House would have to start the rule at least eight points above the normal modification for it to have an impact. (As in Washington State, a different party controlled each of the two chambers in Nevada’s legislature in 2004.)

Other legislatures were comparable to the Washington Senate, where the majority party had a lower percentage of women than the minority party. In those states, implementation of the rule adjusted to just above half the overall percentage of women in a chamber would require the majority party to negotiate with four or more women from the minority party. Lowering the number of women needed to just two would reduce the risk of gridlock. To accomplish this, the rule percentage would have to be set below half the existing overall percentage of women. States with at least one chamber affected in this manner included Republican controlled Colorado, Michigan, Missouri and Montana. The 2004 Colorado Senate had nine Democratic women and only one Republican woman.

The thirty member Oregon Senate was evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats in 2004. With six Democratic women and only one Republican woman, it presented a special case. If Democrats were facing the rule, it would have to be introduced substantially higher than half the existing overall percentage to have an effect, whereas for Republicans it would have to be substantially lower to be viable. Probably, the fairest solution would be to base it on the Republicans’ circumstances.

In the remaining states allowing constitutional amendment by voter initiative, introducing the rule at just over half the existing percentage of women in each chamber would be the right number to help shape policy to be more favorable to women’s needs. The majority party would have to bargain with one or two women from the minority party in order to pass legislation. These states included Republican controlled Florida, Ohio, Oregon (House only) and Nevada (Senate only), and Democratic controlled Oklahoma (House only).

Finally, there is Nebraska, with non-partisan elections and only one chamber in its legislature. Just over eighteen percent of its legislators were women. Introduced at ten percent, the rule would give Nebraska women a greater voice in decision making.