[RonPaulalways]

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_a ... index.html

Abstract:

Previous research has found that men have higher levels of political knowledge than women, both in general and after the effects of various control variables are taken into account. In this paper we explore the contours and determinants of this gender gap in political knowledge. Using data from the 2000 American National Election Study (ANES) and the 2002 Louisiana Survey, we develop a series of models in which we depict political knowledge as a function of gender, socioeconomic and demographic attributes, political attitudes and engagement, media exposure, and political life circumstances. We find that gender effects in political knowledge persist, even in the face of statistical controls. Men and women differ on their mean values for a number of control variables, so the inclusion of a wide range of independent variables does result in a moderate reduction in the magnitude of gender coefficients. We also find that the gender gap appears to be somewhat stronger for national-level political knowledge rather than state-level political knowledge. Moreover, we consider the possibility that men and women differ in their relative propensities to give incorrect and don’t know responses to knowledge questions, and our results from bivariate and multivariate analyses suggest that women are more likely to give both incorrect and don’t know responses. Finally, we test a stereotype threat model of gender differences in political knowledge, and our results from these models are somewhat inconclusive. Overall, our findings suggest that gender matters for political knowledge, with women exhibiting consistently lower levels of political knowledge across a wide range of model specifications. The persistence of gender differences is somewhat perplexing, insofar as we account for several explanations for why men have higher levels of political knowledge then women.

Given this, do you think giving women suffrage was a good move? What is the consequence for western states of such a large politically ignorant demographic having political power?

I think it empowered special interests who feed on ignorance.

[Zyx]

Show us the questionnaire. They probably weren't even 'politically important' questions. Either way, check out this:

Even though these changes "brought no widening of the franchise" (Hill, 1961, p. 297), it is more important perhaps that contemporaries believed that they augured substantive change. Just when many Englishmen were losing their economic autonomy, ideological shifts indicated that they had gained increased individual independence. One psychological outcome of such contradictory information was a confused and amorphous self-blaming, in which Englishmen had neither relief nor justification for rebellion. There remained "no political outlet for the passions and resentments of those whom their betters expected to work harder for low wages in deplorable living conditions" (Hill, 1961, p. 297) and there was no one, it seemed, to blame but themselves."

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=80&t=102167&sd=d

Voting is a sham.

It'd be better to disenfranchise women, only so that they may be a revolting people. Once appeased with a ballot box, we listen to them less. Contrary to American lore, a vote is a silencer.

[RonPaulalways]

They probably weren't even 'politically important' questions.

Why would you make such an assumption?

It'd be better to disenfranchise women, only so that they may be a revolting people. Once appeased with a ballot box, we listen to them less.

So what kind political system would you propose to replace voting? What will make us "listen" to them more?

[Aekos]

What is the consequence for western states of such a large politically ignorant demographic having political power?

How do you believe in "liberty" when you think it's ok to disenfranchise half the voting population?

[PBVBROOK]

Given this, do you think giving women suffrage was a good move? What is the consequence for western states of such a large politically ignorant demographic having political power?

Are you high or just trolling?

You refer to women as an "ignroant demographic". What a load of...

You appear to be a sexist and your position is just not very smart. This "abstract" is the work of idiots.

But the idea behind voting appears to be far to complicated for you to understand. Each voter brings to the process their unique life experiences, world view and self interest. And that is the way it is supposed to be.

I really loved this statement:

"...women are more likely to give both incorrect and don’t know responses."

Some of the smartest answers I have ever heard were "I don't know".

But then this refers to "knowledge" questions. I wonder what that means?

You love to give your opinion so here is mine. I believe that the answers to the great political questions of our day do not all lie with the opinions of constitutional scholars. Voting is not a history quiz. It is disgusting that you should post such a shallow example of pseudo-science forwarded by what are obviously politically besotted ideologues. Look to the jury system. Your beloved founders codified that one should be tried by a jury of his peers; not a jury of legal scholars. That was to instill in the system reason rather than a sterile analysis of the law. Voting is the same idea. Your deified founders realized that the essence of democracy is that people vote their self-interest balanced by their understanding of the social contract and their understanding of the concept of right and wrong.

I could care less that ‘women’ may fare worse in some ‘test’ of political knowledge. I know that there are countless women whose political knowledge far outweighs mine and even more whose political insight makes me look like political sluggard. I don’t care because I don’t believe that the most important thing that any citizen brings to the voting process is their knowledge of high school civics. Like the founders I believe that “we the people” must be trusted with the government. The founders ruled a country where the average citizen was barely literate. Yet the handed they future of the country to these unwashed masses. They must have been thinking that something other than some civics test was the true measure of the universal franchise. That you and those whom you quote seem to have missed this, I find extremely disturbing. But then I have always found bigots disturbing.

[RonPaulalways]

This "abstract" is the work of idiots.

This comment reveals you as a person not worth responding to.

Quote:
What is the consequence for western states of such a large politically ignorant demographic having political power?


How do you believe in "liberty" when you think it's ok to disenfranchise half the voting population?

I don't consider political power liberty. Politics is the power we have over others. If that power is used for forced wealth redistribution and to force tax payers to bailout politically connected corporations, that is not liberty, that's oppression. If that power is used to prevent crime and maintain national security without engaging in wars of intervention, then it's serving the purpose of furthering liberty.

[Stormsmith]

Show us the questionnaire. They probably weren't even 'politically important' questions.

Why would you make such an assumption?

Actually, the lady left a little wiggle room on that one.

More to the point, it was a smart question.

You posited a single study. I've dealt with enough studies to know if someone is advancing a previously unknown snippet of information, you ask questions. The first one is what was the subject pool, both control and variable. How were they selected, age, level of education, background and so on. No point in pitting the top 10 male poli-sc boys graduating from Harvard against some number of six year old girls.

Then you worry about methodology, and this would include the questions. Since it is reliably true that women tend to support liberal, tolerant parties, whereas men usually vote for the right wing, it would be pretty easy to slant the questions to favour the outcome the author wants to promote. Then you consider the stats, how to interpret the data etc.

Methinks you owe the lady a better response than you gave her.

[PBVBROOK]

This comment reveals you as a person not worth responding to.

"people not worth"

This simple statement seems to pretty well describe your whole political position.

Very weak RPA. Running out of ammo?

[RonPaulalways]

Stormsmith,

the study can be viewed in full, so there's no reason to speculate on the type of questions asked:

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_ ... 7995-1.php

[Stormsmith]

I'm not particularly interested. I'm just saying Zyx had a valid point/question, and you dismissed it unfairly. Tsk, tsk.

[Dr House]

How do you believe in "liberty" when you think it's ok to disenfranchise half the voting population?

1) I thought you were a monarchist Aekos?

2) Political freedom is not freedom, especially not freedom in the libertarian sense of the word.

[SpiderMonkey]

Oh, another RPA classic:

Given this, do you think giving women suffrage was a good move? What is the consequence for western states of such a large politically ignorant demographic having political power?

I think it empowered special interests who feed on ignorance.

Perhaps in your utopia you could toss suffragettes into the forced labour camps along with those protesting the lack of food?

I think I can see how you came to believe female suffrage was a bad idea. You've noticed that most of your fellow Ayn Rand loving libertarian wierdos are teenage boys. You conclude that, because the writings of St. Ayn are sacred, women must be evil and stupid. Despite being a woman herself, it is fairly easy to argue Ayn Rand herself thought that.

To seriously address your point (as much as you have one) - any test to find the average political knowledge of a group isn't going to tell you the political knowledge level of individual members of that group. You are treating women as one, single, hostile entity (dumped recently?) and using a crude generalization to advocate denying the rights of 3 billion people. Champion of liberty my fucking arse.

[RonPaulalways]

Spidermonkey, if you want to debate seriously, you need to stop trying to twist every single word I write into some sort of attack against me.

Do we now need to go through the genesis of your "forced labor" criticism against me once again to show how you're misconstrueing my responses to a string of obscure hypothetical questions you asked me into some kind of argument that I want to throw poor people into forced labor camps?

How petty of you to use the fact that I answered every one of your obscure hypothetical questions to create a completely dishonest talking point against me.

For the sake of the forum, I wish you would show some more integrity.

To seriously address your point (as much as you have one) - any test to find the average political knowledge of a group isn't going to tell you the political knowledge level of individual members of that group.

No shit sherlock. It doesn't change the fact that giving women suffrage very likely reduced the level of political knowledge of the average voter, and this likely had political effects (which studies by John Lott suggests included a growth in the size of government as a percentage of GDP) .

I'm just saying Zyx had a valid point/question, and you dismissed it unfairly.

I don't think she made a valid point. I don't see why she would assume that the questions they asked for the study were "probably" not politically important. I think that's an unsubstantiated assumption.

[SpiderMonkey]

Spidermonkey, if you want to debate seriously, you need to stop trying to twist every single word I write into some sort of attack against me.

Do we now need to go through the genesis of your "forced labor" criticism against me once again to show how you're misconstrueing my responses to a string of obscure hypothetical questions you asked me into some kind of argument that I want to throw poor people into forced labor camps?

How petty of you to use the fact that I answered every one of your obscure hypothetical questions to create a completely dishonest talking point against me.

For the sake of the forum, I wish you would show some more integrity.

I have ten times your integrity in my little finger. That is why rather than trying to tell people what you said, I show them: viewtopic.php?f=49&t=100871&start=25

But you continue, even in the face of evidence, to deny what you have stated. You will probably go on to deny your misogyny next.

No shit sherlock. It doesn't change the fact that giving women suffrage very likely reduced the level of political knowledge of the average voter,

You can't disenfranchise a massive demographic, made up of INDIVIDUALS - you know the entities you are supposed to hold above all else - based on some average statistics gathered about them. Dubious statistics as well.

and this likely had political effects (which studies by John Lott suggests included a growth in the size of government as a percentage of GDP) .

Basically, because they disagree with you, they should not be allowed to vote? How the hell can you not realise what a hardcore fascist you are? Your first instinct in reaction to any obstacle to your little ideology is to invoke state brutality, despite your alleged mistrust of the state.

Disenfranchise the enemy. Throw them in prison. Whatever it takes to achieve and maintain the glorious empire of Ron Paul

[sazerac]

Electing the exact right candidate is not important. Letting citizens have the responsibility and the right to elect a candidate is what's important. We don't give anybody enough power to totally screw up all by themselves.

Civil unrest is a big problem for governments. The US has one of the most compliant citizenry in the world.

[Suska]

I'm with RPA's opinion, very few women I'm personally acquainted with can do better than ask their men what to think regarding politics - and an even smaller fraction actually do ask. I don't believe this is a physical gender matter as much as it is a social identity matter. European girls I have known were quite a bit smarter and interested in such things. I would account for it variously depending on their age, my Mom is a baby boomer, never had much more beyond family on her mind. Some friends of mine have simply been isolated among drunks and grifters and never had a chance at college, but are otherwise sharp and receptive. Others are simply way too into posing shallow for the sake of appearances - even when it has ceased to get them laid.

The answer is not disenfranchisement, but maybe it should start with the threat of it; the answer is very simple and has been embraced successfully elsewhere. Affordable college. Barring that it isn't just women who will be unfit to vote but also the majority of men.

[SpiderMonkey]

Libertarian - "Freedom for all! Except for statists!"

Normal person - "Who is a statist?"

Libertarian - "Everyone who disagrees with us!"

Normal person - "Please stay away from me."

[Falx]

Given this, do you think giving women suffrage was a good move?

Not that worse than giving the vote to anyone who doesn't have a PhD.

What is the consequence for western states of such a large politically ignorant demographic having political power?

Winning world war 2.

I think it empowered special interests who feed on ignorance.

Like Ron Paul.

[RonPaulalways]

I have ten times your integrity in my little finger. That is why rather than trying to tell people what you said, I show them: viewtopic.php?f=49&t=100871&start=25

The only integrity you show is pasting the link, as it exposes your comments to be bullshit. I appreciate this from you and have previously stated so.

Basically, because they disagree with you, they should not be allowed to vote? How the hell can you not realise what a hardcore fascist you are? Your first instinct in reaction to any obstacle to your little ideology is to invoke state brutality, despite your alleged mistrust of the state.

I don't think taking away the vote for women is politically palatable or appropriate now, 80 years after it was granted. I do think questioning whether it was the right decision 80 years ago, and what the repercussions were, is a useful exercise.

As far as political power and your absurd claim that I am advocating "state brutality", I don't think people have a natural, or moral right, to use political power to subject others to coercion (real coercion, not the coercion of the 'private property paradigm', aka laws against trespassing, that you ridiculously lament). If there was a way to ensure individual liberty shown to be more effective than representative government I would support it.

Quote:
What is the consequence for western states of such a large politically ignorant demographic having political power?


Winning world war 2.

Please explain. This doesn't make any sense to me. Western states were more successful geostrategically pre-women's suffrage.

In any case, Germany is a western state, and it lost WW2 post-women's suffrage.

Quote:
I think it empowered special interests who feed on ignorance.


Like Ron Paul.

The Ron Paul movement is not a special interest group, unless you consider average tax payers a special interest group.

The benefits of small government are diffused throughout the population, while large government hurts the economy as a whole while giving enormous benefits to the politically connected (Halliburton, pharmaceuticals, HMOs, PPOs, Wall Street, Fannie Mae's executives and BofDs, etc) hence why special interests promote it.

[Stormsmith]

As I said, she left a little wiggle room, but just for sport, let's say she declared it full stop. It still is a valid to examine the study for the reasons listed. I take it you're no fan of scientific method.