Maybe the people in India were angry that they were forced to elect women instead of who they felt was the best candidate. Maybe they are sexist too but who knows for sure. India did elect a woman president decades ago so it doesn't seem like women stood no chance of winning. The question should be whether women were allowed to run for these positions. If the answer is yes then we should let democracy work. Certainly in this country it is not always the best candidate that wins but that's how democracy works.

I live in Washington State where we have 2 woman Senators and a woman governor. Both Senators have been reelected at least once and it seems likely that the Governor will win reelection too.

The thing is that we elect who we feel is the best candidate and gender doesn't enter into the equation. If the candidate that best represents my views is a woman or a man I'll vote for them which is as it should be.

The point of the article was, I think, that apparently voters are acting contrary to their own self interest, which tends to interest economists.

Your comments that perhaps the fact that they were forced to pick a woman has pissed them off to the extent that they do not see, or at least do not acknowledge, that they are doing a better job. This would seem not so far removed from the backlash we often see towards affirmative action here -- if we think someone got the job due to his/her gender or ethnicity, we may well not recognize that they are doing a great job.

Washington may be more progressive than many areas, but I note women being elected to key positions in many other places as well, including the Prime Minister positions of both India and Pakistan, so I am reasonably optimistic that many people are able to make reasonably rational choices irregardless of cultural gender bias.

Washington as Senators and Governor wouldn't happen to be because Washington state also has one opf the highest single mother ratios in the nation would it?

BTW, Governor Gregorie was elected by a total difference of 129 votes statewide. Hardly what I would call a mandate.

And it just so happens that both women in the Senate are both democrats?

"The thing is that we elect who we feel is the best candidate and gender doesn't enter into the equation. If the candidate that best represents my views is a woman or a man I'll vote for them which is as it should be."

Who is this 'we'. You perhaps, but to take your own anectdotes and conclude that sexism doesn't exist in the larger electorate isn't very convincing.

Further, I should note, that you shouldn't confuse the attitudes of a nation's rural areas with the nation as a whole, as attitudes in the countryside are always more traditional. That said, the author produced evidence that even amongst the educated and (presumably) urban, women are put at a disadvantage in selection procedures at least. All other things being equal, women will likely have worse professional and political outcomes then men.

You present very rational and well thought out points. Some people are so attached to their ideology they can't hear what other people are saying, much less respond in a balanced, factual way. It is unfortunate but I must admit, at times entertaining!

Its always a fine balance to strike. As you touch off on, forced "equality" never ends in true equality.

So you have to take a look at where things stand as a whole. If societal myths, stereotypes and misconceptions are simplyl out of hand in general in regards to a gender, ethnicity, etc. then it make take legal action to artificiall "balance" things.

If nothing else but to give enough opportunities to those oppressed so that more people are exposed to seeing them in these positions and hopefully gain an understanding that the world did not go to hell in a handbasket because of it.

HOWEVER, after a certain point, the artificial balance mechanism has to be taken away. Otherwise it server purely to reinforce the idea that said gender,ethnicity, etc. is different. In this regard I feel that extreme femenist groups and the higher level of "women clubs" helps serve to keep a gender gap in place. Which is damaging to the country as a whole I feel. The general result of the messages that these groups seem to send is that women are "special and different". This message essentially garuntees to impede a level of true equality.

You can't shout that you are special and different and then expect to be treated "equal". On the flip side when you are treated "equal" if you get offended and want to be treated "special and different" well...

Women by and large in the US fall into these two categories "I am a person who deserves respect" or "I am a women who deserves respect". The message the second one sends is fundamentally different, it implies that your gender has something to do with your worth.

So what? Well if your gender is part of a measure of your value then congradulations, you are in fact sexist and contribute to the gender gap. People who treat women as mystical creatures "more in tune with nature" contribute as well.

Its easy enough to look at the "gender neutral" countries the paper refers to and quickly realize that the vast majority of the differences we see in the US are by and large a product of marketing and media.

The reality is that IN EVERY TEST RUN to measure the core differences in how men and women THINK, the measurement was either the same or boarderline the same. Additionally with a minimal degree of training in a type of thought patter the differences quickly reduced down to within the margins of error.

The problem? This test shouldn't suprise people in the US. But it does. Unfortunately people are lazy and like excuses and things to lay blame. Gender gap provides MUCH opportunity for this.

The first step of the solution? Femenists need to stop shouting how different women are and focus more on how people are people, men are not from mars and women are not from venus, they are from earth. Government and other help agencies need to remove the notion that only women get abused etc. It sends the wrong message. Men thanks to US society statistically are less likely to seek help for...well anything. That doesn't mean they should be ignored or not given the opportuntiy or made to feel weird for trying.

Consider all the attention breast cancer recieves, funding, research, parades, ribbons, media. Prostate cancer? Not so much. Yet statistically its as brutal of a killer.

Granted the best thing would be to treat your children as people and be active parents but that is up to each parent individually. So the next best thing is to look at agencies, laws and regulations the promote one gender over another and ask "is there really any reason or benefit to doing that?" Most certainly I'm sure there will be a case where there is. But by and large the answer appears to be a solid no.