the war of the sexes continues

uncivilised debates continue

Reading the online forum comments between the two, I'm not sure what Bartow's problem is (having not read her site much). Or even what she is trying to draw attention toward. Maybe someone else can clarify. The identification of a trend that having no or few women in politics is cause for political incompetence when the evidence for such a trend is only one data point is a valid criticism, and she hasn't responded to it. Her further unpacking of that specific problem was unsatisfactory as well. It basically said that Palin is held in contempt because she is a woman (rather than because she's a rambling idiot) and that Sanford is held in a level of "esteem", relative to Palin, because he's a distraction?

The other argument she raised is relevant: that state's leaders should be (or at least, that they could be) evaluated based on their relative state population data points and economics. In Palin's case, the data aren't as helpful as she'd like to believe because of oil prices causing a budget crunch, and this brings up the need for relative comparisons within each state. Meaning: if South Carolina is bad off now, what if it's always been worse off than Alaska? How are we to evaluate the distinct state economics and relative populations (which are also naturally distinct in demographics of age or ethnicity) through comparison to each other, mustn't we make adjustments based on something like relative rates of decline or advance under the leadership of each person? Comparing Alaska's current economy and demographic data points like health to South Carolina's is only nebulously useful and making claims that Palin or Sanford is responsible for these (when it is fully possible that there are other undefined causes) is likewise only the starting point of an intellectual curiosity, not a well-defined claim of the competence or incompetence of either. So I can accept her critique of the study originally involved as valid, but her specific advancement in example of it doesn't really help her out.

It's her extrapolated defence that is at issue. In no case does she automatically point to a demand or intrinsic need for more women generally (particularly by disregarding of their political affiliations) in politics as an indicator of successful governance. I don't doubt that there should be more women in politics/authority generally, simply out of a ratio or law of averages problem. Nor do I mean to suggest that all women in roles of authority have demonstrated incompetence on the level of a Sarah Palin. They are, in fact, as effective on the average as men have been (by which we might mean anything from "greatest thing since sliced bread" to "totally inadequate" depending on one's perspective of authority). What I take exception to is her actual argument being made for this (desirable) outcome. It is weakly advanced because it is unsupported by any evidence that women in charge means anything different than men in charge. We can make a case that women in judicial roles have distinct viewpoints which are on occasion valid and necessary for consideration or inclusion. Even if it's a weak case, it is still supported by vigorous objections on the part of someone like Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, which are not merely limited to ideological basis points. I'm not sure that the same has historically applied to legislators or executives. If she's saying it should, we'd have to see some evidence that women are doing something different in those positions than men are (which I don't think that evidence exists) that projects competence or in its absence, incompetence. Since Palin has basically done the same things that Sanford has done from a governance standpoint, it's difficult to perceive that her position as a state executive has carried a great deal of weight for this argument. Perhaps she (or someone else) can come up with a better example.