And I full-heartedly agree that just because, for example, Spain has a female defense minister doesn’t mean it’s all roses for Spanish women (or women in Spain). But we have to take our hope where we can find it.

As to matrifocal societies, I would settle for an equifocal one. And in history there are always multiple reasons; religion and war are certainly factors, but we cannot lay the blame solely at their feet.

While the politics of some countries appear more progressive than ours, we must be careful not to take this as a sign that their cultures as a whole aren’t just as sadly sexist as our own.

Regarding the video clip, about a third of it was the sort of stuff that turns me off to the feminist movement. Some of it was the media saying aloud things many of us were wondering ourselves, not because we’re sexist but because we questioned the motivations of a conniving candidate who used her gender to her advantage when it suited her purposes.

Some of that clip was just doltish dudes. Case in point, I think Chris Matthews is hilarious and mostly unintentionally. He’s the Homer Simpson of punditry. And then some of it was truly hateful. That is the stuff that really needs to be addressed.

What women have to go through to be the pioneers sucks. Just like it sucked for Jackie Robinson to have to ignore it when epithets were hurled at him on the field. Can you imagine someone in a sports stadium or arena doing that to a minority player now? In many places they’d be pummeled by other fans.

Progress is slow. I’ve heard rumors of cultures long gone which revered women. Will we ever get back to those and how did we get away? Do we blame it all on religion or the physical strength of men to dominate or the ego or what?

Jonathan: you are absolutely correct. I, too, would be interested in the ratio of women running to women-who-lose-to-men. I sometimes catch myself with similar biases (although I like to think of myself as pretty good with the heigh-challenged) and have to remind myself that I’m falling into stereotypes.

John: the problem I have with discussing the gender issue in this election cycle is that it necessitates discussing the race issue. And then we get into the which is worse argument, in which no one wins. Briefly, I have to say that the media have been brutal to Clinton based on her gender: the crying episode (stress + tired = tears in most women, why do we expect more of her?), cleavage/hair/other appearance-related issues, the “she can’t control her husband” argument, and so forth.

On the policies alone, I do not agree with many of her positions. She ran a bit of a dirty election, but certainly no worse than others that have come before (next to Obama, of course, she looks like Rove, but 4 years ago, she would have fit right in with the Swiftboaters, et al.). But as a woman in government, I have great respect for her. I, myself, would love to get into government/politics. But again, standards are different.

One final thing on quotas: I agree that they have serious flaws, but they often work to a point. Any recommendations on a better idea…?

I like Jonathan’s implication that this discrimination is a complex phenomenon. And rather than quotas, I like having a partial proportional representation system like the kind used in many European parliaments, where many of the seats, instead of being tied to physical districts, are allocated to parties based on percentage of vote. This tends to increase ideological and other forms of diversity in the elected body.

xJane, while I acknowledge that sexism is prevalent in our society, it’s hard to avoid reading this in the context of the nomination battle since you are posting this on the coattails of Clinton’s defeat. Can I ask what commentary you have about sexism and its role in this primary battle?

Here’s another question: how can we have the painful conversation about the influence of gender discrimination without creating deeper rifts? There’s a tremendous amount of resentment built up out there. I’m particularly troubled because I feel like there’s some political manipulation on the part of the Clinton campaign to direct this resentment for selfish ends.

And quotas are a good formula for making sure no one takes females seriously. It also wouldn’t work in the U.S. system. Which congressional districts or states should be forced to elect women or to field candidates in order to make up the quota?

Even women can have an unconscious bias against a female leader. Even those who believe themselves to be unbiased typically have an unconscious bias. As I noted on my blog, at 5’6″ I have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever getting elected president of the United States simply because of my stature. (That is unless there is a plague that kills off tall people thereby lowering the average male height to below 5’6″.)

I would also like to know how many women run for office when compared to men. That would be a good beginning to understanding self-selection.