Monday, September 15, 2014

Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man? My Review Of A UK Telegraph Article on Biological Sex Differences


This is the title of a new book about biological sex differences.  The first I heard about the book is today's article in the UK Telegraph.  The bolded bit at the beginning of the article gives us all the clickbait anyone would wish for:
Yes, it's official, men are from Mars and women from Venus, and here's the science to prove it
In his fascinating new book the developmental biologist Lewis Wolpert argues that there is actually hard science behind many of our stereotypical gender roles
After all that the article itself is quite disappointing, because everything in it is pretty old hat.  Wolpert argues that men are more promiscuous than women because of that evolutionary biology "hard science" which took a time machine and went back to prehistory and decided that the most promiscuous men left the largest numbers of children, all with hard-wired promiscuity gene.  Oh, except for the female children, of course.

Then there's the problem of trying to figure out who the men are promiscuous with if they are heterosexual.  Either women, too, are promiscuous (which even the more recent evolutionary psychology stuff admits to) or a small number of women are extremely promiscuous.

Wolpert places a lot of weight on Simon Baron-Cohen's research in this piece.  For instance, the mechanical mobile vs. face study is one in which Baron-Cohen participated:
A few hours after birth, girls are more sensitive than boys to touch, and 40 hours after birth girls look longer at a face than boys, while boys look longer at a suspended mechanical mobile.
Perhaps this study (on very young infants) has been replicated by someone later, but when I looked into it a couple of years ago I didn't find any evidence that it had ever been replicated.   The study was been criticized by Elizabeth Spelke in 2005 and by Alison Nash and Giordana Grossi in 2007.  I strongly recommend reading those criticisms, because one of the magical tricks in the writings of this field is to present a particular piece of research as the very-final-and-confirmed scientific truth when, in fact, the debate in the field continues.

Can you spot the difficulty of responding to something like this piece by Wolpert?  Almost every sentence he writes makes me think of references that show otherwise or at least cast doubt on his statements.  For instance, the stuff about women being better at empathy than men doesn't necessarily mean (if true) that the differences are inborn, and distinguishing between reported empathy and other measures of empathy may matter.

But none of that is visible in Wolpert's arguments:

Emotional differences are also manifest. Almost the opposite of aggression is empathy, an emotion that marks a fundamental difference between the two sexes, being much stronger in women. Empathy is the ability to share others’ feelings, to take a positive interest in them and to decode non-verbal emotional cues. Simon Baron-Cohen’s theory is that the female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy, while the male brain is predominantly hard-wired for systemising, that is, for understanding and building systems.
The problems with Baron-Cohen's systemising vs. emphatizing theory are many and serious.  I have written about them before, but in case you missed it, a VERY long excerpt from my files is attached to the bottom of this post.  It's important to understand what the evidence for Baron-Cohen's theory really looks like, so do take a few minutes to read that excerpt after the asterisk.*

Some Of My Pet Hates. On Twitter Opinions, On US Reactions to the Islamic State And Such.


1.  A new journalistic fashion is to  write a short piece about what people say on Twitter on some issue.  The piece begins by setting out the point of the debate or describes some recent event.  It then goes into a list of Twitter comments and presents them as --- what?  As evidence?  As opinions?

The latter, usually.  But what are we to conclude from those opinions?  That they are generally held?  That they are the most common opinions on some question?  That they are important opinions?  That they are unusual opinions?  Given by famous people?

The process of picking the Twitter opinions for such a piece is opaque.  First, Twitter opinions are not like an opinion survey.  The people who include themselves in a conversation are a self-selected bunch, to use statistical language, not a cross-section of all affected individuals.

Second, the actual opinions in some Twitter conversation don't always give the flavor of the final post.  That's because the journalist picks the interesting opinions or wants to bring out a particular point by showing the support or criticism it received.  That selection process (which is probably subconscious) means that the final sample in the piece may not look like the Twitter conversation in the actual numbers of tweets which are in support of or opposing some opinion or person.

Third, what those two points mean is that the overall meaning of what is covered in the piece is unclear.  We can't conclude that the opinions in it are common among some general population of interest, we can't conclude that the opinions in it are even the most common among Twitter users or the people in that particular discussion.

Using Twitter as a source can also be valuable, in the sense that it brings out opinions which might not otherwise be included, and writing about Twitter opinions is also meaningful when the story consists of those opinions, i.e., is about what someone famous said on Twitter etc.

That's not what I am irked by here, but the kinds of stories which add Twitter opinions as if that was additional data, not opinions, as if that was a way to show the widespread significance of some issue.

2.  The parallel use of "males-and-women" or "females-and-men" in stories about gender.  I see this a lot.  It's annoying because one could write "women-and-men" or, if absolutely necessary, "females-and-males." 

And guess what's really weird?  This particular mistake is by far most common in pieces by meninists and others bent towards that way of thinking.  So common that I wonder if it's a coded message or something!  Here comes the biological essentialist telling us why men rule and women drool.

3.  The last but certainly not the least of my current irritations is the way political fronts arrange themselves neatly by opinion into camps on the Islamic State question.  Bomb that demonic area back into stone age goes the right-wing message, just a little sharpened by me.  And the equally sharpened-by-me left-wing message seems to be that the US is every bit as bad as the Islamic State or if not the US then Saudi Arabia so what's the difference?

There's a prior readiness for those fairly absolute stances, and some of that is because of the way the right-wing belligerence of the past has fed into the discussion by creating "Islamophobic" prejudice which then has created a particular defensive response from the left-wing which has contributed to the right-wing arguments and so the circle continues.

The problem with such absolute stances is that they impede the analysis of more detailed data or arguments and make nuanced debate almost impossible.   They can also create very odd ethical bedfellows.  For instance, suddenly women's rights matter to some in the US extreme Christian fringe or matter less to some in the US social justice left-wing because different fears are weighed in those cups of the scale and some fears take precedence.

I get the great difficulty of trying to have a more nuanced conversation.  Our hind-brains have been triggered to take over  (danger!danger!).  Sadly, that tends to result in dualistic thinking of good and evil, of what matters and what doesn't, and often a forcing of everything to line up with either good or with evil.



Friday, September 12, 2014

Speed Posting, 9/12/14: The First WOC To Lead the American Bar Association, Oscar Pistorius and Ray Rice


Paulette Brown is the first African-American woman elected to lead the American Bar Association.

Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of culpable homicide in the death of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.  "Culpable homicide" in South African law is roughly equal to manslaughter.  His actual sentence could be as long as fifteen years or he could even avoid prison altogether, depending on the judge's decision.  The decision not to find Pistorius guilty of premeditated murder hinges on this:

In South Africa, a perpetrator can be convicted of murder if he or she had foreseen that their actions would lead to someone's death and still proceeded with that course of action.
Ms Masipa said she could find no proof that Pistorius had the requisite intention to "kill the deceased, or anyone else for that matter". 

Legal expert Prof Pierre de Vos tweeted : "Not sure rejection of [murder charge] is correct here.
"Surely if you shoot into a door of a small toilet and know somebody behind door you foresee and accept possibility of killing?"
But the judge clearly said on both Thursday and Friday that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the athlete had foreseen that he would kill someone when he fired four shots through the door of his toilet in the early hours of Valentine's Day 2013.
In the US it's difficult not to see that case as relating to the question of intimate partner abuse and how famous people are treated when they are found to have committed such abuse or even the death of the abused.  But the South African context is somewhat different:

There is a perception here in South Africa that most crime is committed by poor black people targeting the white middle classes or the wealthy elite.
Cue "white fear" - a phrase used to refer to the rich white haves in society who live behind high walls, afraid of the intruder who may come in the night. It was the threat of this intruder that apparently gripped Pistorius with fear on that tragic morning.

It's still hard to say whether Reeva Steenkamp received justice.  I get that legal decisions must be framed on law and evidence and don't always match our innate feelings of what would have been just.

Talking about intimate partner abuse, the Ray Rice case in the United States has provoked a lot of debate about what Janay Palmer and the survivors or victims of abuse in general should have done or should do (and a lot of debate about the National Football League's values, culture and general behaviors). 

I'm still trying to write something very long on intimate partner violence in general, but certain powerful and emotional pieces are worth reading both about the reception of the news by some who would defend Rice or blame his then-girlfriend-now-wife and the dilemma of trying to understand victims who don't leave the abuser or who refuse to charge the abuser: 

First, on the question why victims don't leave their abusers, read this and this.  Second, on the views of some black men who take Rice's side and what's wrong with those views, read this.

Note that all those pieces try to increase our understanding of these cases.  They are not about what courts should decide in any particular case.  Neither do the "why I stayed" pieces mean that the society shouldn't interfere or that the matters are somehow private business.


  






Thursday, September 11, 2014

Meanwhile, in the state of Missouri, contraception and abortions are bad, guns good


This post puts together three stories I read about Missouri yesterday.  The first is about a legal case where Paul and Theresa Wieland don't want contraceptive coverage to be available for their daughters who are covered in the parents' group health insurance policy.  The daughters are twenty, nineteen and thirteen The couple's lawyer argues that 

“The employees are to Hobby Lobby what the daughters are to Paul and Teresa Wieland,” Timothy Belz, an attorney from the conservative Thomas More Society, who represents the Wielands, told a panel of three federal judges on the appeals court in St. Louis on Monday. A district court had dismissed the case, saying the Wielands lacked standing to sue.
 Whatever the legal merits of that case might be, the idea that parents and employers should have the right to determine whether their adult children or employees, respectively, are allowed to use contraceptives and that both of these are about religious freedom strikes me as stupid.  It's not religious freedom for the adult children or the employees.  But I guess it would be viewed as nothing but religious freedom in a feudal society.

Missouri legislature has been busy creating laws which keep women safe!  In the first such law:

 Missouri women seeking abortions will face one of the nation's most stringent waiting periods, after state lawmakers overrode the governor's veto to enact a 72-hour delay that includes no exception for cases of rape or incest.
Supporters of the law call it a reflection period.  In case a woman was impulse-buying an abortion and needed time to reflect on that.

Another new law is also about the safety of women and other people in Missouri! It's a new gun law which makes it easier for people to have guns on them:

 Missouri lawmakers expanded the potential for teachers to bring guns to schools and for residents to openly carry firearms, in a vote Thursday that capped a two-year effort by the Republican-led Legislature to expand gun rights over the objection of the Democratic governor.
The new law will allow specially trained school employees to carry concealed guns on campuses. It also allows anyone with a concealed weapons permit to carry guns openly, even in cities or towns with bans against the open carrying of firearms. The age to obtain a concealed weapons permit also will drop from 21 to 19.
These three stories are not about the same issues.  But they all reflect the political power distribution in the state of Missouri:  Who has the right to self-defense, who has the right to decide who has the right to self-defense and which types of self-defense (or even aggression) are supported by the powers that be. 





Wednesday, September 10, 2014

How To Read Reports: The New Unicef Report On Violence Against Children


I learned about this new report at Think Progress:

One in ten girls has been sexually assaulted. Six in ten children are regularly beaten by their caregivers. Half of all girls between the ages of 15 and 19 believe a man is “justified” in hitting his wife. Nearly one in five homicide victims are children.
Those are just a few of the findings in a new report from UNICEF that details the “shocking prevalence” of violence and abuse against children around the world. The study — which represents the largest-ever compilation of information on the scope of child abuse — draws on data from 190 countries, and concludes this type of violence has been so normalized that many children are growing up with the assumption it’s just the way the world is supposed to work.
The report has important information.  It tells us where homicide of children (and especially of boys) is common, for example.  That would be in the Caribbean and Latin America.  This should be viewed against the background of high homicide rates in that area in general.  The report tells us that this relatively small area is responsible for 32% of all homicides on this planet (though I'm not sure how the planet is defined here), and speculates that the reasons are in criminal gang activity and the wide availability of firearms.  It's of interest to note that ten countries account for more than one half of all child homicide victims, with Nigeria leading by a wide margin, followed by Brazil, India and the Democratic Republic of Congo.  The United States gets to be included among those ten countries, too, even though it's pretty different in economic and power terms.

So one lesson the report teaches us is that children are not immune from the general levels of violence in an area.  And neither are children immune from the cultural and religious beliefs of their demographic groups.  Thus, the quoted figure of almost half of all girls (44%) between the ages of 15 and 19 believing that a man is justified in hitting his wife (if she burns his dinner, if she neglects the children, if she goes out without his permission etc.) is because that's what the cultures of the interviewed girls believe.  And the boys have similar beliefs, on average, though in several countries the percentage of girls who believe in the husband being entitled to beat the wife is higher than the percentage of boys who believe the same thing.

But here's where I got a bit worried about the report:  Several of its tables quote data separately for various areas and then for the whole world.  The thing is, the underlying data does not cover most of Europe (it does cover Eastern Europe) and neither does it cover the United States or Canada (or Russia, I think).  That's because the data predominantly comes from lower-income countries:

Given the general lack of uniformity in the way data on violence against children are collected, this report relies mainly on information gathered through internationally comparable sources, including the UNICEF-supported Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), the US Agency for International Development (USAID)-supported Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), the Global School-based Student Health Surveys (GSHS) and the Health behaviour in School-aged Children Study (HbSC).

These international survey programmes have been almost exclusively implemented in low- and middle-income countries (with the exception of the HbSC).

So while the focus of this report is largely on these countries, this should in no way be interpreted to suggest that violence against children is not found in high-income nations.
To that end, the report also uses country-specific facts or evidence derived from small-scale studies and national surveys to shed light on certain aspects or circumstances from a variety of countries for which representative or comparable data are unavailable.
The omission of most of the high-income countries doesn't make what is included any less important.  But it does mean that we cannot interpret the averages in the report as pertaining to the world.  The "world" includes all countries, and the views on, say, how justified husbands are to beat their wives are unlikely to be exactly the same in Europe and North America as they are, say, in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The speed with which journalists are now forced to work is probably behind the fact that I've recently spotted a lot of similar problems in published reports or discussions of reports (such as the Rotherham one on child sexual exploitation).  If all you have time to look at is the press release, the press release better be a very good one.  In this case the report itself seems to equate the concept of world with the countries included in the report.  That would not be a problem if the omitted countries were, on average, like the included countries.  But they are not .

---
Added later:  Why would this minor thing bother me so much that I wrote about it?  Because the more the speed of news delivery increases the more the audience will be left with false or at least somewhat misleading information.  That's not what information dissemination is supposed to do.


Tuesday, September 09, 2014

Climbing the Mars Hill. Mark Driscoll's Misogynist Church Eight Years Later.


I wrote about the Mars Hill church and its creator, Mark Driscoll, eight years ago on this very blog!  You can even read that antique post

The Mars Hill church is a good case study on extreme religionists and what makes their little hearts thump and their little minds tick. 

I sometimes suspect (fairly often, actually) that one big draw of extremist literal interpretations of Islam, Christianity and Judaism is the very literal permissions the holy books give to hate on women and to control women and to state that gods want women subjugated.  That is, I think some people, especially misogynists, are drawn to those interpretations because they sanctify their unpleasant bundles of feelings about women and sex and give permission to hate on women.  All this could work in the reverse direction, naturally, so that someone who finds the literal God or Allah then just realizes that now he or she must hate on women and build them tiny little corrals in which they can breed for the purposes of one sire.  The reverse direction seems more likely to me.

So how is the church of misogyny and homophobia working out for Mark Driscoll, it's sole progenitor?  It's done pretty well over the years.  Lots of people have joined Driscoll's flock of true believers.  But not that long ago someone found that Driscoll has been foaming-at-the-mouth about the perfidy of the wimminz on the Internet.  Under a pen-name.  Here are a few examples:

Mark Driscoll has long been a controversial figure, whether posting on Facebook about effeminate worship leaders, or saying wives had to take some of the blame for their husband's infidelity if they had 'let themselves go'.
Revelations this week that the Mars Hill pastor had in 2000 posted a series of condemning messages online under a pseudonym were therefore met with almost universal horror.
The series of posts, which have been removed from message boards, reveal a tirade of angry rants.
Beginning with the words "We live in a completely pussified nation," Driscoll – under the name 'William Wallace II' – initiated a thread in which he condemns the majority of Christian men for being "Promise Keeping homoerotic worship loving mama's boy sensitive emasculated neutered exact male replica evangellyfish."
According to Driscoll, "It all began with Adam, the first of the pussified nation, who kept his mouth shut and watched everything fall headlong down the slippery slide of hell/feminism when he shut his mouth and listened to his wife who thought Satan was a good theologian when he should have lead her and exercised his delegated authority as king of the planet.
"As a result, he was cursed for listening to his wife and every man since has been his pussified sit quietly by and watch a nation of men be raised by bitter penis envying burned feministed single mothers."
Driscoll ended his comment by noting that he expected many women to disagree with him, but "they like Eve should not speak on this matter".
"And, many men will also disagree," he added, "which is further proof of the pussified epidemic having now become air born and universal."
 
The linked article states that these revelations were met with horror.  But surely everyone knew what Driscoll preaches?  I seem to have figured it out eight years ago.  Is it the stronger language that makes the new revelations so horrifying?  That we see his Freudian slip hanging tattered under his priestly robes?  Or is it that we cannot criticize someone's religious beliefs until that someone says the same thing with nasty slurs?

Whatever.  Driscoll isn't doing quite so well right now.  He was removed from the Act 29 network in August, and now his evangelical mega-church is shutting down some of its member churches:

The Washington-based evangelical megachurch Mars Hill is shutting (some of) its doors. Following controversy over founder Mark Driscoll’s well-documented homophobic and sexist remarks, church officials announced over the weekend that they would be closing several of Mars Hills 15 Pacific Northwest branches, citing financial difficulties caused by “negative media attention.” Several staff and clergy members have also been laid off. At the end of last month, Driscoll himself announced that he would be taking a six-week-long leave of absence.




Friday, September 05, 2014

Men are More Harassed On The Net Than Women. So Cathy Young Tells Us.


She does so in a recent Daily Beast article with the title "Men Are Harassed More Than Women Online."

It's worth thinking about that title, even knowing that Young herself didn't pick it.  That's because the only evidence she offers for men being harassed MORE than women is a Demos study, which argues that famous men receive more Twitter abuse than famous women.  More about that study later.

The rest of Young's argument consists of anecdotes about individual men who have been harassed (and does not consist of of anecdotes about individual women who have been harassed), the extent of the harassment they have suffered, examples of feminists harassing anti-feminists and so on, as well as the fact that a sizable minority of what Young regards as harassers are female, even though the majority are male.

She then tells us to ignore the 2006 study which found chat room bots given female usernames receiving twenty-five times more threatening or sexually explicit messages than bots with male and neutral usernames.  And why should we ignore the study?  Because Young tells us that the Internet has changed since 2006.  But the study wasn't about something which could be affected by such change, given that it isolated one single question:  That about the impact of being taken for a woman rather than a man on the net, all other aspects being held constant.

Unless we assume that the current cross-section of Internet users is quite different from the 2006 version, with far less sexist behavior, it's difficult to see why that study wouldn't still matter.  It's not a decisive study, of course, but then neither are the studies Young prefers.

She refers to two studies.  The first one is a Pew Institute study about Internet use with a focus on privacy and security of Internet use.  That study has a question (p. 94) which relates to Internet harassment and stalking but does not define these terms to the respondents and does not distinguish stranger harassment from harassment by acquaintances (including people from the respondent's past) or even by advertisers.  Eleven percent of the men interviewed and thirteen percent of the women interviewed stated that they had experienced Internet harassment or stalking.

The study also asks (p. 98) whether the respondent agreed with the statement "Something happened online which led me to physical danger."  Five percent of the female respondents and three percent of the male respondents answered in the affirmative.  But it's hard to know what specific types of examples those answers might have reflected.  Anything that could lead a person to physical danger could qualify, not just harassment by strangers on the net.

Whatever our interpretation of that study, it doesn't demonstrate that men are harassed more on the net than women, right?

That assertion is based on the Demos study.  I tried to find the study at the link given here but was unsuccessful. Thus, what I have to say about the study is based on the summary information the people at Demos have provided and a couple of takes on the study found elsewhere.


Thursday, September 04, 2014

The Rotherham Report On Child Sexual Exploitation. My Analysis.




1.  The Events

Welcome to Rotherham, England, a manufacturing town near Sheffield.  Right now the town is famous for a reason it would not have chosen:  The Rotherham Report:  In this town of 250,000 inhabitants at least 1400 young girls were sexually groomed, raped, gang-raped and pimped over a period of sixteen years while many of the authorities responsible for protecting the girls did nothing or actively suppressed information about the wide-spread abuse.

Fourteen hundred is probably a low estimate of the extent of this abuse.  But even that number turns out to mean one new victim every few days over that time period. Professor Alexis Jay, the author of the report, quotes several examples of the abuse these girls faced and the responses of the police and the local politicians to earlier reports on the same problem:

At least 1,400 children were subjected to appalling sexual exploitation in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, a report has found.
Children as young as 11 were raped by multiple perpetrators, abducted, trafficked to other cities in England, beaten and intimidated, it said.
...
The inquiry team found examples of "children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone".
...
Failures by those charged with protecting children happened despite three reports between 2002 and 2006 which both the council and police were aware of, and "which could not have been clearer in the description of the situation in Rotherham".
Prof Jay said the first of these reports was "effectively suppressed" because senior officers did not believe the data. The other two were ignored, she said.
The inquiry team found that in the early-2000s when a group of professionals attempted to monitor a number of children believed to be at risk, "managers gave little help or support to their efforts".
The report revealed some people at a senior level in the police and children's social care thought the extent of the problem was being "exaggerated".

What accounts for the way these children (mostly girls (1)) were failed by the society?

These were broken girls to begin with, most of them, often coming from homes with mental illness, drug abuse and other problems, frequently taken into care by the social services.  These were the kind of girls who traditionally are not allowed to have a childhood.  These were the kind of girls who act out, who believe the grooming for sex to be love, the love they so desperately seek for.  These were the kind of girls the police sometimes regarded as adults, fully able to consent to sex with strangers.  And these were often the kind of girls that social workers despair over:  Difficult cases, refusing help, refusing to name their torturers for fear of further violence to them or their families or because the tainted "love" they received was taken as real love and affection or because they had been beaten and dulled into slave-like submission.

But in the Rotherham case these were also white girls and their descriptions of the perpetrators of the abuse singled out men of Asian origin.  Hence the second proffered explanation for the societal failure here has to do with the fear of being accused of racism(2) and the fear of hurting community relations between different races:
The majority of those behind the abuse were described as Asian, while the victims were young white girls.
Yet the report found that councillors failed to engage with the town's Pakistani-heritage community during the inquiry period.
Some councillors were said to have hoped the issue would "go away", thinking it was a "one-off problem".
The report said several staff members were afraid they would be labelled racist if they identified the race of the perpetrators, while others said they were instructed by their managers not to do so.
Several councillors interviewed believed highlighting the race element would "give oxygen" to racist ideas and threaten community cohesion.
To understand the reference to the failure of "engaging with the town's Pakistani-heritage community" can be difficult for an outsider.  My reading suggests that the two communities were viewed as two separate worlds and that the "ambassadors" from the Pakistani community were old men, imams and wealthy businessmen.  They were the ones who appear to have interpreted that community to the rest of Rotherham and they were the ones who were deemed the proper representatives of that community.  Several articles address the sexual abuse of Pakistani girls in Rotherham and elsewhere and point out that the women in that community were not able to get their voices heard.

What this means is that we don't know the number of Pakistani victims in Rotherham.  But whites are the majority group in that town and thus would be most of the victims of any group of sexual abusers.  In short, the alleged perpetrators didn't have to "target" white girls for their victims to mostly consist of white girls.


Come On, Give Us The Names, Senator Gillibrand!


This is the current storm in the teacup of US gender politics.  Or the teacup in the storm, depending on how you view the case of what Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) wrote in her new book Off The Sidelines and what happened then.

Her book states that several (male?) senators made inappropriate comments about her body, her weight and her looks:
“Good thing you’re working out, because you wouldn’t want to get porky,” Gillibrand revealed a senator said to her in a story in People.
“Don’t lose too much weight now. I like my girls chubby,” Gillibrand said another senator said to her.
“You know, Kirsten, you’re even pretty when you’re fat,” Gillibrand added another senator said to her.
Now at least a couple of Beltway Boyz want her to name names.  If there are no names, it didn't happen.  And if she is not willing to name names why put the stuff in her book in the first place? What if these were Democratic senators, and Gillibrand is protecting them?  What if she is trying to "pull a Hillary on us" (a move named after Hillary Clinton) by implying that she's going to be the brave girl who will climb into the old boys' tree-house, and also into power, while the old boys aren't allowed to defend themselves.

All this is boring (Would you name someone who has a lot of power over you or with whom you need to work closely in the future?  But might you still not want to point out stuff about the culture in which people in the US Senate work?) and impossible to prove or disprove without more evidence.

But the events are still worth examining.  For instance, the demand for naming names is aimed at Gillibrand, not at the unnamed senators she writes about.  This suggests to me that Gillibrand is not believed.

That took me on a detour to an article which uses transgender people to learn more about gender roles and the reactions to someone's gender:

Ben Barres is a biologist at Stanford who lived and worked as Barbara Barres until he was in his forties. For most of his career, he experienced bias, but didn’t give much weight to it—seeing incidents as discrete events. (When he solved a tough math problem, for example, a professor said, “You must have had your boyfriend solve it.”) When he became Ben, however, he immediately noticed a difference in his everyday experience: “People who don't know I am transgendered treat me with much more respect,” he says. He was more carefully listened to and his authority less frequently questioned. He stopped being interrupted in meetings. At one conference, another scientist said, "Ben gave a great seminar today—but then his work is so much better than his sister's." (The scientist didn't know Ben and Barbara were the same person.) “This is why women are not breaking into academic jobs at any appreciable rate,” he wrote in response to Larry Summers’s famous gaffe implying women were less innately capable at the hard sciences. “Not childcare. Not family responsibilities,” he says. “I have had the thought a million times: I am taken more seriously.”

Bolds are mine.  It's a detour because the idea of women having less authority, the idea that women are questioned more and believed less readily is one which rings a very loud bell in my own experiences. *

But it's only a detour, because the Gillibrand example is about something different than the questioning of her expertise as a politician, and one could argue that to suggest that a group of eighty male Senators (out of a total of one hundred) contains at least three guys who make inappropriate comments to women smears all the men in the Senate.  At least it gives each of them a probability of 0.04 of being the kind of guy who talks about a woman's porkiness.  I wouldn't worry about that probability myself.

Onwards and upwards, my friends.  Suppose that these events did happen.  Are they just examples of how men talk to each other, innocent quips not intended to mean anything?  I read that comment somewhere.  Let's try it out.  Imagine a heterosexual male senator telling another heterosexual male senator:  "You know Bob/Jim/Bill, you're even pretty when you're fat."  Or:  "Don't lose too much weight now.  I like my boys chubby."

Or do a gender reversal on those comments by assuming that the recipient is a man and the commenter a woman.

The first of the three comments linked to above might pass those sieves or colanders.  The other two certainly would not.
------
*I'd like everybody to be equally questioned.  It makes me very prepared and guarantees that I fairly rarely spout on stuff I know nothing about.  On the other hand, it takes a lot of time and the hurdles of disbelief really get tiresome as the decades roll by, not to mention wondering what opportunities all this has made me miss.