You are right that there are women in places of power and authority, but they do not have nearly as many of those positions as their numbers in the general population.

For example; the U.S. congress:

Women hold 17% of the seats in congress. They are 51% of the population. That's an extreme discrepancy; especially given the fact that congress is one of the highest seats of power in the United States. They hold 23% of state elected positions, again an extreme discrepancy. Women used to hold two seats on the Supreme Court, there is now one. One out of nine, or 11%.

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/information_by_level_of_office/ Congress_CurrentFacts.php

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/information_by_level_of_office/ Statewide-CurrentFacts.php

As for economic power; these are the number of women CEOs:

8 women are the head of a Fortune 500 company, and in all of the Fortune 500s women make up 14% of the boards of directors.

http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/1292.html

In society, even the female-dominated career of teaching, men do better than women:

Women, though they have achieved administrative control, still earn 100 dollars less than men, median.

http://www.dpeaflcio.org/programs/factsheets/ fs_2007_school_administrators.htm

In medicine, women are still behind men:

33% of doctors will be women, by 2010. By what time will you make up half? 2020? 2050?

http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=4197

The following research indicates that women lag in math scores due to negative stereotypes:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_2002_August/ ai_95514611

Of course, the military is still thoroughly male. They make up 15% of the armed forces.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/ releases/archives/ facts_for_features_special_editions/ 006232.html

Also, I think you misinterpreted my remarks; I didn't mean that every single woman wasn't exerting her strength to the fullest, just that on average women do not. Exceptions are always going to be around, of course. Women have made excellent strides, mostly because they have been taking what is rightfully theirs. However, they are still not powerful enough to become equal; and until 50% of them are in the military, the economic control rooms, the high government offices, they will remain second class citizens.

I mean, what other population would you not call second class which doesn't have even close to its numbers represented in government? What's funny is that in Apartheid South Africa, the oppressed African Americans had more representation in their parliament than women do in ours:

Their legislature held: 178 white, 85 black, and 45 indian legislators. Giving the blacks 28% (compared to women receiving 17% of our congressional seats). Not only that, but blacks made up 33% of their population while women make up 50% of ours! Tell me that isn't bizarre!

http://www.anc.org.za/un/makatini/ mm081684.html

What's interesting is that I never actually rejected what the Heritage Foundation wrote specifically because it was the Heritage Foundation; I never said the information was invalid or anything of the kind. I did, however, place doubt on the information and noted that it came from a biased source.

You, of course, decided to twist this into an outright rejection of the information because it came from the Heritage Foundation. Of course, I rejected the information because I knew there is information contradicting its claims.

I said the information was demonstrably false, and it is; but while I looked up the sources of the information I decided to let the people following the debate know where you were getting the info; specifically that where you were getting it was not from an un-biased scientific agency. That was all I said; in addition to the info itself being false. (We never did complete the debate, but we can always start it back up and I can finish researching.)

You, of course, take offense to my unmasking your source of "information". It isn't a red herring, if I were to post excerpts from Noam Chomsky's books or works from explicitly leftist organizations you would question the information I provided and would say as much as I did. Lord, I could use speeches by Joseph Stalin himself as a valid source of information if what you said holds true. As if you wouldn't immediately call into question what a totalitarian dictator said. But let's not get bogged down by obvious and predictable hypocrisy.

In debates it is perfectly acceptable to call into question the validity of certain sources of information and point out obvious biases. This is done in any scientific research, policy discussions, and educational debates. It is always factored in; especially if you are working in professional circles, all data is taken with a grain of salt, even in so-called un-biased organizations.

"If you don't agree with what I wrote above, than try this on for size. You're wrong. The reasons you think that it ISN'T an ad hom. are illegitimate because of have a clear bias against the term."

This is a certain logical collapse on your part. Perhaps I am wrong if I only reference my own opinion without referral to outside sources of information, that might work with your logical twists.

However, what I am saying only extends to people who are actually citing me when looking for a definition of ad hominem. If they were to utilize me in an attack on your definition of ad hominem you could easily point out my bias as my definition serves my own purposes and is against your own.

I am not a dictionary, nor am I an expert in philosophy, linguistics, or anything relating to the professional understanding of ad hominem. I cannot be cited in a paper without the person doing the citation losing credibility. I am not a credible source.

However, in our own personal debate I am not wrong because I am biased against my own opinion because I am able to utilize outside resources such as dictionaries as well as logical and philosophical constructs not of my own doing. I, then, can reference things if you were to challenge my definition of ad hominem, I can use independent philosophical and linguistic resources and professionals.

That's the difference; I am not citing myself, I am stating an opinion. You, however, are using outside information as a resource, information you regard as legitimate and reputable. I, however, am in full rights to call into question the legitimacy and reputation of the source of information without it being deemed an "ad hominem".

Let me put it extremely simply:

Your "logic" only works if I said the following:

"Ad hominem is X because I say so".

But, of course, that would make sense. We can't have any of that, now can we?

Pointing out bias, apparently, is an ad hominem attack. As is anything that points out possible faults in information provided. I will go ahead and call up all the scientific agencies and tell them they've been committing logical fallacies without even knowing it! Someone get the bloody APA on the line, we've got a logical crisis on our hands!

Jesus "Ham and Cheese", I think you've saved the entire scientific community from certain fallacy!

It is really fun being a white liberal sometimes. Because of my color other white people think it is perfectly okay to say racist things about other groups of people in my presence. Members of my own family, friends, people in my college classes, people I overheard in restaurants when I lived in a 99.9% white community would say some horribly racist things.

I don't need any statistics (though they point towards my assumptions being correct); I get to see racism first hand, on the ground floor.

One of my grandparents pointed to a rapper on television and asked why she didn't have a bone in her nose. My step-father caught me watching "In Living Color" and called the dancers a bunch of monkeys. One of my other grandparents asked "where are all of these black people coming from" when we were eating at a local buffet. I once played "Sweet Home Alabama" at a Denny's jukebox and heard a group of boys yell at me to turn off this "niger music". (I know that doesn't make any sense, seeing as all of the members of the band are white, I believe).

God knows when the Metrolink (Saint Louis's light rail system) was being proposed in Saint Charles (a nearby suburb) people were up in arms about "those people" coming over and stealing all of our televisions and breaking into our cars.

Saint Louis, my city, is rife with racism. Needless to say; I myself harbor racist tendencies and thoughts which come directly from my background. I try my best to get rid of them, but the us vs. them mentality, the "differences" that both whites and blacks recognize between us are well-known. We "know" we aren't like one another; culturally at least.

That cultural difference is very real, of course; caused by physical segregation of the past. It's hard to communicate with people of the other races; we really don't understand one another.

Women are not equal to men; their representation in government, economic institutions, and social institutions (as leaders) are not prominent given their numerical parity with their opposite gender.

Women are underpaid, overworked, and are rarely in positions of power and authority. This, though changing, still leaves them at a disadvantage to men.

The reason for this; though, is not any biological differences (by all accounts women are actually stronger and healthier than men). The difference is accounted for in the women's perceptions of themselves, what they feel their place is, their unwillingness to engage in economic, social, or even violent conflict. This stems from social indoctrination, familial indoctrination, and their own inability to break free from these influences and knock down the structures that oppress them.

If women are going to become equal to men they are first going to have to become as ruthless, cutthroat, strong, courageous, and aggressive as men. Women are going to have to show themselves to be the strong creatures that they are; women are going to have to take their rightful place as masters of their own destiny, by any means necessary.

Women can't be victims anymore; they must train themselves to fight, they must teach their daughters to fight (not just with Karate classes but showing them to stand up for themselves in a number of ways). Every woman should know how to defend herself; legally, physically, economically, socially; they must make men know they cannot be taken advantage of.

Every culture, every nation, every class, every religion, every ethnicity, each gender; sexuality; the only way they achieved equality, dominion, freedom, and security is through their ability to defend themselves and maintain their status as free and independent beings. If women are to break free of their chains they must do so in kind.

The whole point of this debate is that people are not using the term properly. In every single instance in which I have seen the term used it has been wielded by someone who didn't understand the actual meaning of the word.