literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

SFG75 · Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 7:08 pm Post subject: Women and leadership roles

Inspired by Sitaram, I'd like to ask a question:

-Why is it that nations such as India, Pakistan, and the Philipines have had female rulers while in two-hundred years, the U.S. hasn't had one? Certainly we've allowed more privileges than these other nations have, or am I mistaken? What do you guys think?

Gem · Moderator Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 24 Location: London

I recently asked a member at a politics forum i sometimes visit, when he thought it likely that America would get its first female president. He replied that he did not think that America was ready for a female president, but refused to explain why he thought this.

This may sound strange but I think places like India etc, are quite obvious and overt in their discrimination of women. In the west we protest that we believe in equal rights and indeed we do have equal rights, yet that discrimination is there under the surface - we don't mean to be but its difficult to change completely centuries worth of thinking. I think its more true of America than here in Britain, as we are a relatively small country and in closer proximity to our neighbours. Whereas America is huge and the whole 'bible belt' areas that are crucial at election time seem to be instinctively wary of female representation.

I do think though that if an exceptional female who showed she had b*lls of steel (so to speak) were to stand then she just might have a chance.

Come to think of it, although there have been prolific women figures throughout the ages, it hasn't really been all that long (in comparison to the years of civilisation we have under our belts) since the normal average woman on the street has been able to pursue a full time career in medicine & the rest of the sciences and so forth. Even today a working mother is made to feel guilty about not being 'there' for her children. I think progress will come, and we will see more women in politics it'll just take a while longer.

Just had a thought, when I watch the American election campaigns on tv, the contenders' respective wives are with them every step of the way. Would a female candidates husband be with her every step of the way like that? and if he would, how long before the media started cracking jokes about him 'being under the thumb and a kept man'. In my humble opinion people will assess her husband more than her before casting their votes - after all he's the man and will be 'helping' her with the decisions.

SFG75 · Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:53 pm Post subject:

Excellent thoughts Gem. To me, men are threatened by assertive women. I have a female boss and it took awhile for me to adjust to that. Even if a female candidate for president had b&lls, a lot of male voters would find that threatening and perhaps vote against her for that reason. It is a sad and transient reason to oppose someone for their strength and resolve, but that is the reason why people don't like Hillary IMHO. I think she is the one who is more than qualified than half of the male senators that are currently sitting in D.C.

You are right about discrimination here in the states being more open here. I live above the wonderful state of Kansas, which has a reputation of trying to re-write science textbooks, and they have a female state senator who says that if men didn't shirk their duty to serve, it would be unnecessary for women and women like her to serve in elected capacity. It's amazing how even WOMEN are against their own interests. It's just amazing. During the '70s, we had an equal rights amendment that was proposed that banned discrimination against women, but it failed to pass and a lot of opposition came from religious groups. Absolutely crazy.

I know that in '84, Pat Schroeder of Colorado was going to run for president, but she cried during a spech and that absolutely did her in. The democrats had a woman as a candidate for Vice President in '84, but the Reagan juggernaut was just too strong for that to have an impact at all. More recently, Elizabeth Dole ran for president, but lost in the primaries pretty early on. Pat Buchanan of the reform party chose Ezola Foster(a black woman) as his Vice Presidential nominee, though his issues relegated his campaign to the margins of the American political periphery.

Excellent observations about "the first husband." Your musings on that would be correct, sad to say, I never thought of things like that before.

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

I am unwinding after work.

Stop and think of how many media personalities are elected to high office in the USA.

It seems to me that the gender and character of our leadership says more about us as a consumer public, demanding a certain commodity, rather than about individuals, or women in particular who simply fail to "make the grade" for one reason or another.

We always want someone who is a model of moral perfection, yet when we had a Jimmy Carter, we laughed at him for being such a cub scout, to say in a Playboy interview, "I have lusted after women in my heart." Yet we are outraged when a sitting president is caught "en flagrante delicto" (in the flaming act).

In reality, a capable leader is similar to an extremely successful CEO. We do not look in the moral closets of our CEOs to find skeletons. We look at the balance of their bank accounts and the bottom line of their company's quarterly report, and we look at results.

In the midst of the Clinton scandal, I happened to be seated near a couple from some Scandanavian country, and I asked them for their thoughts and impressions. They laughed and said that Europe sees Americans as naieve cubscouts. They said Europe is full of leaders who have illegitate children, mistresses, same-sex lovers, and no one thinks anything of it.

I realize my remarks may seem off topic from the original question. But stop and think: we have what we have in the marketplace (or on the menu in restaurants) because it is what we like, it is what sells.

In previous eras, prior to media and satellite, we did not have photogenic presidents. Now we seem to gravitate towards charm boys who photograph well. Do you mean to tell me that only a slender photogenic charming male can run a state or a nation? You mean fat and homely cannot be good at leadership. Think of Churchill. Perhaps that is a bad example. Or Nixon, losing one election, in part, so they say, because his makeup man goofed prior to a televised debate.

We like nice packages. We are less concerned what those packages contain.

This is an interesting thread. I shall wait for the alembic of my subconscious to trickle a little more into the flask which awaits.

What astounds me is not the gender or character of our leaders, but rather, why we feel the need for such figureheads as presidents and prime ministers. It seems to me, in theory at least, that in this age of telecommunications and computers, we could simple spend a couple of hours each night watching news and documentary presentations of issues, and then vote electronically. Why do I need a little man or woman with a crown upon their head, with slightly crossed eyes perhaps, standing in front of a televison camera, delivering rhetoric? You know, Aristotle actually states somewhere that a democracy could not be greater than the size of a crowd which can hear an orator. In those ancient times, there was no public address system. Aristotle could not envision amplifiers and microphones. Why do we feel this need to have one person, male or female, as a leader? Are the leaders that we elect super intellectuals or geniuses with eidetic (photographic) memories? Do they have impressive credentials as economists or historians? A scholar once remarked that each and every military general is, of necessity, an historian, who can discuss for hours all the details of all the military campaigns from the time of Alexander the Great, through Napoleon, though the various Civil wars... Do we find such characteristic expertice in our leaders.

If you desire to drive a motor vehicle, you must pass various exams to prove you are a skilled driver. If you want to practice medicine or law, you must pass rigorous exams and internships. What are the qualifications of a governor or a president or a prime minister, I ask you?

And do they act single handedly in their decisions? No, they rely upon cadres of experts and advisors.

As a child, I thought a cabinet was where you keep the liquor.

Get your own free IRC Chat room