Friday, October 6: Did I mention that I don’t think gals should be in combat?
Thursday, October 5: A commenter writes:
“As someone who spent three years with you going through Law School, I can be open minded to what you say. I am the career woman with two young children et. al. And for me, all it does is breed mediocrity in both realms. It is that much harder. While necessity requires me to continue to work, I do feel the children of stay at home moms get more from their moms than mine do from me. Furthermore, at work, I can not give it my all like I once did. At times, I do — but not always. ”
I’m so glad you were able to say what’s so obvious. I don’t care what working mothers say. You can’t excel at the office and at home equally well. It’s just not possible. I’m sure working mothers notice that although they’re contributing half the household income, they still do the bulk of childcare and household chores. The best 50/50 partnership is when the woman stays at home running the household and raising the kids, and the man earns the palace.
***Updates already! Scroll down ***
Commenter Cedjan writes: “Thanks for having the courage to state your opinion on this matter which I completely understand and agree with…Manliness is important and a reality that too many try to down play. Biology can not be denied. Of course, as you stated, that doesn’t mean women can’t be leaders, but overall, they do not exhibit leadership qualities to the degree that men do.”
Hallelujah! I am not alone. Like-minded people are the grooviest. 
———————————————————————–
(Note: The following is a totally unscientific and lay assessment of why I believe a woman shouldn’t be president of the United States. It contains a hefty dose of my personal opinion, and we know how “controversial” my opinion can be. Have a cow, if you wish.)
Last year, I was “de-linked” by a few women bloggers because I said women didn’t have the sensibilities to run the country. It was in response to “Would you vote for Condoleezza Rice for president of the U.S.?”
That opinion still holds, despite the fact that I may be de-linked by more women bloggers today.
I’m quasi-traditional. While I don’t think women should be relegated to the kitchen and the bedroom only — they are free to set their own life course — I don’t think a woman should lead the country. That’s not the same thing as saying women can’t be and aren’t effective leaders, or that all men would make good leaders.
This post was inspired by the headline “It’s against women’s nature to want to lead,” which leaped out at me this morning, and I knew it was too good to pass up.
The BBC conducted a study which showed that the current generation of women wants to be married with children by age 30. An excerpt from the article:
Perhaps it is what Nature has encoded into the DNA of most women – that the female instinct is towards the maternal vocation, although that maternal instinct can be expressed in a wide number of ways, from animal welfare to teaching to medical care to nurturing a corporation.
This natural inclination – as well as the biologically established differences between the sexes – has for too long been officially obscured.
When the failure of women in general to have attained equal pay or equal leadership in the workplace is publicly discussed, it is still put down to constructs such as “the glass ceiling”, or the way in which girls are “socially conditioned” not to aspire to top pay or high leadership.
The evident fact that most women are, by definition, not driven by testosterone-fuelled competitive ambition is seldom suggested. Far from females being “conditioned” by society, it is Nature doing the programming.
I am big on biology, and despite what radical feminists say, women’s natural inclination, generally speaking, is toward nurturing. Nurturing is a necessary and noble quality, but it’s not high on my list of desired leadership qualities.
We all know how incompatible and downright challenging raising children and working can be. Women do it all the time; that doesn’t mean they should or that it’s good for families. In my lay opinion, women careerists have a dilemma. On the one hand, most want to marry and have children. On the other hand, many want to rise in their respective companies. One can do both, but it’s doubly difficult. (And children, regardless of what they may tell you, like having mothers there when they come home from school.)
Men, whose bodies aren’t designed and timed to bear children, needn’t worry about so-called biological clocks or pregnancy or breast feeding. They get married, support their families, and do what men are designed to do: provide and protect.
FYI, God didn’t make two different sexes just for his amusement. Obviously, our reproductive organs are different, but our differences extend beyond the physical. Women aren’t simply baby incubators; we are the other half of God’s grand creation, and the two halves, despite The Fall, are a compatible whole. Women have a moderating effect on society in general and a socializing effect on men in particular. Married men are less “wild,” they take fewer risks, and they earn more money than single men, statistically speaking. The hunt/conquer instinct is channeled to more productive and beneficial-to-the-family pursuits, like going after the big promotion, relentlessly seeking the bonus, and putting in the hours necessary to get ahead at the job. Their natural aggression is put to better use by protecting the family, striving for career advancement, and producing something positive and useful for society as whole.
These are some of the things I look for in a leader, whether the context is church or the office: physical strength, intellectual acumen, a strong, authoritative manner, an almost intimidating presence — MASCULINITY. I want the person who leads me and my country to radiate not just confidence, but manly confidence — and bravery, integrity, and high character.
For me, the appeal of a leader has a strong physical component. These days, weak and/or oppressive kings are booted out of the palace through a civilized election process. Back in the day, they faced a sometimes bloody and painful ousting by those who were stronger and cleverer and luckier. We may have come a long way since then, as “civilized” as we think we are, but I want to be led by the kind of person who can protect me physically, as well as intellectually.
A woman, even if she’s an Amazon with an IQ of 200, just isn’t the same.
Now, a woman can try to “have it all” by marrying, having kids, striving careerwise, or focusing on developing leadership qualities. Or she can forgo marriage and children for a life-long pursuit of a leadership role. But because she’s a woman, no matter how great a leader she may be, she still lacks the “manly” nature I desire in a leader.
At this point, some people may call me a hypocrite for saying women shouldn’t be leaders (of the country!) or that mothers shouldn’t pursue career advancement when it’s obvious that I’m striving toward a certain career point. Heck, my biggest before-40 wish is to land a book deal, not a husband! But…my striving is not taking anything away from my non-existent children. If I had young children and I sacrificed raising them so I could write, then I’d be a hypocrite. But since I don’t, I’m not.
Finally, do I think women should be booted out of the boardroom or kicked off the city council? No. Do I think a woman should be president of the United States, Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and all the rest? For all of the above stated reasons and several more I didn’t discuss, no.
Update: Yes! A female commenter mentions the power-behind-the-throne idea.
A male commenter writes:
I think the temperment to be a good leader is much rarer among women than men, but not nonexistant, so I’d expect effective women leaders to be rare but not nonexistent. Which is what you see in history (Golda Meier, Queen Elizabeth I ….)
Your added physical requirement is what makes it almost impossible for you ever to see a female candidate who satisfies you.
At first glance it strikes me as an irrational requirement, at second glance I remember that humans are irrational, and almost never more so than when involved in politics. So I’m going to have to think long and hard about whether I think it’s a criterion I should start considering too.
I am reminded of the observtion that “the taller candidate usually wins.†You’re clearly not the only one who chooses Presidents this way – though you may be the only one who’s aware of it!
Commenter David L. says: “Men are more willing to accept risk than women. Leadership requires risk taking. The much cited, and quite laudable exception, of Maggie Thatchcer is a case in point Maggie was not afraid of taking risks.”
