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.”
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 52 comments }
Well, if you ever change your mind, you have my vote!
Maybe you can find a good Christian book-publisher, marry him and get your book deal and husband in one package. Then he decides to run for President. Voila! La Shawn Barber-???? First Lady!
A publisher who buys my book and becomes my husband – now that would save a lot of time!
I think women make excellent Consultants, Advisors, and Teachers…
….none of which is ‘leadership’.
But in some ways it’s a more important role, being the power-behind-the-throne.
The power of women behind the scenes, both good and bad.
Whenever there’s trouble in an Organization, (Enron etc..) you can bet there’s a woman, somewhere, enabling–helping to carry out the damage.
I always find it interesting the argument that women are somehow more moral than men…..that they are made of sugar and spice and everything nice.
(Lyddie England)
Didn’t the whole Lyddie England fiasco happen under a woman’s military ‘leadership’.
Growing up in the ‘bring home the bacon fry it up in a pan’ era where girls were sent the dual role message, I’m glad to read your viewpoint. It took me about 5 years of marriage to realize I shouldn’t feel guilty for not working. I love being a mom, and I am past the pressure to work 9-5, and then work at home. Too many women are allowing someone else to raise their children. I know. what about the money? Well we don’t have much, my husband is a retired police officer, now studying to be a pastor.We enjoy low cost no cost activities, and we still can afford to homeschool all our children!
For leadership positions, the role needs to be filled based on the position. There are truly different processes and thoughts going on in the men and womens brains. Not saying one is more intelligent than the other, but men on the whole, sort the touchy-feely emotions out. That is exactly why I want a man as a leader. Generally woman think with their heart which isn’t always the best detector/decision meter available. Thanks for your blog, I love it!
Wow Glamchild,
its good to know what you think of women. Lyddie England doesn’t represent everyone woman in the US arm and for your information her actions were done under the leadership of Men and she was one out of 2 women involved, the rest were men. But I guess its all her fault?
I guess men can’t be responsible for anything they do. It HAS to be some evil woman behind the scenes manipulating their poor selves. The old Adam and Eve thing…
Excuse me while I wash the bad taste out of my mouth and put on my burka. Wouldn’t want a man attacking me because my ankle bone or wrist might rile up his sexual urges.
Women can of course be leaders and make good leaders and they have been doing it for hundreds of years except for places where backward thinking like this exist.
There is nothing social or science based for any reasoning that women can’t be leaders. I don’t know what Manliness has to do with leaderships. They are MANLY men that can’t tie their shoes without a woman showing them out to do it. What a bout a woman who is manly? Would that work?
Zakia, this post is based on my opinion. I prefer male leaders over females. Period. No one on this board is saying women can’t be “good leaders.” Let’s not go off on tangents or down straw-men trails.
I agree with LaShawn. If women want to perform the MOST IMPORTANT job there is, then they should put some effort, intelligence and energy into raising healthy future citizens. That’s what I wanted to do with my life but physiological defects dictated otherwise.
I don’t know that I would ever vote for a female for President (but I won’t say never), despite the fact that they have already proved to me that they can be just as rotten in public life as men (I’m thinking HRC, Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, Libby Dole, et al.) – that isn’t the kind of equality we should be aspiring to emulate.
MY OPINION is completely in agreement with yours, La Shawn!
There was a Pharaoh in ancient Egypt who was female. She was careful to wear a fake beard. There was also an Empress in China who ruled with a puppet male doing the talking.
Occasionally, women turn up with the testosterone imbalance to shove men, women and children around, but they seem to be very few in numbers, historically.
I think Clinton exemplified the feminization of leadership and lead like a girly-man. If he had to mud-wrestle Reno, Shalala, Hillary or Albright, my money would have been against him.
Women are definitely the power behind the throne. That is part of their DNA and their mystery. (Except in the case of megalomaniacs like Donald Trump. For him, women are Kleenex.)
I would probably vote for Condi Rice because I think she has the strength of her convictions. I would never vote for Oprah because she is always searching, searching, searching.
Basically, I’d agree with you. You’re not off my list! There have been some exceptional women who have been the leaders of countries, but they are certainly in the minority. I wouldn’t _not_ vote for a woman for president just because she’s a woman, but I also wouldn’t vote _for_ a woman just because she’s a woman. In other words, her sex is just one factor – it’s all those factors put together that count. The President has to be an exceptional individual, just by the numbers. When you start talking a female president, it’s possible, but the numbers alone make it unlikely.
I’ve also wondered whether Condi Rice’s sex makes her job more difficult, since she has to deal with so many other individuals whose perspective leads them to disdain anything a female has to say. That alone is a consideration. It might not be as we’d like, but it’s reality.
“I want to be led by the kind of person who can protect me physically, and well as intellectually. ”
Condi Rice with a gun?
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!
Let’s add Lady Margaret Thatcher to the “rare but not nonexistent” list of good women who led.
I agree that women should be “allowed to set their own life course” but for far too long society has dictated that any woman who set her life course to include a nurturing role (i.e. mothering, nursing, teaching, etc.) was settling for a no-status, less important role. That’s a lie and we are all suffering for it.
Would I vote for a woman president? Not just because she’s a woman; no way. We’ve got a woman governor her in Michigan for that reason and what a disaster she’s been for our state.
If we judge people objectively by their leadership qualities and women tend to naturally lack in such qualities, then it will automatically show up in the numbers (as seems strongly to be the case). But if we objectively conclude that a particular woman strongly has these qualities, do we discard her in our minds because she is a woman? After all, just as there are feminine men (what seems to be a growing population), there are some women who seem to take the qualities most common in men.
Should we have discarded Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Elizabeth I, Joan of Arc, Boudica/Boadicia, Ching Shih, or Amina? I don’t believe that women SHOULD be equally represented in leadership positions, but should be equally judged. The problem comes when a woman is elevated to a leadership role mainly because she is a woman. Show me that you can run the show and I won’t care what your sex is.
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.
Snide aside, if the insinct to nurture impedes presidential ambitions, H.R. Clinton is in good shape. She is about a nuturing a hyena.
“For me, the appeal of a leader has a strong physical component.”
For many women Lashawn, this is the case (and one of the reasons I go to the gym!) I hate to jump on the “generalization” bandwagon (you looked lonely there by yourself) but this is also the reason (though not the sole reason) why Presidential candidates’ looks are more important than his platform. We have not had a hideous president since you women gained the vote (Nixon was elected by men-that’s my story and I’m sticking to it!). Coincidence? I think not.
I say, more Chester A. Arthur’s and less JFK’s.
(Kidding!)
I dunno, it doesn’t make sense to me to judge an individual based on the averages of a population. Do I want the average woman to be President? Nope. But, do I want the average man to be President? NO!
I want someone who is smarter than average, who has more charisma than average, who has more wisdom than average, etc.. Average is no where near good enough to lead a country. So why should it matter if the average woman is good enough to be President?
Populations of people are rather varied.
Like Shade said, I don’t care if they are equally represented at all — quotas are stupid. I don’t want a woman President just for the hell of it, either.
I mena, you’re entitled to your opinion, but it seems to me your post just came down to “I don’t want a woman President, because women aren’t manly”. Well… so? What specific quality is it you’re looking for? Because I’m assuming a really butch lady wouldn’t do it for you.
Lashawn I apologize, I realize that was your opinion but this is a touchy subject for me as a person who has been told “what a woman’s place is” by people close to her. And then Glamchild’s post just set me off a bit because its thinking like that why women in Muslim countries are treated like crap. Because by default they are seen as the cause of all the ills and evil a man may commit just by existing.
And I honestly don’t understand the idea or why people think woman can’t be leaders when until recent history there were many woman leaders who took risk, were brave, and strong.
Shade made some excellent reference, especially Elizabeth the 1st, Boudica, and Amina, or even add Nzinga.
The problem is the assumption by biology that a woman cannot be a good leader. I would say that there are woman who do not exhibit the qualities that make a good leader and many men don’t but those men end up in leadership positions because of bias toward them by biology they make good leaders.
The way it should be is that women and men are equally judged. Then it is a different dynamic. It can be said that women are more unlikely to have the qualities that men have in terms of being leaders, but they can be leaders.
And personally, Hillary Clinton would make just as good of a leader as George Bush. They both are retarded.
No need to apologize, Zakia. This is a touchy subject, and I rarely blog about it. I know women are capable human beings, but I want my leaders to be men. Fortunately for those who disagree, my vote is only one, tiny voice in the wind. If the majority of the country wants a woman president, then it will be so.
There are always exceptions to the biology rule, but generally speaking – and I always emphasize generally, though people still tend to ignore it – I think part of a woman’s biology leads her into a different and extremely important direction other than leading and having authority over state: the birthing and nurturing of decent human beings, among whom may grow up to be leaders themselves. I just don’t think women can do both equally well. One suffers.
If that’s an archaic idea, color me archaic.
Silvermine asks:
“What specific quality is it you’re looking for? Because I’m assuming a really butch lady wouldn’t do it for you.”
If I read her right it’s “physically imposing.” Whether a butch enough lady would do it is something she’ll have to answer. But to be able to beat George Bush or Bill Clinton in a bar brawl you’re looking for pretty darned butch.
Women with the mental makeup to be good leaders exist but are rare.
Physically imposing women (e.g. female bodybuilders & pro wrestlers) are also extremely rare.
Bodybuilders and wrestlers who are also good at politics are pretty rare (Schwartzenegger, Ventura … anyone else?)
A female candidate who would satisfy LaShawn would have to hit a trifecta on the above. It’s theoretically possible, but extremely unlikely.
LaShawn,
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.
From a spiritual perspective, men are supposed to be the loving leaders in their homes, and fierce leaders (if need be) abroad. Case in point, the war in Iraq. Whether you agree with its inception or not, it’s being fought by a bunch of cowards in Washington who are tieing the hands of the brave men and women on the ground by being politically correct. In my opinion, a real manly commander in chief, secretary of defense, etc. would have unleashed the full might of the USA and crushed the enemy. But, instead, these cowards are trying not to cause too much collateral damage and debating whether or not the enemy combatants in Gitmo should be made to feel uncomfortable.
This war among other things is a sure sign to me that manliness is sorely lacking in our leadership. As a result, I don’t think more women in roles of leadership will help this problem. Only real men willing to make life and death decisions no matter the fallout can overcome the feminization among the current leadership.
You’re archaic, LaShawn. And Fabulous. When I finally get organized enough to put you on my blogroll, it’s great stuff like this that keeps you there.
Another great post La Shawn. A friend once told me that Adam was formed from the earth symbolizing dominion, authority and structure while Eve was formed from life (Adam) to bring life (future generations). Their interpretation of this is that it is an inherent gender gifting for women to be God’s image bearers with emphasis on wisdom and power while men bear His Image with regard to structure and authority.
I find the whole thing fascinating (of course) and I saw something on 20/20 the other night I have considered blogging along the same lines. Don’t be surprised if you get a trackback soon.
I prefer to distinguish between handy generalizations and specific examples. As a result, I don’t mind if in general more men than women become leaders, but I do mind if that’s extended to a blanket dismissal of all individuals. I mean, what do you think of Margaret Thatcher, La Shawn? Does she not meet your leadership criteria?
I linked to Lady Thatcher in the post. Check the paragraph that begins, “I’m quasi-traditional…” – Admin
If I read her right it’s “physically imposing.â€
James Madison was a physical pipsqueak.
Queen Boedicca, Eleanor of Acquitaine, Elizabeth I, Victoria, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Madame de Pompedour, Cleopatra, Edith Wilson, Eleanor Roosevelt, Cady Stanton, Dolly Madison, Joan of Arc, Catherine de Medici, Hildegarde von Bingen:
All strong women who changed the course of history. I was able to compile this list in just a minute off the top of my head — give me an hour of research, and I could expand the list threefold.
The record speaks for itself. Women can be strong effective leaders. Do you want a list of men who were ineffective leaders? That would be quite long.
I’m not sure of the point of this post. ARe you saying women in general should NOT seek office? What is the practical aspect you are attempting? That people should not support women for office because of this supposed ‘fact.”?
Look, I don’t care about the sex of a leader, I just care whether they are effective and good on the issues. If a woman doesnt’ want to run for office, fine with me.
The point of this post is to express the sentiment that I wouldn’t vote for a woman for president. Nothing more, nothing less. And rolling off a list of women who led doesn’t change the sentiment, nor is it relevant for purposes of my post. But knock yourself out. – Admin
LaShawn,
I’ve noticed that women in leadership/authority positions tend to exhibit masculine qualities, but more so than their male counterparts. It’s almost as if they’re trying to compensate for something.
Man has a natural authority given to him by God. Adam (a male BTW) was given federal headship over all humanity (Meredith Kline is a good read for OT exegesis). The apostles later build on this idea as a basis for church government. As such man is simply in a natural position of authority, just as God ordained it. There are, of course, Biblical exceptions, as one of the OT judges was a woman. Naturally, I’d prefer Margaret Thatcher over the current administration. But there is a creation order issue at play in civil government, which no amount of liberalism can erase.
If a leader of Thatcher’s calibre emerges here we’ll know it. We won’t even think about her being female–it’s be irrelevant, probably because she’ll be a conservative, like Maggie, and not a lib. Then her ideology will subject her to attack from the left, not her gender.
I think women are capable of being great leaders. I’m with Shade; show me that you can run the show and I won’t care what your sex is.
My wife says I’m allowed to comment on this. I suspect a trap.
“Would you vote for Condoleezza Rice for president of the U.S.?â€
Even if the theory that women on average make worse leaders than men is true, it does not seem fair to C. Rice to use the average against her. Sort of like arguing that since the Irish drink more, or god forbid, blacks are not as smart as whites, we should use it against an individual Irishman or black person.
I would go for Collen Powell but not Ms. Rice, not because of gender or race, but I think Ms. Rice has good, but largely academic experience.
But compared to Pres. Bush, the bar is rather low.
>
Pretty much the definition of Bill Clinton, according to those who have met him , including those who hate him. And Lyndon Johnson. And Teddy Roosevelt. And JFK, RFK, and FDR.
Interestingly, these are NOT the attributes of Richard Nixon.
To all those who think Margaret Thatcher was a great leader…
…ask yourself —would she have been as great if there were no Ronald Reagan?
Thatcher and President Reagan were joined at the hip. Hey, I’m not complaining, considering the sorry state of diplomatic relations with England under Jimmy Carter…thank God for Reagan.
But, it’s clear to me that Thatcher needed Reagan far more than he needed her.
Most Brits—the ones I’ve talked to, don’t even like Maggie Thatcher. She didn’t really have the support of her own people; couldn’t really harness the necessary morale etc.
And, in my opinion, without the Reagan philosophy to latch onto (not that there’s anything wrong with that)…….Thatcher would be nothing!
—Just my opinion.
I agree LaShawn, women don’t have the same leadership skills that men do. And I think it has to do with hormones.
Here’s an example of a woman in command who just demoralized those under her:
http://thepugilstick.blogspot.com/2006/10/major-dhimmitude.html
I’ve always remembered this unique fact from my grade school history class that I’ve copied from a website for your enjoyment:
What were men and women’s roles in the Iroquois tribe?
Iroquois men were in charge of hunting, trading, and war. Iroquois women were in charge of farming, property, and family. These different roles were reflected in Iroquois government. Iroquois clans were ruled by women, who made all the land and resource decisions for each clan. But the chiefs, who made military decisions and trade agreements, were always men. Only men represented the Iroquois Confederacy at the Great Council, but only women voted to determine who the representatives of each tribe would be. Both genders took part in Iroquois storytelling, artwork and music, and traditional medicine.
LaShawn, it is absolutely refreshing to see a conservative making an intellectual argument on this subject!
In my gut, I’m never sure how to answer when someone asks if I would vote for a woman for President. I mean, I vote for women for legislative positions all the time – why not an executive position? I think you articulated the reasons very well. I hope your eventual book deal will include your perspectives on feminist obsession with the perceived “glass ceiling” and our biological tendancies!
So it is in your opinion that men don’t demoralize those under them and women do it because of hormones? And you find one random example to prove so?
What is your basis for this other than 1950s thinking. What do these hormones do that make me not be able to be a leader?
And if you want to deal with hormones. Men in leadership have caused more grief, agony, suffering, and cruelty than any woman in the same role. Now is this because of hormones?
That was too Atheling
Some say there is no better instruction book in this world than the Bible. And the Bible plainly says that woman is made to be subordinate to man.
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”
So why would we even discuss the distorted concept of women ‘leading’ men?
From a biblical paradigm God placed men to lead and women to be a help meet to the man. You can’t have 2 heads of the house the order is set in 1 Cor 11:3 in my opinion a Psalms 1 man needs a Proverbs 31 woman. Does this devalue a woman and her abilities absolutely not! Now there are 5 things that would usually clear out a room full of women they are Rats, roaches, snakes, spiders and lizards. You can throw in a rusty lug nut on car with a flat tire in the rain too.
The bottom line is we are here for a purpose and remember that Eve was God’s gift to Adam and a woman should be treated as such.
I have no problem with women leaders, but one must note that there will be much fewer women leaders than male ones with the requisite qualities. Just as there’s far fewer Nobel Prize-winning physicists who are female than male.
Margaret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth I — they were great leaders, but note that it’s much harder to find examples of great women leaders than men leaders, even after the feminist movement. It’s not because of chauvinism, but that first there are few great leaders, and that more men have the qualities required than do women.
Condoleeza Rice, as great as her achievements have been, is not a leader — and neither is John Bolton, and other members of the administration. They may be good at what they do, but they’re not leaders, per se. This is also why so few Senators are elected President, and so many governors are: Governors many times have to be leaders, being executives and really being in the position of having to get things done. Senators very rarely are leaders, and rarely have to do anything in particular except run their mouths.
The fact that humans follow men more readily than women is indeed natural and a reflection of a metaphor God places at the heart of our lives regarding his relationship to us. Unfortunately due to original sin we tend to idolize our leaders and follow them where angels fear to tread. Where God ordains men to be leaders we can assume his mysterious providence is at work; equally so, then, when we find ourselves with women leaders. Give a woman leader the respect she is due. She may on occasion be weak, sentimental and dangerous but only God sees the alternative scenario.
#38 “Now there are 5 things that would usually clear out a room full of women they are Rats, roaches, snakes, spiders and lizards.”
I think that view is only relevant to ‘coddled’ city girls. Does this hold true for all the millions of woman who live in tribes and villages where nature up close and personal is part of the daily life? Hunting grubs, skinning and boning, cooking animals that don’t come in packets? Or is your argument that God only made modern Western women to run a mile at the sight of a snake?
Regards,
JohnD
my,my,my. What a lot of power words get thrown about in this type of discussion ( “ordained”, etc.) and what a lot of cultural views are aired without so much as a “why do we think this?”.
Why do “women make excellent Consultants, Advisors, and Teachers…
….none of which is ‘leadership’.”
No?
I understand the main point of the post, and I wouldn’t argue it… if honest I go in the same direction without thinking too much about it. But maybe it is time to think more, and gut-react a little less. You know the most pertinent question for me in all this? Why are some of the nations which are led by women some of the most conservative in views about women, generally, while the general view in the USA is far more restrictive in what it desires in a leader, although we have arguably one of the most open for women?
I don’t like the “power behind the throne” idea, frankly. It speaks of manipulative means being substituted for overt ones, and all that implies about a culture and a system of thought. I much more like the “hand that rocks the cradle” idea, although that doesn’t address the role of women in leadership, just that there are more modes of power than being in front of the microphone and on the board.
Ilona,
Some of your post got garbled in transmission. I’m suspecting you’re European.
“my,my,my. What a lot of power words get thrown about in this type of discussion ( “ordainedâ€, etc.) and what a lot of cultural views are aired without so much as a “why do we think this?â€. ”
I think that up until the mid to late 1800s, gender roles were fairly well defined, based on the Biblical model. In the 1860s, Darwin published his “Origin of Species,” which basically led people to believe that humans are nothing more than glorified apes. Though there isn’t a shred of archaelogical evidence for Darwin’s theory even today, Western civilization still remains “deep in the mire of folly” in basing its morals on the implications of Darwin’s theory.
On another front, your European philosophers began to attack the inerrancy and authority of the Bible. Though these debunkers have hitherto been debunked, the damage has been done: morality isn’t based on an absolute standard (the Bible), but on a sliding scale of cultural values and “what’s good for me.” Of course, these European critics were really just giving the same argument the serpent gave in Eden, “Hath God not said?” But no one paid attention to that. Suffice it to say, evidence abounds as to both the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, but our culture has lost interest in reading such evidence.
American values are largely based on the last remaining hauntings of the Bible being preached here. Moral and cultural relevatism still isn’t as bad here as it is in Europe. So when you ask why we believe in certain things here in America, that’s why.
Until someone is able to overturn the Bible’s explanation as to how we got here and what we’re here for, it remains the authority. So far, no one has been able to do so.
Zakia:
Women are the most egregious perpetrators of political correctness. In the old days it was called being “missish”. Hypersensitive.
That Major, who is a woman, demoralized her troops by caving in to dhimmitude. Bad leadership. The CO of Abu Ghraib, by the way, was a woman.
Your statement about men causing more grief and suffering is irrelevant. We are talking about leadership. Testosterone beats estrogen anytime when it comes to leadership and courage. Deal with it.
Prove it Atheling2
Prove that by simple fact I have a vagina and produce estrogen I can’t be a leader or shouldn’t be? Maybe you know me or something?
Also prove to me that NO man in a leadership position has ever demoralized or committed acts that have produced a negative. Show me this one thing and I’ll concede to your opinion. Tell me in your heart you believe NO man in leadership has EVER done any of these things that you seemed to think only women leaders do, and I’ll call you delusional or unread, but I’ll concede.
Otherwise this is crap meant to put women in their place because of their biology and reduce us to nothing but walking dumb Victorian society swooning wombs. Or throw the bible on us and say we should keep our mouths shut and follow a man and pop out babies(what if a woman is infertile?). Sometimes a man will lead a woman straight to hell.
Then they take a few examples and paint us all with a loaded broad brush.
And sorry I won’t deal with it. So I guess you’ll have to deal with that.
I don’t have a problem with people viewing me as a woman as incapable of certain things. But at least have a reason that is sound and thought out. Lashawns opinion seemed logical and educated and she didn’t use silly “Well because this one woman out of the millions in the world, did this or that, no woman can do A. ” and she based her opinion(which she stated is an opinion only) on what her desires are in a leader. Mainly manliness and physical stature (which compared to men, women don’t have)
A proponderance of gray does not negate the existence of black and white.
I don’t have to prove it. Look at history, or have you revised it to suit your agenda?
I’m not saying EVERY woman cannot lead. There are exceptions: Margeret Thatcher, Elizabeth I, Joan of Arc… but the MAJORITY of good leaders are men. It’s biology.
LaShawn,
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.
As to leaders– yes, women can be leaders but they have to be the type that can be cutthroat and ruthless. They are out there. But most women are socially conditioned to be nurturing etc. When women do not fit the mold- they are labelled “bitch”.
I’ve thought about replying to this a number of times, but haven’t pressed the Post button yet.
There are two or three different aspects at work here.
Firstly there is the impact of children. There doesn’t seem to be any way around the fact that women do most of the child-rearing and that in doing so they lose the opportunity to do a lot of things because raising a child is a tough job and practically a full time one. Or at least one that makes it really hard to have a second full time job (i.e. running the country) at the same time.
However once the kids have flown the nest I can’t see any reason why a middle aged woman (say in her 50s) would have any time handicap. Of course she might well have missed the boat in other respects because the tiem she spent raising her kids is the time that men spent starting the climb up the greasy pole.
On the other hand the fact that many/most women are nurtuting rather than risk taking or protective does not mean that all are. The types and nature of human brain may correlate with gender but the correlation isn’t 100%, however I can see that the pool of suitable females for president is likely to be enormoously smaller that the pool of suitable male candidates (FWIW musing on this kind of disparity was what got Larry Summers in trouble).
Between the two I’m not sure if her gender should automatically rule out a woman as leader, but I agree that it will rule out the vast majority of women and will almost certianly rule out the 100% of the “feminine” women.
There is another point which is that I believe that an unmarried (or unhappily married) leader will be at a disadvantage because he won’t have a person with whom he can truly relax and just chill out, and if the spouse is a nurturing sort that will improve the quality of the relaxation time. I don’t think that this requires the leader to be a heterosexual male – I can see that both a gay male or a woman of the right sort and with the right longterm partner would be just as good. For example although I don’t think he was precisely “nurturing”, Dennis Thatcher certainly acted like a stay at home wife to Margaret and I’m sure provided her with the same relaxation zone. But again this is going to be uncommon. The odds of a woman or gay male having this kind of partner is far lower than the odds of a heterosexual male having one.
I’m not against the concept of a female US president – I lived under Mrs T in England and appreciated it – but I think that the chances of such a person showing up is very very low. For every Mrs Thatcher-like woman there are hundreds of men who have the same qualifications.
It is amazing and awe-inspiring how many women have led nations and led them superbly throughout history — Elizabeth I, Golda Meir, Maggie Thatcher are just a few who come to mind but they are not the only ones by a long stretch. And all this despite the fact that people like LaShawn Barber throughout history have been inclined to assume that men should be the leaders, not women. Think of all the obstacles and assumptions that might have prevented these women from rising to the top! Think about how they rose to the top and led so well anyway! It makes you realize that there is great untapped leadership potential in the female half of the population. We have been deprived of this leadership and are continuing to be deprived of this leadership because of attitudes like Ms. Barber’s.
“Now there are 5 things that would usually clear out a room full of women they are Rats, roaches, snakes, spiders and lizards. You can throw in a rusty lug nut on car with a flat tire in the rain too.
”
See, that’s the problems with this. You’re discussing averages, not individuals. For example. I have pet lizards, and I grow bugs for them for food. (Usually not roaches (landlords frown on that), but I prefer them to crickets, since the crickets usually get free and chirp all night.) I also used to keep rats for my pet snake. Spiders, well, I don’t run from them. But they aren’t fun pets or fun pet food, so they mostly lurk around outside. My husband’s obsessed with taking pictures of them, though.
Oh, and I used to work on my own car, back when everything wasn’t computerized.
Replaced a few quarterpanels, a headlight, a window or two. Put in new spark plugs and a distributor cap… It’s nice to be able to fix your own car. It annoys me that I can’t do it anymore, since cars are too full of chips.
Anyway, my point is the average doesn’t matter. You don’t vote for the average man, either.
I agree that the pool will be small, because of obligations to children, lack of interest, or lack of ability. Still…. I’d say the same for men. They just havea slightly bigger pool of acceptable presidential candidates.
Heck I think anyone who wants to be president is insane.
Aethling
My main problem with you is that you give some examples of women doing a poor job of leading and then imply it is because they are women and not because they are just poor leaders.
If that isn’t the case then what was the point of you giving an example of a woman being a poor leader?
Most women could lead the US into what average student George Bush did, no problem. His woman Condi would not make a good leader either IMO.
Comments on this entry are closed.