The New York Times has a wonderful op-ed by one of my favorite writers, Gloria Steinem. I have adored this woman for years, for the courage she has shown in standing up to the patriarchy. She tells it like it is here:Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.
That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter). [...]
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
The op-ed is, in my opinion, a must read.
21 comments:
I had read this earlier and I will add that your post is also must read material. Thanks BAC.
I love your passion about all of this - you inspire me.
Don't give up quite yet. At the moment Clinton's a little ahead of Obama in the New Hampshire vote count. At the least, it's not going to be another landslide defeat like Iowa.
This is the first time I've left the TV. It's going to be a close one I think. Still not sure if she will win, but I'm hoping she does.
BAC
It's simple. And Steinem has it wrong.
Few women in the US position themselves to reach the top, and few develop the necessary confederation of backers who will enable them to get there.
Meanwhile, women who fight to get to the top of male-dominated institutions always appear to be women acting like men. It is the act that is off-putting. They are not men. Hence the act leaves most people cold.
If subordinates grumble the CEO is a prick, the term mixes disparagement with grudging respect. Of course, the term applies only to a male. However, it also implies an acknowledgement of the CEO's competence.
There's no term carrying all the same inflections and connotations for female leaders who attempt to act like men.
Meanwhile, her views on blacks in office are way off. In every city with sizeable black populations, there are plenty of black political representatives. The gender balance among black representatives is much closer to parity than among whites.
Why? For the same reason black women head most black households. They got stuck with the job. But for many blacks, heading the household is an important measure of personal responsibility. Many black men are simply out of the picture when it comes to acting responsibly. Many are in jail.
Meanwhile, who votes for local black candidates? Answer: local black voters. Those voters have shown lots of support for black female candidates. The support might also stem from the possibility that there are more black females eligible to vote.
At this point, it looks as though the Democratic nomination will go to either Hillary or Obama. Neither one can win in November.
Hillary cannot win for many reasons, many of which will come forth if necessary after Super Tuesday. Her history is an enormous burden. She will face more justifiable mud slung in her face than any previous presidential candidate.
Obama is unelectable for several reasons. The biggest is race. The US is not going to elect this lightweight to lead the nation now. His only evident skill is soaring oratory. After that, he's got nothing. Absolutely nothing.
There is zero chance the US will begin 2009 with a president named Hussein and Iraq won't. His muslim ties, however slight and long ago, will become a chief issue. It will get ugly.
I must disagree with you Pundit ... Steinem is absolutely correct. If you disagree, ask the women who are consistently passed over for promotion, some of whom are asked to train the (usually) younger man to take the position of authority.
And facts cannot be disputed. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women. It's simply a fact.
Take a look at the civil rights movement, and name it's leaders. The names that most often come to mind are men, yet individuals within the movement credit much of its success to men. So why aren't the women given their just credit? Because women are not given the same respect, when it comes to leadership, as men.
Let's look at Washington, DC. A city with a more than 60% African American population. A number of Black men have been mayors of the city, but so far only one Black woman. I remember when she was elected. We were all very excited at the prospect of the nations capital being led by a woman, but the good 'ol boy network would have none of it. She was gone almost as quickly as she arrived.
It does appear that the Democrats will nominate either Clinton or Obama, but nothing is certain until the convention.
Should the nominee be Sen Clinton, there will be a 'mud-fest', but to claim it is justifiable is absurd. And, to claim it would prevent her from winning is equally absurd. Hillary has already withstood more mud than any man -- and she's still standing.
I'm not sure if Obama could win the general election, but I can tell you that the smear campaign you suggest is something I think a lot of people will see through.
The bottom line to all of this is that Republicans are imploding. They have been for awhile now. To realize that their 'fall-back' candidate is a person the Republican establishment set out to destroy just eight years ago speaks volumes about just how desperate they are.
I'm willing to predict now that regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, that person will be the next president.
BAC
BAC, I did not dispute the fact that black men were given the vote before black women. And here we are in the present, which means that historical footnote is irrelevant.
We can find anecdotes and examples of black voting patterns that are tailored to our views. Washington DC is a handy, but largely irrelevant example.
The only mayor of DC whose hame I can recall is Marion Barry, a true credit to politicians everywhere. Actually, it's the voters who set the bar below sea level. They re-elected this criminal clown.
Meanwhile, what women do not understand is corruption. You can be sure that few men will trust women enough to include them in the murky side of politics and other endeavors.
As for the civil rights leadership, you ask why women weren't "...women given their just credit?"
Why? Because they did not lead. They were in the choir. As it is with almost every movement that is not specifically a female issue. It amazes me that women seem to think there are rules, even sub-rosa rules, that they can determine and follow. The game is always to steamroller the opposition. Fair play? Forget it.
You said..."Because women are not given the same respect, when it comes to leadership, as men."
No. Respect is not "given." They do not obtain respect because few women have the skill to "command" respect. Some of the "command" is illusion. But that's part of the game. Women in power don't create fear in men the same way men can create fear in each other.
As for your claim that Hillary has withstood more than her fair share of mud slung at her. No. Not a chance. She's experienced nothing in that department.
As First Lady, she may have been the target of a lot of justifiable criticism, but she wasn't running for office. Thus, there was no major purpose in attacking her, except where the attacks revealed harmful information about Bill.
She ran virtually unopposed for her Senate seat twice. Rick Lazio was one of the most bumbling and hapless Senatorial candidates I've ever seen. He humiliated himself every day of his campaign. The most amazing aspect of his run for office was how it caused everyone outside his district to wonder how the hell such a clown could get elected to the House.
In round two, she was set to face either an alcoholic from Yonkers or a woman of dubious mental stability. She got the alcoholic and trounced him.
In Brooklyn it is possible to run unopposed. But generally voters have more than one choice for an office. In Hillary's case, by facing two clowns, she came as close as possible to running unopposed. No more cakewalks for Hillary.
A Presidential race will change that. She will have to answer for sins that were peripheral in the 1990s. Her obvious lies about the profits she scalped from trading chicken futures will reappear.
In my view, however, it was her claims about Bill and Monica that will undo her.
She defended him and said he'd done nothing inappropriate. She took her stand on national TV.
She either willfully lied to the American public. Which means she views most Americans with deep contempt. Or she's too stupid to know what her husband was up to. Either scenario proves she is not presidential timber.
This is also the woman who walked across a stage and kissed Suha Arafat. That episode will haunt her campaign.
Meanwhile, she has no idea what to do with a war. Especially one in which we might approach a state of victory near election time.
Moreover, there is nothing to "see through" when it comes to smear campaigns. She was a principal in the Rose Law firm, a corrupt organization. Questions about the Starr Report findings will resurface. Questions about unsavory characters connected to the Clintons will resurface. She's wide open and an easy target.
Aside from the easy target Hillary makes are you claims that the Republicans are imploding. Amazing. The field is open. but the front-runners are McCain and Huckabee. Where's the implosion?
Whatever happened eight years ago among party members seeking the nomination is irrelevant today. Maybe women don't understand that. McCain has his flaws. So what? As far as I can tell, voters do not have a visceral response to him like some do toward Hillary. Love or hate, McCain seems to inspire neither.
Meanwhile, McCain is not trailed by the odor of scandal.
Obama is running the Seinfeld campaign. The campaign about nothing. Change? Meaningless. There will be a new president after the next election. That's a fact. That's change.
Unfortunately, he hasn't quantified or delineated his changes. He merely repeats the word in his rich oratorical way. His delivery might work in the churches, but unless he offers something concrete, the same refrain in those mellifluous tones will go flat.
Anyway, he's got nothing. And no complete rookie is getting his hands on the biggest levers of power in this country. No one with ties to islam is getting anywhere close to the White House.
Lastly, there is no escape from the facts of race and voting. The US might be close to electing its first black president, but that fellow is not Obama. Obama is way too much the black socialist to win. I'm also sure Obama worries that Al Sharpton will confer his kiss-of-death endorsement on him.
What more could go wrong?
As much as I believe Rudy Giuliani has the experience that qualifies him for the job of president, it already looks as though McCain has the edge. We'll see. But there won't be a Democrat in the White House in 2009.
If Bloomberg jumps in, then the election becomes a slam-dunk for Republicans. Apparently Nader has already filed to have his name on the ballot, thereby committing himself to helping the Republican candidate.
Clearly you are a man with entirely too much time on your hands!
The quick response to your bloviating is that it's bullshit.
According to you, facts are "irrelevant" if they do not support your theory. And men lead through "fear", which explains your support for Rudy "September 11th" Giuliani. The only reason Rudy wasn't run out of town on a rail is because he managed to fool some of the people, all of the time.
But back to Sen. Clinton. A six year $70 million dollar investigation concluded that the Clinton's had not engaged in any criminal conduct. What more could be revealed that isn't already known? Nothing! So again, your comment about "justifiable criticism" is bullshit.
And she didn't run to become the Senator of Brooklyn, she represents the state of New York. And some of her strongest critics in upstate New York have become some of her biggest supporters now.
Whether or not you choose to accept it, the Republican party is imploding. Let's take a look at the candidates:
Rudy -- he was believed to be the party favorite for a while, until his corrupt past caught up with him. He was always going to have trouble though, because the "base" of the party -- the evangelicals -- didn't trust him. Only Pat Robertson would stand up for him, and his Christian Coalition is in shambles. The stronger religious right groups wouldn't give Rudy the time of day.
Mitt -- unfortunately for him, the religious right base of the party won't accept him. He's too unpredictable on social justice issues.
Huckabee -- the corporate interests in the party won't support him. Have you not been paying attention to all the right-wing talk show hosts? Should he win the nomination the corporate side will back a Bloomberg, and split the Republican vote.
Thompson -- the great Hollywood hope is simply too lazy to win. He's already yesterday's news.
And I believe there are a couple of other hangers on that don't show up on anyone's radar screen, which leaves John McCain.
McCain is the only one with a possible chance, but there is no guarantee that the same party that Swift boated him eight years ago will support him now. He's a maverick. He hates corporate waste, so he will have a hard time getting the support of the corporate side of the party, and his recent conversion and outreach to evangelicals as so far not paid off. I don't think they will trust him either. This again opens the door for a Bloomberg, and there goes the Republican party.
So either way, which ever candidate they choose stands to lose anywhere from 30 to 70 percent of the party support. That's too much to overcome in elections that are decided by single digit percentages.
Democrats, on the other hand, have never been more unified.
We have already made history, with a caucus win by an African American man and a primary victory by a woman.
I have made it no secret that I'm supporting Hillary. But regardless of who the Democrats nominate, that person will win in November.
The first two contests revealed that Dems are turning out voters at twice the rate of Republicans. Americans are fed up with George Bush, and would replace him this instant if it were possible. How else do you explain the early start to the presidential campaigning?
So bloviate all you want pal, but get ready for a new sheriff come November.
BAC
BAC, your arguments fail the political calculus test.
With respect to the line-up of Republican candidates, every point you noted was aired the instant it appeared each of them was about to throw his hat in the ring.
None of your observations were revelations to the people expected to vote for them.
Meanwhile, like I said, now Hillary is the target because she is the candidate. She got a nearly free-pass when she was only the wife of the candidate.
Nader will take some votes that would otherwise go to the Democratic candidate. If Bloomberg gets in the race, he'll grab even more, thereby altering electoral vote outcomes.
Meanwhile, the unity of the Democrats -- if deciding between two forms of identity-politicians is unity -- makes it easier for Republicans to get to work.
There is already a nasty hoax e-mail about Obama in circulation. Frankly, its origins are as likely to be found in the Clinton campaign as in the Republican camp. Either way, it's out there.
Long story short, Democrats are set to nominate either a polarizing female or a weightless black candidate. That's good news for the opposition. With the presence of one or two candidates from independent parties taking votes, there won't be enough remaining votes to elect the Democrat.
P.S. The Iowa caucus is lousy for predictions. The only person elected to the presidency who won the Iowa caucus is the current president.
Pundit - I'm not claiming that my comments about the Republican party is a "revelation" -- but they are very much a reality. The imploding within the Republican party is very real. For decades now the corporate wing of the party and the evangelical wing of the party have worked together, because it was in both their best interest to do so.
Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are probably the two "dream" candidates of this unholy alliance. They claimed strong religions ties, yet had tremendous appeal to corporate America -- for obvious reasons. The corporate wing made out like a bandit during these two administrations in particular.
But take a look at the leading Republican candidates today. Huckabee will get the support of the evangelical wing, the 30% or so that they represent, but he won't get the support of the corporate wing. He's not their guy! Rudy will get support from the corporate wing, but not from evangelicals, so he can count on maybe 70% of the party "faithful." Both sides seem to dislike Mitt. And then there is McCain. The two sides might hold their nose and vote for him, but then again they might not. He is one of the few presidential candidates -- Republican OR Democrat -- to ever go after Corporate Welfare. THAT is not going to make him their favorite candidate. He has also now spent two years trying to cozy up to evangelicals, but they don't seem to trust him. So it's questionable whether or not they will give him their support.
The evangelical and corporate wings of the party are simply not going to able to coalesce this time around, and that spells big trouble for Republicans.
And how can you claim Hillary got a free pass, when she was named in the Whitewater investigation? She may not have been AS scrutinized as Bill, but she was nonetheless scrutinized. And the vetting certainly began when she announced her intension to run for the Senate. And if she is so weak, why DIDN'T Republicans in NY field a stronger candidate to defeat her? They are certainly hungry for control of the Senate. So your analysis doesn't hold water.
If Nader decides to get into the race he will get maybe 1% of the vote, but no more. And Bloomberg won't take votes from Democrats, he'll take votes from Republicans! And he'll probably take more than Nader's 1%, which would render Nader's possible involvement meaningless.
As for negative campaigning, NO candidate is going to be exempt from it. So what if there is something out there about Obama, there is plenty out there about Rudy as well! It's a sad part of our political culture.
I agree that Iowa is not the best predictor of an eventual outcome, BUT there is no denying that a predominately white state selected an African American man. I think that does say something about how far we have come.
History has already been made in this primary season, and we've only gone through two contests!
BAC
BAC, you have yet to get the calculus of politics.
Those who want Huck as a candidate will vote for McCain if he's nominated. However, it appears you think Huck supporters will vote for the Democratic candidate if they can't have Huck. The only other option a few will exercise is the option of staying home.
But this election promises to produce a good turnout.
Meanwhile, you should check your numbers with respect to Nader's vote-getting power.
Moreover, you are 100% wrong on Bloomberg's potential impact. In NY City Democrats run as Republicans so they can actually run for office. Bloomberg was a Democrat who changed his party affiliation for exactly this reason. Most Dem/Repubs don't admit to it. But he hid nothing. Meanwhile, his tenure as mayor has shown he is in tune with liberal views -- such as abortion -- and conservative goals -- such as profitable real estate development. He has proven that he knows where money for social programs originates. He knows it does not grow on trees. Thus, as a third-party presidential candidate, he would extract his votes from the hide of the Democratic candidate.
Rudy may have many Republican attributes, but a candidate who accepts abortion and gun control is enough of a Democrat to win votes from a lot of non-Republicans. In fact, his liberal views have cost him some support. But if he were nominated by the Republican party, Republicans would vote for him. Not the Democratic opponent.
As for Hillary and her past, well, she got off easy because she was not the candidate. It's still unseemly to beat up on women and children. However, since she is now the candidate, things are different. If she is nominated, every aspect of her past will resurface.
Critics will nail her for aiding and abetting her husband. It does not matter that she was not indicted as a result of the Starr investigation. Just like it doesn't matter that Obama was never a serious muslim. His association is too close to escape criticism. He'll spend time telling voters that he's not a muslim. Hillary will spend time telling voters she is not a crook.
Worse, as I've said, was her handling of the Monica Lewinsky issue. Hillary either lied or was too stupid to know the truth of what was happening under her nose. She's a fool either way.
As for the impact of negative campaigning on other candidates, well, there's nothing new to be said about Rudy. It's all out there. It's doubtful there is anything significant in McCain's background and it's unlikely Huckabee will become the nominee. I know nothing of his personal life. But preachers often have a lot of sinful acts they're covering beneath a show of piousness and religiosity. However, it's unlikely he's an Elmer Gantry redux.
Obama, as I've said, is running the Seinfeld campaign about nothing. And this is still the US, where black candidates are city councilmen, mayors, state representatives, state senators, federal representatives and senators, and even reaching the governorship. But not president. Not yet.
If blacks claim they always need to prove they are overqualified for the job, then Obama is miles away from any hope of winning. He'll be gone after Super Tuesday.
Pundit - I absolutely do get the "calculus" of politics. Why do you think the Dems were able to take back Congress in the last election? Because a lot of conservative and evangelical voters stayed home. They were fed up with the Bush administration, and simply didn't come out to vote.
And the turnout this time around is (so far) favoring the Democrats, almost 2 to 1.
As for Nader? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice ... you can't get fooled again! Okay, that was shameless ... but I don't think Dems are going to go back to that well a third time. There will be a few really disgruntled Dems who might possibly vote for Nader a third time, but I don't see it being more than 1% of the vote.
An just how many people across the country do you think know or understand NYC politics? It's a huge leap to think he can educate the entire country about it in time to make any significant impact in the election. If Huckabee or McCain is the nominee, Bloomberg would get all the corporate Republicans, which would leave Huck with the minority faction of the party.
I don't think Rudy has a chance in hell of getting the nomination at this point, but I'll give him until the Florida primary to prove me wrong.
I do find it hysterical that you think Rudy would have a chance because his negatives are "all out there" ... but that somehow Clinton's aren't! Did I somehow miss the six year $70 million investigation of Rudy?
I doubt that ANY other candidate in the race has been investigated more than Hillary Clinton. And pssst ... I don't think the conservative smear machine got the message that it's "unseemly to beat up on women." I can't think of a time when they HAVEN'T been after her.
And the only people who still care about the Monica incident are Chris Matthews and you. And Matthews is so discredited at this point he's the joke of the town.
I'm supporting Hillary, and I think she will win the nomination and the general election in November. But hey, I'd support Obama if he is able to pull it off. Any of the Democratic candidates are VASTLY better than anyone running on the Republican side. It's just a fact.
BAC
ps: I'm willing to keep this up as long as you like, but I hope it's pretty clear by now that you are not going to change my mind.
BAC, it's not clear that the Democratic triumph in the mid-term elections has meant anything at this point. What's Nancy Pelosi doing these days? However, adding the White House to the list would make a difference.
As for a Bloomberg third-party campaign and local politics, knowing NY City politics is irrelevant. Bloomberg resigned from the Republican party and is now an Independent. Liberal voters accept him. That's why he is mayor. That's why he will take votes from the Democratic nominee.
As for Rudy, it's true he's running a weak campaign -- so far. However, he is apparently executing his plan. Maybe he's short on cash. Maybe he's betting that Huck and Mitt will collapse. That's a reasonable expectation. In fact, Romney has no chance. He can't and won't get past the issue of his religion.
Regarding the matter of Monica, there's no point in playing it now. The mud will fly when the two major-party candidates go head-to-head. Obama is not going to mention Monica as a gambit for the nomination.
It's amusing that women voters back Hillary because she's a woman and nothing more. Her husband humiliated her before the entire nation. She took it. She acted like a doormat.
However, we all know that every woman would seethe and contemplate spousal murder if she experienced the same humiliation. It's fascinating that the party aiming to elevate a woman to the White House is the party in which the leading female candidate is the most publicly scorned woman in the country. Where's her fury? Is this some survivorship tale? How to suffer national humiliation and recover enough to run for the presidency?
Meanwhile, the Internet will see an increase in its impact on this election. Since the last election, the Internet has become much more of a video medium. That will add punch to its message as you attempt to do with your blog. However, you are preaching to your choir.
As for changing your mind, I have never had any intention of that. I'm merely identifying the weaknesses in your claims.
Pundit -- Adding the White House, and a significant number of seats in the House and Senate, will make a big difference. The reason Dems have not been able to accomplish more is because the Republicans have used the filibuster to an extent never seen before. They are on track to have something like three times the number of filibusters of any previous Congress.
My regret is that Reid and Pelosi didn't make them play it out before the public, so that EVERYONE would know who is a fault for not getting more accomplished.
You know Bloomberg because you live in NY, but it's foolish to assume everyone in the country knows him. I'd be willing to bet many don't. And all they will have to hear is that he was a Democrat-before-he-was-a-Republican-before-he-was-an-Independent. It's a good thing he's got a lot of money, because he will need it just to overcome that.
If Rudy doesn't pull off a miracle in Florida, he's toast. It's actually too bad for the Democrats because his 9-11 mantra has already worn thin, and it's only January.
Women voters are backing Hillary because she is the most qualified candidate in the race. And, because we no longer have to 'settle-for' one of the guys.
And you seem to be obsessed with the indiscretion, as if Hillary is the only woman in America who has ever experienced it. I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but a lot of women have dealt with this -- which is why they are not going to beat Hillary up about it.
Even your man Huckabee -- referencing his comment within the context that conservatives place a high regard on "family values" -- said she should be commended for keeping her marriage together.
Women register and vote in great number than do men ... and we have for quite some time now ... so let the media wage this kind of smear campaign, and then watch a 50 state map turn blue on election night.
BAC
BAC, Hillary is a doormat. The person closest to her throughout her adult life has trampled her and has humiliated her repeatedly.
Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Monica and many more. The Democratic front-runner is the woman who wants to lead the nation while keeping her position beneath her husband's feet. That sends a great message.
Yeah, that's the kind of person I want in the presidency. A woman who lives by the credo that her husband can publicly humilate and embarrass her any time while she tries to play tough with the world. Please.
Sure, millions of women have been down this road. But the high divorce rate says a lot of them got tired of the infidelities and cut the marital cord. In her case, there are no financial considerations to make her think twice. She has stayed because she's afraid to go solo.
Is she the role model for today's woman?
According to you, many women want the country led by a woman who accepts marital humiliation on one hand, while pretending she can lead the nation and the world on the other.
Also, Huckabee's statement -- if any meaning can be imputed into his comments about Hillary's marital embarrassements -- boils down to a left-handed compliment. In my view, he's letting Bill off the hook for relentless philandering while patting her on the head for being so nice about the whole business.
She'd be a lot easier to respect if she had divorced the guy. But, she showed her preference for the role of doormat. Her willingness to be trampled sends a great message to all the other leaders in the world.
Pundit - I must confess that you have me actually laughing out loud with this response. If this is your argument for why Hillary Clinton shouldn't win all I can say to you is "get ready for a Clinton presidency."
I was at a meeting this weekend of feminist leaders from around the country and I have never seen a group of women so energetic or excited about a political campaign. There is an army of women who have pledged to travel from state to state to help elect Hillary Clinton president.
To answer your question about whether or not Clinton is a role model for today's woman -- of course she is. Only white men expect to have an easy ride in life, because they've had one for far too long. Now the good old boys club is being challenged by a woman -- and you are collectively 'scared shitless.'
Hillary didn't play the victim for you, so in your estimation that makes her a doormat? ha
Instead, she picked herself up from what was surely a difficult time in her life and won a seat in the United States Senate ... and is now one of the leading contenders for President of the United States.
You'd better believe women think she's a role model.
Hey, stay stuck in the 90's if you like, but just keep in mind that while the dogs bark, this caravan is moving on!
BAC
BAC, you said..."Hillary didn't play the victim for you, so in your estimation that makes her a doormat?"
Women really are from Venus. A "doormat" is defined as a woman who takes a beating and sticks around for more. Hillary's a doormant. Like I said, a woman who leaves because she's tired of the abuse is a sane and sensible person.
However, it's obvious sticking with Bill is good for her political career. You can be sure she would have had no shot in politics without him in her life.
You said..."To answer your question about whether or not Clinton is a role model for today's woman -- of course she is."
Too bad for women. She turns the other cheek when it comes to marital infidelity -- but wants to pretend she can get tough with world leaders. Sorry. Her personal weakness is on full display.
You said..."Only white men expect to have an easy ride in life, because they've had one for far too long."
I see. So you're telling me that when women lead the country white men will find themselves subjected to a gender and racial chastising. It seems you've tipped your hand with this comment. Your goal is nothing more than to dominate men.
You furthered your view by saying..."Now the good old boys club is being challenged by a woman -- and you are collectively 'scared shitless.'"
I guess it's news, but few men spend time thinking about how to undermine women. On the other hand, it's obvious women put a lot of effort into analyzing and and attempting to overtake men.
Meanwhile, you can be sure there is no man who is "scared shitless" of a Hillary presidency. However, it appears that this notion is a wish fulfillment for many females.
It appears you believe Hillary would endorse the enactment of gender and race-based legislation that would amount to affirmative action for women. That won't happen. Throw an anchor on the white men while giving bonus points to women. Nice try.
BAC, unfortunately for women, a Hillary presidency would disappoint the entire gender.
Nothing much would change for women if Hillary were to go to the White House.
The heavy lifting has already been done. Women got the vote and no laws bar women from anything EXCEPT military combat. Aside from joining combat units, every avenue is open to women.
Women have already reached parity in education. As many women as men go to law school and medical school.
But almost no women go to engineering school. The usual reason for the absence of women in hard sciences and math is some baseless notion about being told it's too hard for them.
This is one of those myths that is conveniently repeated to explain something that goes much deeper. Two of my best professors in engineering school were my math professors. Both were women. It's not that women can't do math. Most simply don't want to, and avoid academic pursuits that demand it. And few women like machines.
Anyway, people eventually reach the point where they are on their own and must face the world without artificial advantages.
But it appears that you and your crowd want to become the Thought Police and force certain modes of thoughts upon men, specifically white men.
Anyway, it's clear that you are interested in more than equality. It's obvious you want women on the top of the heap and running things, fully in charge and totally displacing white men. That won't happen.
However, if women really want to change the world to their liking, the best way to do it would be to change biological destiny. Create a mutated human male that gives birth. If you can go to the lab and create the human sea horse, you can lead. Otherwise, the imbalance will remain.
Pundit - You've honestly got me rolling on the floor in laughter over these TWO comments.
You claim that "few men spend time thinking about how to undermine women." Well YOU certainly do! ha The only logical way to explain two comments back to back is that 1) you are thinking about this a lot and 2) you are scared shitless! Talk about tipping your hand! ha ha
And let me fill you in on the existing affirmative action laws -- they benefit women more than people of color. So there would be no need for Hillary to enact "gender and race-based legislation that would amount to affirmative action for women." It already exists!
And finally, I'm interested in full equality for women. So until there are equal numbers of women in elected office, sitting on corporate boards and as CEO's, I'm going to continue my efforts to make it happen.
BAC
BAC, as I said, Bill's peccadillos are coming into the campaign.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article3185449.ece
Oral history: The Monica Lewinsky scandal ten years on
Ten years after a young intern nearly brought down a president, the players in the Monica Lewinsky scandal talk to our correspondent
BAC, you said..."You claim that "few men spend time thinking about how to undermine women." Well YOU certainly do! ha The only logical way to explain two comments back to back is that 1) you are thinking about this a lot..."
I guess the preceding is an example of female logic.
If I were thinking about how to undermine women, I'd engage in activities offering that result. I suppose I'd become a muslim and attempt to increase the number of women followers. That would work.
You said..."and 2) you are scared shitless!"
You continue to push the notion that something unpleasant lies ahead for men if Hillary is elected. Like I said, the outcome will disappoint you because, like most of life's achievements, especially in today's America, it's the individual's capabilities that determine the outcome. Not affirmative-action legislation.
You wrote..."And finally, I'm interested in full equality for women. So until there are equal numbers of women in elected office, sitting on corporate boards and as CEO's, I'm going to continue my efforts to make it happen."
Women will head very few major corporations because few women are interested in what many of those corporations do.
On the other hand, women already head many publishing ventures, nursing/healthcare organizations, teachers' unions, clothing design firms, and other organizations that are oriented to women.
One woman has even become the wealthiest writer in history.
Meanwhile, most men have short tenures as CEOs. Tenure in the position is like playing in the National Football League. The average CEO and average NFL player both last about 5 years.
Women have not shown any superior management traits when they have landed the top jobs. You can check Mattel, Hewlett Packard and Xerox.
Meg Whitman at eBay is the most successful. However, one major success-story is not impressive.
In any case, since corporate leaders ultimately report to the owners of the businesses, typically stockholders, gender will not play a role in choosing leaders.
This is zero chance stockholders will support the elevation of women to the position of CEO to meet some standard of gender equality in the executive offices. That's a violation of fiduciary responsibility and grounds for stockholder lawsuits.
If, however, a woman appears to be the best person for the job, she'll get the job.
You wrote..."And let me fill you in on the existing affirmative action laws -- they benefit women more than people of color."
Either you are admitting that women are inferior and need a little help because they are not equal, or you think anti-discrimination laws are actually intended to restrain white achievement.
Black students get about 200 bonus points added to their SAT scores just for being black. Of course that includes black female college applicants. But white women do not get this enormous bonus.
Since few blacks go to college, this gift doesn't hurt too many white and asian applicants aiming for the country's best schools.
You wrote..."So there would be no need for Hillary to enact "gender and race-based legislation that would amount to affirmative action for women." It already exists!"
If you assume your claim is true, then the relative dearth of women in top jobs suggests that few women are up to the job. CEOs don't get training wheels, which you seem to advocate.
Better proof of women's capacities would be their role in founding companies that succeed. With the growth in non-greasy industries like software, such proof should be abundant if people are really equal between the ears. But the results are clear.
I'm sure you have a few examples of current female pioneers. But I'm sure you know they are outnumbered by men.
Like I said, when women can devise a way for men to give birth, things might change. But till then, the imbalance will remain, even if Hillary wins the White House.
Pundit - There isn't a single shred of truth in what you have posted here. And I have no desire to try and educate you. Just give it up guy, you are appearing desperate.
BAC
Post a Comment