Can we tone down the rhetoric, please?

Oh and by the way Canada HAS had a female Prime Minister; her name is Kim Cambpell (who is now working in the Canadian Consulate in L.A.) She was however not elected as such, but was the Deputy Prime Minister when Brian Mulroney, the elected PM, stepped down. Still, there was no stink raised in her election, her selection as deputy PM, or her becoming the PM of the lame duck Conservatives.

Sorry, didn't know about Kim. To put it lightly, I had far more significant (to me) things on my mind during her 4 month term in '93. There is, of course, the bothersome matter that she was a) never elected by the populace to Prime Minister, and failed to get elected as PM even when she was running as incumbent.

You raise several salient points there Bikerdad, points that I had already made. The fact remains that Canada demonstrated a tolerance for a female leader which you suggested did not exist. I suggest the next time you try to offer insight into the psyche of another nation, you do some more research.

Actually the US showed tolerance for a female leader in Mrs. Wilsons reign.

Okay, I'll play the game. How much tolerance for Kim did they show? At their first opportunity, they tossed her out on her ear. Effectively, she obtained the position in the same manner as Gerald Ford became President, by default. Given that she was, as you already indicated, a "lame duck", with only 4 months, I guess there wasn't much point to raising a stink, was there?

It remains though that she was shown the door at the first opportunity. They may have tolerated her, but they certainly didn't accept her...

Bikerdad,

You claim that the masses won't trust a woman or would be uncomfortable trusting a woman because of her hormones. Is this something you just made up, or is there actual research to back this up?

Maybe female leaders have not produced results in their short reigns in Canada and the United States. Both their parties lost the next election. In Edith Wilson's case you can't argue it was discrimination, since the party nominee was a man and few new the extent to which Woodrow was incapacitated and that the true head of government was his wife. Obviously she did not do a good enough job to convince voters that her policies should continue. I think the sample size is too small to conclude that women ultimately fail at the top leadership role in the US and Canada and that women are not ready for that role. We aren't that much different from Britain, and Margaret Thatcher was the greatest PM since Churchill. Most female candidates for President are past having to worry about past partum depression and a good percentage past menopause and PMS, probably won't go nuts and start nuking anyone. I think few Americans believe that this would be likely to occur with even a more youthful female with the political accomplishments behind her to make the Presidency a possibility.

I haven't seen any research on why we don't have a woman president, one way or the other. Have you? I have seen other folks raise the same questions as myself, including some equality feminists (rather than radical feminists), frequently in counterpoint with observations of the increasing significance of masculine leadership since 9/11.

These however are facts: the "hormone" and abuse excuses are successful for women, not for men. Do you have an explanation for that other than what I've given?

Is my theory fact? I don't know, but it does provide a partial explanation for why we have yet to have a female president. After all, we have female governors, Senators, Representatives, CEOs, university presidents, etc. None of those demand the same mix of leadership, emotional, and social qualities as the office of President. I believe emotional stability in a Head of State is something that Americans value more than any other country, in part because of our political system, which lacks a vote of no confidence, and in part because the position demands a higher level of responsibility than any other head of state. Other countries seem to have the same perspective, otherwise why care if the American President is a "cowboy?" (This isn't to say that other countries DON'T value stability in their Head of State, merely that it doesn't weigh as heavily as it does for Americans)

Consider how much of a hit Dean has taken for his post-caucus Iowa behavior. Being "out of control" is extremely damaging to a Presidential hopeful

Thus, we have three propositions and one fact:
A) Women's emotions are more likely to be impacted by their physiological state.

1) Americans consciously and subconsciously value stability in their President very highly.
2) The perception among the American public is that, on the whole, women are less emotionally stable than men.
3) The "hormone" defense debacles serve to reinforce #2.

I believe that the vast majority of Americans are willing to give a female candidate the benefit of the doubt, but, everything else being equal, America will choose a man over a woman for President, just as most Americans will choose a woman over a man as a babysitter.

I have to toss in one more aspect, that of the difference between the protector and the nurturer. America has been on a level of heightened alert since December 7, 1941. We had a brief respite following the collapse of the Soviet bloc, but since the Day of Infamy the American presidency has been one that has been seriously focused on national security. This has demanded a "protector", and as the Dukakis debacle demonstrated, the American public is fairly serious about this aspect. Unfortunately for those hoping to see a woman ascend to the Presidency, the great majority of women who have sought political office have been motivated by "nurturing" themes, and this results in less than stellar resumes when its time to convince us that they can protect the country. That's one of aspects of Condoleeza Rice that is so remarkable. Contrast Rice to Hillary, who's political resume prior to entering the Senate consisted of exactly two things: being Mrs. Bill Clinton (nurturing role) and the failed health care fiasco (more nurturing.) Thus, while a potential Rice candidacy would be seriously hampered by her lack of elective experience and lack of national "mommy" creds, she will have a very strong protector cred. Overcoming her shortcoming in this realm is exactly why Hillary, the JUNIOR senator from New York, was given a seat on the Armed Services Committee.


I dont' think that they will fail at the top leadership role, I'm simply pointing out some of the reasons why I believe they have failed to get ELECTED to the top leadership role. Its the ol' getting the job vs. doing the job conundrum.

Which is a rational consideration, and one, that upon reflection, most people will recognize. The problem is, our subconscious has some impact as well, and given the closeness of many elections, that impact matters. You probably don't give getting into your car a second thought, but there's still an irrational fear whenever the airliner you're riding in starts its roll down the runway, even though you know rationally that you're safer in that jet than you are behind the wheel of your own car.

That's just transportation, and trust me, the political person can be a whole lot less rational than somebody getting from Point A to Point B.

This continued reference to female hormones is just really starting to get under my skin. I am becoming irritable... my mind is escaping my grasp... I have no control... Please make me President so I can now push the button and wreak the same havoc on the world that I experience monthly. Well here is some food for thought. Did you know that... Men experience similar hormonal changes to women.


and even more shocking.....


for the complete article please visit

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1844648.stm

All I can say is Boy am I glad Bob Dole didn't become President, you know he takes Viagra don't you, he might have hormonal issues and be unstable.

MEN have been using their hormones as excuses since the beginning of time.

The worlds of politics, sport and business (the Clinton affair has not yet faded from memory) are replete with examples of sex scandals wrecking the family lives or careers of otherwise highly successful men. Article

Hey! guess what? Humans are hormonal beings. All of us. Get over yourselves. Men give in to hormonal urges all the time. To the detriment of their careers, their own credibility. To the detriment of our troops in Iraq right now. Pride is a result of hormones too. Anger comes from hormones. Bush's pride, his arrogance - that comes from hormones.

To eliminate candidates based on hormonal tendencies of their gender is preposterous. Not even the media could point this out to the public - because even a 7th grader could see what an unintelligent argument that is.

Hey, Piper, thanks for the link, it turned this up:




Men have been TRYING to use it as an excuse, but society gives far less credence to such excuses in men than women.

And you have the endocrine workups to prove this? Or are you simply taking the opportunity for a gratuitious, partisan, and irrelavent attack?

Perspective, I agree with you 100% that men are in no better command of their emotions than are women; but I think bikerdad is making a valid point when it comes to public perception of gender. Sadly, many people still have a long way to go. And unfortunately, in some respects, perception matters more than reality in politics.

edited to add:



I disagree. I think that historically, men have been given a much broader leeway on these matters - to the point of being codified in many laws. Of course, it's not explicitly said, "it was my hormones," it was described more as 'natural.' Men will be men, and so on. Our culture (by this I mean in the broad, human sense) has excused the hormonal excesses of men for all of history! What you are describing, in my opinion, is merely the latest angle of the 'new white male' victim class - oh, we have it so hard! We don't get away with anything!

Bikerdad Posted on Jan 28 2004, 08:07 PM
 
Just to clarify though I am quite sure that you understood.
the sentence states in simple terms..
The phenomenon... is well described (easier to track) in women because of their cyclic biology (menses)
The occurrence of the menses serves as a hormonal baseline to track the hormonal levels as well as mood swings through the course if the monthly cycle. In the case of men, they are not afforded the luxury of such an apparent starting point or baseline therefore it is more difficult to track and treat their mood swings. Poor guys now don't you just wish you had a period.

I simply don't believe that public perception really lends credence to such a stupid theory - that women are at the mercy of their hormones.

I haven't seen any studies to suggest the public percieves this, and I sincerely doubt that if you ran an unbiased survey:

Ask 1000 Americans:

"Why haven't you elected a woman president?"

Even if you only asked redneck hicks from Alabama,
One of the LAST things people would reply is:
"because women get PMS and we don't want a hormonal president"

But of course we don't have a survey to verify any of this -
So it's all speculation that the public percieves women as second in command to their hormones.

You guys can make the claims that the public believes this.
I can make the claims that they don't.
But unless we ran a survey or something - I guess neither of us is right.

The Issue here is being hideously over-complicated.

This talk of hormones is ridiculous, and seemingly sexist - since it is irrelevant.

Society is still sexist, and Politics as a whole is dominated by men. The whole environement is overringingly sexist, and needs to be changed.

Good points, perspective.

Maybe it's just another glass ceiling that needs to be shattered. Maybe it's as simple as the old "You-won't-hire-me-because-I-don't-have-any-experience-but-how-can-I-get-experience-if-nobody-hires-me" syndrome.

Maybe it's a lot of things. But I believe that attitudes weigh in heavily any time a person is being considered for the Presidency, especially where a radical change in tradition is involved.

(And for the record, Bikerdad, I don't think St. Paul was a misogynist at all. My take on him was that he had to choose his battles, and that it was easier to stick with the status quo while converting people to the new faith. He can't be blamed for that, but perpetuation of some outmoded gender perceptions can and should be blamed on people who just won't drop it.)

Whoever breaks this particular glass ceiling with have to be a remarkable woman, and obviously not everyone is going to be happy with her performance. It will probably be Hillary if the Democrats don't win this election, and she already has a bunch of enemies. But she's got guts.

Just came across something interesting, surprising in fact.

In one of those "Millenial" polls taken in '99 only 56% of Americans thought that there'd be a woman President in the 21st century.

Not in the next decade.

Not in the next 25 years.

But in the next century.

I'm really surprised that the number is that low.

Here's something even better, which goes to the probable uselessness of Perspective's hypothetical study.



Is America ready for a woman president? Is the pope protestant? Does a bear live in a city?http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0KVD/3_1/82476765/p1/article.jhtml?term=

'Tis a good article, worth reading.

I found this to be particularly insightfull, and tend to agree,


I also enjoyed the article Bikerdad supplied, Thank You Sir, And would like to quote some statistics


What I see at the very core of these statistics, is that on a conscious practical level an overwhelming majority of Americans are able to accept the viability of a female leader. To me this is great. I do not for one instant believe that it indicates that we are ready today, at this moment to elect a female President. There are cracks in the glass ceiling, it just hasn't blown out yet. What I find to be an interesting parallel is the role of the American Female CEO. As she succeeds and the American people continue to view her as able to make the tough decisions necessary to maintain and grow a successful business, so there will be a greater acceptance of women in leadership roles in general.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenceo1.html

The variety of positions held by Female CEO's are quite notable.

Muriel "Mickey" Siebert
Stockbroker/in 1967 she became the first woman to purchase a seat on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)

Carleton "Carly" Fiorina
President & CEO, Hewlett-Packard Company

Shelly Lazarus
Chairman & CEO, Ogilvy & Mather

Meg Whitman
President & CEO,
eBay Technologies

Just to name a few. I am also very pleased to note that the above mentioned stocks do not plummet monthly LOL. Sorry, couldn't resist!

First Quarkhead, we already had a husband and wife president, you forget Bill and Hillary?
At present there arent any electable women for president, Hillary has rode Bill"s coat tails as far as she can I believe. Nor do I think that as long as terrorism is the concern of the day for the general public, that any woman would have a chance at being elected. Wrong or right the public wants a strong, decisive, perhaps slightly hawkish president at the helm right now to deal with the threat. I dont believe that Americans will see a woman candidate in that light no matter what she says. Also, most Americans know the lack of respect the third world countries have for women and that they would see a woman President as weak and out of her place as well as feeling that the American people were weak to have a female President.
The great hope Hillary would not have a chance. To many people remember Bill"s military bumblings.
Perhaps at a more peaceful time a woman will be elected President when domestic an social issues are at the forefront, but not during a time of terrorist attacks and the need for military strength and leadership.