A little while ago, I was thinking about Hillary Clinton and her role as America's chief diplomat -- and her aspirations (perhaps passed) to be president. She's the first woman to hold that office, and we're looking at three women who might be positioned to serve as president -- and that's got me wondering.
Let's face it. Sexism is still a potent force in this world. And while here in the US we've gotten over most of it, there are large portions of the rest of the world where women are second-class citizens -- and in some Muslim nations, essentially property.
Barbaric as it is to us, it's still the reality in many nations. And it's a reality we have to deal with, and work with.
Right now, I can think of four major nations that have had women as leaders -- Great Britain, India, Pakistan, and Israel. And all four of them were challenged, and all four were quite successful.
In the case of the United States, though, I think it might be a bit different. Margaret Thatcher successfully led her nation in war, but the sun has faded on the British Empire. It's nowhere near the power it wasup through World War I.
Great Britain, though, is as close as we're going to get to a superpower that we can cite as a precedent. Maybe India, but they're more a regional and economic force -- at least, they were when Indira Gandhi ruled.
How will the restof the world react when America is led by a woman? When the Leader of the Free World -- to put it bluntly -- has no actual literal "balls?"
This is not a trivial concern. As noted, there are a lot of nations in the world where women are seen as inferiors, if not actual property. These nations are usually governed by men who are not used to showing respect to women, to treating them as equals, to even thinking of them as anything more than chattel. To deal with a woman as an equal -- even to the point of shaking hands -- could seriously undermine their standing at home, and those concerns could push them to take a more confrontational stance with the US.
Make no mistake about it -- I'm not saying that we shouldn't elect a woman president any time soon. I'm just saying that we ought to keep that in mind, and be prepared to give our full support President Clinton/Bachmann/Palin, and prepare ourselves as a nation for the challenges she'll have to face.
Let's face it. Sexism is still a potent force in this world. And while here in the US we've gotten over most of it, there are large portions of the rest of the world where women are second-class citizens -- and in some Muslim nations, essentially property.
Barbaric as it is to us, it's still the reality in many nations. And it's a reality we have to deal with, and work with.
Right now, I can think of four major nations that have had women as leaders -- Great Britain, India, Pakistan, and Israel. And all four of them were challenged, and all four were quite successful.
In the case of the United States, though, I think it might be a bit different. Margaret Thatcher successfully led her nation in war, but the sun has faded on the British Empire. It's nowhere near the power it wasup through World War I.
Great Britain, though, is as close as we're going to get to a superpower that we can cite as a precedent. Maybe India, but they're more a regional and economic force -- at least, they were when Indira Gandhi ruled.
How will the restof the world react when America is led by a woman? When the Leader of the Free World -- to put it bluntly -- has no actual literal "balls?"
This is not a trivial concern. As noted, there are a lot of nations in the world where women are seen as inferiors, if not actual property. These nations are usually governed by men who are not used to showing respect to women, to treating them as equals, to even thinking of them as anything more than chattel. To deal with a woman as an equal -- even to the point of shaking hands -- could seriously undermine their standing at home, and those concerns could push them to take a more confrontational stance with the US.
Make no mistake about it -- I'm not saying that we shouldn't elect a woman president any time soon. I'm just saying that we ought to keep that in mind, and be prepared to give our full support President Clinton/Bachmann/Palin, and prepare ourselves as a nation for the challenges she'll have to face.
Comments (13)
Ummm. Madeline Albright wa... (Below threshold)1. Posted by jim m | June 26, 2011 11:30 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Ummm. Madeline Albright was the first female Sec. of State.
1. Posted by jim m | June 26, 2011 11:30 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on June 26, 2011 11:30
2. Posted by jim m | June 26, 2011 11:44 AM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
We should not be playing this game of the self loathing left that we need to cleanse ourselves by electing the first black or the first female president. What we should be focused on is finding the best qualified candidate period.
Representation at the top is always a lagging indicator of society. It will come because society is moving in that direction. Artificially trying to hasten it does not mean that society has reached some diversity nirvana but it does increase the risk of getting someone completely unsuited for the job (obama).
Of course the great hypocrisy from the left is that while they tell us that we will cleanse ourselves of collective guilt if we elect a black or a female politician from the left, if we elect one from the right we are just being bigots and exploiting people for the race or gender.
2. Posted by jim m | June 26, 2011 11:44 AM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on June 26, 2011 11:44
3. Posted by DaveD | June 26, 2011 11:50 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Condi Rice was the second woman Secretary of State.
3. Posted by DaveD | June 26, 2011 11:50 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on June 26, 2011 11:50
4. Posted by Chico | June 26, 2011 11:55 AM | Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
You left out Germany, Indonesia and the Philippines as major nations that have had or have women leaders.
I suppose you could count Russia, considering Catherine the Great. And beyond Margaret Thatcher, you had Elizabeth I. And Queen Isabella in Spain.
So, I suppose it is an issue - if you don't know what you're talking about. Otherwise, the historical record of women leaders is pretty strong.
4. Posted by Chico | June 26, 2011 11:55 AM |
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
Posted on June 26, 2011 11:55
5. Posted by MunDane | June 26, 2011 11:59 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Jay,
Umm...err...not one of your strongest efforts. Isn't the current Australia PM a female, too?
5. Posted by MunDane | June 26, 2011 11:59 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on June 26, 2011 11:59
6. Posted by James H | June 26, 2011 12:02 PM | Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Sexist load of tripe, Jay Tea. A female US president should be treated with the same respect as a male US president.
6. Posted by James H | June 26, 2011 12:02 PM |
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on June 26, 2011 12:02
7. Posted by Chico | June 26, 2011 12:03 PM | Score: -4 (12 votes cast)
Ummm. Madeline Albright was the first female Sec. of State.
Condi Rice was the second woman Secretary of State.
You left out Germany, Indonesia and the Philippines as major nations that have had or have women leaders.
I think this is the all-time classic Jay Tea post - a mealy-mouthed, almost indecipherable thesis built upon incorrect factual premises.
7. Posted by Chico | June 26, 2011 12:03 PM |
Score: -4 (12 votes cast)
Posted on June 26, 2011 12:03
8. Posted by epador | June 26, 2011 12:08 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Too much Tequila last night, bro?
8. Posted by epador | June 26, 2011 12:08 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on June 26, 2011 12:08
9. Posted by epador | June 26, 2011 12:13 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
On the other hand, to get past the factual inaccuracies, since we're declining as an economic entity, then having a leader who is considered second class by a large portion of the world leaves us at in interesting crossroads:
Another liberal, this time with ovaries, pushing the country into further decline and validating sexist extremists everywhere
or
A conservative female turning the country around and re-establishing our eminence, turning all the sexists on their heads.
or visa versa if you drink Kool-Aid.
9. Posted by epador | June 26, 2011 12:13 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on June 26, 2011 12:13
10. Posted by Anon Y. Mous | June 26, 2011 12:16 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Hate to pile on, but the current President of Argentina is Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. She is the second woman to hold that position (the first being Isabel Martínez de Perón, 1974–1976).
10. Posted by Anon Y. Mous | June 26, 2011 12:16 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on June 26, 2011 12:16
11. Posted by Chico | June 26, 2011 1:07 PM | Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
Didn't Chile recently have a woman president, too?
nyuk, nyuk.
11. Posted by Chico | June 26, 2011 1:07 PM |
Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
Posted on June 26, 2011 13:07
12. Posted by retired military | June 26, 2011 2:18 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
I am sure that Jay Tea meant the first superpower to have a woman as head of state. (trying to help out here Jay Tea).
As for Hillary, if she is elected President I want pictures and videotape to prove that she has no balls. I would be willing to swear hers are bigger than Obama's any day of the week.
12. Posted by retired military | June 26, 2011 2:18 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on June 26, 2011 14:18
13. Posted by Maddox | June 27, 2011 8:49 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
While Jay was off on some of his facts, he was able to inspire Jim's brilliant post(#2). Obama, the first black man elected POTUS, is glaring proof.
13. Posted by Maddox | June 27, 2011 8:49 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 27, 2011 08:49