Does it matter to you if a woman is President?

[cally]

or a news anchor, or president of a college, or company? I once cared that a woman held these positions of power. Now, I care much more what are the politics of the person holding a position of power. Yet, I admit that I get a thrilling seeing Katie Couric take the anchor desk at CBS, or hoping that Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, and yes even seeing Hillary as President would make me proud. I don't like Hillary or Couric, but I'm still proud that they will be groundbreakers for women.

I also think we need to support these women who are gaining power. Let's disparage their political beliefs but I also sense that all of them get attacked more because they are powerful women. I still remember the attacks on Hillary Clinton in the Republican caucus about her looks. They'll go after Katie Couric the same way and we've already seen it. She's fat????

[politicat]

1. I go back and forth.

Phyllis Shafly is one of my best examples of how badly women can be served by a public woman leader. Ann Coulter, Marilyn Musgrave, Condi Rice and Libby Dole are more.

I like seeing women in their rightful seats, and when there are 51% of us in congress, then I will have fewer problems with highly conservative women in the offices, but for now, I see them as letting down the team. They don't care about those of us who are a week away from a financial crisis or a job loss away from bankruptcy or a broken condom away from an impossible pregnancy (even within marriage.) And because they don't care, they're not representing us.

I guess they confuse me. After all, they wouldn't be in their jobs or have the freedom to proselytize their positions if they hadn't had the generations of women who fought for our rights to speak, vote, hold office and be anything but baby-machines and child-minders. I feel like they don't have any sense of history or gratitude to our spiritual mothers.

When it comes to the voting box or my money, the people who get my vote get it on the basis of their positions and abilities, not their DNA sequence. I'll vote for a pro-choice, equal rights man any day over an anti-woman woman.

[femrap]

3. I have always thought of Phyllis Schafly, Coulter,

and Dole as 'Queen Bees.' They are the ONLY women allowed to rise to the top....all others can just stay home. I have encountered this Queen Bee Syndrome in the work place and it always makes me so sad. These Queen Bees accept the male way of working....and that is competition and not cooperation. It's a shame.

I always thought Barbara Jordan would have been a great President. What an orator!

I hope Katie Curic does well.....I wrote her an email and told her to be a REAL JOURNALIST AND SUPPORT DEMOCRACY. I bet they're going to keep her on a tight leash. I told her she has to fight. So we'll see.

[bliss_eternal]

22. Here, here...!

On Barbara Jordan! Amazing speaker!

:hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. Yes, when I used to see Jeane Kirkpatrick praising the

Afghan "freedom fighters," I'd think, "Those guys would have you veiled and confined to the house so fast you wouldn't have time to think."

You see, I had learned from friends in Russian Studies and Middle Eastern Studies that what set the Afghan rebels off was that the new Afghan government (brought about in March 1978 in a coup by homegrown Marxists) was going to institute compulsory education for girls and ban the burqa. (The burqa was used only among some of Afghanistan's ethnic groups, so the move was non-controversial in many quarters.)

The rebels didn't know from Communism or capitalism, but they sure didn't want their daughters getting ideas or their wives visible to other men.

They were fighting against the central government for MONTHS before the Russians came in (at the invitation of the new government) in December 1979.

Contrary to what the U.S. press told us, the Afghan conflict was NOT about "freedom fighters" fending off a foreign invader. It was a bunch of misogynists fighting the modern world, already financed by the CIA in the summer of 1979, because they were opposing a "Marxist" government.

Soviet troops came in only after the Kabul government asked for help in quelling the rebellion.

Jeane Kirkpatrick surely knew all that, even if the American public didn't, so I couldn't stand to see her on TV.

[femrap]

9. Thanks for the info....and those Taliban were

shown again tonight on the evening news...still fighting for their right to hate, oppress, and murder women.

[Cerridwen]

2. It matters more to me if they are an "authoritarian," "elitist"

or a "populist," "egalitarian/equalitarian".

Once, that seemed to be more the perview of women than of men; women created community, men "ran" the community.

Though it's been the case throughout history that women have been just as guilty of abusing their authority, due to our limited spheres of influence, we've not made quite the impact as have men, nor in such a public manner. That changed drastically in the 80's. (see my signature).

Women who benefited from the status quo, chose to take a powerful role maintaining the status quo; call it hierarchy or patriarchy or authoritarianism. Now I have to look closer at women running for office to find whether they are working to maintain the power structure or if they're looking to replace the power structure, or at the very least, mitigate oppression caused by the power structure.

Most of the populist, egalitarian activist women fought in the trenches; they were unwelcome in the halls of power, e.g. school boards, judicial seats, Senate, House, Fortune 500 companies, etc. The ones who were welcomed into those sanctified halls, were the elitist and the authoritarian, or in some cases, became the elitist authoritarians. "Be careful you do not become that which you resist."

Until such times as the interconnecting systems of control and oppression are reworked from bottom to top and back down again, we will have to hope that the women and men allowed entry into the hallowed halls of power, have some knowledge and compassion for those of us who don't.

As to the discussions about female politicians, celebrities and talking heads, I agree that the vitriol spewed against them is as poisonous as it is, because they are women. And I will continue to point out the double standards and misogyny insidious within the critiques of women. The type of language used and the areas on which the critics choose to attack, are specific to criticisms of women and are just another tool to maintain the power structure. "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." Audre Lorde

Self-horn-blowing-warning: One such response of which I'm quite proud, is at this link

edit to add: this quote from welshTerrier2's post which fits right in with what I'm saying.

Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you're so clever and class less and free
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

from John Lennon's Working Class Hero

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. I do want the RIGHT woman to be President

But barring that, and all else being equal, I'll take a mediocre woman over a mediocre man. So long as she's pro-choice, anti-needless military adventures, and at least fairly progressive on economic issues. That there are still significant numbers of people in this country who don't believe a woman is capable of the job is disturbing to say the least. My head about exploded one night out at dinner when a woman in the group expressed reservations about a female commander-in-chief because, get this: "What if she had PMS and pushed The Button?"

She. Seriously. Said. That.

[cally]

7. I'd prefer a woman, too

If I have to accept a corporate candidate, then I want Hillary Clinton. She's very far from what I want as a leader but I don't hate her and that's a positive step for me. I often wonder about the PMS comments. I think I have pretty high hormonal changes and emotional changes. Never once have I made a decision or taken an action that I regret because of that. Maybe a few fights with my husband that I shouldn't have had but never any important decisions that I made that I regret. What did these women experience and what decisions have they pretended they made because they are women. That's the key, the excuses.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

11. Maybe

Some women are so afraid to lose the perceived 'benefits' they get from gender roles, i.e., blaming things on hormones. The idea of other women functioning quite well in high-powered positions threatens that comfort zone. Maybe it makes them feel inadequate or pressured. The problem is that ceding power to males does not, and has never, made things easier or more comfortable for us but there's no convincing some women of that.

[politicat]

12. That PMS comment bugs the CRAP out of me.

They've obviously never lived with any male person, because if they aren't hormonally driven, mood swingy types, then I don't know what is. The big difference is that ours have a longer cycle, while men's seem to be far more random and severe. Most women who do have PMS know better than to make irreversible decisions when feeling out of sorts, because we've dealt with that situation for most of our lives. Men, however, who do have the mood swings and irritability but don't keep track of it, are unpredictable and have never learned to alter their decision making process to suit their hormonal swings. (And if it is a big, world altering decision, then delaying implementation a week until the mood swings have passed can't be anything but a good idea....)

Anyone who thinks that menfolk are more rational and less emotionally and hormonally driven doesn't know what (usually) he's talking about.

(and now that I've stereotyped, I will add the standard disclaimer that yes, I know that not all men are hormonal bounce bots, and neither are all women. The point I am making is that all humans - male, female, prepubescent to geriatric - are at the mercy of their hormones and emotions. Using that excuse to class women as unfit for a specific job is utter crap because men are prone to emotions, too.)

[cally]

23. It's taken me awhile to respond but your post

rings true. Give me a moment to laugh than respond. Men have hormanal mood swings. I've been married for 24 years and I know.

[ismnotwasm]

6. Interesting you brought this up

Yesterday morning I was looking at the list of department heads for various offices in the University based hospital I work at, as well as the University itself. Women are, of course underrepresented, with most, but not all, of the very top positions occupied by males.

Does it matter to me? In a word, yes. This small simple example showed me how far we've come, and how far we've yet to go.

I spent many years playing with my vote. I'd vote for 4th party types, like the socialist party or women if it came down to a male or female. I was one of those they're all the same types. I've come to realize how cynical and lazy that was, and I will never "waste" a vote again.

My Democrat state senator up for reelection is a woman, and while I don't agree with everything she does, I support her far, far more than I support any republican coming down the line, and I don't see anyone else as electable. In a way, I long for the cynical innocence I used to enjoy, the lack of compromise.

I would vote for any candidate that didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning, if they supported my views.

Perhaps, if we can get some modicum of sanity back into politics, Equal representation in Universities, a decline of objectification in the media, we can get some progressive change happening. I see women as change agents in many ways. We are still NOT the status quo, not the norm, not represented equally. Far from it. It's a slow painful process, this yearning, reaching, struggling for equality.

The women in power who represent every thing I can't stand, greed, war, destruction of the environment, the continuing institutionalized racism and sexism, denying a woman's right to choose, the widening gap between rich and poor etc. they are the ones I will not and can not support. What this means to me is I have to research voting records, platform statements.

I don't care for Ms. Couric and I can't stand Secretary Rice, but I understand they worked hard to get wear they are today. One of them might BURN in hell for it IMO, but that's another story.

And what a women looks like, that always has to come up doesn't it? If we don't have strong sexual value, we are devalued, unless considered nearly sexless, or "saintly" like Mother Teresa.

[cally]

8. I just don't know...I'm not happy with the women holding

positions of power but I do know that it matters. I was mentored by several women who wanted to help other women. I haven't forgotten what they did and how much it meant to me.

[femrap]

10. I saw a thread about Couric and some of the

comments were disgusting....besides being a woman taking a man's job, what has she done? Is she a repug? I don't watch much TV so I have no idea. All I know is that her husband died of colon cancer and as a result, she had a colonscopy performed while on TV.

Is she any worse or better than the other new guy, Brian Williams? I didn't hear or read a peep out of anyone about him when he took over the anchor at NBC. What are his politics? I thought he was a repug.

Isn't Couric the first women SOLO anchor? I remember Barbara Walters and Harry Reasoner....and how he just hated her. I don't like Barbara much today....but I don't watch her either.

I just watch Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now" everyday on The Dish. That's the only good show news show on TV. Period. She's fearless.

BTW....I used to 'play' with my vote as well.....used to write in BARBARA JORDAN. She would have been a great President. What an orator!

[politicat]

13. If Mo. Theresa is saintly, then I'm happily booking my ticket to hell.

First class, with apertifs, wine with dinner and brandy and coffee after. I don't even want to share an afterlife with that woman.

It's not the sexualization versus desexualization; many of my feminist heroines (especially Alice Paul) had to choose between them. It's the attitudes that women are only acceptable in narrowly defined roles; in politics, they must be either radicals or conservatives, the middle ground of compromise (the logical ground of compromise) is forbidden to women because it is perceived as wishy washy when in fact it is sensible. I hate the either/or dictate.

So in my ideal world, I would be voting for women who had public policy that sounded something like this: I will respect the will of the people I represent and not vote my own politics without very good reason. I will work as an incrementalist, because having a half a loaf is better than none. I will look out for those members of society who cannot speak for themselves and will seek to implement and preserve checks on those institutions with the power to bludgeon those without it. I will seek compromise whenever compromise benefits the people; I will reject compromise that is harmful to my fellow citizens. And I will take firm stands on human rights, women's rights, and reproductive rights.

Until then, I'll vote for whomever is more likely to get a half-loaf for people I care about who otherwise will go hungry. And if those people I must vote for are moderate male democrats and the alternative are the far righties, then well, it's kind of obvious who gets my vote. But Emily's List will get my money.

[Finder]

14. I don't understand how anyone cannot respect Mother Teresa...

Disagree with her, sure, but she walked the walk and practiced what she preached.

[melnjones]

15. I'm with you on that...

although I would be interested in hearing why others do not respect her.

[politicat]

21. Here are some of my issues with her:

She didn't practice what she preached. I've worked in travel, and one of the places we sent people is India, to Calcutta. We sent several doctors over for DwoB missions, both before and after she died. All of them had temporary Indian approval for prescriptions and administration. Further, they took a shitload of donated meds from the local hospitals and clinics, mostly palliatives and drugs to help people in end of life pain. NOT drugs to kill them or harm them, just to help them live their last days in peace and dignity.

The Indian clinic, so famed for helping the least of India's destitute die in comfort, absolutely refused to let any of their patients be given anything. The doctors could not do their work; they couldn't help ease any suffering at all. When they questioned it, they were told it was God's will that these people suffer. When they pulled in their contacts at the ministry of Health, the clinic refused to allow them back in to help at all. People were dying, often in great pain, and they were not allowed any morphine, codeine, or even tylenol-3. The orders came directly from the director herself... while she had the best of medical care in US hospitals with excellent palliative support. I call that rank hypocrisy.

The doctors also told us on return that clients who agreed to baptism would get better food and beds, while those who clung to their Hindu beliefs were consigned to pallets on the floor and a gruel made of dhaal and rice, often the oldest dhaal and rice donated by locals (and donated because it was starting to go moldy.) If the mission of the clinic is to serve all, to care for all, then it seems to me that playing favorites with religious beliefs was at best coercive, at worst absolutely in contradiction to the stated mission of the clinic.

Further back, in the late 80s, Charles Keating made a lot of money by swindling people into investing into a land speculation scheme that went badly awry, as it was intended to do so. The scheme was marketed as safe and secure (which were pure lies) and eventually, Keating went to prison for it. In the meantime, though, he stole several million dollars from mostly retired people who were looking for a safe investment for their retirement money. From the proceeds, he gave a large portion of that to the woman. When it was discovered that not only was the money stolen, but it was stolen from people who could not afford it, this was brought to the woman's attention. Christian charity and ethics would require her to return the funds Keating had given her, so that they could be returned to their rightful owners. She refused, and made sure the money was moved to off-shore accounts where federal judges could not seize it. I don't call that an act of charity, nor do I call it walking the walk.

India has one of the highest birthrates in the world, and one of the highest maternal death rates from childbirth related injuries. The government allows abortion in cases contraception failure, as well as the life, health, socio-economic status of the mother or family, rape, incest, etc. Abortion is encouraged in cases where the mother has been exposed to rubella or other mutagenic diseases. Even the Catholic Church allows abortion in cases where the child cannot survive birth or is dead before birth or the mother will die in giving birth, yet the woman refused to allow any sort of family planning or contraceptive care to be given in her clinics. This refusal results in the death of hundreds of thousands of women and infant girls every year in childbirth and in infanticide. Again, not walking the walk in my mind.

Then there are the financial issues. There are credible reports that money given to the missionary sisters sits in bank vaults, collecting interest that goes to the Vatican, often against the express wishes of the donors. More money, given to help the suffering, never makes it to any mission anywhere in the world because it also sits in a bank and does nothing to help anyone. Since the records of the missionary sisters are not public, it is nearly impossible to independently verify these reports with independent auditing, but since it has been reported by several sisters both before and after they left the mission, and who spoke out because they felt their mission was not being served, I have reasonable faith in their testimony. There are several lawsuits in progress in the US federal courts to gain access to the records because taking money for charity then not using it for charity is called fraud.

As a child, I was Catholic. I studied under a series of nuns and Jesuit priests, and for many years wanted to be a nun. Several of the religious who taught me had contacts within the missionary sisters. Rarely did I hear good things said about them, and the one former missionary sister (she became a Clare, then a Benedictine so that she could practice her mission to teach) actively discouraged me from even considering the order because she considered them a fallen order, one more concerned with fund-raising than mission work. Not a great endorsement, especially coming from a very faithful and devoted woman. She steered me instead towards the San Xavier mission, which is Franciscan. (That I ended up not Catholic is not at all due to her...)

Those are some of my issues. They've been verified in the press for the most part; it's just that the story doesn't play.

[melnjones]

16. Regarding university leaders...

It's hard for me to comment regarding a female president b/c I haven't seen it done here. Plus, some of the female governmental leaders that we do currently have aren't quite my cup of tea.

With universities, however, I feel VERY strongly that making sure women are well-represented at all levels of power should be a priority. I'm an M.Div. student in my second year. Last year we were blessed to have two female faculty members, but they both left at the end of the year for various reasons. They were wonderful and I don't think there is a single female student that doesn't miss them everytime we step foot in the seminary. Ministry is a tough world for females, even in communities that are supportive of women in ministry. We have a new female faculty member this year, thank GOD. We still have one...but it's not enough. No male faculty member, even though my professors are outstanding, will ever have the impact on me that my two dear professors had on me in a single year's time last year. We need women examples of success in these tough academic areas, and women that we can trust and confide in and who understand our struggles. For the most part, the male professors really don't get it. From now on, any university program I attend will have to have females on the faculty or I won't even consider it.

[ismnotwasm]

17. Good for you

I was actually kind of surprised when reading through the list of University department heads more females weren't there. (Why do I bother being surprised?) This was in all categories. I know there are more and more capable, educated women in many fields, so the only conclusion I could draw was it's still a man's game

Ministry, I know nothing about, but what is sacred and meaningful to so many surely would be better represented with a least a balance of female and male teaching.
I got over some of my prejudices against religion by reading certain female authors, a better understanding of what people consider holy. Even as I remain agnostic, I learned to respect faith from these women authors. I think it was the balance of thought, less pedantic and more inclusive, more open and not manipulative. I didn't feel rejected for my lack of belief, but appreciated for my curiosity. It's a good feeling.

[melnjones]

18. Sadly our lack isn't just female department heads

in my seminary...it's female professors. Period.

I'm glad you had the opportunity to read some religious female authors. If one of them wasn't Anne Lamott, I HIGHLY recommend picking up one (or several) of her books. I haven't read through an entire one myself (can't afford to buy one and don't have time to read it with my classes) but my friends swear by her and I've read excerpts. She is amazing...left-winged Christian woman with dreadlocks and the vocabulary sometimes of a sailor. Great stuff, and pretty inspiring to the liberal woman of all religious inclinations.

[geniph]

19. Given two candidates who are otherwise essentially equal,

I'll always prefer the woman. However, there are many, many things I consider before gender. Chiefly, does the candidate represent positions with which I agree, or do I purely hate everything she says and does? Gender, for me, is a tie-breaker at best.

[eridani]

20. Not anymore

First and foremost is how consistent their policies are with feminism.