Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Feminization of Western Politics

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 09:40 AM
Original message
Feminization of Western Politics
Edited on Sat Nov-18-06 10:00 AM by OzarkDem
In a couple of years, it is entirely possible that the presidents of France and the US and the chancellor of Germany will all be women. Ségolène Royal’s success in securing the French Socialist party’s nomination for next year’s presidential election is evidence of a historic shift. Women may no longer be at a disadvantage when they stand for the highest political offices in the western world. In fact, being a woman can now be a considerable electoral asset.

Previous generations of women leaders had to play down their femininity. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir needed to show they were tougher than the men surrounding them. Meir is said to have remarked that: “I’m the only one in this cabinet with any balls.”


But the new generation is different. Ms Royal (now universally known as Ségolène) has deliberately played up her feminine qualities. She has campaigned as what Le Monde called a “mummy candidate”, introducing herself to audiences as the mother of a family of four and announcing that: “I want to do for the children of this country, what I was able to do for my own children.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9b065d92-7666-11db-8284-0000779e2340.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. Boxer and Sebelius.
And all of us want to move to Montana, with Howard Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. This is so BS. We don't need anymore wedge issues to fight among ourselves.
Edited on Sat Nov-18-06 09:55 AM by ShortnFiery
Can't you see, if us working slobs continue to fight "each other" whether it be gender, sexual preference, race, etc., the REAL Corporate Ruling Classes can continue War Profiteering?

Dear Leader and his Neo-Con Administration HATE all things feminine. Even positive traits - stereotypic such as negotiations and consensus building.

I'm disgusted with six years of nothing but the stench of Dear Leader's Texan Testosterone laden policies that gut our social services and infrastructure in favor of Corporate War Profiteering.

Don't take the bait because NOTHING can be solved if we continue fighting among each other.

Best Example: My research professor was ruing about "The Feminization of Psychology" because, in his opinion, the presence of women in this field would bring the salaries down. One day he came in our meeting and stated enthusiastically, "We are finally going to have A MAN in this research group!" Without missing a beat, I quipped, "Good, now we have someone who can bring us coffee." :rofl: :yoiks:

Don't let these nasty Corporate Power-mongers divide us. :grouphug: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. LMAO!
Edited on Sat Nov-18-06 09:59 AM by OzarkDem
Great comeback! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I'm going to remember that one if you don't mind.

I agree about avoiding it as a wedge issue, but its still great to consider that we could finally see an emergence of women political leaders in the western world.

What a great thing that would be, though there are no guarantees that every woman leader would work toward world peace, healthy economies and societies and social justice. Remember Maggie Thatcher :scared:

But its a hopeful trend.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. Sure, you may. :-)
Women are not a monolithic entity of conservative born stereotypes.

Yes, it irritates me to see the Corporate M$M talk down to the Average American with such simplistic generalizations of what exactly constitutes a woman leader. Just like the right wingers, presenting real-world alternatives and complexities are not acceptable to Corporate M$M CEOs. It's not just women in authority positions but race, ethnicity, religion, etc., that are also stereotyped beyond reason.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Economics first. And some questions about multi-national corp. CEO-Cheney.
And his private War for multi-national corporations, run on Private "Intelligence", i.e. Private Property of those who paid for PNAC et al Chickenhawks, purveyors of Proxy Wars, for middle-class "jobs" in the Death and Destruction Industry.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
12. Your response was perfect!
I give you :applause: for that one. Take a bow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. You're very kind MuseRider ...
:blush: Back at ya! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
5. I think diversity in politics is great. But what's this "mummy politics" horseshit?
It's almost as if the subtext here is that these women who want to get into political life HAVE to jump through the 'use the uterus' hoop first? Mummy politics? Janet Reno wasn't a 'mummy' nor is Condi or Harriet Miers, she-who-would-be-a-Supreme. There's nothing wrong with not being a 'mummy' or being one. Good grief.

That said, the more people who look like America in politics, that's a good thing. Having diversity in ideas, though, is a bit more of a challenge. We tend to creep towards the more radical views, that often become less radical as time goes by. A hundred years ago you'd be hard put to find a woman anywhere near the Capitol unless she was sitting in the balcony watching her husband get sworn in, or down on her knees scrubbing the marble floors. After all, back then she couldn't vote....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Same thing as Soccer Moms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. The great untapped political group, I think, are SINGLE people
Young singles, middle aged singles, and OLD singles. People who are single, like being single, and plan to stay that way. No one talks about them--it's all marriage and families with the politicians, as though the minute they go into campaign mode it's back to a "Leave it to Beaver" era when June Cleaver served milk in goblets and vaccuumed in pearls and stiletto heels! And back then, perpetually single people were usually ugly, with tremendous overbites, crooked teeth, lumpy noses, buggy eyes, and they were "fixed up" on dates with someone of the opposite gender (equally ugly). If they were hopeless in the romance department, they were termed (with sad look) spinsters or confirmed bachelors!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Agree
We've focused so much on "families" that we've overlooked single people. In the arc of life we are all both single and part of a family. A great number of uninsured and medically underserved in this country are single adults - those who didn't have children or whose children are grown and who may be widowed or divorced.

Where women are concerned we have a tendency to pay attention to them during their childbearing and child-rearing years, but throw them overboard until they turn 65. As a result, some of them don't make it to 65 or find themselves living in near poverty if they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. There is definite favoritism toward "Married" and yet Divorce is quite common.
Crazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
9.  all the boys scared?
if i am not mistaken there have been other ladies through out the history of the world that have the leaders of their tribes,nations,and empires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC