Female politicians invariably refer to their being a mother, a grandmother and/or some other typical female role in society as a basis for why they have authority. The simple fact of the matter is that being a mother is not a qualification for the Presidency, or any other post for that matter. If anything, the fact that a woman would think that being a mother, a position which teaches her to sacrifice for her children, rather than to possibly have to sacrifice some of her children for the sake of the rest, makes her unqualified right off the bat. That is precisely what the commander-in-chief of the armed forces must do in a time of war.
Now, what a woman could do to make herself President would be to come forward with clear-cut ideas on how to improve the government's operations and make it work better for the people. Instead of turning that motherly instinct into an excuse for nannystatism, she could turn it into a zealous drive to protect her country from abusive government bureaucrats, courts and prosecutors.
The catch is, you don't see any of the leading female politicians doing that.
The difference between "progress" and a hampster wheel is the latter at least burns calories
I could theoretically vote for a woman for President, but only if we had an American libertarian version of Margaret Thatcher. The Iron Lady, whatever you might think of her policies, at least had the right attitude and approach.
But we'll never get a candidate like that here.
Maternal instincts are wonderful for raising children. Not so much for running a country. I would worry less about a woman's capabilities during wartime than what she would do during peacetime. Women protect and nurture their children; men teach them how to become responsible adults. Countries do not need to have a protected, nurtured citizenry, they need to have responsible adults!
I couldn't agree more.
Arielle and MikeT: You are way off base if you are actually asserting that women are incapable of teaching their children to become responsible adults.
BTW, Matt, speaking as an editor, your post is misnamed. You are not asserting why America is not ready for a female president but why no woman offering herself for candidacy is acceptable as president. And that they all rest their claim to candidacy on the fact of their motherhood.
You would think that it is misnamed, but it isn't. Hitherto, the only female politicians who can rise to power within our political system are those who display the aforementioned attributes. That would imply that one of two possibilities exists. Either our country has no Margarete Thatcher types, or won't put them into positions of power within the federal body politic. Since the U.S. population is around 300,000,000, 51% of which is female, I am not going to bet on the former. Btw, my name is Mike, not Matt.
I think that one ranks right up there with the time that Tipper Gore tried to convince Congress that Under the Blade by Twisted Sister was about extremely violent, sadomasochistic sex.
I'll take your word about Twisted Sister; however, "women can't teach their children how to be responsible adults" is the direct and obvious implication of "Women protect and nurture their children; men teach them how to become responsible adults." and its application to the political arena--a) women protect children, not make them responsible; b) the country needs responsible people, not protected ones; c) a woman cannot run the country.
I don't see how you can say "women are incapable of teaching their children to be responsible adults" is *not* a fair conclusion to what she said and you agreed to.
Very sorry for my carelessly typing "Matt" instead of "Mike."
Are you saying that the only female politicians who have risen to power *are* mothers or that they all *use* motherhood as a qualification for office? Because the second implies nothing about them so much as that they believe that is what the people want to hear about their qualities.
No one ever said that women cannot do these things. Men can nurture children. However, in the normal two parent dynamic it is a team effort. The mother nurtures, and the father protects and teaches responsibility. It is hard for either gender, as a single parent, to accomplish both. By default, women tend to nurture, and men tend to protect and instill discipline. Both are equally necessary. Without nurturing, discipline only creates bullies.
Why the dichotomy? My point was that you haven't had a single Margaret Thatcher-type woman rise to power. Either they don't exist in America, or the system won't allow them to rise to power. The latter is very much a cultural thing. For one reason or another, our country doesn't seem to want to put forward women who are genuine leaders like Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps our country is not ready for such women.
And I can think of two good reasons why that would be the case:
1) Conservatives, in practice, would often be uncomfortable with such a strong woman leading the country because she wouldn't be very feminine.
2) Liberals would hate the sort of woman that would fill Margaret Thatcher's shoes in America. They'd hate her at least as much as they hate Bush, but for less legitimate reasons.
True enough, but the question wasn't whether they are both necessary. It was whether both men and women can do both. The protective instinct is quite strong in most mothers, and probably #1 in the vast majority of mothers, but it is ridiculous to suppose that discipline does not go hand-in-glove with protecting and encouraging growth and development, since discipline is a vital part of that development. It is simply not true that the disciplinary aspects of mothering only emerge when there is no male to do it for us.
Given that the vast majority of daytime caregivers--8-5 or thereabouts--are women, whether the mothers or daycare workers, the supposition is even sillier, since the result would be children who were disciplined only after 5 p.m. Unless you are seriously going to say that these women all do discipline every single day, all day, only because the male is not around to do it during those hours.
I think you miss the point. Neither Arielle nor I actually said, or even suggested, that women cannot raise responsible children. Your raising that question is pretty bizarre, IMO, but that is beside the point. Can discipline be part of the nurturing process? Sure, but I don't see it happening nearly as much as you imply. In my experience, in most traditional families, it is the father or father figure who does the "real disciplining." The mother may discipline over pety things, but her ultimate threat isn't her own actions, but saying, "do you want me to call your father and have him come home and deal with you?"
My own family was quasi-traditional, and my wife's family was very much a traditional family. In both cases, our mothers only disciplined us over the pety things. Our fathers did the real disciplining. Men are generally better able to command the respect and, if needed, fear, when it comes to punishment, of children than women. I don't think that's a flaw in women at all, as you cannot really have the sort of persona in a nurturing person that can strike genuine fear into a terribly behaved child that a father figure can.
Now, WRT discipline in general, I see a lot less of it today. Too many parents are laid back and afraid of not being liked by their kids to raise their voice, or God forbid, their hand, to them.
Sure, but I don't see it happening nearly as much as you imply.
I do.
In my experience, in most traditional families, it is the father or father figure who does the "real disciplining." The mother may discipline over pety things, but her ultimate threat isn't her own actions, but saying, "do you want me to call your father and have him come home and deal with you?"
It appears to me that your experience is leading you to generalize incorrectly. My mother's ultimate disciplinary weapon was never "wait till your father comes home" when I was growing up. Nor do I use it now with my son.
Our fathers did the real disciplining. Men are generally better able to command the respect and, if needed, fear, when it comes to punishment, of children than women. I don't think that's a flaw in women at all, as you cannot really have the sort of persona in a nurturing person that can strike genuine fear into a terribly behaved child that a father figure can.
You start every comment by saying "Nobody's saying women can't" and then go on to explain why men are better at it. You may not be saying we *can't* but you are certainly saying that 1) most *don't* (untrue); 2) Men are better at it (not categorically true); 3) It's better if women don't (categorically untrue).
Good for you. Every single traditional family I have known has done it that way. That has also been the general experience that they have known among the people they knew as well, when they'd get to talking about it so I don't think it is particularly uncommon either.
Big surprise, since you started this whole thing off with a half-cocked assertion about what Arielle and I were saying. Men are far better at instilling discipline in boys than women as a general rule. Anyone who has dealt with unruly teenage boys knows that.
Looks like Mike's got a new troll. How nice.
It appears to me that your experience is leading you to generalize incorrectly.
Actually, Mike's generalization is correct. For proof, just compare the statistics relating to kids raised in a single-mother household to kids raised in a single-father household. The kids raised only by mom exhibit a greater likelihood of succumbing to a variety of social ills, from teen pregnancy to drug abuse to juvenile delinquency. Single dads, generally speaking, raise better citizens than single moms.
I am absolutely not a troll. I'm sure Mike will be touched by your readiness to trollhunt, however.
The only exception that I could take to that is that there are far fewer single dads than single moms. Many single moms have to make up for derelict dads, whereas single dads are often dads who are motivated well above and beyond the call of duty to their children.
Usually mothers get the custody, even in cases where the mother has said she didn't want the children and left them with a father who wanted them (yes, this happened to someone in my extended family). So this makes me ask, how terrible do those mothers have to be to have the fathers gain custody? Or, I guess it could be that the fathers really fought for their custody of the children in which case, they most likely will put some effort into the children.
My mom used to spank me with her cooking spoon. When I was really frustrating, she would say "do you want to speak with your father?" That was a big capital NO, cuz that meant a long discussion about the family working together, instead of causing consternation and then an even bigger spanking. My mom did 90% of the discipline, but my dad did 90% of the most serious punishments ever given to my sister and me. Mom was the front line, but my dad was the super powerful weapon only to be used when things were getting really bad. I will say it again... my dad is the greatest guy ever, very loving and kind, but you do not want to be around when he clenches his jaw and starts the conversation out with "Rachel, I am really tired of coming home from work to hear..." Time to run! But at that point, it was too late.
My uncle got in trouble with my grandmother (his mom) and decided to run (seriously), as he ran out the door he yelled, "Yeah, well you have to catch me first!" My grandmother was very short and could not compete with her 6' basketball playing son. But before he could round the house... BAMM!! My grandfather (his dad) had tackled him and marched his butt back into the house. My grandfather said parents always had to be quicker, and smarter than their kids. Ah, dads. :)
Sorry I'm so late to the party, but I thought I would leave a minor comment relevant to the discussion (I haven't time to read the comments right now, other than to see what I said put someone's panties in a twist)...
Repeat criminal offenders and sociopaths share two common traits - an absent or abusive father. Makes one think, doesn't it?
We don't know each other well enough for you to talk about my panties.
As for sociopaths and absent or abusive fathers, it is not the same thing to say that they all have those and that everybody who had an absent or abusive father will end up as one. And if you believe that they do, then that is the same as saying mothers, as a category, are incapable of providing something that fathers, as a category, consistently do provide. Which is nonsense. Which is all I was saying to beging with, which I notice that you, Arielle, have not bothered to deny you said, leaving MikeT to do it for you. And while he was quite inclined to brush me off, at least he took the time to engage with reasoned argument rather than accusing me of trolling or slurring my panties.
Yes, let's not talk about underroos - it hurts my brain. How do you even spell that?
Speaking from knowing several men very well, who had fathers that checked out, were not at home, or were terribly abusive: the men, no matter how well they cope or try to overcome the problems caused by a bad/absent father, they have severe phychological damage. This does not make them bad men, these guys try hard and have a lot more to learn about patience and resposibility and it is not easy. Fathers are very important for any child to have in their lives. Now, fathers sometimes aren't around and the kids turn out fine; such as a father dying, but I do think it is a major disadvantage for the children not to have their father around and it is very sad.
In marriage counseling, our pastor asked where I would be if my father was not around? I didn't want to think about it. He was an anchor in my life, and played an important part of keeping me on the straight and narrow. I could always talk to my dad, he was a lot of my emotional support (I know that sounds crazy), and he was not overly emotional, but if you were upset, he would listen. But my mom, she was way better at cleaning out the latest hole in my leg from being thrown over the handle bars of my bike or some other stupid thing I was outside doing. Bottom line, kids need both parents, doesn't mean they won't survive and turn out ok, but they do -need- both parent.
Ok, my spelling is below standard for that, sorry, this engineer's mind is on a half a dozen things right now and spelling is not one of them unfortunately.... ugh.
I certainly agree that the bottom line is that kids need both parents. Nor were any of my comments meant to imply that I believe kids are just as well off without their fathers or their fathers attention.
The only item I take issue with is the idea that even in both-parent households it is far and away most common for the dad to do the heavy lifting, discipline-wise, or that moms either are not good at it, generally, don't do it, generally, or shouldn't do it, generally, all of which have been said or implied.
We don't know each other well enough for you to talk about my panties.
Lighten up, Francis.
I am absolutely not a troll.
So you're a frequent commenter here? I must have missed all your previous comments.
As for sociopaths and absent or abusive fathers, it is not the same thing to say that they all have those and that everybody who had an absent or abusive father will end up as one.
Nobody's saying that. There's this thing called a "generalization", you see. It means that, by rule, such and such is true, but there are exceptions to the rule.
And if you believe that they do, then that is the same as saying mothers, as a category, are incapable of providing something that fathers, as a category, consistently do provide.
Now that you are speaking in generalities, I absolutely believe that. I don't believe it in the way you think I do, though.
It may be true that mothers provide most of the day-to-day discipline. I think Rachel's experience is quite common. Here's what she said:
You see a similar thing in the animal kingdom. In a lion pride, it is the lionesses that do most of the work, whether it's looking after the cubs or hunting the next meal. The male lion doesn't seem to do much of anything. Until, at least, there is a serious threat to the pride. Then he earns his keep, because an animal that would be willing to challenge a lioness is going to think twice about taking on a full-grown male lion.
It is not necessarily because of anything the male does, but rather because of what it is that makes it invaluable in its role.
It is similar with people. A child who is willing to disobey his mother will think twice about disobeying dad. Not necessarily because dad dispenses more discipline, but rather because of who and what dad is.
A patriarchal arrangement yields better results than a matriarchal one because it allows men to have families. It is this right to have a family that drives men to build civilizations (which exhibit a civilized sense of morality, which is expressed partly in the form of well-disciplined children).
I know this doesn't jive with your egalitarian fantasy, but the proof is all around you. Visit the ghetto some time if you want to see the fruits of a matriarchal arrangement. Or observe the reservation Indians, or the Australian Aborigines, or the Veddhas of Ceylon, or the Jivaros of Ecuador, or the Nairs of the Malabar Coast, or the Khyougtha of the Chittagong, or any of a number of other Stone Age tribes. All of these peoples exhibit a Stone Age lifestyle and Stone Age morality because they are all matriarchies.
Matriarchy is nature's default. Patriarchy must be created and sustained. When it is, though, civilization results.
So you're a frequent commenter here? I must have missed all your previous comments.
If that were the definition of a troll, no blog would ever get new commenters.
I know this doesn't jive with your egalitarian fantasy, but the proof is all around you.
You know nothing more about my fantasy than anybody here knows about my panties.