Judging on Merit
The latest blogosphere brouhaha, history of which can be found here and here, is all about one female so-called top blogger's assertion that women don't generally have the sensibilities to be President of the United States. Moreover, she asserts that she doesn't care what you or I little people think, since she's the top dog and people read her crap, her's is the only opinion that matters.Such a nasty and petty, and too-big-for-her-britches display is the primary reason why I'm not going to link to her. The fact of the matter is, I find her sweeping generalization, lacking in any sort of support or argument, to be little more than an attention grab, not unlike the four-year-old who throws a temper tantrum when you prevent him from beating his little brother with a bat.
No, instead, I'd like to address the actual arguments of the idea of a woman being capable of being the President of the United States. (A blogger discuss an idea - now that's a novel idea.)
First off, I think sweeping generalizations are just dumb. The next thing you know, she'll be saying women don't have brains and aren't fit for the work place, the vote, or even be entitled to having an opinion. Honestly, the whole argument sucks.
I could make the same claim about men. After all, statistics "suggest" that men think about sex every 7 seconds, isn't that what I've heard? It seems to me that that makes a man, generally, very preoccupied. Preoccupation, in my mind, doesn't go well with the guy who has a finger on the big red button. Case in point: Bill Clinton. I'm not saying that he ever pushed the big red button, but you could certainly paint a picture of him as one who was a man, President, and definitely preoccupied by sex and his favorite humidor.
Woman is every bit as capable of being President as man is. Women run corporations and businesses all over this country and world. They are Governors, Senators, Doctors, Lawyers, Agronomists, and even Mothers. Women balance career, kids, house, and carpooling everyday. Surely they could balance the House, Senate, the Court, and the media just as well. Women have been a part of the building of this country, I see no reason to deny them, in general, the top job. So long as they are 35-years-old and a natural born American, they meet the Constitutional requirements.
But, just like you evaluate male candidates on merit, ideology, and history, you should do the same with a female candidate. I don't think you should vote for someone just because they are male, female, or have good hair. To me, (and I know this is soooo unreasonable), you must look for leadership, integrity, a can-do get-it-done attitude, and a firmness. I don't want someone who can be bought (Bill Clinton). I don't want someone who seems to have no firm beliefs, but waits for the opinion polls to come in before making a stand (Hillary Clinton). I don't want someone so lacking in personal integrity and loyalty that he will lie about his friends (John Kerry).
I think the sensible thing to do is evaluate each candidate on his OR her merits. Then, make the best decision.
There is no part of being President that requires the use of a penis. If there were, Clinton would have accomplished more. (Sorry, we are all about the cheap laughs here at Villians Vanquished.) A vagina is not a detriment to clear thought. If anything, having a woman in the White House might teach the other world leaders not to fuck with us.
If you were some hardline Middle Eastern Potentate of an emerging nuclear power (think Iran) would you really press President Phoenix when she is PMSing? Dude, that's the surest way I know to getting fubar! Moreover, the female of a species tends to be the more aggressive, a natural instinct that comes of having to protect the next generation. Do you really think a woman President is going to callously disregard a whole nation's next generation? Not bloody likely.
Even further, a woman is not likely to send in troops without fully considering first. Troops, too, are somebody's children. Women also tend to be more sensitive to and tuned in to the feelings of others. This would most certainly be helpful in negotiations and diplomacy efforts. It might have been helpful, for example, in 1941 when we were seeking a "diplomatic solution" with the Japanese while they were planning a certain little attack on Pearl Harbor. Women, you see, are good at identifying when people are not being entirely honest. I can't count the number of times that I've seen behind the facade to the manipulations and machinations of someone's intent, mentioned it to a man and he was completely clueless.
None of which is to say that men don't have these same qualities.
I simply mean to point out the rationale and reason for judging a candidate on his or her merits, and not on their plumbing.
Labels: John Kerry
