Something I Hate

Those of you who know me realize that I can get pretty worked up about some things. I am a woman of strong opinions, both positive and negative. However, there are only a few things that get me SO ANGRY I can hardly see straight. One of those is when people say that we shouldn't have a woman president.

Seriously, my blood pressure has gone up (what's a good blood pressure number? Seventeen?) 17 points right now, just because I'm thinking about it.

First of all, I do think there are some differences between men and women. Clearly, men (and when I say this, I mean "men on the average") are physically stronger than women. But how pivotal are Presidential Arm-Wrestling Competitions? Not pivotal. I also think that, again on the average, there are temperamental, emotional, and mental trends of difference between women and men. Difference, though, not superiority. Whatever conglomeration of characteristics the average man ends up with doesn't make a father a "worse" or "better" parent than a mother, just a different one.

I once heard someone say that she didn't want a woman president because she wouldn't feel "safe." 1. Even if you're relying on stereotypical differences that say that a man is "stronger" than a woman, just look at how a typical mother gets protective of her family. Then tell me a woman couldn't keep her country safe. 2. If you're referring to a woman's inferiority as commander-in-chief because men are usually the ones that do military stuff, it's not like George W. Bush is out there drawing up battle plans or driving the tanks. I mean, the president's personal fighting prowess is not America's one line of defense against foreign attack.

And of course, no averages of characteristics can be applied to any individual as if they're foolproof. Unless you gave them a battery of tests, you don't know whether Hillary or Barack is better at math. Or better with small children.

The more common argument, and my personal least favorite, is that we shouldn't have a woman president because of what "other countries" would think. This is either ignorant or just a weak projection of one's own sexism.

Why it's ignorant: 1. Didja notice that two of our last three Secretaries of State have been women? You know what the job of the Secretary of State is? Dealing with "other countries."

2. More tellingly, lots of "other countries" have had women leaders. I'm not just talking about regnant queens from back in the day ("other countries" had to put up and shut up with Queen Elizabeth I, for instance), but modern-day, elected leaders. Sure, Benazir Bhutto's career didn't end on a good note, but she was at one point an elected head of government of a predominantly Muslim country.

Nowadays, countries on every continent (ok, I'm stretching Australia to include New Zealand, but still) have had women rulers. So not only have countries like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh had their own female heads of state/government, surely at some point all the rest of them have at least had to deal with neighbors or trading partners with women leaders. As Argentina learned, it's actually not easier to walk all over a country that has a lady in charge (although it's not like that's why they tried in the first place).

So, in all seriousness, I don't see how you can make the "other countries" argument unless you actually did not know this information. That point of view just doesn't hold up in a world context. And if you're making that argument because you're a sexist and want to cover it up by pushing your own low opinion of women onto Iran or North Korea, I think you should just admit you're a sexist instead. I still won't respect that, but at least then we're all being honest with each other.