align-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcamerachatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-crosscrosseditfacebookglobegoogleimagesinstagramlocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartwitteryahoo

"New York Philosophy" Message Board › Controversial Question

Controversial Question

A former member
Post #: 74
The possibility at this juncture of America electing a female Prez. is higher than ever before. In less than two weeks France decides on a new Prez. and could very well elect the first female Prez.

Already the Chancellor of Germany is a Female. Is femfever breaking out?

In the past Israel, Britain, Pakistan and India have been led by females. Lady Thatcher for me remains the greatest leader after the final PMship of Winston Churchill, without any in a leadership position today with her moral courage, clarity and goals. But it was not the US presidency.

The nature of the US presidency is much different to that of all the other leaders. It is unique because the Prez. is literally the commander in chief and everyone is subordinate in government.

The PM in Britain or Israel for example is really more like the Leader of the House in the United States - so it is one more of function than position.

This raises the question of a woman's feminity with regards a man's masculinity.

The question I pose, and which was first posed decades before is whether it is psychologically healthy for a woman to become Prez.?

Sure she may be competent, and well able to take the task on, but what happens to her natural inclination for femininity to look up to masculinity? How will she combat that, especially if she has good, high standards about what sort of man she responds to?

The answer to this has always in the past resulted in a requirement for a female Prez. to become most unattractively, a matriarch - the denial, erosion and extinguishment of her femininity.

How would this unhealthy result affect her performance as Prez.?

Can we have a decent debate or will it spiral down into an attack that this ort of question can even be raised?
A former member
Post #: 208
I'm kind of afraid to answer this question cause you might end up saying I know nothing about being a female. lol lol biggrinwink

But seriously- It shouldn't affect her performance- if she is competent.Running the country has nothing to do with femininity it has to do with competency.
A former member
Post #: 75
I'm kind of afraid to answer this question cause you might end up saying I know nothing about being a female. lol lol biggrinwink

But seriously- It shouldn't affect her performance- if she is competent.Running the country has nothing to do with femininity it has to do with competency.

If that is what you think, then you have misread my message and ought to read philosophy.
A former member
Post #: 211
If that is what you think, then you have misread my message and ought to read philosophy. (quote)

No. It's the other way around I am going to correct you. I did not misread anything. That is my answer to your question.
And before you say to me read philosophy I suggest you take your own advice. Philosophy is about listening to different ideas not listening to just one.
A former member
Post #: 76
[To give you a non-condemning answer:]

Thank you :-]

[Exhibiting 'traditional feminine appeal' is a choice, not a necessity.]

"Tradional feminine appeal" is not what I was referring to. I reject that sort of attitude anyway. I was referring to a woman's natural inclination of femininity looking up to masculinity. This is psychological and would have to be constantly combatted making it a very unhealthy situation.

[A woman that has enough drive to become president obviously has other goals and priorities in life. Typically, they are also at a stage in their lifes that they are married, so they would care even less about appealing to other men.]

It is not about being appealing to men. It is about what I have stated in my initial message and the effect it would have, not with regards all men, but the sort of man a woman holds in high regard relative to her femininity.

[I also don't recall one of the past female presidents having marriage problems after her term (there are male examples on the other hand, whose increased presidential appeal to the other sex led to some problems of that sort, so this would be even more argument for female presidents :-)).]

The US presidency is unique. It is the sole political position of leadership where everyone else is subordinate. I refer you again to my original post.
PiWi
user 3398759
Virginia Water, GB
Post #: 47
what happens to her natural inclination for femininity to look up to masculinity? How will she combat that, especially if she has good, high standards about what sort of man she responds to?

I think you make a pretty strong assumption when you talk about "her natural inclination for feminity to look up to masculinity". Is that true, do all women look up to masculinity? Does being feminine mean looking up to masculinity? I can imagine a way of being feminine that wouldn't lead to a sense of inferiority or submissiveness.

I do suppose that statistically females look up to males more often then the reverse (though that is i'm sure not universal and probably changing) and in some women the feminine side (wanting to be attractive, caring about elegance, being motherly etc...) may lead to such psychological consequences as a certain sense of submissiveness to maledom, which could clearly be problematic in a Prez job. But there are such big variations from individual to individual that i don't think the statistics are relevant here when we talk about one individual.

Even if it were the case that she had such an inclination, how do you know it would be a significant issue? Every person has their own character, with its inclinations, strengths and flaws, related or unrelated to their gender. Femininity, whatever it means, may be part of the picture but it may only be a small part. Vision, persistence, political and negotiation skills, leadership, logic, inner strength etc...or the lack thereof would more important dimensions.

Finally, if she did have such a tendency, surely it would have shown up throughout her years in politics. Do you think it has affected her as a senator? She doesn't seem particularly feminine to begin with, in my view/...which leads to your second quote...

The answer to this has always in the past resulted in a requirement for a female Prez. to become most unattractively, a matriarch - the denial, erosion and extinguishment of her femininity.

How would this unhealthy result affect her performance as Prez.?

Why do you assume that there needs to be some big denial and unhealthy effect here? First, most women politicians are no longer in their prime, and i suspect that their "feminity" is not as strong or important to them as it would be in their twenties. It's also probably the case that the ones that do end up in politics and succeed at it are probably the ones that are less feminine to begin with. The examples you mention or the ones i can think of clearly seem to show such a pattern.

So rather than how it affects a particular individual, which you can and should judge on a case by case basis, I think your question leads to another one...do women have to be "manly" in order to 1/ be elected 2/ be successful as political leaders. Will the arrival of more women in top political jobs (if it does arrive) change people's expectations of how "manly" a leader need to be?

PWi
A former member
Post #: 212
"Tradional feminine appeal" is not what I was referring to. I reject that sort of attitude anyway. I was referring to a woman's natural inclination of femininity looking up to masculinity. This is psychological and would have to be constantly combatted making it a very unhealthy situation. (quote)

She has already passed the test (of femininity looking up to masculinity) when she was elected.
A former member
Post #: 77
"Tradional feminine appeal" is not what I was referring to. I reject that sort of attitude anyway. I was referring to a woman's natural inclination of femininity looking up to masculinity. This is psychological and would have to be constantly combatted making it a very unhealthy situation. (quote)

She has already passed the test (of femininity looking up to masculinity) when she was elected.

I really urge you to reread and comprehend what I wrote in my initial message.
A former member
Post #: 213
I really urge you to reread and comprehend what I wrote in my initial message.
I don't think your understanding. I have answered you 2 times for your question and your not getting it.
I feel like your talking to me in the manner like,"You can't handle the truth" like in that movie.

1. I said running the country has nothing to do with femininity it has to do with competency. I answered you there. It was very general but every part of the question is covered.

2. I said she has already passed the test (of femininity looking up to masculinity) when she was elected. It's very hard for a woman to get elected. If she get's elected she already passed the test of living up to men's expectations in my opinion.
A former member
Post #: 214
And of course you could be talking about how a man would have to look up to femininity from your last sentence about how the U.S. Presidency leadership role is very unique and everybody else is subordinate.
I didn't want to comment on that immediately without having the men comment first and PWi did.
To think of women as inferior that's very insulting with the submissive part yes that's true women are more submissive. Men aren't submissive towards anything and especially towards other men. It is a good quality to have in politics.
All you could do is look at the electee's experience beforehand.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy