[T]he complex, coast-to-coast primary system in the U.S. forces presidential candidates into well over a year of brutal competition for funding and grass-roots support. Their lives are usurped by family-disrupting travel, stroking of rich donors, and tutelage by professional consultants and p.r. flacks. This exhausting, venal marathon requires enormous physical stamina and perhaps ethical desensitization to survive it.That's the meat of the argument. She praises some women and takes some shots at others, notably Hillary Clinton:
In contrast, many heads of state elsewhere ascend through their internal party structure. They are automatically elevated to prime minister when their party wins a national election. This parliamentary system of government has been far more favorable for the steady rise of women to the top.
The protracted and ruthlessly gladiatorial U.S. electoral process drives talented women politicians away from the fray. What has kept women from winning the White House is not simple sexism but their own reluctance to subject themselves to the harsh scrutiny and ritual abuse of the presidential sweepstakes....
Most of the American electorate has probably been ready for a woman president for some time. But that woman must have the right array of qualities and ideally have risen to prominence through her own talents and not (like Hillary Clinton or Argentina’s President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner) through her marriage to a powerful man.ADDED: In one way, Paglia is saying it's not sexism. (Voters have long been ready for a woman.) But in another sense, it is. The system has been structured to fit the needs, qualities, and life patterns of men. It's in the Constitution. It's not parliamentarian. Paglia doesn't call that sexist, but it should be called sexist if you think disparate impact — especially once it's noticed and not changed — is enough.
IN THE COMMENTS: Original Mike said:
"The system has been structured to fit the needs, qualities, and life patterns of men."It depends on what you mean by purposeful. I said "structured to fit... men." Men were the model the structure was designed for, whether anybody ever thought in terms of excluding women or not.
If by that you mean it was purposefully structured to benefit men I'd say that's ridiculous.
The Drill SGT brings up the analogy of firefighters:
Can't haul 50 feet of hose and an axe up 10 flights of stairs in 90 seconds wearing a tank and turn-out gear? Change the test...If the test is really about what is needed for the job, it shouldn't be changed. So, I do want to add something to my statement that "disparate impact... once it's noticed and not changed" is sexist. Once it's noticed, we should look more closely to see if there's good reason to keep whatever it is that tends to exclude women.
The ordeal of running for President — is that something worth keeping? Quite aside from whether it excludes women, it doesn't get us to the best man either.
By the way — and this cuts in the other direction — running for and serving as President does not need to be made family-friendly. Both men and women should run for President only after their children — if any — have become adults.
पोस्ट्स
६५ टिप्पण्या:
America, why can't you be more like Sweden? /snarc
I'm not sure about her overall thesis--it takes a special kind of politician to win the presidency, male or female, and these sort of candidates aren't really facing the same family pressures that most Americans face. Generally you're pretty wealthy and connected to even become a plausible nominee. You trot your family out with you, or you leave them to be tended by staff while you go campaign.
I agree we'll have a female president sooner or later. Hopefully the first one won't be a total disgrace.
"Most of the American electorate has probably been ready for a woman president for some time." Begs the question as to how many women, qualified or not, were ready accept the burden of the Presidency? The country is ready but is there a qualified female ready to step up?
Carly can win.
Being the POTUS is a bit more pressurized than being the PM of Sweden. Mayor does some pre-screening.
The Author is like all those Lesbian Firefighter wannabes in NYC? Can't haul 50 feet of hose and an axe up 10 flights of stairs in 90 seconds wearing a tank and turn-out gear? Change the test. The test is not a true measure of the work /sarc
On 9/11, nearly 300 firemen, wearing turnouts/tanks and carrying hoses went up the stairs of the Towers to their doom. The ones in WTC got mass absolution from the FDNY Chaplain as they went by the Command Post.
The current system is certainly bizarre, and tends to give us a small set of personality types. Hillary is a pretty good example of the type of person who is driven to run for the US presidency, and it's probably true that this type is more often found in men.
My favorite line about the insane desire needed to go though the process is from an old George Will column. He describes being in Jack Kemp's office and seeing the pictures on the wall of when Kemp was a quarterback for the Bills. Will's comment was something to the effect that it was a huge disadvantage if being President of the US would be the second best job you ever had.
"I agree we'll have a female president sooner or later. Hopefully the first one won't be a total disgrace."
The first black president sure was a bust. Disappointment bordering on tragedy. It would be a real shame if we repeat that with the first woman.
2 minutes to Pluto!!!
"The system has been structured to fit the needs, qualities, and life patterns of men."
If by that you mean it was purposefully structured to benefit men I'd say that's ridiculous.
Pluto closest approach at 6:49:57 CDT!
"If by that you mean it was purposefully structured to benefit men I'd say that's ridiculous."
I don't think Paglia or Althouse meant it was purposeful--at the time our system was conceived and over the time it has developed only men were in charge, so they of course weren't considering "wait, is this any good for female candidates?"
Though I think the bigger issue is the types of people the system will attract into presidential races--I really ddon't think it discourages women any more than it discourages men. How are any of the hardships candidates face any worse for female candidates? Anyone with money, connections, desire and political talent can win.
"The first black president sure was a bust. Disappointment bordering on tragedy. It would be a real shame if we repeat that with the first woman."
As long as we elect someone because they're a woman, and not a person who simply happens to be a woman, they will be a disaster. Considering the only thing Hillary brings to the table is the "first woman president" title, we should not be surprised at the quality of candidate and president she will be.
"The Author is like all those Lesbian Firefighter wannabes in NYC?"
Maybe you could remove the question mark by reading the article at the link? Paglia doesn't suggest changing the selection system and points out a number of qualifications required for POTUS not required for other executives.
The President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
And for much of American history, it would have been unheard of for a female general to be ordering male American soldiers into combat. (Can anyone picture a female general leading the Third Army's tanks into Germany?)
So among major world powers who frequently send armies into combat, it's probably rarer for those wartime leaders to be female.
It wasn't until Britain stopped being an empire that they finally got a female PM.
Argumentum ad populum ad nauseum
This exhausting, venal marathon requires enormous physical stamina...
I think this is an interesting point. It is belied, to a certain extent, that some very old men have run successfully for President. But certainly when you read biographies of politicians like Lyndon Johnson you find repeated examples of campaigns run on little sleep, poor health, and endless travel.
"harsh scrutiny and ritual abuse of the presidential sweepstakes...."
Yeah, when I think back to 2008 it's the harsh scrutiny and ritual abuse that Barack Obama endured I remember most.
/sarc
I like Paglia, but it seems like this piece boils down to her saying, for a woman to win the Presidency she must be electable.
It wasn't always an 18-month slugfest drama-thon, with winner-take-all 100%-committed delegates to the current charade of a convention. It used to be that candidates were selected at conventions of people who know what's going on, politically and were able to tweak their preferences to create new momentums. Even it took 40 votes. I think a potential woman candidate today could benefit more from the selection process of the 1800's than from the extended period of intense scrutiny that is the norm these days.
I'd like to see a shift back to that kind of process. And who decreed that the current system of dog-and-pony "debates" is the best way to winnow out the crowd? Until the Pres starts debating foreign leaders in a similar format, what good is the ability to trade barbs and stingers off the cuff as a marker for Presidential skill? How many potentially effective leaders have we passed on because the debate style wasn't truly in their wheelhouses?
We have nver had a male president in Norway either, and I very much hope we never do.
The purposeful construct of females and males was God's doing. Men are innocent. We were asleep when the woman was made to serve mankind.
Sounds like we will have to reward women for not being able to win battles. And who cares if there is not an equal to Phillip the Great. Empires are either won or not won by battles. They are not awarded out of fairness.
Agree w rastajenk: present system isn't very good. Not just for president, for all of American politics. Never say anything real. Ever. (Start this process when youtube was invented, however old you were at the time.) Have a prepared list of canned bland responses for all questions.
It seems unlikely that anyone good at running things could ever get elected.
The system has been structured to fit the needs, qualities, and life patterns of men. It's in the Constitution.
Easy solution:
Repeal the 19th Amendment.
If this theory were correct, wouldn't we have had more women as Speaker of the House? I'd suggest the real problem is that the job of First Lady is so much better than the job of being President. The Secretary of State job is also better than being President, and look how many women have held that office.
Men and women have different ideas of what constitutes "security" for the tribe, and it starts way down on the brainstem.
So, being forced to go to the people directly and win their votes, as opposed to being selected in-house by a political elite, after an election won, is sexist.
Riiiight.
"Disparate impact" is a bullshit term when it comes to this stuff. It is only used when women are perceived as unfavorably impacted. No one raises "disparate impact" complaints towards the teaching and nursing professions. Or bank tellers.
The ordeal of running for President — is that something worth keeping?
Legions of well-compensated professional campaign consultants say "YES!".
Republicans were ready for a woman president when they voted for McCain, so the real question is: Are Democrats really ready for a woman president?
It's great that we are living in a world that simultaneously denies the objective existence of separate entities called 'man' and 'woman', while increasingly demanding the latter hold posts previously held by the former.
If Jimmy Carter came out tomorrow wearing a dress and answering to Jamie, could we go ahead and pop the champagne and ignore Hillary? It would be a double win, because then everyone who thinks Carter was a crap president would have to shut up with the bigoted hate-speech, so Carter would get something out of it to.
What has kept women from winning the White House is not simple sexism but their own reluctance to subject themselves to the harsh scrutiny and ritual abuse of the presidential sweepstakes.
This is almost certainly why Sarah Palin did not run in 2012. The attacks on her were brutal. They were brutal before she announced! She wasn't even running for office yet. It was astounding to me. They went after her family. The media attacked two of her children, Bristol and Trig, over and over. That was insane, and vicious, and reprehensible. Any rumor was repeated as if it was a fact.
And of course it's possible to go after a man in sexually degrading fashion. I recall Clarence Thomas and his outrage at his confirmation hearing. He saw the attacks as racist, but they were also sexist. He was portrayed as a sexual monster, as a deviant. Journalists went through his trash, they wanted to know what pornography he had seen, what movies he had rented. His anger is palpable. "It's not worth it."
Are Democrats really ready for a woman president?
Geraldine Ferraro?
To add, her name was even masculine! Gerald-ine!
If you had your parliamentary way of doing things, Newt Gingrich would've been President.
The political party nomination process must be in the super secret copy of the Constitution available only to law professors.
Its not that it is structured to exclude women so much it is that women don't want to do what it takes, seeming to want to achieve something without having to do what the men have to do, as long as they feel they put in "enough" effort, as defined by them. While Paglia doesn't seem to whine about it, the basis of her article rests in that notion.
We see this in Military Service with two physical fitness standards that reward women and fail men who are actual equals in strength. They call this "equality" and then wonder why people with open eyes thinks this "equality" stuff is bullshit. Because what it really is, is a deference to females to make them feel better by allowing them to serve in positions they aren't actually qualified to serve in, rather than acknowledge the reality that very few can cut the mustard strength-wise when it comes to job performance expectations that men have to meet.
This failure to call it bullshit is what is leading to the fantasy of today that many women are physically capable to be Army Rangers, much less ordinary grunt Marine infantry officers and it is only sexism that keep it from happening, when the reality is that the vast majority currently serving are not anywhere near physically capable of doing what ordinary Joes are required to do in a line unit.
It's a very female expectation in wanting men to make hard things easier for females to achieve, simply because they are female. It isn't about "equality", that's for sure.
Disparate Impact - even after acknowledged - only matters if it's a conservative issue.
Case in point: Planned parenthood has killed more black people than the Confederate Flag, and what's more that was Margaret Sanger's intent.
And thanks to eastern practices of female infanticide, combined with immigration patterns, and there is no question: abortion laws in this country have a disparate impact on women and minorities.
But if you tried to get abortion banned or declared unconstitutional on those grounds, for some reason it wouldn't count.
Ladies, I get that for some of you, it's not about racism or sexism. You think it's empowerment - 'female pride' if you will. But you can't escape or deny its racist history, it has to go. You can't deny its disparate impact, it has to go.
Ha, right!
No, disparate impact is just another rhetorical bludgeon that has not actual meaning other than 'something we don't like'.
And if women can't put up with a political campaign, why on earth should the poor dears be thrown into having to make strategic decisions regarding countries who despise us? How could we send her out to meet with a leader of a country like Saudi Arabia? How can we trust such an emotional delicate flower with the nuclear button?
MikeR said...
Agree w rastajenk: present system isn't very good. Not just for president, for all of American politics. Never say anything real. Ever.
Politicians speaking in platitudes isn't limited to our system, so the proposed change to a parliamentary system would effect nothing. We need better voters, and a better media and academia committed to helping voters pierce the BS would be a great step forward. But instead these institutions protect the BS because their preferred leaders benefit.
Is Camille Paglia familiar with the sorority rush? Women create their own "ruthlessly gladiatorial" processes that include harsh inspection and ritual abuse. They're tough enough for a Presidential run, which is just an ordinary run for public office on steroids.
"It depends on what you mean by purposeful. I said "structured to fit... men." Men were the model the structure was designed for, whether anybody ever thought in terms of excluding women or not. "
I don't think the structure was designed at all. I think it evolved. And as with the evolution of species, there is no purpose behind it.
Brando said...
As long as we elect someone because they're a woman, and not a person who simply happens to be a woman, they will be a disaster. Considering the only thing Hillary brings to the table is the "first woman president" title, we should not be surprised at the quality of candidate and president she will be.
This. Hillary!'s primary qualification for the presidency is that she's a Vagino-American. She really doesn't have much else in her resume to run on. There will be millions of people who'll vote for her just because she's a woman. That's pathetic and almost guaranteed to be a disaster. Anyone criticizing Hillary! will automatically be called a sexist just as anyone who criticizes Obama is called a racist. The terms really have no meaning any more.
There's a simple reason why no woman has been elected to the US presidency yet. As of yet, no woman capable of winning the election has ran. Get a good female candidate that can attract enough votes to win and you'll have a woman president.
Sarge - It's easy to claim that military fitness standards produced a competent fighting force. Do you want to claim that the post-1968 nominating process produced a good collection of presidential candidates? I don't think that's an easy case to make.
Whatever the post-68 process has become, good or bad overall, sexism has nothing to do with it and is simply pro-female bullshit.
Scary thought - if we had a parliamentary system, who would be the Dem nominee? Probably a woman even scarier than Hillary- Nancy Pelosi.
Still, part of this article may be Paglia justifying in advance why Hiilay? isn't working nearly as hard as her much younger, male, Republican opponent. Partly it is age, and partially sex - my experience is that women rarely work as hard as the harder working males. It is a question of both temperament and of strength. We have seen with Obama how badly a lazy President can govern - he constantly plays the innocent victim when someone in the govt that he is supposed to be running falls short or goes rogue. Expect a Hillary! to be even worse. She is an old, rich, grandmother, and woe being the govt worker who wakes her up for a 3 am phone call.
Part of the reason that I somewhat suspect the motives here is that we are already seeing Hillary! slacking off. If she is campaigning, it is mostly fund raising. Her actual campaigning is invariably pretty brief - a quick drive around the state at 95 mph in her Scubbie Van (so she can sleep), and then back to being a grandmother. Much more relaxing. She is just not going to put the energy and effort into campaigning that we even saw with Obama - because she is an old woman with other priorities too. So, how do you excuse her losing, esp with her not working nearly as hard as her opponents? By pointing out how unfair it is (as someone pointed out above - essentially arguing disparate impact).
Our Presidential election structure was never "designed". It evolved in an unplanned way.
When it was designed, the one coming in second in the Presidential contest became Vice-President, President of the Senate, clearly intended to be leader of the Opposition. There were no "running mates".
The 24 hour news cycle and election "years" that go back into the preceding year only came up since the 1980s, when the women who might run for President now were already adults.
The problem seems to stem from the burdens of democracy. Makeup, shorts, and all that. Perhaps if the candidates appear behind a screen in order to simulate equivalence. #PrinciplesWin?
I find it interesting that Paglia seems to be advocating for a parliamentary system:
"This parliamentary system of government has been far more favorable for the steady rise of women to the top."
But leaving aside the question of whether the US could or should convert to a parliamentary form of government (we can't and won't), looking at the list of female prime ministers on Wikipedia shows really not very many women. And most of the women who've been prime minister are from small countries and/or for very short periods of time (e.g., Kumaratunga was prime minister of Sri Lanka for 87 days). Were you aware, Professor, that France had a female prime minister back in the early 90's for a bit less than a year? I wasn't.
There are exceptions, like Merkel and Thatcher Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi. Back in the 70's a woman was prime minister of Sri Lanka for two non-consecutive terms totaling over 10 years. Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir was prime minister of Iceland for more than 4 years. The beautiful Yulia Tymoshenko was prime minister of Ukraine twice, totaling just under 3 years.
But my point is that for all the alleged benefits of a parliamentary system for allowing a woman to rise to the prime minister position, it hasn't happened for very many women and most of them didn't hold office very long. So perhaps the grueling ordeal that we have here in the US has it's benefits. Male or female, President of the United States is a really tough job and not for the faint of heart.
I don't get it.
What is it about women that makes them so different from men that men can handle this and women can't?
Besides, men and women are the same. Right?
"Both men and women should run for President only after their children — if any — have become adults."
So JFK shouldn't have been President?
By the way — and this cuts in the other direction — running for and serving as President does not need to be made family-friendly.
I would very much like to see a pregnant pro-lifer run for President. Or be nominated for the Supreme Court.
I do not think we should limit women to the menopausal.
And our society likes young Presidents, when they're male. John F. Kennedy was extremely popular, in large part because of his youth and his beautiful wife.
It's only young, beautiful, pregnant Republicans that makes our media insane.
Men and women don't have equal interests, priorities, personal issues, etc. etc. Any requirement of any kind will not effect the sexes equally. Age requirement for office? Women are proportionately older. The list is endless.
JFK would be too conservative for the Democratic Party today. Heck, he'd be close to being too conservative for the Republican Party today.
Kim Campbell was PM of Canada as a sort of summer job. She took her ruling Conservative Party from an outright majority to two seats, though that was 90% the legacy of her predecessor, Bryan Mulroney (whose Ben son how hosts "Canadian Idol", I believe). The other 10% was her demonstrated incompetence as both Minister of Defense and PM.
Both men and women should run for President only after their children — if any — have become adults.
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
... neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years....
I'd say it was structured that way, and maybe we need another amendment. We're the ones who think starting a family in your mid-30s is reasonable.
Both men and women should run for President only after their children — if any — have become adults.
-------------
That assumes that both parties have agreed that child-rearing is their primary task.
Not true, in most successful couples...
RonF said...
"Both men and women should run for President only after their children — if any — have become adults."
So JFK shouldn't have been President?
------------
Nor Lincoln!
Perhaps, as in his case, having children in the home WHILE in office helps relieve the stress of the work performance? (Again, likely true in the most successful couples).
I wonder if professionals would be more dedicated to their work if they chose either family or career, but not simultaneously...
Some would,
some would not.
"This failure to call it bullshit is what is leading to the fantasy of today that many women are physically capable to be Army Rangers, "
My understanding, which you may have more information about, is that this pressure for combat qualification is all coming from officers who want to get promoted and need their tickets punched.
We had a highly qualified woman running for governor of California who was undone by a lying housemaid who went to Gloria Allred (probably the other way) and complained about Meg Whitman and her neurosurgeon husband hiring an illegal. She had used fake ID but it was a big deal in California which is one the road to BK although the voters haven't figured that out.
Now, who sunk her cambering ? Men or women? She is a self made billionaire with a husband and kids, by the way. Sounds pretty competent to me.
God damn autocorrect !
"campaign" and "on the road..." not one the road.
The brutal process of coast to coast campaigning is new. William Harding famously ran his campaign from the front porch of his modest Victorian home in Marion, OH. The America people demand the ordeal. I think it's a horrible way to elect a president. In fact, I think the low pay,crappy hours and invasions of privacy prevent many talented people from running for Congress and other offices. Who but an egomaniac would want any of those jobs? It's not that were excluding women. We're excluding competence.
There have been warrior queens since at least Boadicea. Both Elizabeths were fighters. I have seen a photo of Liz II firing a machine gun, she was an ambulance driver in WW II. Thatcher was no anomaly. If Kate Germano ran for President, I'd vote for her.
The Presidency is structured to exclude women?
I don't think Bill Clinton would agree with that.
The present presidential election process in the U.S. was not structured by anybody for anyone's benefit. The various bits of it arose from previous structures through competitive amending by various self-interested states, under pressure from candidates who discovered that one can always start earlier.
(Jimmy Carter was the pioneer in this practice.)
I'm waiting for the day when a candidate announces his campaign for the next Presidential election. That is, over four years in advance. (It would have to be someone of the same party as an incumbent who would then be term-limited.)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा