In the end, Warren writes, [her husband, Bruce] Mann gave his blessing to her potential candidacy, but she realized it wasn’t her next step.And you wonder why we haven't had a woman President.
“Talking with Bruce and asking the question out loud had settled it,” Warren writes. “I wanted to stay buckled down and keep doing my job — my Senate job — as completely and as effectively as I could.”
As Barbie once said, "Math class is tough!" And running for President is tough. That's your reason?
Note: I don't really believe that was her reason. I just don't enjoy bullshit that leverages the stereotype that women won't do work that is too strenuous.
As long as we're talking about the stereotype about women, let me show you something I've been listening to that's kind of blowing my mind — even though I heard it when it originally aired in 2002 — the recently rebroadcast "Testosterone" episode of "This American Life." There's so much fascinating/disturbing material, but I just want to focus on what feels relevant here, which is the interview with a man who had had a medical condition that took his testosterone level to zero. He's asked "And during those months, how are you behaving? What was different?"
It wasn't that I was behaving. It was that I was not behaving at all. I was, when I was awake, literally sitting in bed and staring at the wall with neither interest nor disinterest for three, four hours at a time. If you'd had a camera in the room, you would have thought I was comatose. I would go out. I would buy some groceries early in the morning. And that would be it. My day had no content. I had no interest in even watching TV, much less reading the newspaper or a book. Food-- I didn't want my food to taste good or interesting. And when you're blessed with that lack of desire, you can eat a loaf of Wonder Bread with mayonnaise. And that will be your day.... People who are deprived of testosterone don't become Spock-like and incredibly rational. They become nonsensical because they're unable to distinguish between what is and isn't interesting, and what is worth noting and what isn't.... You just have to remember that it doesn't matter if you have nothing if you want nothing. Very tricky to get inside that mindset. In some ways, it's difficult for me to even remember it now. But it had its allure.In case you're wondering how much testosterone women normally have, here are some numbers. It's not zero but it's a lot less than men. And postmenopausal women — like, presumably, Warren — are much lower than premenopausal women.
Posts
115 comments:
She has a husband?
Why do you equate "pretty terrible" and "a lot worse" with strenuous or tough work? I could be wrong, but I took his alleged comments within the context of what the campaign would do to them personally and to their marriage.
Somehow this character came to mind.......Governor William J. Le Petomane. Harrumph!
Her real reason for not running is that she would have lost. Hillary would have won the nomination. Taking the advice of her husband is just a cover story.
And imagine Hillary, Bernie or Liz in the WH now. Disaster.
If she had run, she'd have split the Bernie vote, and Clinton wouldn't have had to do what she did in the primary to win.
I'm surprised Warren's husband even lets her leave the teepee.
Ann Althouse said...And you wonder why we haven't had a woman President.
Let's see: Wiki: Nikki Haley - personal life
In September 1996, she married Michael Haley with both Sikh and Methodist ceremonies.
Her husband is an officer in the South Carolina Army National Guard and was sent on a year-long deployment to Afghanistan in January 2013.[104][105] The couple has two children, daughter Rena and son Nalin.[12][106] As of 2017, Rena is a freshman at Clemson.
Come on Michael, don't let us down!
Its my understanding that it's testosterone that is the source of female libido, I think.
Pence-Haley 2020.
And you wonder why we haven't had a woman President.
Who says we haven't? Just because the sex assigned by history to all past presidents has been male does not mean that some of them have not actually been women.
Warren older than Althouse but not retired. Instead went from law school faculty to US Senate.
I just put that episode on my phone last week when I saw it featured on the home page as a free download. It's one of the best This American Life episodes. I've listened to it a couple times over the years.
Also very interesting is the woman describing the effects of taking a lot of testosterone as part of her transition to being a man. Fascinating stuff.
The difficulty of electing a woman Democrat as president is that they all would likely be pretty radical leftists.
The difficulty of electing a woman Republican as president is pretty much the same as that faced by conservative men -- an entrenched Establishment is blocking the way. But get them out of the way, the country would be quite comfortable in electing a Thatcher type.
It wasn't that I was behaving. It was that I was not behaving at all. I was, when I was awake, literally sitting in bed and staring at the wall with neither interest nor disinterest for three, four hours at a time. If you'd had a camera in the room, you would have thought I was comatose.
Made me think of this: YT: Always Sunny in Phil. - Dennis Reynolds Making a Murderer
(around 1:21) It's the "eye contact" and the slight head tilt that make it hilarious.
Elizabeth Warren was the answer to at least two Jeopardy questions this week. Contestants had no clue who she is. Clues were framed in a flattering way
MSM building name recognition for her now.
She didn't run because she knew she would lose. Wealthy white woman who pretends to be a minority to get hired plays fine with wealthy white libs in Massachusetts. But the rest of the country?
Not so much.
When men in politics have to explain their decision to drop out or a race, or not to enter one, don't they always frame the decision as the result of a conversation with their wives? It happens so often, I had assumed it was some kind of law.
Anyway, it happens often enough that I don't see grounds for claiming to see a double standard when Warren does it too. Unless your argument is "Sure, but when a man says his wife talked him out of running, he looks like a strong husband solicitous of his weak spouse; but when a woman says her husband talked her out of running, she looks like a frivolous airhead saved from an embarrassing failure by her wise mate."
By "completely and effectively" she means having a perpetual self righteous air about her, and an unquestioned devotion to platitudes that don't make even a bit of sense.
He's asked "And during those months, how are you behaving? What was different?"
...
You just have to remember that it doesn't matter if you have nothing if you want nothing. Very tricky to get inside that mindset.
Now this is a much more interesting topic. I think if you want to get into the psychology of artificial intelligence this would be a place to start.
when a woman says her husband talked her out of running, she looks like a frivolous airhead saved from an embarrassing failure by her wise mate."
1. She's not a woman.
2. She doesn't mate.
And you wonder why we haven't had a woman President.
Her story sounds indistinguishable from that of Mitch Daniels deciding not to run in 2012. Must be why we haven't had a male President.
Achilles: "...I think if you want to get into the psychology of artificial intelligence this would be a place to start." YES.
Our mindfulness depends on desire. Desire broadly understood as some kind of gradient of attention and willingness to commit resources to exploring and pursuing one thing rather than another. Curiosity itself is a kind of elemental horniness.
Very VERY interesting.
Re Jeopardy
I may be wrong but I have long believed that, within limits, you can probably buy your way into answers, as one of the producer's monetization methods.
The DNC told Warren, like they told all the others, Hillary will be our candidate in 2016 period.
I strongly suspect Bernie's run was just for show and Hillary was so widely disliked, even that got out of hand.
"And postmenopausal women — like, presumably, Warren..."
Are you "presumably" the postmenopausal, or the women? Because the formr is for sure if the latter is yes.
Doesn't that crush her Feminist cred? Consulting a MALE to make a decision? Even if she didn't follow his advice, just ASKING is a sign of weakness.
Gerald Edelman was pursuing this stuff in the 1980's. He created strong AI entities which were powered by only a few values: that it was better to see than not to see (thus the entity learned to focus and track digital "objects" that entered its "world"), it was better to touch than not to touch (thus the entity learned to move its "arm" and "hand" toward, not away from, those objects); and certain objects (arbitrarily) were "good" or "bad" and should be kept or pushed away.
These basic tropisms were enough to produce something very intentional.
Blogger Achilles said...
. . . I think if you want to get into the psychology of artificial intelligence this would be a place to start.
Isn't using intelligence to produce artificial intelligence like using coal to produce artificial coal, or milk to produce artificial milk?
"Wealthy white woman who pretends to be a minority to get hired plays fine with wealthy white libs in Massachusetts. "
Heap big Wampum at Harvard plus big insurance company fees.
Brave (or Squaw) stay in teepee with wampum.
If I'm not mistaken, it was Colin Powell's wife who dissuaded him from seeking the Presidency.
Conversely, it was Lady Macbeth Clinton who goaded her husband into politics and the Presidency. Out, out, damned spot!
But wait--Lady Macbeth had a conscience.
"Why do you equate "pretty terrible" and "a lot worse" with strenuous or tough work? I could be wrong, but I took his alleged comments within the context of what the campaign would do to them personally and to their marriage."
The discussion is about the difficulty of the fight. She'd be attacked, it would be a struggle, it wouldn't be secure but a lot of pressure, etc. etc.
I don't understand how you can think these things don't equate. Because it's somehow in the realm of emotion?
IMO, Barbara Jordan, though a Democrat [a conservative one] would have made a fine President.
Hillary! has enough testosterone for the two of them.
Methinks too much testosterone makes nasty women.
My sister-in-law took testosterone for decreased libido post radiation of her ovaries for Hodgkin's lymphoma at age 30.
Believe me, no one wanted to be anywhere near her—she was aggressive and nasty and horny 24/7.
"Its my understanding that it's testosterone that is the source of female libido, I think."
It's more complicated than that, but the amount of testosterone needed to feel sexual isn't that high. The effects at the higher levels have more to do with boldness and risk taking and focus on goals rather than relationships. That's the part of it that I'm wondering about. That women are operating with a physiological condition that makes it harder to fight for what you want and even to want the things that must be fought for. Especially post-menopause. It's not something we normally talk about. I'm surprised, in my condition, I took the risk of saying this.
"Warren older than Althouse but not retired. Instead went from law school faculty to US Senate."
I went from law school faculty to this entrepreneurial media outlet that you are choosing to enjoy. The doings of the Senate are forced down your throat.
The DNC told Warren, like they told all the others, Hillary will be our candidate in 2016 period.
Bingo bango bongo ! Will they do so again in 2020 ?
Which raises questions about why "the things that must be fought for" must be fought for. And I don't just mean for women.
"Also very interesting is the woman describing the effects of taking a lot of testosterone as part of her transition to being a man."
Yes. Very useful in thinking about why someone would want to be accepted as a member of the other sex rather than to just be a masculine woman or a feminine man:
"I think that the main thing that you hope for-- that one hopes for-- and that I hoped for when starting testosterone was to pass as male, to be perceived by the world as a man. But I do have a sort of love/hate relationship with passing that my whole deeper self becomes invisible and my history becomes invisible. I think that's hard. It's a hard place to be. Especially because, when I got my first job as a man, they didn't know anything about my past. It was very corporate, so I had to let go of any edgy clothing and facial hair and whatnot that I had before. And I became really boring. I felt like, wow, people must think I'm really boring. If they only knew that I'm so fascinating."
She was fascinating as a masculine woman, but boring as a man.
And as a man, he couldn't have form "close relationships" with women: "It's hard, it's hard to do. There's a barrier. So I kind of miss being part of a cool bunch of women. I actually like women better than men. It just so happens that I fit in more as a man. But I think women are really cool. Sisterhood is powerful. All that stuff."
Some say behavior is affected more by the relative proportions of serum testosterone and estrogen rather than the absolute level of testosterone by itself. The sharp drop of estrogen in postmenopausal women can make some of them much more competitive and aggressive than previously.
That was interesting. I read the transcript, thanks for pointing this out to us.
The part about the newsroom testosterone contest struck me as completely hilarious. From the test being done by the primate center to the woman sulking because she had the lowest, it was extremely comical and unexpected, even in a transcript.
Wait, you’re telling me that men and women have unequal quantities of hormones that control aggression and ambition? Well love me tender and call me Elvis. No wonder Barbie finds math so hard!
Thanks, Ann, for the link to the testosterone levels page. What I find really fascinating is the number of different hormones that are part of our being, and the complexity, and the perfection that is needed to keep us in the healthy zone. I've done a lot of study on Nutrition, and when you read about all of the various vitamins and nutrients that are needed to keep us healthy and the perfection of the balance that is required, it becomes very apparent that we are not accidental.
Lewis Wetzel said...
Blogger Achilles said...
. . . I think if you want to get into the psychology of artificial intelligence this would be a place to start.
Isn't using intelligence to produce artificial intelligence like using coal to produce artificial coal, or milk to produce artificial milk?
Yes, but that artificial milk can move millions of times faster than the real milk. We should be interested in how to co-exist because soon we will be ants with bulldozers rumbling around overhead moving mountains. Will we still be in control? Will they tolerate our interference if we are not?
It would be so much nicer if the mountains didn't land on our head.
"From the test being done by the primate center to the woman sulking because she had the lowest, it was extremely comical and unexpected, even in a transcript."
I love that they make the transcript available, but don't let that stop you from listening too, because it's meant to be heard and it's much better as audio. I listen to the audio and then use the transcript for blogging purposes.
Don't you think that liking their current job more than the prospect of running for President is the reason a lot of men don't run for President? But I suppose the Althouse low level of testosterone theory could apply to those men too.
Elizabeth Warren lives in my neighborhood and I occasionally see her on the street. I remember her being line line ahead of me at a sandwich shop lats spring. It was the height of the Clinton v. Sanders primary fight and the Trump v. Warren twitter war, and there was Elizabeth taking a lazy Saturday with her hubby.
Perhaps running for President is better than nothing, but perhaps it isn't. At least she didn't drop out, like Scott Walker.
Also from the TAL transcript, this made me think of Trump: "And researchers say that people with lots of testosterone have a wolfish smile. And people with less testosterone have a kinder smile, and they smile more often, as if to say, don't hurt me."
I guess fitting in is, by its very nature, more boring than not fitting in. That's the appeal, isn't it? The safety and comfort. We are social animals.
Not fitting in is a constant source of anxiety. It's a problem to be resolved. It can be desirable in certain circumstances and when you can see light at the end of the tunnel, but a tremendous curse if that is your life.
And being fascinating isn't always a positive. People can be fascinated by the repellent as well.
Ann Althouse said...
"Its my understanding that it's testosterone that is the source of female libido, I think."
It's more complicated than that, but the amount of testosterone needed to feel sexual isn't that high. The effects at the higher levels have more to do with boldness and risk taking and focus on goals rather than relationships. That's the part of it that I'm wondering about. That women are operating with a physiological condition that makes it harder to fight for what you want and even to want the things that must be fought for. Especially post-menopause. It's not something we normally talk about. I'm surprised, in my condition, I took the risk of saying this.
Almost all of the people posting on this thread will choose how long they want to live. Soon hormone balancing will also allow us to choose how old we want to be. Not everyone will choose to be 25. Looking back at your life what age would you choose?
What I find really fascinating is the number of different hormones that are part of our being, and the complexity, and the perfection that is needed to keep us in the healthy zone.
So true, as anyone with PCOS can attest. Hormones are so complex and influence so many bodily processes that would seem at first glance to have nothing to do with each other.
The effects at the higher levels have more to do with boldness and risk taking and focus on goals rather than relationships. That's the part of it that I'm wondering about. That women are operating with a physiological condition that makes it harder to fight for what you want and even to want the things that must be fought for.
What an interesting thing to consider.
Maybe it's OK to listen to your body and admit you don't really want those things.
I don't want to be the best at anything when compared to anyone else. I don't want to fight for position; I'm not ambitious; I don't want to spend hours and days and years neglecting my relationships in order to chase some brass ring that doesn't have meaning to me. Perhaps I have just the right amount of testosterone for my life, or perhaps I have the life is just right for my testosterone levels. Maybe Elizabeth Warren does too.
I for one don't want any president who had to fight against his or her true nature in order to become president. If X testosterone is required for the fire in the belly, and 95% of those who have that fire in the belly are men, I guess we will have 95% male surgeons, fighter pilots and presidents. Fine by me.
The wiring is different, whatever your hormone levels.
Miswiring in this or that aspect happens as well.
"Looking back at your life what age would you choose?"
40. No contest. Although it was a tough time.
If you're ambitious, you can throw equally well with either hand.
"I guess we will have 95% male surgeons, fighter pilots and presidents. Fine by me."
My experience is limited but not zero.
The female surgeons I watched, some in training as I was the professor, tended to be rougher with tissue than most male surgeons. Maybe I should say the better male surgeons.
I expected women to be better with fine motor skills and was surprised. Maybe it was a testosterone thing.
If you have enough testosterone you can switch hands and gain a stroke.
Total T is not as important than free T. Substantial number of folks have decreased sex hormone binding globulin.
richlb said...Doesn't that crush her Feminist cred? Consulting a MALE to make a decision? Even if she didn't follow his advice, just ASKING is a sign of weakness.
No. Emphatically no. Consulting with her husband was empowering and perfectly in line with feminist beliefs.
(Of course, NOT consulting with her husband would also have been empowering and perfectly in line with feminist beliefs.)
Bob Boyd said...
The DNC told Warren, like they told all the others, Hillary will be our candidate in 2016 period.
I strongly suspect Bernie's run was just for show and Hillary was so widely disliked, even that got out of hand."
Sounds right. Plus Warren is as unlikable as Hillary. Says a lot about the Democrat lineup when all they had to offer for primary candidates were a criminal, a Communist and and elitist faker hypocrite.
"Note: I don't really believe that was her reason. I just don't enjoy bullshit that leverages the stereotype that women won't do work that is too strenuous."
Is there other evidence here, because as presented I don't see this as anymore than "I had a conversation with someone (who happens to be my male spouse), and I concluded I didn't want to do this".
How do you know this isn't her reason? Have you decided she had an obligation to run for president, damn how she felt about it, and shrank from the obligation?
Can we possibly see Elizabeth Warren as a person who won't do work that is too strenuous rather than a woman who won't?
For that matter, have we considered that age might factor into her calculation rather than testosterone?
What sells in Massachusetts does not necessarily sell in the rest of the country. Her fake indian roots scandal may not have made much more of a splash in Massachusetts than when Ted drove his mom's 1967 Oldsmobile (w/ Mary Jo inside) into the channel, but that doesn't mean the story doesn't have legs outside of MA for us less enlightened yokels.
I would consider praying that she runs and gets the nomination but then I remember John Oliver praying for the same thing with Trump.
NYT John Tierney on Strippers, Testosterone and the Dow is good, from way back in 1998 whent he NYT wasn't all PC.
(to fix link I hope)
Hey, Mann, does this Indian feather headdress make my ass look fat?
Reminds me of this quote from Serenity:
These are just a few of the images we've recorded. And you can see, it wasn't what we thought. There's been no war here and no terraforming event. The environment is stable. It's the Pax. The G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate that we added to the air processors. It was supposed to calm the population, weed out aggression. Well, it works. The people here stopped fighting. And then they stopped everything else. They stopped going to work, they stopped breeding, talking, eating. There's 30 million people here, and they all just let themselves die.
On the plus side, at least we don't have to worry about what an awful President she'd be.
Owen,
That statement works just as well the other way around:
"Horniness itself is a kind of elemental curiosity."
"And you wonder why we haven't had a woman President."
Glad you said it because I would be run up a flagpole if I did. Male Privilege has its limits.
You just have to remember that it doesn't matter if you have nothing if you want nothing.
So the Buddha had no testosterone?
Yeah, she would have beat Trump.
Says a lot about the Democrat lineup when all they had to offer for primary candidates were a criminal, a Communist and and elitist faker hypocrite.
In 2019 they will have faker Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, both of whom will have the Obama genetic makeup but not much else.
That might be enough for the nomination. I still don't understand why Hillary did not choose Booker last year.
There's a new book about her campaign that might be worth reading to see if it is explained.
Blogger Michael K said...
Pence-Haley 2020.
I like both of them well enough and see Haley as a credible candidate for Prez in 2020.
But Pence? As candidate for Prez? Why?
Serving as VP should be a positive disqualification for a presidential candidacy.
1) With 1 exception in the past 170 years, they always lose.
2) When they do get in, by death or resignation, they always do a crappy job. The only exceptions are Coolidge and, perhaps, depending on your tastes, Roosevelt. (Since 1900, anyway)
Ford, Nixon, LBJ, Truman were all failed presidencies.
John Henry
John Henry
To say that she's afraid of hard work is a bit disingenuous. I dislike Elizabeth Warren immensely. She's a classroom Socialist. I've read and heard that she's very smart (some people I respect have stated that), but I've not seen evidence of it- just the opposite. She's sounded very stupid for years now...until this article. If she has the good sense to stay a US Senator and not run for President- she clearly does have some smarts. Hard jobs are one thing. Running for President is not only hard, but requires a ridiculous amount of abuse- both that which you receive and that which you dole out. Bottom-feeder level abuse. Bad shit. I'm not sure it's worth it for any semi-normal person. You have to have a YUGE ego to crawl through that muck. Like The Donald. Like Obama. (still not sure how or why George W. did it. He seems to not have that ego.).
As Senator, you can preen all you want. Work hard, but get great vacations, benefits, and a neat salary package. Plus...a few key deals on the side to lock up the rest of your life, simply for pushing the 'right' bill. It seems to be to show that she does have a bit of savvy. Or...she looked at the numbers and they did not work out.
I thought that after all the screaming and yelling she has done about everything that's wrong she showed a huge lack of balls by saying running for President was too tough. Obviously Warren has a little trouble with the "courage of her convictions". This pretty much will disqualify her for 2020 because she has admitted she wasn't tough enough in 2016 while Trump took on 11 or so primary candidates, the Democrats and a lot of the Republican party. In this case describing her as a pussy in the scatalogical sense is 100% accurate.
Of course she may have feared for her life!
Well said, Temujin! I have missed your comments of late.
"But Pence? As candidate for Prez? Why? "
I don't disagree. Trump is so different, Republicans may want to go more traditional after him.
Bush I was not a good president and would have been a better Sec State. Reagan made a mistake choosing him.
In 2020, I don't really think we can predict as there is such a broad field to choose from.
Haley was said not to be that good a governor early on but she has done a good job at UN so far.
I tend to favor governors and liked Walker but he quit early.
In the afternoon, I like to play classical music, lay back, and just float on it. Generally I nod off. I thought of them as zen naps. I see now that I was not reaching a higher state of awareness but rather a lower level of testosterone......I've got mixed feelings about old age. It's kind of pleasant being aloof from all the negotiations and entanglements that go along with winning, but that's the crap that gives life its zest. The next major event of my life will be death. Death is probably a more gentle event for those with low testosterone. They don't rage against the breaking of the light.
"If something is too hard to do, then it's not worth doing." -- H. Simpson
Surprised this part didn't cause more of a ruckus:
Alex Blumberg
Or something. Are there other ways-- other than the visual and other than the libidinal, are there other ways that you feel like testosterone has altered the way you feel or perceive?
Griffin Hansbury
Something that happened after I started taking testosterone, I became interested in science. I was never interested in science before.
Alex Blumberg
No way. Come on. Are you serious?
Griffin Hansbury
I'm serious. I'm serious.
Alex Blumberg
You're just setting us back a hundred years, sir.
Griffin Hansbury
I know I am. I know. Again-- and I have to have this caveat in here-- I cannot say it was the testosterone. All I can say is that this interest happened after T. There's BT and AT, and this was definitely after T. And I became interested in science. I found myself understanding physics in a way I never had before.
Fernandinande, I prefer, "If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well."
"Looking back at your life what age would you choose?"
For me, maybe 50. At least in testosterone levels. Could still go all night. But it wasn't debilitating. Ok, did some stupid things on skis 🎿 in my 50s, but not as bad as my 20s. Still, 50 was the age where the drive to go out every weekend and meet women started to recede. I don't think that most males really understand how hard we are pushed by our testosterone, until we wake up one day, and aren't being driven. And how much we respond to female sexuality, until, one day, we don't. Didn't realize this until my early 60s, but looking back a decade, that was when I started to get rational around women.
Yes, the scenario from Serenity immediately popped into my head. Remove the emotions of anger/aggression and it turns out that people become so passive that they don't bother to do anything at all.
The testosterone thing, if anything more was needed, shows that body and mind are not at all independent. Which makes the whole point about, say, transgenderism difficult. Why should the state of mind trump the reality of the body?
Mental programming seems very conditional; there is no inevitability of the nature of a mania, as these seem to vary greatly in frequency and type between cultures and over time. There are fashions in madness. There are no fashions however in biology.
I do think that Trump would have beaten Fauxhauntis Warren. Probably by more EVs than he beat Clinton. She probably would have had more energy than Crooked Hillary, but not as much as Trump. She has had few accomplishments in life, besides being a fake affirmative action law professor, and then getting elected to the Senate in one of the most liberal states in the country. No doubt, Trump would have stuck her with an unflattering nick name, like he did with so many others. Clinton had the advantage of having so much of the Dem establishment behind her, as well as a somewhat experienced campaign staff. Plus, the experience of living in the WH and being Sec of State. Warren has never put together a national campaign staff, and never run anything bigger than a Senate office. Obama got away with it by essentially being the front man for powerful interests, hiding his background, and pretending to be everything for everyone, by not really saying anything. Don't think that would have worked for Warren. No real charisma, and much too dogmatic.
"Pence-Hayley 2020"
If we're just chucking stuff out there, then
Gowdy-Hayley 2020
Deus Vult
"NYT John Tierney on Strippers, Testosterone and the Dow"
This may explain the flat, declining market the last few weeks.
I blame the "brave girl" statue in front of the Wall Street bull.
She lowers testosterone.
"To say that she's afraid of hard work is a bit disingenuous. I dislike Elizabeth Warren immensely. She's a classroom Socialist. I've read and heard that she's very smart (some people I respect have stated that), but I've not seen evidence of it- just the opposite. She's sounded very stupid for years now...until this article. If she has the good sense to stay a US Senator and not run for President- she clearly does have some smarts. Hard jobs are one thing. Running for President is not only hard, but requires a ridiculous amount of abuse- both that which you receive and that which you dole out. Bottom-feeder level abuse. Bad shit. I'm not sure it's worth it for any semi-normal person. You have to have a YUGE ego to crawl through that muck. Like The Donald. Like Obama. (still not sure how or why George W. did it. He seems to not have that ego.). As Senator, you can preen all you want. Work hard, but get great vacations, benefits, and a neat salary package. Plus...a few key deals on the side to lock up the rest of your life, simply for pushing the 'right' bill. It seems to be to show that she does have a bit of savvy. Or...she looked at the numbers and they did not work out."
I don't want to say I think the female stereotype is "afraid of hard work." I think the idea that "Math class is tough" and running for President is a terrible ordeal is different from just that it's hard work. Notice she's willing to stay in her current position and do her responsibilities earnestly and diligently. What's missing is the desire to plunge into a challenge, to take all comers, the love of the fight and the sense of being motivated by a distant high goal.
So, you should see yourself as not disagreeing with me. Or, anyway, I don't disagree with you. I don't think traditional women's work is easy. It's work and it's hard in part because of the limitations and the monotony and the lack of appreciation shown, the lack of honor and prestige. But you know you can do it, if you just "stay buckled down." That's Warren's expression. How about using that for a women's liberation slogan!
The interesting question for me is whether Crooked Hillary was unwilling to to the hard work of running for President, or was physically incapable of doing such. What was amazing to me is how well she did, compared to how little she seemed to be working. A couple of public appearances a week, when Trump would do twice that a day in almost as many states. He was figuratively running rings around her, and she came within three states and not that many votes of beating him. What would have happened if she had campaigned as much and as hard in just those 3 states? I would think that her inability of campaigning hard would have made her drop out, not risking the destruction of 8 years of Dem rule in DC, but her feeling of entitlement kept her from doing it. Something like that.
The question of whether or not a woman can work as hard as the top men (in this case Trump) is interesting. In a lot of fields, women can keep up with men until they get near the top. But you just don't find that many women doing what the top men do, working the 70 hour weeks for decades, etc, and, thus, not becoming billionaires, CEOs, or senior law partners. I think that part of this is that most women seem to want or need more balance in their lives, which those men at the top often completely lack. Then, again, this may be somewhat cultural, and not completely driven by testosterone, with a lot of millennial males joining their generational sisters is looking for more balance in their lives than previous generations.
Wait, so men might have more vim and vigor, more dash and drive? Like, there might be biological differences, not socially constructed, not subject to subjectivity? And these differences might actually make a difference?
"the lack of honor and prestige" Honor and prestige withheld by whom? Anyway, on behalf of men, I'll take any remnant of the lack and give you our lower life expectancy in return. Deal?
She didn't want it.
You have to want the Presidency a lot to run for it. You have to be willing to sacrifice family time or be an ego maniac or love power or be kind of nuts to want the Presidency.
No more quiet walks with your husband in Massachusetts. No more fun days with the grandkids. Senators can still live kind-of-a-normal life.
She's got her home in Massachusetts, grandkids, a husband, and a good job. What would the Presidency give her that she doesn't already have?
Not everyone wants more power more $$ in exchange for less time with family and grandkids and friends. Is that testosterone? Maybe so, but there's a lotta men who wouldn't make that trade.
sodal ye said...
If we're just chucking stuff out there, then
MOAB 2020? Seems to be the most popular character right now.
But you just don't find that many women doing what the top men do, working the 70 hour weeks for decades, etc, and, thus, not
Not that surprising. Babies happen.
"I went from law school faculty to this entrepreneurial media outlet that you are choosing to enjoy."
Well played! In fact, so well played it was likely over kill for the intended target.
Nevertheless she persisted. Hardly.
Bruce Hayden said...
For me, maybe 50. At least in testosterone levels. Could still go all night. But it wasn't debilitating. Ok, did some stupid things on skis 🎿 in my 50s, but not as bad as my 20s. Still, 50 was the age where the drive to go out every weekend and meet women started to recede. I don't think that most males really understand how hard we are pushed by our testosterone, until we wake up one day, and aren't being driven. And how much we respond to female sexuality, until, one day, we don't. Didn't realize this until my early 60s, but looking back a decade, that was when I started to get rational around women.
So much to unpack there. Since I am only in my 40's I can't comment on what it is like to not get whiplash in the gym when yoga pants and sports bra trundle past with the pony tail swishing.
I will say that I am looking back fondly on my ability to heal 10 years ago though.
It will also be interesting to see how the mate in a pair contributes to the discussion of their partners hormone balancing. Are women looking more for that maturity? Science would say they are constantly scoping out testosterone markers.
At 55 my "I can do that" bone was stuck firmly in my skull. Went a wee bit fast in a curve on my BMW motorcycle Slid down and across the highway until the bike, and then I tumbled across a ditch and onto a dirt bank. Totalled the bike, stem to stern. Sprained ankle, bruised bum and sore all over.
After that lesson I vowed to dial it back. It's been ten years. By a hundred clues I can tell my T levels are down. Fortunately I'm married to a libido boosting woman, so thatissue is down the road.
But I'm heading to Spain this summer to run with the bulls*. OK, jog with the bulls, my real running days are a couple of decades ago. Seems like even with my realization of lower T,a couple of those molecules still bump into each other once in a while.
*(Not my fault, riding buddy has it on his bucket list and I can't let him go solo.)
Temujin,
"As Senator, you can preen all you want. Work hard..."
You certainly can work hard as a senator, if you want to.... but see nothing to indicate that it's a requirement, especially if you're from a benighted state like MA, or my very own WA. Just get elected the first time, hold the right postures, and you're golden.
I don't get the "hard work" of being a senator. Sure, it CAN be hard work but there is a lot of phoning it in going on. Staffers get the hard work.
What would have happened if [Hillary] had campaigned as much and as hard in just those 3 states?
(1) She didn't do so both because she was unwilling to and was/is physically unable to. She was unwilling to because why should she have to? She was owed. She was entitled. She shouldn't have had to actually ask for votes. In fact, elections are beneath her. She was unwilling to really campaign all that hard for Senator Carpetbagger. She was unwilling to campaign very hard the first presidential run. And same in 2016. It was supposed to be handed to her. She shouldn't have had to work for it.
(2) If Hillary had been more visible and spoke out more -- in whatever accept that fit the audience -- in those states or overall, it is just as likely, if not more, that she would have LOST votes. Whenever she has been highly visible, her numbers have gone down. The numbers rose only when she was quiet. Shrillery simply does not go over well with people.
As for Trump's campaigning hard -- actually, since around Election Day it has seemed to me that he is worn out. When giving a speech, his voice just sounds tired.
I don't get the "hard work" of being a senator.
For the last ten years or so or more, every Democrat senator except for one or two has been nothing more than an empty suit puppet doing what they were told by Harry Reid. Certainly our senators - Tim Kaine and Mark Warner -- have been non-entities. Sure, Kaine showed off his dimwitery for a few weeks as VP nominee, but other than that both have been less than half-watt light bulbs.
On the Republican side, they aren't much better. Sure, now the blowhards are coming out again to show off and in order to hijack the agenda, like The Maverick and his little buddy Mini-Me, but neither accomplish much of anything really, even with the various "gangs" they like to form. As for the Republican leadership, they are busy, but they are busy making excuses for why they are not doing what they said they would do.
Earnest Prole said...
Wait, you’re telling me that men and women have unequal quantities of hormones that control aggression and ambition? Well love me tender and call me Elvis. No wonder Barbie finds math so hard!
************
Well, yes. You see, male attributes such as aggressiveness, goal-setting, courage and all that are due to "testosterone poisoning", but in females there's no such thing as too much estrogen.
Because men Bad. Wymyn Good.
"MOAB 2020? Seems to be the most popular character right now"
You're not kidding. Visit 4chan. Plenty of smiling Pepe's morphed onto the business end of MOABs and judging by the enthusiasm the image has staying power, even more than altwarrior. They couldn't believe their luck when they saw the bright green version (Pepe) and the orange version (God Emperor)
And she calls herself a feminist? Hey, Princess Forked Tongue, go back to your teepee and fix your man some campfire potatoes. This isn't Harvard. The presidency isn't handed to you by lying about your fake heritage to grab a quota position. On the other hand, not running was a smart move since she would have humiliated herself and failed miserably. (Not that we wouldn't mind seeing that...)
Why should I believe any explanation that Liawatha offers?
So, no testosterone, no desires. Sounds like Buddha.
She came under fire during the general election after reports surfaced she might’ve used her partial Cherokee ancestry to get into schools, something Brown tried to use against her.
That's an ... odd way to put things. The accusation was that she claimed to be a minority without actually being one to get a high powered job at Harvard. And it's a scandal that won't go away, because she has no documented Indian ancestry at all.
The lesson you should learn from Hillary's emails is that scandals don't go away just because you don't want to talk about them.
It's tough to say that Warren should have run. In a race that already has an elitist New England female ex-Senator and a New England liberal true believer, is there any space left over for a current New England female Senator who is a liberal true believer? Especially one whose personal history is going to be an automatic disqualifier for minority voters.
For those who're interested, there's a book that explores this topic in detail: Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance by Steven Goldberg.
Countless men have decided not to run for President because it is a grueling process. Why can't a woman make the same decision without it being seen as "bullshit that leverages the stereotype that women won't do work that is too strenuous"?
Very few women are suited to lead or to rule, although there are some who have led very successfully in every era of history and in virtually every culture. Because it is the exception, we should not expect it to ever be the norm, nor should it be.
Throughout my life, my heroes have usually been men [Elizabeth I and Margaret Thatcher being two exceptions]. But I never aspired to be one. Just to marry one. ;-)
IF testosterone is up among men since the election, don't blame Trump. Blame Melania! After 8 years of looking at the sour, lemon-sucking face of Michelle Obama, Melania and/or Ivanka can credibly be argued to be the cause.
Didn't we sort of have a women President when Wilson supposedly had a strole and his wife took over for him - unofficially, of course?
Virgil Hilts, Rush Limbaugh also preferred Obama to Hillary and even urged Rep voters to cross over in the primaries and vote for Obama. He believed Obama would be easier for McCain to beat. He called it Operation Chaos IIRC.
Isn't it perfectly reasonable for a candidate to decide whether or not to run based on how difficult it would be to win? Only men can refuse a job that's too difficult--women can't think in terms of difficulty because it's uncomfortable for feminists?
Post a Comment