A man describes why women should never be president

[ECH1969]

This article is really funny (and pathetic) in that the guy actually believes what he is saying.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Simply put, a woman isn’t suited to be president of the United States. As the leader of the free world, the position of president demands a great deal. Enormous pressures must be endured daily; important decisions with far-reaching consequences are required consistently from the office. Therefore, the president of the United States must be able to handle it.

Men, in general, can think and lead with reclusion from their own personal feelings, something by and large not possible for a woman. Anyone who has ever dealt with a woman or been forced to watch Lifetime, knows they don’t hide their emotions. Tough choices sometimes will have to be made. In that case, would it be wise to deal with someone who could potentially be emotionally unstable?

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, as the subject of military response came to the forefront of American debate, would a woman have the same ability to send troops into battle? Women maintain a much closer bond to their children than do men. Would a woman president be prepared to send America’s soldiers to war?

Think Osama Bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi don’t like us now? Wait until Madam President is sitting in the White House. Anti-American sentiment, which runs to the heart of Islamic fundamentalism, would further be incensed.

http://www.bgnews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/22/435c505707a95

[WildClarySage]

1. I just can't believe that only men are heartless enough to be

president, which is what this 'writer' seems to be claiming.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. One wonders how that guy manages to talk

with his head lodged that far up his ass.

[jobycom]

4. You think he

could find his ass? You have a higher opinion of his abilities than me.

:-)

[jobycom]

3. Well, he convinced me

Convinced me that he's a bit unexposed to the real world.

[lvx35]

16. Convinced me too.

That maybe we're due a woman president...I mean hell, a woman wouldn't have sent the troops to Iraq? that's a winner of an argument right there!

[chalky]

5. "Anyone who has ever...been forced to watch Lifetime...."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

*sigh*

Good one. Idiot.

[Captain Hilts]

20. I actually agreed with that statement! The Lifetime Channel scares me!

It's the Victimization Network.

Now, Women's Entertainment actually shows some good movies...

[ECH1969]

22. The Lifetime Channel scares me as well

[insane_cratic_gal]

42. Most women who watch lifetime

are more likely to be buying hallmark cards then running for President anyway.

But I concur, I think lifetime is a sap network that never empowers a woman to get off the couch.

[zanne]

37. Yes! Thank you!

I've been saying this for years to anyone who'll listen. There are WAY too many movies on Lifetime about women being raped, beaten and generally discriminated against. There are very FEW movies on Lifetime where the woman actually achieves something. It's all about victims and martyrs. I think some people actually enjoy watching that kind of thing and it gives me the creeps.

[Captain Hilts]

43. Lifetime gets VERY high ratings. Scary. nt

[Mutley]

50. I thought that most of the women who watched Lifetime

were the barefoot, pregnant types whose husbands would never allow them to even have a job, let alone run for president, anyway. I can't stand Lifetime. No offense to any DUers who like that channel, that's just my opinion on it. :D

[TahitiNut]

56. You KNOW you're not part of their "target demographic" when ...

... you cannot conceive of ever spending your money on what's advertised. Birds of a feather ... and all that.

On the other hand, if the foo shits .... :evilgrin:

[shenmue]

6. Yeah, men can lead free from personal feelings

Feelings that would lead one into, I don't know, flying planes into buildings...only totally rational people can do that.

:rofl:

What a fucking moron.

[Captain Hilts]

21. Men have done a great job, haven't they? Good examples! nt

[ECH1969]

23. lol I agree

[napi21]

7. I wonder what this guy does for a living?

He must lead an extremely sheltered life! I think there are FEW "PEOPLE" actually suited to be President of the US. It's not a male/female problem, but a personal capability one.

For proof of that, all you have to do is look at our current one!

[Craig3410]

65. Apparently, he goes to Texas Tech...

and has a "Xanga" site.

Like my 13-year-old sister.

[hopeisaplace]

8. yeah right..men have done a consistently

"bang-up" job so far. This guy is delusional.

There are very few men I truly respect in this world - guess what list this guy is on. Women would have no problem sending guys LIKE THIS off to war. But hey I'm only bitchin' cause I'm on.

*holy crap*

[EST]

9. Typical R/W think.

Wonder if they ever think that, maybe, a woman might be far more practiced at handling her emotions, having to do so and maintain a public. powerful presence?
While I was doing standup, one of the most well received stories I did was-Know what PMS is? It's when some women act, once a month, like many men do, all the time!

[hopeisaplace]

11. good one..I'll have to remember that :)

[ECH1969]

25. I like it

[Scout]

45. PMS = Putting up with Men's Shit n/t

[datadiva]

10. If we had had a woman president

she wouldn't have been thinking with her testosterone and we would not be in Irag, you jerk.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. I hope that American soldiers are never, ever sent to war again...and if

it takes a woman President to make that a reality, so be it.

"Would a woman president be prepared to send America’s soldiers to war?"

[RagingInMiami]

13. This guy is a student writer, right?

It sounds like the article was written tongue-in-cheek because he knew he would get a rise out of people who fail to see the humor.

Of course, by the end of the night, DU will want his head on a platter.

[zanne]

38. Unfortunately, alot of young men think this way.

American culture (commercial and religious) has been fighting feminism from the beginning. Conservatives, who have taken over not only the government, but the media that shapes popular culture as well, have been working very hard in that respect. Now, we have a government entrenched in conservative religious beliefs that subjugate women and a popular culture (movies, TV, music, etc.) that paint young women as desperate to "snare" a man so that she can fulfill her most "important" role as being a wife and, good God, it can't be stressed enough that she wants to have babies! This new popular culture doesn't reflect reality, it attempts to create a new reality. And I'm afraid it's working, especially among young men who are insecure about their futures and their standing in society.

[melody]

14. they don’t hide their emotions?

What about O.J. Simpson and Phil Spector and every mass murderer and, oh, tons of men who seem incapable of hiding or controlling the emotion called "anger"? One could make a similarly simple-minded argument that men are "disabled" by "testosterone" triggering heightened anger.

I wish this man would pick up a dictionary and check the definition of "emotion".

>Women maintain a much closer bond to their children than do men

What a load. Beyond that fact, there's so much wrong with the rest of his BS "thesis", it would be impossible to operate without the patient bleeding to death.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. If one generalizes, the way he does, that all men are as illogical as him,

First, this guy generalizes and over-generalizes. Second, he illogically thinks that the terrorists need extra excuses to dislike the USA. So to use his own system, all men are illogical. Thus none are as suitable for the Presidency as women.

George "Shrub" "Arbusto" Bush is president. He is almost a man.

I rest my case.

[wellstone_democrat]

17. "reclusion?" whas that...?

is that English?

Gee, if someone in some other country doesn't like it then gosh, we better not do that! BTW, Sparky, I didn't notice that the UK suffered terrible retribution when Thatcher was PM.

"reclusion" everyday you learn something new!

[Bunny]

41. I wondered about that myself. Reclusion?

Is that going to take its place alongside Moran, HUGH!!!11!!, Paul Pot, etc. as another great Freeper malaprop?

[newswolf56]

18. Obviously this poor fool has never heard of Queen Boudicca (who

raised and commanded the bloodiest-ever revolt against Rome) -- or Queen Maeve, or the Orkneywoman Scatha (whose sword-work was described as "a lethal dance," and from whom the great Irish warrior Cuchulain learned all his fighting skills), or...

[Bridget Burke]

28. Or Queen Elizabeth I.

She sent men to war. And she sent gentleman adventurers to do her bidding in the Caribbean--"gentleman adventurer" sounds much better than "pirate."

Her contemporary, Gráinne Ni Mhaille (also known as Grace O'Malley) engaged in trade & piracy off the West of Ireland

[LostinVA]

31. Or Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, etc.

[ProfessorGAC]

34. Well, There's Always Privateer

That sounds better than pirate, too!
The Professor

[Loonman]

36. Put a hit out on her own half-sister

Slaughtered Catholics with impunity.

[Loonman]

35. Queen Boudicca

Also got her ass kicked by Roman General Paulinus with a much smaller force. Queen Boudicca's uprising with her entire force and it's dependents being slaughtered to the person.

[newswolf56]

46. Don't let Boudicca's final defeat obscure what she did:

Something literally unheard of in those times: Boudicca raised most of the peoples of the islands -- not just Picts down from the north but even warriors from Ireland: a feat far greater than Arminus' rising against Varus (9 AD), which mustered only a few of the German tribes -- and which Boudicca surely knew of.

Boudicca defeated the 9th Legion in open battle, burned Londinum (London) to the ground and very nearly threw the Romans into the sea. To suppress her rebellion, the Romans had to bring in three legions -- Paulinus' own 14th (force-marched back from what is today the westernmost coast of Wales), plus the 2nd (shipped over from Gaul), and the 20th (a local reserve unit of veterans called back to active duty). The absence of the 9th from further records of the rebellion indicates the defeat inflicted by Boudicca's forces rendered the unit combat-ineffective.

Tacitus, our best original source, (linked below) says the victorious Roman force numbered about 10,000, and slew about 80,000 Britons, but that is surely propaganda -- like unto the old "body count" from Vietnam.

What Tacitus does not tell us is (because he assumes we already know it) is that a single Roman legion numbered about 10,000 men: 10 cohorts of 10 centuries each (a century is the 100-man unit commanded by a centurion), plus medics (the Roman army medical corps were the best military medics in human history until World War II) -- all this in addition to a support unit of clerks, armorers, supply specialists and other REMFs (veterans will understand the acronym) headed by an optio and analogous to a U.S. military Headquarters and Headquarters Company. Except for the absence of firearms, the Roman war machine was a thoroughly modern professional army.

Which is only half the point here. The other is that based simply on the units involved, the Romans more likely had at least 20,000 men at the battle and could have had, counting auxiliary cavalry, as many as 40,000. Since Boudicca's force was essentially a mob including not only adults but children, this makes the odds considerably more even. But even if Tacitus' odds are correct -- the British outnumbering the Romans approximately 8:1 -- unarmored Britons attacking a Roman shield-wall would have been like the Polish cavalry flinging themselves to death against the Nazi tanks in 1939: precisely what happened on the blood-drenched approaches to Warsaw.

Here is the link to Tacitus (scroll down to Boudicca's rebellion):

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:XypVmW7LHrAJ:www.athenapub.com/britsite/tacitus1.htm+%22boudicca%22&hl=en

The pan-Britannic character of Boudicca's uprising suggests it was considerably more than Tacitus portrays. Since it occurred at the same time the Romans were destroying the Druid sanctuary of Mona (today's Anglesly) and clear-cutting the sacred groves throughout the isles, there has long been a suspicion the rising may have been a British attempt to take the Roman invaders from behind -- which leads to speculation Boudicca herself was the Archdruid: a European pagan equivalent of a pope -- no surprise given the Britons were a woman-centered people whose chief deity was the ancient mother-goddess. But there is no doubt about the uprising's immediate cause: the people's vengeance after the Romans had Boudicca's daughters publicly raped and Boudicca herself publicly flogged for daring to object.

What followed is thus close kin to the North American Indian Wars, and Boudicca's victories and defeat (the battle-sites are lost to human memory) are therefore like so many others: the triumph of the Greasy Grass broken in ashes at Wounded Knee.

Nor was Boudicca's cause ever so completely lost: history recounts that once Nero was dead, the Roman's treated Britons with much greater kindness -- perhaps more kindness than they showed any of the other peoples they conquered -- a touch so comparatively light, all cultural traces of it vanished in a few hundred years.

Thus as we honor Tucumseh, Seattle, Crazy Horse, Red Cloud, Sitting Bull and so many others, let us also honor Boudicca.


Edit: typo.

[Loonman]

49. Boudicca's mistake

Was allowing Paulinus to attack her forces at a time and place of his choosing. Sure her accomplishments were amazing, but the Romans had their number, cut them up like cordwood and pushed the Celts and others to the far corners of the UK. Like any true leader(sarcasm) she committed suicide after her defeat.

[newswolf56]

52. Had Boudicca been captured, the Romans (whom you seem to admire)...

would have marched her naked and chained to Paulinus' chariot through the streets of Rome, then handed her over to the legions for gang-rape, and crucified her if she somehow survived that -- a truly unspeakable death. Given the alternative, suicide was indeed an intelligent out -- and in any case there is good evidence the Celts did not regard suicide as a shameful death in the (Christian-influenced) way we do.

Note in this context too what happened at Masada. The Romans seem to have been the first people on the planet to have recognized the role of religion in national identity and therefore to have officially practiced religious persecution: the methodical extermination of Druidism in Europe and Britain, the equally methodical extermination of Judaism in Judea. Both efforts of course failed: Judaism was (ironically) kept alive in part by its association with Christianity, while Druidism simply went underground, its lore handed down the ages by generations of bards and minstrels, its rites preserved by the witch covens in which the bards (and later the minstrels) played central roles: not only Taliesin (I have sat in an uneasy chair) but Thomas Rhymer and possibly (from his knowledge of such lore) Shakespeare as well.

Prior to the Romans, conquerers (for example the Old Testament Jews) merely exterminated their enemies in toto. But the Romans took it to a new level: leave your enemies alive as slaves and (to maximize their degradation) prohibit their religion -- a practice adopted with sadistic enthusiasm by Christianity, put into effect literally moments after Constantine's Edict of Milan -- and part of Islam from its birth.

As to your contention the Romans drove "the Celts and others to the far corners of the UK," archaeology and genetic studies prove that is simply not so. The Southern Britons accepted the Roman presence, while the Northern Britons fought on -- among them the dread Picts, the small dark people from the Scottish Highlands (some of whom were my own ancestors). In fact, constant raids by the Picts and their Celtic allies were the reasons for the Hadrian and Antonine walls.

Evidence suggests the much-later falling-out between Celts and Picts was motivated entirely by religion: the Celts embraced Christianity and immediately began persecuting the Picts, who remained true to the mother goddess and the old spirituality. According to some sources, the Picts were the very last people in Europe to be Christianized, retaining their original beliefs well beyond the time of the Bruce, who was himself part Pict. ("Pict" is of course a Roman appelation: from the Latin picti or "people of the pictures" -- possibly tatoos or body-painting. There is no surviving record of what the Picts called themselves, but a good guess -- this based on folklore and mythology -- is that they called themselves Tuatha de Danaan: "children of the goddess Danu.")

The major driving of British peoples "to the far corners" was done by the Germans -- Saxons and Norse -- who in the name of ethnic cleansing drove all non-Germans (save slaves) from the newly conquered lands. Thus the blood of ancient Prytannia -- the blood of the people of Albion (the Isle of the Goddess Alba) or the Isle of the Blessed -- was concentrated in Cambria (Wales), Caledonia (lower Scotland), Prydein (the Scottish Highlands and the Orkneys) and Eriu (Ireland) -- the latter a place gloriously beyond the hobnailed sandal of Roman conquest.

As to Boudicca herself, I regard her as one of the earliest freedom fighters and martyrs of liberty. The British accord her the same honors the Greeks grant Leonidas and we grant John Brown or Nat Turner -- and also the aboriginal chieftains I named above, another of whom was Osceola.

[Boudicea]

57. Huzzah!

n/t

[ljm2002]

19. Hmmm...

...Indira Gandhi? Golda Meir? Maggie F***ing Thatcher? President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of the Philippines? How about H.E. Mrs. Megawati Soekarnoputri, President of the Republic of Indonesia -- the world's most populous Islamic nation?

I don't like all of them, but I'd love to see this guy try and match wits, not to mention emotional control, with any of them.

Of course -- it's that old saying. In a battle of wits, he would show up unarmed.

[AspenRose]

24. "Remarkable jobs...." for WOMEN

"Thatcher and Indira Ghandi both ran the governments of England and India, respectively. Although they both did remarkable jobs, neither was in charge of a superpower."

Gads, that's as bad as saying "s/he's articulate for a black person." Geez.

And America's days as a superpower are numbered, no thanks to Bunnypants.

[Taxloss]

26. Margaret Thatcher didn't have any trouble sending troops into battle.

She enjoyed it mightily. Benazir Bhutto was no shrinking violet either.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. Same for Golda Meir and QEI

[distantearlywarning]

29. Women can't always put aside their personal feelings when they lead?

Well, he's right about that one.

Where he goes wrong is in claiming that men can. I've known many men who were bad leaders because they were unable to get past their own egotism and the fear of looking stupid or making a mistake (George Bush comes to mind right away on that one). I've also known some men who were bad leaders because they were too angry and inappropriately took it out on their subordinates (funny, George Bush comes to mind on that one too).

And why is he assuming that unemotionality is the most important trait a leader can have anyway? He provides no evidence to support this hypothesis whatsoever. Maybe being very emotional is good for leaders. We don't know because he hasn't bothered to tell us one way or another. And just for the record, I know of a fairly significant body of research that strongly suggests that under certain conditions women make much better leaders than men, and another body of research that says that appropriate leadership depends heavily on the fit of certain leader personality traits with a given situation and has nothing to do with emotional stability at all.

Thinking about the fact that millions of sheeple all over the US will read this and not bother to question anything he's saying makes me crazy. This was extremely irritating to find on DU this morning. I want to punch this moron in the face - he's talking out his ass about something he knows nothing about and misleading others while he does it. :grr:

[leesa]

30. Women are wired to raise kids and hold things together...they can

multi-task like no one's business. They could negotiate world peace, create a sound budget surplus, end the health care crisis and still have dinner on the table by six.

[LostinVA]

32. Agreed -- an observation:

Women can work and talk at the same time -- most men can't.

[sandnsea]

33. oh, but "women have their place in the federal government"

thank heaven for that, I'd hate to think we only have our place in the kitchen and the bedroom.

[ComerPerro]

39. Good thing Bush sent those troops in after 9/11. A lot of good that did

If I remember right, we captured Saddam on September 15th, and had Al Qeada completely crippled after a week.

Or, wait...

No we didn't...

We had a massive, unorganized invasion of Iraq, a country that did not attack us. And we have a the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks still at large, as far as we can tell. And we have a President who has said, publicly, that he doesn't really care where that man is.

[knitter4democracy]

40. He wouldn't last a day as a woman.

He has no idea the crap we put up with and keep hidden. I live in daily pain from my endometriosis (only women can get it), raise two kids mostly by myself (hubby is a doctor with really long hours), run our family finances and now our new rental business, help my mom with her illness and all, and do almost everything to keep our household running smoothly. On top of that, I am active in my church and local Dem party (as much as I can).

If he had my pain, he'd be on the floor crying like a baby. He couldn't handle just that, let alone everything else I deal with on a daily basis with only a few ibuprofen. Men have had their turn and screwed everything up royally. It's our turn to fix everything (which will take a long time, given the mess) and take over.

[dalaigh lllama]

44. Get this poor schmuck in therapy

He's associating leaders of countries with (his?)Mom and Dad???

He seems to be forgetting Queen Elizabeth I and Victoria, who don't seem to get much play in the history books, perhaps because their "superpower" country was doing pretty well in the world during their rule.

Then his logic jumps from "women show their emotions" to "therefore women are emotionally unstable." Hellooo! Look at a few stats, boyo. Which gender has more representation in our jails because of emotions run amok?

Jeez...:eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

47. But women have led troops into battle

I remember a story about one such woman, sort of thrust into the role because she was the ranking officer and there was no one else. Nevertheless, she did just fine.

Dude's talkin' out his butt.

[Canadian Socialist]

48. My favourite part...

"On the National Organization for Women Web site, www.now.org, you will find not only a menagerie of ultra-liberal ideology, but a banner stating that “peace is a feminist issue.”

Like, that's a BAD thing. WTF?

[ElectroPrincess]

51. Too bizarre! :P

"Anyone who has ever dealt with a woman or been forced to watch Lifetime, knows they don’t hide their emotions."

Oh yeah, best to hold back the tears LIKE MEN? That way you can self medicate with alcohol and/or illicit drugs. If the chemicals don't take the edge off, you can always get in a bar room fight or shoot your girlfriend.

One way or another, THOSE PENT UP EMOTIONS are going to surface. I choose the tears instead of wreaking havoc on the world.

Sure we might have to tolerate some "intense negotiations" every, say 32 days or so, but WOMEN tend to be less likely to start wars.

It's a balance: In general (really general), women tend to be more empathetic and men tend to be more distant and analytical.

[Gormy Cuss]

53. Ahem.

"Men, in general, can think and lead with reclusion from their own personal feelings.... In that case, would it be wise to deal with someone who could potentially be emotionally unstable?"

As if men have never been know to react on based on the 'personal feelings' of their little soldiers.

[Whoa_Nelly]

54. WAnna EMAIL Trey Caliva the Misogynist? He's on AOL

and online right now.

[e-mail]

Here's his website:

http://premium.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=TripleTreyThreat

[gkhouston]

62. can we? Or does his mommy have a parental block on his account? n/t

[Whoa_Nelly]

66. She lets him out to play on his website, so am sure emailing him is fine

It's the same email on his website as his AOL address.

[WI_DEM]

55. considering how "well" men have run the world, I don't think

a woman could screw things up any worse.

[MamaBear]

58. Wonderful.

If we show our emotions, we're too weak to rule. If we don't show our emotions, we're odd creatures who have sacrificed our feminity. :mad:

Considering history, I really don't think we could do any worse than men.

By the way, how well is * concealing his emotions these days?

Thought so. :eyes:

[Dr. Death]

59. Women "don't hide their emotions": I rather suspect that

all of the women who come into contact with this moran have to hide their feelings of disgust and contempt...he just doesn't realize it (probably because he's too busy basking in his manhood)

[Jed Dilligan]

60. He's never had a girlfriend, that's for sure

All the ones I've had have been exceptionally good at hiding their emotions--much better than I am.

Where did he get his psych knowledge, from a cereal box?

[Me.]

61. So We Should Care What Osama Bin Laden

and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi think? They should be our role models on how to run this country and the role of women? I think this boy needs to rethink who he is looking to for guidance.

[Craig3410]

63. And, and, if a woman gets to be the president...

she'll fire off bombs and random countries every 28 days!

:sarcasm:

Hey, jerkoff: the sixteenth century called; they want their ideas back.

This man believes that women could be just as good as a president as a man would. Last time I checked, a penis was not a requirement to be president.


Hell, a kumquat would be a better PoTUS than the one we've got now.

[Craig3410]

64. And would someone tell him that if a president dies, the VP gets the seat?

He's advocating a woman for VP at the end.

Too bad the VP is first on the presidential succession chart.

Dumbass.