'Why Women Make Better Politicians Than Men'

Submitted by Mastodon on Thu, 2013-01-17 23:01

Article here. Excerpt:

'Women are wired in an intricate web. They can pay attention to everything at once, while the male becomes driven and fixated on one issue, unable to move on to the next until the one that occupies his attention has been roped, tied, and barbecued. They are able to pay attention to multiple stimuli and attend to all of them.

When a woman is hungry, she thinks about whether the kids have been fed, what she weighed on the scale that morning and the number of pounds she needs to lose, the doughnut that she feels guilty about eating two days ago, and other details that escape the male mind. When a man is hungry, he eats. This description of the male mind does not only apply to hunger, but applies to every issue in the personal and political life of the male politician. They have nobody to blame but themselves. By sacrificing their private life for a public one, they surrender their privacy and the personal aspects of family. They endeavor to hide their foibles from the public eye, and that is the point where they run into trouble. The press is the most legitimized stalker, and there are people who stand to make a lot of money and a few minutes of fame by revealing a politician’s weaknesses.

This gets me back to the core of my message. Women make better politicians than men. They can pay attention to the details. They get more done in the driven world of politics by paying attention to those details. They typically don’t dance around the issues that they were elected to address, but work behind the facade of daily press exposure in resolving the issues that are important to them.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

More from the sexist generalizations dept. Funny how authors that express sexist generalizations that are "pro-woman" don't usually get called out for what they are. Say something pro-male, and there'll be no end of objection.

The author seems a bit fixated on sexually controversial behaviors from pols. Yes, Americans seem to demand a level of personal sexual morality most of them wouldn't want to be judged by themselves. But as for public officials, well, it comes w/ the territory.

Even so, think abt. the percentage of male pols who've had to resign because they were caught doing something considered morally objectionable (though not even in a political or public-trust sense). Out of all the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of male pols in the US alone, what percentage have had to resign over these past, say, 100 years, for the kinds of reasons the author discusses? Let me speculate, perhaps .00001%?

As for women being categorically better pols than men, well, that's for the voters to decide. Ultimately, what is a politician? Well, Wikipedia discusses it here. Defined:

"A politician, political leader, or political figure (from Classical Greek πόλις, "polis") is a person who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making. This includes people who hold decision-making positions in government, and people who seek those positions, whether by means of election, inheritance, coup d'état, appointment, electoral fraud, conquest, divine right, or other means. Politics is not limited to governance through public office. Political offices may also be held in corporations, and other entities that are governed by self-defined political processes or can be known as freedom fighters."

At least in western countries, when discussing high-level political office, it's usually an elected official. So is the "better" pol the one who can get elected (perhaps repeatedly, thereby indicating they are popular, ie, their performance is approved of by the voters) or the one who just does things a certain way and so is adjudged by someone, regardless of the results they've produced, as just plain being "better". Well even if the author were right in his generalizations, which I question thoroughly, it still wouldn't mean female pols were "better" than male ones. Different, perhaps, but "better"? Please.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2013-01-18 03:04

Very sexist article. I think it is BS. Studies have shown men can focus more on facts and are less influenced by emotion compared to women. Besides people usually gravitate to what they are best at. If women make such good politicians, what is stopping them?

Also men with high sex drives are usually power hungry and natural leaders. It does not necessarily make them bad politicians. Today with technology, everything is exposed instantly. I am sure historically the greatest world leaders had many mistresses, but kept it hidden from the public.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Fri, 2013-01-18 06:07

"...men with high sex drives are usually power hungry and natural leaders."

Really, Kris. Is this an accurate generalization about the entire male sex? I don't think so. Example: Male porn stars have high sex drives (presumably); do they typically seem to be power-hungry or "natural leaders"? Sam Rayburn was doubtlessly a natural leader, as was Dwight Eisenhower. Do either of them strike you as having had "high sex drives"? Perhaps it's hard to say, but there doesn't seem to be any historical accounts pointing to that. Finally, consider Napolean. Power-hungry, yes. Natural leader? Probably. High sex drive? By all accounts, just the opposite. He was married twice, and between marriages, he had a girlfriend. No record however of him being a carouser/playboy/philanderer (though Kennedy made up for him later...). If anything, he was known for overwork and neglecting the romantic and sexual aspects of his private life.

Just pointing out that an ability to lead does not entail either a high sex drive nor necessarily a power-hungry nature. In some men (and women), these traits do show up together. But to suggest they are a "bundle" isn't accurate.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2013-01-18 16:47

"Really, Kris. Is this an accurate generalization about the entire male sex?"

Nope. just men with high sex drives, usually corresponds with high testosterone levels and often corresponds with men in successful positions such as politicians. So yeah, I am bundling testosterone levels, sex drive and high achieving men (positions of power and influence) all together as I believe they all influence each other more often then not.

Everything I have read up on testosterone levels seem to support this. Here is one article. not the best article but it is the first I pulled up and it references several studies. I don't have time to link more.

http://www.livingresearchinstitute.com/men/4dangers/txt.html

IMO, Testosterone is responsible for much more good than evil. I hate to see people imply it is evil or bad like the author of the OP article does...So these male politicians mentioned tend to want multiple sex partners and they take more sexual risks. Who cares. I don't think it makes them bad politicians.

edited a few words for clarity.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Sat, 2013-01-19 02:15