The French election is going to be decided this Sunday in the two-person runoff, which features something novel for France: a frontrunner woman candidate, Ségolène Royal. Our election isn’t going to be decided for another year and a half (!), but it features the same innovation: a frontrunner woman candidate, Hillary Clinton.
One can’t escape the thought that the woman candidate’s time has finally come. Margaret Thatcher was a trailblazer, but except for a few peripheral anomalies such as Libby Dole (remember Libby Dole?) the viable woman candidate for President or Prime Minister hasn’t really arrived till now.
I wrote a post a while ago in which I pointed out that there have been many women leaders around the world, but most of them are what you might call “legacies.” That is, they ascended to their positions through the death or illness of a spouse or father.
In a way, Hillary fits somewhat into the mold of the legacy candidate, although Bill is very much alive and kicking. Someone said to me the other day that if he could run right now Bill would win, and I had to agree that’s probably correct. But he can’t run, and Hillary can.
The difference between Hillary and most other “legacy” candidates is that Hillary gives the impression that if Bill hadn’t existed, her ambition might indeed have led her to just this role anyway. Whether she would have achieved it or not on her own is another question; I tend to think not, because of her lack of that elusive quality Bill possesses in such magnitude, what’s known as charm.
Like Bill or not (and I’ve never been a big fan), you have to admit that charm is what the man most definitely has. Like Hillary or not (and I’ve never been a big fan), you have to admit it’s exactly what she lacks. Hillary seems to run on sheer drive and a sharp intelligence, not necessarily bad things for a President to have. But her lack of the conventional “womanly” characteristics of charm and general personal likeability have made her road much harder than it otherwise would have been.
I don’t speak French, and I’ve never even seen anything other than a still photo of Ségolène Royal, but from what I’ve read so far she trades very heavily on her charm—and a host of other traditional female characteristics, as well.
And that’s not photoshopped.
This charm, coupled with a feisty pugnaciousness that was much in evidence in yesterday’s debate, seems to be an almost irresistible combination to the French.
Almost, but not quite. She’s still behind in the polls. But she’s a fascinating character who somehow combines the personal aggressiveness of a Hillary with the touchy-feely femininity of a mother/sister/girlfriend/lover, and seems to tap into something deep in the French consciousness.
Ségolène is widely described is being a bit fuzzy on the facts and stronger on rhetoric, and these characteristics were very much in evidence in yesterday’s debate. Opponent Sarkozy had
been billed as the angry one, a sort of loose cannon, but he apparently kept his cool while Royal was heated and even rattled. This strikes me as a very traditionally “feminine” stance of Ségolène’s, another novelty in an arena in which women have often been required to be cooler than the men lest they fall prey to criticism for hyper-emotionality.
Ségolène’s has a fascinating family history. Her father was a martinet who didn’t believe in educating women, and much of her life has been an effort to show him how very wrong he was. She’s the Socialist candidate and her partner (not husband; they are not married) is a leading Socialist as well; the couple has four children. If you look at her experience, a great deal of it was as minister of traditionally “feminine” areas such as education and childhood.
This certainly doesn’t disqualify her from high office, although it’s an unusual background for any candidate for President, man or women. What is worrisome is that Ségolène seems to have no plan except her rhetoric. She also seems to be exactly what she accused Sarkozy of being: thin-skinned and easily thrown. Man or woman, that’s not a good characteristic for a leader to have in this day and age. Say what you will about Hillary, she’s got the cold calculating steel to handle the pressure of the job.
Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely 
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I find it ironically delicious that Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, all Muslim-majority countries, have all had female heads of government, while we in the US still view the idea of having a female president with some consternation and trepidation.
I think the problem is America’s rejection of modernity.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
“we in the US still view the idea of having a female president with some consternation and trepidation.”
Who in the world are you talking about? A Gallup poll in February showed that 88% of Americans are ready to vote for a woman for president, and that number will keep increasing as old people die off.
Whether one wants to vote for Comrade Clinton and complete government’s takeover of medicine in the United States, well, is another story.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
“Who in the world are you talking about?”
The fact that, after over two hundred years, the US still has not had a female head of government, while many countries much younger than ours have had them, including Muslim-majority countries where many people hold highly conservative views about the role and value of women in society, indicates to me that Americans are not entirely ready for this. It would be wonderful to be proven wrong, and I am heartened by the fact that polls indicate large majorities of Americans believe they are ready for a female president, but we have been an independent country for centuries. Why has it taken so long, when other countries have done so, for us if our attitudes towards women are supposedly so much more liberal than those of other countries? Why would pollsters even need to ask the question?
It’s like saying “I’m not afraid of going down in the basement, I just never have any reason to go down there ever, conveniently.”
Anyway, try googling the phrase “is America ready for a female president?” to find out who in the world I’m talking about, if my prose has not convinced you.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Anon Y. Mous seems to ignore those (like me) who still wish the next US president would be the Republican PhD-carrying NRA-supporting black woman tougher than titanium; Condolezza Rice. She’s got charm too.
But she has said no thanks (at least concerning 08) and who can blame her? Despite what a lot of people think It’s not a particularily attractive job.
Even so I predict the first female president will be a Republican - just not in 08.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Paul, I found your candidate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I don’t know what Anon. Y. is talking about either. I have no problem with a woman president whatsoever.
They just have to nominate a republican woman that I like; they’ll get there eventually, they haven’t had the vote all that long afterall.
Seriously though, I think it might end up being a woman veep who then runs and wins the top spot subsequently.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:06 pm
On the positive side, cuter than Hillary (ony Rosie isn’t). On the negative side, French.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
than a still photo of Ségolène Royal, but from what I’ve read so far she trades very heavily on her charm—and a host of other traditional female characteristics, as well.
I wonder how she is going to be able to handle the Islamic Jihad with that picture hanging off the poster walls of her counter-parts.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 pm
gluckman.com** It’s like saying “I’m not afraid of going down in the basement, I just never have any reason to go down there ever, conveniently.”**
Actually, it really isn’t anything like that. This analogy assumes I have a basement. I do not. When a female is on the ticket for president, and America can actually vote for her, then we’ll have that basement in place… and then maybe we could measure our fear, discomfort, or suppositions on her qualifications.
Americans could be entirely ready to have a female as head of state, and still not elect a female for myriad reasons; however, looming large among those reasons to date, is the lack of a female candidate.
More important, as Neo mentioned, most female heads of state came by those positions as a tragic legacy or appointment.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:45 pm
gluckman.comClearly, I’m too much a neophyte to make these “tags” work. My apologies! Here it is in plain text.
** It’s like saying “I’m not afraid of going down in the basement, I just never have any reason to go down there ever, conveniently.”**
Actually, it really isn’t anything like that. This analogy assumes I have a basement. I do not. When a female is on the ticket for president, and America can actually vote for her, then we’ll have that basement in place… and then maybe we could measure our fear, discomfort, or suppositions on her qualifications.
Americans could be entirely ready to have a female as head of state, and still not elect a female for myriad reasons; however, looming large among those reasons to date, is the lack of a female candidate.
More important, as Neo mentioned, most female heads of state came by those positions as a tragic legacy or appointment.
“True, most female leaders in Asia assume power by way of tragedy and bloodshed, after fathers or husbands are assassinated. That’s been the case with President Kumaratunga, Bandaranaike, Bhutto, Corazon Aquino in the Philippines, and many others.”
from http://www.gluckman.com/SistersPower.html
A fair comparison would be a female (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Presidents) (popularly elected), and not a female head of government (such as a prime minister). Regardless, there are not many of either in the last 100 years. Don’t mistake my intentions here, not only would I contribute and help a female candidate’s campaign for the top office – there are several popularly elected female heads of state and heads of government whom I admire. Maggie Thatcher and Corazon Aquino of the Philippines are my favorites from both the right and left.
My intentions are straightforward; the manner in which you use your analogy to reach a conclusion of fear on America’s part is faulty and unconvincing. Additionally, when I Googled “Is America ready for a woman president,” it seems many of the links suggest that indeed, America is ready. Gallup suggests about 82% in 1987, CBS suggests about 92%. Several polls suggest that, in fact, men are more likely than women to vote for a female president imagine that!
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Anon–
Many states of the Union have had and do have female governors, which is conclusive proof that Americans have no problem with women in executive positions. Do names like Napolitano, Granholm, Sibelius, or Blanco sound familiar to you?
Some people simply *want* to believe the worst about America. I remain dubious that the proof just provided, however conclusive, will be believed by the Gloom and Doom “everything sucks” left that sees racism, sexism, homophobia, and imperialism around every corner.
May 4th, 2007 at 3:51 am
I can’t imagine what impression madame Clinton makes on women, but I’ll bet that most men see a woman comletely lacking traditional feminine characters with fear and aversion. The first word coming to mind is “bitch”; the second - “witch”. In days of witch-hunting she would have been the leading candidate to the burning at stake.
May 4th, 2007 at 4:10 am
Interpreting statistics of male/female leaders one should remember that in the extreme right decile of IQ bell curve (>140) there are roughly ten times more men than women. (This curve is more flat for men, due to bigger stability of development processes in XY genotype compared to XX.) Men’s half of humankind in general have much more geniuses, just as much more fools and lunatics.
May 4th, 2007 at 4:59 am
[…] See original here: neo-neocon […]
May 4th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Correction: bigger instability of XY compared to XX genotype. The same trend exists virtually in all phenotype characters, not only IQ. (By the way, Segolen hardly belongs to the last decile or even to the last quintile.)
May 4th, 2007 at 8:48 am
The part of the debate in which Sego lost her cool or showed passion and grit (depending on your politics) was on the subject of special needs education.
I am so relieved to hear that in France there’s nothing more important to worry about.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:44 am
“Another poll by TNS Sofres for the Le Figaro daily showed Mr Sarkozy nine percentage points ahead of Ms Royal, with 54.5% and 45.5% respectively, up 2.5 points on a previous poll by the same pollster.”
This looks as a sure victory for Sarko, since only 10% of voters are still undecided.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:51 am
“Conclusive proof that Americans have no problem with women in executive positions.”
Again: if Americans have absolutely no problem with women in executive positions, why have we had no female presidents? Why have other countries much younger and (ostensibly) much more socially conservative than us had female executives?
To argue that it is because no qualified women have chosen to run for president is classic post hoc reasoning. I suppose this is also why there have been no black, gay, atheist, Asian, or Jewish presidents. For some strange reason, none of these demographic groups, in the centuries since our country’s founding, have produced qualified candidates! How bizarre! Thank goodness Americans have no biases left and have constructed no institutional barriers for members of these groups to become president, because none of you can wait to vote for a qualified female candidate for president, just as soon as she comes along.
Again: if Americans were ready for a female president, we wouldn’t have to ask the question, we’d simply have had a female president. Adult white Christian men represent a minority in this country, yet every single American president has been an adult white Christian man. But we’re totally cool with a woman president. Also, we have no problem with black people, we just moved out of the neighborhood immediately after a black family moved in for totally unrelated reasons. Also, we’re totally not afraid of the dark, we just don’t feel like going in the basement. Blah blah blah. You as individuals might think you’re bias free, and theoretically at least, some of you might be right. That still doesn’t explain aggregate voting patterns in the US.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:05 am
[…] neo-neocon offers reflections on the election from this side of the Pond, comparing and contrasting Mme. Royal with Hillary Clinton. […]
May 4th, 2007 at 10:17 am
The trouble with women in upperlevel politics is they are women first. They trade on their femininity, a la Segolene, or ride on coattails, a la Hillary, Bhutto, Ghandi. Thatcher is the only exception that comes to my mind, with years (decades) as a MP preceding her ascent. And they have all been disappointing, even disastrous leaders once so anointed, Thatcher again excepted. Simply saying, “They’re equal” doesn’t make them so.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:39 am
As a fiercely Right Wing American Conservative, there is no circumstance what-so-ever that would ever cause me to vote for a woman for President of the US.
Absolutely.None.
I believe women have far too much [uncontrolable] emotional baggage to ever be given such a position of power. Madame Royal just showed the entire world exactly what I’m referring to. Uncontrollable emotional rage. Why would any nation want this kind of liability in their highest office, especially in these virulently turbulent times?
Fortunately, America hasn’t [yet] been “Mamby-Pamby Nanny-Stated” down to the level that france has. Or all of EU for that matter.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Liberals easily confuse their bad politics with their bad understanding of the viability of a female presidential candidate. Why woldn’t they? Conservatives would without hesitation vote for a Thatcher, given the opportunity. Liberals wouldn’t. Ditto for dark green candidates, and dark green conservative candidates. We know where all the ‘isms reside.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Anon–
There has never been a woman at the head of the United Nations. That does not imply that the United Nations is biased against women.
Montana, which is larger than France, has had a female governor. Texas, larger than Germany, which the condescending left also considers backward, also has had a female governor. Combine this with the polling data indicating 88% of Americans would vote for a woman (retro must be in the remaining 12%), and you have *conclusive evidence* that Americans in general are not biased against women when it comes to leadership roles.
Why hasn’t there been a woman president in the United States? Because few apply for the job. Just because, to take an example, few women choose to be computer scientists or engineers doesn’t imply that computer scientists and engineers are sexist. That is an illogical conclusion, since women in general have different career preferences. One never asks if psychologists or nurses are prejudiced against men on the basis that they outnumber men in these fields. Under your theory, women in these fields must be sexist against men, since we don’t have equality of outcome.
But men, if they are not black, gay, or Muslim, are never defined as victims, and women a priori are given the a priori victim status, which is why leftists by fiat disallow someone like me from turning the tables like this.
May 4th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Bowden’s quite correct
May 4th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
“But men, if they are not black, gay, or Muslim, are never defined as victims, and women a priori are given the a priori victim status, which is why leftists by fiat disallow someone like me from turning the tables like this.”
Oh poor, disadvantaged white straight Christian American men! Can we never catch a break?
Also, I had no idea that THE EVIL LEFT had so much power as to, by fiat, disallow you from turning the tables like…you just tried to turn the tables?
But, I’m sorry, the idea that women are underrepresented in fields like, say, the presidency because they’re just not interested in manly pursuits like that is as absurd as declaring that blacks are over-represented on death row because they are born with a criminal nature. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with institutional biases that discourage women from a very young age to not even consider pursuing such careers? In all of the many elections we have had in the centuries since our country was founded, women simply weren’t interested in pursuing the presidency?
Or, to look at it another way: if women have career preferences determined by brain structure, which leads them not to pursue the presidency, are you suggesting that Turkish, Bengali, Indonesian, and Pakistani women have different brain structures from American women, leading them to pursue high political office in different numbers than American women?
May 4th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
“The trouble with women in upperlevel politics is they are women first.”
Unlike, say, President Bush who embodies the male ideal?
G. Gordon Liddy with a hard-on for the President’s Manly Manliness on May 7, 2003:
“And here comes George Bush. You know, he’s in his flight suit, he’s striding across the deck, and he’s wearing his parachute harness, you know — and I’ve worn those because I parachute — and it makes the best of his manly characteristic. You go run those — run that stuff again of him walking across there with the parachute. He has just won every woman’s vote in the United States of America. You know, all those women who say size doesn’t count — they’re all liars. Check that out. I hope the Democrats keep ratting on him and all of this stuff so that they keep showing that tape.”
May 4th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
“Who in the world are you talking about?”
Well…
“As a fiercely Right Wing American Conservative, there is no circumstance what-so-ever that would ever cause me to vote for a woman for President of the US. Absolutely.None.”
This has been another installment in our series, “Easy answers to easy questions.”
May 4th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Wow. I mean, wow! Anon is really promoting interesting views. Anyway, once you decide to get off the horse and talk to us about women in America - please list one or two women who actually expressed interest in becoming US president, and who you would recommend for me to vote for and why. If you cannot do so convincingly - then you case clearly holds no water.
Anyway, Romney is not a christian. I’ve heard that all American presidents, and even major party candidates were christians. If he is not elected - would it prove that America has no tolerance for non-christians? Anon, do you plan to vote for Romney? If not, does it prove that you dislike non-christians?
May 4th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
“Anyway, Romney is not a christian.”
Romney might disagree with you on that one. But, I suspect that America is far, far too fearful of the new and unknown to let a Mormon near the presidency, so I highly doubt this is going to be an issue.
But, let’s consider: if you’re right, and no woman has been elected president because very, very few women have any interest in doing something like being president, what does this mean about, say, black people? Have no blacks been president because they just don’t want to be president, because (like women are different from men) the brains of black people are different from the brains of white people, leading them to prefer different careers?
We’d probably agree that this is absurd, no? If you disagree, there’s probably not much point in continuing, because how do you argue with someone who’s so blind to their own biases as to be an unreconstructed racist? But if it’s obviously wrong to say this about blacks, or Jews, or Asians, or whomever, why is it ok to say this about women?
It’s also important to remember that women did not win the right to vote for 144 years after the US declared its independence; for a country that institutionalized the exclusion of women from national politics for one hundred forty-four years, should it come as such a surprise that there would be institutional barriers even after legal barriers have fallen? And if America has so thoroughly outgrown its biases, why is it - I ask yet again - that four Muslim-majority countries managed to find qualified, popular female candidates to run for and win the presidency or prime ministership? Are the brains of Muslim women - to follow your line of thought - different from the brains of non-Muslim women?
May 4th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Anon–
That blacks are roughly 10% of the population in the United States — a minority — explains why we see less black candidates for president. The black candidates we have seen– Sharpton and Jackson — are hardcore militants that have no appeal beyond their own demographic. Barack Hussein Obama has a realistic shot, as current polls show him defeating most of the Republican field.
No appeals to brain structure are necessary here.
With women, though, I think we do need an appeal to biology. I would surmise women are less likely to find the confrontational, stressful, and combative nature of a high-stakes political contest appealing. If you look in other countries, even in Enlightened Europe, women are not elected to the highest offices routinely.
This has generally been the case in history throughout every major culture in every time period. We do see Catherine the Greats, Cleopatras, Queen Elizabeths, Indira Gandhis, and Joan of Arcs. But the probability of seeing a woman in a leadership position is lower than men. Leftists believe this shows a history of oppression, and if we cleanse ourselves of sin (which is what you mean by bias), then we would see equality of outcome.
A historical and scientific view would show that women have always had opportunities to lead, and have led. Millions of years of evolution has tilted the genetic lottery in toward men when it comes to taking charge of things.
This is a heresy among the left. They don’t believe anything is natural. Everything is either the result of environmental conditioning, or is a freely chosen social construction. But don’t you *dare* say this about homosexuality, which the left, in contradiction to natural selection, preaches is genetic.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
“A historical and scientific view would show that women have always had opportunities to lead”
It would be very entertaining to watch you try to defend that one with actual evidence.
“But don’t you *dare* say this about homosexuality, which the left, in contradiction to natural selection, preaches is genetic.”
So wait, women love big tough manly men to dominate them because of genetics, but gay men love big tough manly men to dominate them because of not genetics? You want to accuse THE DREADED LEFT of hypocrisy by…being a hypocrite? Good show, sir.
But still - if roughly ten percent of the population is black, wouldn’t you expect, just by change, ten percent of presidents to be black?
It’s highly entertaining to watch you contort yourself to find ever more elaborate explanations for why every single US president has been a white Christian man. No blacks? Too few in the country. Women? Um, too few doesn’t work…it’s their brains! Etc, etc, etc.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
To argue that it is because no qualified women have chosen to run for president is classic post hoc reasoning. I suppose this is also why there have been no black, gay, atheist, Asian, or Jewish presidents.
By contrast, take the case of India. Since independence, India seems to have had two Muslim presidents (Ahmed and Kalam) and a Sikh president (Zail Singh). It has also had secularist-atheist Prime Ministers (Nehru), a prime minister who was married to a Parsi and hence once prevented from entering Hindu temples (Indira Gandhi) and a Sikh prime minister (the current prime minister, Manmohan Singh). All this in a Hindu-majority country.
By contrast, can you imagine a Hindu, a Muslim or a Sikh or an atheist being elected US president? Declaring one’s atheism is considered the kiss of death for politicians here in the US — the country were we, ironically enough, claim the legacy of the Enlightenment!
-Deshawn Q,
Atheist
May 4th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
That blacks are roughly 10% of the population in the United States — a minority — explains why we see less black candidates for president.
But Californians also are a minority of the population in the US; yet we see Californian presidents (like Reagan). But we don’t see black presidents (so far).
So the “minority” argument is a red herring. The real reason is racism (overt or covert).
If Martin Luther King Jr had lived and run for president, do you think he would have been elected?
May 5th, 2007 at 2:04 am
“we just moved out of the neighborhood immediately after a black family moved in for totally unrelated reasons.”
Reasons are simple: as black family moves in, prices of real estate in the neihborhood immediately plummet. And for good reason, too: 90% of violent crimes in US are commited by blacks. Nobody want to loose his money.
May 5th, 2007 at 7:16 am
“the brains of black people are different from the brains of white people, leading them to prefer different careers?”
Career preferences have nothing to do with brains, they are cultural tradition, and often family tradition. And yes, black culture has another set of values and ordering of priorities than white culture, and one needs not to be racist to acknowledge so obvious fact.
“But if it’s obviously wrong to say this about blacks, or Jews, or Asians, or whomever, why is it ok to say this about women?”
Do not mix apples and oranges. Genetically and phenetically any racial differences are orders of magnitude lesser than sexual differences. And yes, female brains are very different from the male ones, as any decent neurophysiologist can assert you. This does not automatically disqualify women from important government posts, presidency included, but it is a major factor in career choice: gender is not a cultural construct only, it has a huge biological background. And do not forget, POTUS is a Commander-in-Chief, having the sole responsibility to order nuclear strike, if needed; not very comfortable position for any woman, whom I can imagine. There were rumors that Golda Meir ordered Israeli Air Forces to be ready for nuclear strike at the most gloomy days of the last major war with Arab aggressors, when the very survival of the nation was at stake; if true, this was extremely hard decision, and no decent human being should place such a burden on a woman. They are created to protect and comfort, not to destroy; let men be warriors, and let us keep women and children out of it. So, in times of war American public had chosen to elect the most belligerent candidates for presidency: Ike, Nixon, Kennedy. And rightly so. No heads of state in Sri-Lanka, Bangla-Desh or like bear such responsibility, their posts are largely ceremonial. The abbreviation of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) of Benazir Bhutto was jokingly deciphered as “Permanently Pregnant Premier-minister”: she gave birth to 3 children while incumbent. Young and glamorous, she successfully portrayed herself as a refreshing contrast to the overwhelmingly male-dominated political establishment in the Muslim world. But after her second fall from power, her name came to be seen by some as synonymous with corruption and bad governance.
See:
http://morquendi.blogspot.com/2005/04/madness-of-bandaranaike-iii.html
Everyone knows PTSD. Post-Trauma Stress Disorder. And if what happened to Chandrika wasn’t trauma I don’t know what is. She had a suicide bomber blow themselves us mere meters from her. About a dozen of her most loyal supporters, the typs who hang on the front rails and her every word, were killed that night. She lost an eye. She is in every sense a victim of the war. And as a victim she required intense counselling. She was the President after all. But she did not, because she had to come back into the limelight with the bandage on her eye because she needed to win office again.
That she did, but sacrificed her sanity in the process.
Thus set in the Madness of Bandaranike III.
See also:
“Indonesia’s President Megawati Sukarnoputri has become the target of a fatwa forbidding votes for a female presidential candidate. (A fatwa is a religious decision, not necessarily a death sentence, as it is often understood by Western non-Muslims who know only the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.) From News24.com, with thanks to Ali Dashti:
“It was noted that the prohibition on women to assume positions of leadership was no longer a question still in dispute but already something that has been generally accepted among Muslim clerics,” one of them, Anwar Iskandar, told Antara news agency.
May 5th, 2007 at 7:44 am
“Declaring one’s atheism is considered the kiss of death for politicians here in the US — the country were we, ironically enough, claim the legacy of the Enlightenment!”
Legacy of Enlightenment is freedom of worship, not atheism; and US is 80% Christian country. What for this clear majority should elect as its representative an atheist? God know, what weird idea can came into his/her godless head! At ballot box most voters tend to be more socially conservative than in their private lives, and for good reason: it is one thing to allow onself some libertinian excesses, and quite another thing be ruled by a libertine. Even gamblers, drunkards and drug abusers do not want their President to be gambler, drunkard or narcoman. You need not be devoted church-goer to prefer church-going President. For me this is perfectly normal.
May 5th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Interesting info, Sergey.
May 5th, 2007 at 10:30 am
“Reasons are simple: as black family moves in, prices of real estate in the neihborhood immediately plummet. And for good reason, too: 90% of violent crimes in US are commited by blacks. Nobody want to loose his money.”
I’m pretty sure that sergey is either insane or an idiot. Regardless, this makes me fairly comfortable in ignoring pretty much everything else he says.
May 5th, 2007 at 11:36 am
ojp.usdoj.govSo, Anon Y. Mous at May 5th, 2007 at 10:30 am,
ignore all you wish, but facts is facts. I couldn’t find verification of sergey’s 90% statistic, but the USDOJ says that:
“In 2004, (homicide) offending rates for blacks were 7 times higher than the rates for whites”
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
I guess they’re “insane or an idiot” too.
May 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
ojp.usdoj.gov”At year end 2005 there were 3,145 black male sentenced prison inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,244 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 471 white male inmates per 100,000 white males.”
Source:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
That is, Hispanic 2,5 times more often became jailed than non-Hispanic whites, and blacks 2,7 times more often than Hispanic. That is quite enough for real estate traders to derive price conclusions.
May 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I checked to see how many of the thousands of articles it has published since 1996 include the words “race crime rate.”
There was only one article with a strong match, but this 1999 essay was surprisingly blunt: “Janet Reno’s Justice Department flatly states that ‘blacks are 8 times more likely than whites to commit homicide.’”
“Wait a minute. This article seems strangely familiar,” I thought. “Oh, of course, it’s by … me.”
And that may explain why I haven’t been invited back to write for Slate since!
A Russian immigrant called me up once to ask why almost no other American journalist ever mentioned the racial patterns he had seen with his own eyes everyday since he’d come to America. When I explained that the average writer was just lying, he replied:
Vladimir (audibly relieved): “You mean, he’s hypocrite?”
Me: “Yeah, exactly. It would hurt his career to write for the public what he thinks in his private life.”
Vladimir: “Thank God!”
Me: “Huh?”
Vladimir: “Hypocrite I understand. I grow up in Soviet Union. Lying to save your job, that’s life. No, I was very worried smart people in America weren’t hypocrites. You know, this country is supposed to be land of free, home of brave. I was scared that smart Americans weren’t hypocrites, but instead were hallucinating. I am very happy to hear they’re just hypocrites. Hypocrisy much less scary than mass hallucination.”
May 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
vdare.comThis was from
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/050213_mapping.htm
Read the whole thing - this is eye opener, with a very good humor.
May 5th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Anon Y. Mous Says:
May 5th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Sergey wrote: “Reasons are simple: as black family moves in, prices of real estate in the neihborhood immediately plummet. And for good reason, too: 90% of violent crimes in US are commited by blacks. Nobody want to loose his money.”
I’m pretty sure that sergey is either insane or an idiot. Regardless, this makes me fairly comfortable in ignoring pretty much everything else he says.
Capn Billy Says:
May 5th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Anon Y. Mous at May 5th, 2007 at 10:30 am,
ignore all you wish, but facts is facts. I couldn’t find verification of sergey’s 90% statistic, but the USDOJ says that:
“In 2004, (homicide) offending rates for blacks were 7 times higher than the rates for whites”
I guess they’re “insane or an idiot” too.
These homicides happen in the inner-city ghettos — they are not committed by black middle class people. So Sergey’s comment above is still insane. Suppose you’re living in the suburbs and a black middle class family moves in into your street. Maybe the black family that moved in are schoolteachers or dentists or nurses. In such a situation it is insane to move out on the grounds that “90% of violent crimes in US are commited by blacks”. How likely is it that your black neighbor who is a dentist will murder you? These sentiments have no other cause than good old-fashioned racism.
May 5th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Actually, many of us cloddish reactionaries are quite used to women authoritiy figures: Elizabeth !, Catehrine the Great, Victoria. We’re even open to bit of gender bending. Maria Theresa, you will recall, during one of the innumberable wars with Frederick the Great, appeared before the nobilty of Hungary to summon them to the defense of her realm and her crown. They shouted: “We will die for our King, Maria Theresa!”
If there’s a hangup here, it’s not from us.
May 5th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
My God! We havent had a woman President yet while other countries already have! What a serious drawback, clearly illustrating how backwards and unenlightened we all are! Im beside myself with embarrassment. What ever could the Europeans be thinking of us! We better all vote for Hillary now! Lets not wait till the official election date.
May 6th, 2007 at 12:26 am
“Actually, many of us cloddish reactionaries are quite used to women authoritiy figures: Elizabeth !, Catehrine the Great, Victoria.”
That you can point out a handful of examples of women rulers is not a set of data points proving that women face no barriers to leadership. That the best you can do is list a handful of examples of women rulers is, by itself, the point. The number of leaders and rulers throughout history who have been women is miniscule. Your rough handful of famous women leaders is about all there is - and they are all primarily famous because they were women rulers. That is, they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
For most of American history, women were denied the vote and the right to participate in national electoral politics (and most local electoral politics). So we can agree that from 1776 to 1920, 144 years, or 62% of American history, women were not president because they were denied the ability to pursue the presidency by the power of the state. But what about the other 38%? Did all sexism and all barriers instantly and immediately disappear?
It is remarkable to me that, in this day and age, there are still people who believe that the underrepresentation of demographic groups in various social roles is not due at least in part to barriers to their participation, but rather some innate quality of that particular demographic group. For centuries Jews were forced into particular careers because the societies around them had interests in erecting and maintaining barriers to their participation in other careers in order to dominate the socially and exploit them economically. Stereotypes about greedy Jews, I hope fervently we can all agree, are nasty and utterly baseless, yet many once believed they stemmed not from social constructs designed to control and exploit Jews, but from the fundamental “character” of Jews.
I understand that there are some people commenting in this thread who are comfortable in their bigotry. I suspect that most people aren’t, but simply haven’t bothered to examine how they could simultaneously believe (as I hope you all do) that stereotypes about the innate nature of Jews are absurd, and believe (as some of you have demonstrated you do) that stereotypes about the innate nature of women are true and hold explanatory power.
The comfort I take is this: you are, quite decidedly, on the wrong side of history on this one. It will undoubtedly take a while, but just as people once believed that blacks were innately bestial, or that Jews were innately greedy, I predict that society as a whole will eventually also stop believing that women are innately shrinking violets who would rather do comforting things, like cook dinner and mind the children, rather than complicated and tough things like wield the reigns of power in their society.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:09 am
Advocates of equality that are attacking Christianity do not understand that they are undermining the very foundation of this equality, that is equality under God which translated into eqiality under law. There is no (and could not be) any empirical support for this principle, because individuals, races, sexes and races are empirically very different, so the only reasonable foundation of it is moral and religious dogmat having nothing to do with any empirical fact. This dogmat do not deny reality of differencies, it simply asserts their moral insignificance. It also do not require equality of outcome, so any claims about “underrepresentation” are absurd. If women get equal representation in government service they would be severly underrepresentated in child care and homemaking, where men are naturally handicapped to replace them. This would (and already is) much more perilous for civilization survival.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:24 am
As long as barriers to leadership are mentioned, I believe that the more barriers of every imagionable kind are built, the better. This a some assuranse that only the most noble individuals can overcome these barriers. The real danger is mediocracy at power, and, as we have seen, the real geniuses (of both sexes) always can overcome them.
May 6th, 2007 at 8:25 am
The reason why I would not vote for a female president is because of the ‘feminist’ movement. For most of my life I considered myself a feminist but between intellectually vacuous Rosy O’Donnell and politically vicious Madam Pelosi feminists didn’t break the glass ceiling, they broke Classical Liberalism.
If anything all that feminism has done for me is to make me disgusted I was born female.
May 6th, 2007 at 10:17 am
The comfort I take is this: you are, quite decidedly, on the wrong side of history on this one.
I think not. We are entering times of blood and iron. You peddlers of whinings and grievances are dispensible luxury items.
May 6th, 2007 at 10:53 am
“Advocates of equality that are attacking Christianity do not understand that they are undermining the very foundation of this equality, that is equality under God which translated into eqiality under law.”
Well, that settles it, doesn’t it? It’s hard to argue with God if He Himself personally made women inferior to men. I also had no idea that I was attacking Christianity. It’s an interesting rhetorical trick - I think from here on out, I’ll use that too. Think we shouldn’t reform the AMT? Attacking Christianity! Disagree over the Iraq war? Attacking Christianity! Don’t like my haircut? Attacking Christianity! Genius. Who wants to be that guy who attacks Christianity? It’s a real show-stopper, thanks.
“I think not. We are entering times of blood and iron. You peddlers of whinings and grievances are dispensible luxury items.”
I assume this is similar to the language you use to pump yourself up before a Dungeons and Dragons tournament, or before you don your plastic armor for the Renaissance Faire, or before you log in for a few hours of World of Warcraft, so I will try very hard not to rain on your parade.
May 6th, 2007 at 11:43 am
I never said and never belived that women are inferior to men, or that Chistianity asserts this. Just the opposite, only Cristianity asserted women rights in ancient Greece and Middle East, that were then very misogynic. I also completely disagree with feminist stance that in traditional women role as home-maker there is something denigrating. I studied with my wife in the same group in Moscow University and later - in post-graduate studies, we have wrote together several scientific publications. And we brought up five children. But any attempt to derive moral principles from empirical data or identify equality with “sameness”, require equal representation of sexes, races or ethnicities in every domain of human endevour is insult to common sense and attack on Christianity, knowingly or otherwise.
May 6th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
“But any attempt to derive moral principles from empirical data or identify equality with “sameness”, require equal representation of sexes, races or ethnicities in every domain of human endevour is insult to common sense and attack on Christianity, knowingly or otherwise.”
My mistake. I return to my original stance of ignoring you, because you’re a nutjob.
May 6th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
The nutjob here is the one who uses the paragraph in quotes as justification for referring to the originator as a “nutjob.”
May 6th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Initially it seemed like an interesting conversation to join, apart from the peculiar use of “post hoc” that ultimately degenerates into ad hominem attacks. Well, heck, it’s still interesting.
meh.
May 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Anony: The comfort I take is this: you are, quite decidedly, on the wrong side of history on this one.
Always comical to see lefties turn to History for comfort, isn’t it? Like fundamentalists who fervently believe God is on their side.
What makes this pomposity even sillier is that, in his earnest lefty rectitude, he misunderstands the point — it’s not “innate” differences (in the genetic sense) that are at issue here, but cultural differences. And cultures can be changed, even on an individual level — though of course much of the current political left provides an interesting if sad counterexample.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
“it’s not “innate” differences (in the genetic sense) that are at issue here, but cultural differences.”
I’m confused - this was the point I was trying to make from the beginning, yet you write as if you disagree with me. You agree with everything I have written? Good, I congratulate you.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Hey Neo, now that Sarko has won, does this mean we shouldn’t make fun of the French anymore? I’m really really concerned about that.
May 6th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
He won election, but not with a large margin. To win France is another story, and I am not sure he will succeed.
May 6th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
“I return to my original stance of ignoring you”
Well, you *are* ignorant, so ignoring arguments you don’t like is right up your alley.