Uncle Sam Out, Aunt Samantha In?
June 27, 2009
by Judy Silver
|The author is a national political commentator and columnist on Fox News, Fox Business, CNN, CNBC and MSNBC. This article is cross-posted from her blog. She expresses her own opinions, not necessarily those of The New Agenda.
Andrea Tantaros
When it comes to politics and extramarital affairs the two, sadly, go hand in hand. There’s Edwards, Vitter, Clinton, Fossella, McGreevy, Sherwood, Hart, Spitzer, Condit, Ensign and now Governor Mark Sanford (I could go on, and on, but my columns have word limits).
When this situation occurs, as it regularly does, the public constantly finds itself debating hairsplitting, obscure theories of moral relativism — but right or left, there is no question that adultery lacks party affiliation. It’s driven by power lust, or just plain lust, not political stripes. But what’s the common thread, besides a complete lapse of judgment and perception of untouchability? Answer: they’re all men. So should we be electing more women instead?
When it comes to females and elected office, it’s typically about power, not sex. There are most certainly exceptions, and women absolutely aren’t immune to cheating, but when is the last time you saw a pant-chasing woman politician admit to soliciting sexual services? Or one caught hopping a jet to South America to visit her Latin lover? The DC Madam’s client list gone public didn’t exactly have the Lindy Boggs women’s lounge in the US House hiding for cover. Yes, Diane Feinstein likely faces jaw-dropping documents at her desk everyday. A Chippendale’s calendar is not one of them.
Men are genetically engineered to think about sex more than women. You don’t need a scientist to expound. Think of all the surveys and studies (or just think about your boyfriend or brother). Drug companies spend billions on drugs like Viagra for a reason. Playboy circulation: 2.5 million. Playgirl: zero (it went all web due to financial troubles). Now add power to that equation and you have aforementioned list of offenders.
Women morph into totally different creatures when granted authority. We get thick-skinned. Bossy. Bullying. Borderline masculine. We turn into Barbara “call me Senator,” Boxer, not Bill “call me daddy” Clinton. Women electeds don’t typically have trouble keeping their zippers up, or their skirts down. We just have trouble. Period. And pun intended.
Which brings me to my next question:
Is more estrogen is the answer to an ethically ailing, morally decaying body politic? Would we be spared the slimy, disappointing marital disclosure with fewer men in control? An all female Congress would bring about snares, but think about what it would eliminate.
It’s true there are a disproportionate number of men in office than women. (For the record, I’m not debating the law of averages). However, there are more women in office than ever and still no salacious soap opera like sex scandals.
In fact, a 2008 Pew Research Center study shows that “when it comes to honesty, intelligence and a handful of other character traits the public values highly in leaders, they rate women superior to men.” When asked who makes a better political leader, 69 percent said men and women equally make good leaders (21 percent said men make better leaders, six percent said women) yet men still hold a majority of positions of power. Baby pressures and ole boys club aside, what gives?
Females arguably work twice as hard to achieve power than men do, even to this day. If we’re smart but also attractive they call us bimbos no matter where we went to college, how many degrees we have, or how many languages we speak. If we’re tough they call us bitches. Emotional equals weak. Passionate? Critics’ code for crazy. And no matter what we look like you can bet we’re getting scrutiny from both genders on our hair and wardrobe. Just look at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Would anyone argue they had it easy?
By the time women have risen to a position of power, we’ve invested far too much to blow it on prostitutes and private jets. We’re more careful with what’s at stake. Our intuition and perspective is driven by leadership, not libido, respect, not raunch.
Male or female, every elected official has the duty to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, but when it comes to bedroom behavior, the guys consistently get it wrong. Would more women get it right? To sum it up: is the sad status quo more evidence that spatial judgment in government is desperately needed? Will high heels eliminate the real heels? Uncle Sam out, Aunt Samantha in? I’m just asking.
No argument from me.
I have been following Andrea’s blog since I first saw her on O’Reilly a year or two back, I recommend it to all
I usually argue women need to be in, no matter whether they are better or not. But, I can’t dismiss the reasoning of this author. so even more power to elect women.
Men and women cheat equally but because men have more power and resources, women suffer disproportionately. I was having this discussion at AfroCity’s and asked if Clinton and Edwards were sexist for cheating and causing disproportionate suffering for their wives. Infidelity and betrayal are not inherently sexist but because BC and Edwards had the power and resources compared to their wives, Hillary and Elizabeth suffered disproportionately which is my longwinded way of saying it’s a class not gender issue.
It’s the media that is sexist and what makes these women’s lives miserable. What’s wrong with her? Why did she stay with him? Why is she standing next to him and supporting him?
dd,
Look what happened to Elizabeth Edwards – a woman dying of cancer – when she told her story. Even the women writers turned on her and became nasty. It’s a lose-lose situation!
BC’s sexual harrassment of Jones, Willey and Lewinsky (because she was his intern) was misogynist.
Edwards scumbag behavior towards Elizabeth – cheating on her, knocking someone up, while she’s bedridden with cancer – is not inherently sexist behavior. It’s scumbag behavior and there’s no reason women wouldn’t behave the same if they had the upperhand of power and resources.
The aftermath, the dragging through the mud by the media is sexist. The disproportionate suffering by Democratic wives is about their husband’s power, resources and a sexist media.
Women are 52% of the population and should be have least 52% of the government positions. Women could not be worse than men, who have managed to corrupt, religion, corporate America and politics. The idea that men are wired to think of sex more than women is just a load of garbage put forth by men. The fact that Playboy has several million subscribers means they reward their readers, nothing more. The fact that Playgirl has few subscribers means they do not reward their readers not that women don’t like sex or have no visual ability to be sexually stimulated. Media has defined sex and female sexuality by pornography which is a men’s view of the topic. Then they have attempted to sell women “their place” in this male fantasy and women aren’t buying. Women have their own view of sex, malecentric media has not managed to figure this out and have failed to harvest profits from women as a result.
By the way the failure of “Sports Illustrated Woman” Does not mean women have zero interest in sports or sport magazines for women, it only means they did not find reading “Sports Illustrated Woman” rewarding. Hard to imagine, I know given the cover photos which featured female athletes looking like they had been assaulted and “made over” by a bunch of boney a$$ed fashion bitches, and the exciting features of nude female athletes back lit so the readers could “guess which sport this woman plays by examining her nude body!”(I’m not making this up). Also the failure of women to buy “Peoples Magazine Sexiest Man of the Year” issues in numbers that equal the Sports Illustrate Swim Suit issue” (both magazines by same media company) Means that the Swim Suit Issue rewards their readers but that women do not find reading the “Sexiest Man” issue rewarding. It does not mean women don’t like sexy men, it does not mean women are not interested in sexy men or magazines about them. It means only that media has not researched what women find rewarding and do not give women what they find rewarding because they are so stupid as to ignore 52% of the population.
I favor nurture over nature too.
Republican Jenny Sanford is showing us how it’s done. She handled the media and her husband.
Excellent article!
Sorry,this is a crock.Putting more women in office would not eliminate or reduce the occurance of sex scandals,anymore than it would guarantee more compassionate governance,fairer outcomes or greater honesty and integrity.I`ve worker closely with women for years.And they have all the vices and character faults that men have plus their own.
” there’s no
reason women wouldn’t behave the same if they had the upperhand of
power and resources.”
You know I’m sick of this argument. It’s total bull shit. “Yeah, but if we DID live in a magic universe where the sky was pink and water flowed uphill, then the sky would be pink and water would flow uphill!”
GMAFB. There is EVERY reason to believe that women would not behave this way — FOR ONE MILLION GODDAMNED YEARS OF HUMAN HISTORY, WE NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER HAVE.
Can we just put this stupid idea to bed once and for all, please? IF women had the same power and resources as men, we’d be jsut as bad. And if my cat had wings, she could fly. Christ. This is such a bullshit strawman argument.
Virginia Denton: “Putting more women in office would not eliminate or reduce the occurance of sex scandals,anymore than it would guarantee more compassionate governance,fairer outcomes or greater honesty and integrity.”
The issue is simply this—women have been denied a seat at the table…women have been denied the opportunity…
With more women in elected office, the raw numbers of female cheaters may go up – although the percentage may NOT go up.
It’s not that women are all angels. But there are differences. Women are more likely to be involved in their children’s lives and futures, and would be less likely to want to hurt them.
It IS possible for women to manipulate and rape men (we’re not talking a brute force type of rape here) – but you don’t hear of it happening. Women could hit their menopausal years and start dating 20 year old boys – how often do you hear about that? You hardly hear of them cheating with someone their own age. But when men start cheating, it’s not with someone their own age, that’s for sure – it’s with someone the same age as one of their own daughters (and to me, that’s kind of gross).
Plus, it’s my guess that when men cheat, they usually want to hang on to their wife and family on the side. However, IMO, a woman who is cheating, has more likely fallen out of love with her husband and is toying with leaving with her kids for a new family – and that choice is a very big one and not taken lightly – hence, another reason, I think, that women don’t cheat in the same numbers that men do – in other words, I think men cheat more for the sex, they want the rest of their lives to continue with this cheating added in, but women don’t really cheat for sex – I think they’re looking for a better partnership/home life for themselves and their children.
So, I don’t believe that with greater opportunity, that women would cheat as much as men. Women are mothers, women are – women. It’s just different. Just MHO.
I mean, what is this with men and sex? Women are physically capable of far larger orgasms than men are, but men are the ones seemingly addicted to it. Yeah, it’s great, but I don’t need it every day, and I certainly don’t need it from a new person every year. But men have some huge need for it, or at least think they do. But for many women, sex is a part of intimacy, and there are other ways for intimacy, like snuggling, or a nice evening together.
I think it’s probably about something other than sex for men, and I suspect it has to do with external validation of self-esteem. I think they could benefit from some testosterone suppresant, it might help them not think about sex every 6 seconds. And maybe they could find ways to work on their self-esteem so it’s more internally driven and they wouldn’t need to find a superficial, external validation with young women half their age.
It’s validation from other men. I’m serious. We’re the poker chips they use to keep score.
Take two guys. Tell one that he gets to bang Claudia Schiffer but he can’t tell any of his buddies he did. Tell the other one that he DOESN’T get to nail her, but he can tell his friends he did. Six months later, ask which man is happier with his choice. I bet Guy #2 will be.
It seems to me that more women in office means disaster,especially if they are feminist.We dont need women in office if they are going to bring their “only women matter” ideology to the table.I`ve seen what thats done in the UK.
Historically oppressed people bring something to the table and change the system. If women change the system while breaking into it, both the makeup of decision-makers and the culture will change.
Um, and precisely what would that be, Virginia? Gosh, the UK is the first place I think of when I think of things like corpse-filled totalitarian star chambers.
I look at the arrogantly misandrist conduct of people like barbara boxer and I become convinced we dont need more women in office.If you could take the misandry,female supremacy,and fem ideology out of the equation,then maybe.We dont need more women in office if they are likely to be inherently anti-male and pro-female.Real women would have the ability to serve both sexes without bias or prejudice,but I see few such women today in politics.After all,women dont have the male equivalent to chivalry.Women instinctively want to serve only women.
Men have always been known for their chivalry. If they are treated well by women, they get treated better in return. If women want to be taken good care of by their men, they need to respect and treat their men with dignity.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...