Jenny Sanford for South Carolina Governor–Women Pols Have Fewer Sex Scandals
July 8, 2009
by Chris Jahnke
|Cross posted from U.S. News & World Report with permission of the author. Opinions expressed herein are those of Chris Jahnke and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.

Jenny Sanford
If you want leaders for whom the people not power comes first, women are the best bet
Want fewer embarrassing, distracting sex scandals? Elect more women.
Ann Richards said it best when she admonished the leadership of the Democratic Party with her line, “If you give us a chance, we can perform. After all, Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels.” Richards was referring to the delay between Rep. Barbara Jordan being in 1976 the first woman to deliver the keynote address at a party convention and her own appearance 12 years later. Today, lots of people are asking, wouldn’t we all be better off if more women were given a chance to perform? There is no need to put women on a pedestal, but it’s worth examining this assertion.
This question is made more relevant with the recent (and continuing) actions of Gov. Mark Sanford. His affair and lies are the latest example of failed leadership at the highest levels of government coming at a time when the American people are hurting. In her book Why Women Should Rule the World, Dee Dee Myers says, “I’m confident predicting there would be fewer sex scandals if women were in power … I don’t think Hillary Clinton is going to be hitting on the intern.” There is no need to put women on a pedestal, but it’s worth examining this assertion.
We need leaders for whom the people—not power—come first. And power over principle is often what affairs like Sanford’s and former Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s are all about. The “Luv Guvs” as some tabloids have called them put their own needs, wants, and desires before those of their constituents. Sanford’s never ending confession shows he just doesn’t get it. He says it was a matter of “love” that “started innocently” but then led to “a spark thing.” How much leadership could possibly be occurring when seemingly every day he provides more details about his juvenile, meandering swoons?
Female officeholders seem to be less involved in sex scandals than their male counterparts. While partially explained by the numbers, there are fewer women in elected office to get involved in sex scandals. It’s also true that women tend to be proficient multitaskers and are more often the caregivers of the house. They are too busy being leaders, mothers, wives, and workers to worry about how they can “blow off some steam,” as Sanford put it. In fact, research conducted at UCLA shows that women react very differently from men to stress. Scientists have found that women under stress experience a cascade of brain chemicals that cause them to create and maintain friendships with other women. Men do not experience this calming effect.
In her seminal work, In a Different Voice, feminist author Carol Gilligan said women’s moral reasoning differs from that of males. She says women focus more on relationships and looking out for the most vulnerable. She calls it an “ethic of care” that tends to consider more long-term consequences. With all the challenges facing our nation today, this sounds like an ethic we desperately need. And ironically it sounds like the very ethic we see in Jenny Sanford.
Women have had other gubernatorial opportunities in states where scandal and corruption have reigned. Jodi Rell took over in Connecticut when the incumbent was indicted. And she was overwhelmingly re-elected running on a platform of ethics and education. Sarah Palin first came to statewide attention in Alaska by challenging her own party’s legislators on corruption charges in the oil and gas industry. Why not consider Ms. Sanford as a replacement for her husband? She seems to have the values, mettle, and smarts for the job. Perhaps recent events will encourage the voters of South Carolina to elect a chief executive of the female persuasion. The state has the dubious distinction of being rock bottom in the number of women serving in the state legislature and there has never been a woman governor. One wonders, would a woman governor have turned down federal dollars for schools?
The idea of more women in leadership is gaining greater currency. The consensus before President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court was that the best man for the job would be a woman. The need for woman’s voices is echoed by Swanee Hunt, cofounder of Women Moving Millions, a global women’s philanthropic fund. Asked if women would be able to save today’s economy, Hunt replied, “You mean, what if it had been Lehman Sisters?… I do believe that if 50 percent of the financial community had been female, the judgment would have been more solid.”
Governor Sanford’s exploits provide at least one strong argument for electing more women, but there are many more reasons to include 52 percent of the population in leading our nation. Women’s experience, expectations, and lives are just … different. Currently, seven women serve as governor (and it will be six after Palin leaves office later this month), down from a record high of nine in 2007. Several very qualified women are eyeing gubernatorial seats in the 2010 election cycle in states like New Mexico and Florida. Let’s give them the chance to perform.

“Want fewer embarrassing, distracting sex scandals? Elect more women.” – now ain’t that the plain truth??
Jenny Sanford, first impression – a picture is worth a thousand words they say – that woman is all work, focused, confident, competent, we’re looking at 11-12 hour days with her serving the people of her state so vote her in.
Great piece Chris.
Ya know the first thing I thought when Spitzer’s escapades came to light was that Silda should step further into public life. She is an incredible speaker and such an accomplished woman like Jenny.
Thanks for bringing this notion to the public awareness.
Picking up on Swanee Hunt’s assertion that women make more solid financial decisions than men, here are links to articles that illustrate that women excel at financial services:
1. Women take fewer risks than men (and some say we might’ve avoided the credit crisis if we had more women in finance):-
http://yglesias.thinkprogress......inance.php
2. Female financial sector execs making a difference post-credit crisis:-
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/.....nance.html
3. Women’s financial portfolios outperform men’s:-
http://www.bizjournals.com/lou.....rial5.html
When will the world wake up to the fact that we are wasting 50% of our human capital by keeping representation of women in all sectors to minimal levels?
-c
Along somewhat similar lines, I wrote a piece last night that suggests that the GOP female ranks are plenty deep enough even for a female-female 2012 White House ticket:
http://bit.ly/17tltk
This is a really interesting article, and certainly makes me think about why those statistics are true, and whether they are the result of nature or nurture. So is the point that male politicians have higher sex drives, because of higher levels of testosterone, and because of our sexist culture, and boys will be boys attitude, they feel more free acting on those sex drives, even when in office thus leading to sex-scandals, whereas women because of their gender roles are trained to suppress their sex-drives for the good of others?
It sounds to me like the reasoning put forward as to why women would make better leaders is directly correlated to them being products of a sexist enculturation.
The goal of supporting women to be in office is really important, but to start pitting women against men and saying women would be better leaders because they care more about constituents and less about power seems to me a little sexist, and I’m not quite sure in what direction, maybe in both.
I”m just not sure I am personally comfortable with the notion that I should support women because they are better than men. I think both men and women as individuals and as stereotypes have value in participating in government, and I think they balance each other out.
“All we are saying is give peace a chance”
If you are so in favor of women being in positions of political and business power, then why did you give Sarah Palin such a hard time during the last election? And Ann Richards many years earlier?
You liberals attacked Palin on all fronts, without giving her *any* credit for any of the massive accomplishments she has achieved in her lifetime, more than most women and more than most men, just because she is a conservative.
Why don’t you just be honest and state that you don’t *really* want women in leadership, just LIBERAL women?
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...