12 Q & A on the 1st Woman President

(Cross-posted at DailyKos and http://francislholland.blogspot.com/)

Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 05:50:31 AM PST

Some commentators have suggested that electing a liberal Democratic woman President might improve the United States of America in fundamental ways.  This idea is preposterous on its face, but seems nonetheless to have gained adherents in recent years.  Here we address the reasons why electing a liberal Democratic woman President would not improve the United States in any way whatsoever and would actually make matters worse:

1.    Would a liberal Democratic woman President appoint more women to the US Supreme Court and thereby improve the quality of decisions about reproductive health? 

Answer:  Absolutely not!  There is simply no historical precedent in America for the proposition that a woman President would appoint more women to the nation's highest court or to the lower Federal courts that are currently making decisions about a woman's right to choose.  

To argue that electing a woman President could make any Answer:  difference whatsoever in this respect is specious, insulting and disruptive to public discourse.  Women simply don't matter as such.  That's why in American we always pick the best man for the job of President, regardless of his gender.  

2.    But, would a US Supreme Court with more women members make better decisions regarding women's reproductive freedoms?

Answer:  Absolutely not.  Anything that eight men do not know about pregnancy and child birth, they can easily learn by reading books on the subject written by other men.  It would be patently absurd to suggest otherwise.

3.    But, is there any relationship between the fact that our Supreme Court has eight men and one woman and the fact that we in America battle endlessly over the rights of gays?  Or, to ask the question in a different way, is our aversion to female leadership related, in any way, to our morbid fear of gays? 

Answer: Absolutely not!  Again, there is simply no evidence to suggest that our fear of women is related in any way to our fear of gays.  To suggest otherwise would be preposterous.

Take gay rights, for example.  A wealth of historical evidence conclusively proves that electing a woman President, who presumably would appoint more women to the US Supreme Court, would not help in any way whatsoever to resolve the matter of America's sexual identity.

In the past two years, issues related to gay rights have suffused America's political imagination - and two court decisions helped create the controversy. In July of 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court announced in Lawrence v. Texas that statutes criminalizing homosexual sodomy violated key constitutional principles. Only four months after the Court announced its decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that same-sex couples had a right to marry under the Massachusetts state constitution.

   One notable quality of cases like Lawrence and Goodridge is the gender composition of the appellate judges who crafted them. In Lawrence, both of the females on the Court ruled with the majority in its 6-3 ruling. Similarly, in Goodridge, two of the three women on the court ruled with the majority in its 4-3 decision. Indeed, both decisions contained opinions written by female judges finding in favor of the gay plaintiffs on their equal protection claims. This Note invites readers to consider whether these decisions stand as evidence of a broader trend. After reviewing 424 legal conclusions by 244 judges, the Note concludes that there are statistically significant differences between how men and women rule on these issues, with women being more likely to rule in favor of gays and lesbians on their due process and equal protection claims.

4.    Are abortion clinic bombings and gay bashing related in any way to America's aversion to female leadership? 

Answer: Perhaps, but electing a woman President would be a radical and extreme solution to those problems.

5.    Would any other important benefits "trickle down" from having a woman President once in a while? 

Answer: Absolutely not, and the above article about the effect that woman justices have on gay rights decisions makes this perfectly clear.

6.    Would a woman President, particularly a Democratic woman, have more women in her inner circle, and would this matter? 

Answer: Again, there is no historical precedent to support this silly and ridiculous proposition.  It doesn't merit further discussion.  It's simply ridiculous.

7.     Would the world have as many wars if there were more women Presidents? 

Answer: Without studying the matter, and with little evidence to review, and carefully disregarding what little evidence is available, it is fair to say categorically that more women presidents would not make any difference whatsoever.  

8.    Wouldn't it be extremely risky to take the utterly unprecedented step of electing a woman President of the United States? 

Answer: Yes, it would be extremely risky.  With a woman as President, the Twin Towers might be destroyed, there might be a raging war in Iraq, and global warming might threaten the very survival of humanity.  A major US city might be destroyed in a biblical flood.  It is inconceivable and preposterous to suggest that those things would not occur under a liberal Democratic woman President.

9.     Isn't it sexist to suggest electing a woman President instead of a man? 

Answer: Yes it is sexist to suggest electing a woman President instead of a man.  There is nothing more un-American than the concept of taking turns and sharing.  In fact, the risk that sharing might become more common is precisely the sort of gender-based menace from which the exclusively-male Presidency has protected us all these years.

10.    Would electing a woman President lead to an increase of women in the upper reaches of the Executive Branch, and thereby help these women to feed and clothe their children better? 

Answer: It simply doesn't make any difference whether that is so or not.

11.     Could electing a woman President usher in a new era of opportunities for women at the upper echelons of business across America, helping women better to feed and clothe their single parent families? 

Answer: No!

12.    Is there even any evidence to suggest that America even has an aversion to female leadership? 

Answer: No, there is not.  The fact that there has never been a female President of the United States has a much more benign explanation:  We always select the best man for the job, regardless of his gender.

(Cross-posted at DailyKos and http://francislholland.blogspot.com/)

francislholland@yahoo.com

Tags: Hillary Clinton, satire, sexism (all tags)

Comments

2 Comments

Q 13
13) How would this country handle the First Lady potentially being male?
Answer: They would be up in arms, and overthrow the government; there is no other logical response. Americans would never elect a male as a First Lady in any case, since saving a male First Lady is patently ridiculous. We always select the best Woman for the job, regardless of her gender.
by Zimbel 2007-02-01 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: 12 Q & A on the 1st Woman President

A liberal woman President would be great... too bad their isn't one running, because HRC is far from a liberal.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-01 10:36AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads