New Stanek poll: Do women’s hormones preclude them from being President?
I have a new poll question up:
Do womens hormones preclude them from being President?
The concern was raised by Go Ape Marketing CEO Cheryl Rios last week, to which GOP presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina responded, Not that we havent seen a mans judgment clouded by hormones in the Oval Office, a zinger obviously aimed at former President Bill I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman Clinton.
This is so true. Clinton was but one of several male presidents who were apparently ruled by their male hormones.
Nevertheless, since no one will know who you are when you vote, do you honestly think theres merit to Rios concern, the age-old implication being that women are prone toemotionallyinstability? Vote in the poll on the lower right side of the home page.
Here were the results of my last poll regarding GOP presidential picks. Already the choices are old. Ted Cruz isnt even on the list, and others are sure to fall off in the coming weeks and months. Well revisit the question later. But at this point, Ben Carson rules:
Vote in the poll on the right side of the home page. As always, make comments to either the previous or current poll here, not on the poll site.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Absolutely not. Women have successfully run other things, such as states, major corporations and countries other than America. It would be absurd to suggest that hormones preclude them from being president when they have not effected their ability to hold any of those other offices.
Rick Santorum
It’s 2015 and you’re seriously asking this question?
Jack: It’s 2015 and you’re seriously asking this question?
Was thinking that too.
On the Republican hopefuls – it’s quite a field, and it will be interesting to see how things shake out. Last time around, there was quite a rotation – Paul, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Romney – they all had their turn.
No, not any more. Most take birth control till menopause anyways so women’s hormone levels are generally never allowed to get that high. And it’s a shame if you ask me.
Truthseeker, if you truly believe that women are significantly more emotionally unstable and hormonal than men, I have a plethora of domestic violence, murder, assault and other statistics to show you. Don’t forget that testosterone is a hormone, men get surges of it like women get surges of estrogen and progesterone, and it’s well-known to be linked to increased aggression. Wonder how many wars would have been avoided if male leaders had low testosterone!
So, in short, you’re sexist and and stuck in some era. Come into the present, it’s great!
Most take birth control till menopause anyways so women’s hormone levels are generally never allowed to get that high. – you have a source which supports this of course?
I’m sure Hillary will chip in for a one-way ticket to Canada for Cheryl.
I don’t think women are any more impaired than men that way. However, most of the women I’ve met in leadership positions, both in the public and private sphere, have played the gender card very liberally. Any disagreement from either sex is considered misogyny. My husband even lost a job once because his boss discovered that I am a SAHM, which she considers immoral. Based on experience, I am very skeptical of female candidates and their sincerity about serving the public good rather than using their office simply to make a political statement.
That said, no one should be talking about any candidate’s genitalia–least of all the candidates themselves.
Rachel it seems you have some real generalizing going there. Plenty of males in leadership positions are absolutely awful at their jobs, but they are seen as they are, which is a lazy/jerk/idiot dude. They aren’t seen as representing their entire gender. However, a few bad female bosses and you’re skeptical of the entire gender’s ability to lead. It’s a bit ridiculous.
No one says men can’t be leaders because of the unfortunate tendency some have of sexually harassing their employees, for example.
Deluded Lib. Reread my post. I said I think high levels of female hormones in women is a plus and would make them MORE qualified to be president not less.
That’s… interesting truthseeker. Why do you think that?
this oughta be good……
Because I think women are perfect just the way God created them. How did you interpret that comment as being misogynistic?
That doesn’t explain why you think high levels of female hormones in women is a plus and would make them MORE qualified to be president not less truthseeker. Not in any way. It just tells us that you like what you believe god has done in regards to women.
Because IMO women are at their best when they are women. I can think of no reason why anybody would think a woman with less female hormones and more male hormones would be better qualified to be president.
Deluded Lib,
How did you interpret my comment as being misogynistic?
So you like it when women have what you consider to be the right balance of hormones for women. That still doesn’t explain why you believe that high levels of female hormones in women is a plus and would make them MORE qualified to be president not less. How about you try?
LDPL found you to be sexist, not misogynistic. There’s a difference.
I answered. Maybe you are looking for something in what I said and it is not there. My answer is that a woman with normal levels of hormones for a woman would be better suited for president than a woman with something other than normal hormone levels.
“LDPL found you to be sexist, not misogynistic. There’s a difference.”
Reality, you have a bad habit of speaking for other people and presuming to know what they ‘meant’ to say. I would like an explanation from Deluded Lib about why he found my comments to be sexist.
No you didn’t. You just keep sprouting “a woman with normal levels of hormones for a woman would be better suited for president than a woman with something other than normal hormone levels” without any reason as to why that might be the case.
If I said a tree would make a better president than Scott Walker and you asked why and I said ‘because tree’ would you deem that an adequate explanation?
you have a bad habit of speaking for other people and presuming to know what they ‘meant’ to say. – well no, I don’t. I’m not saying what I thought LDPL ‘meant’. I’m saying what he actually said. It’s there in writing. So why you kept claiming he called you ‘misogynist’ when he quite clearly wrote ‘sexist’ is beyond me.
I would like an explanation from Deluded Lib about why he found my comments to be sexist. – see, you’ve finally caught up. Well done.
Truth, I have never thought you were a misogynist. Never thought you hate women. I do think you have a lot of sexist views, though I will apologize for mistaking your current comments. I thought you were saying that yes, women are too hormonal without birth control that they shouldn’t be president. I didn’t realize you meant the opposite, that having a higher hormone level means that they are more qualified.
It still seems weird to me that you’re connecting birth control and hormone levels. Do you not realize that hormonal contraception has high levels of female hormones (it fools the body into thinking it is already pregnant, it raises like progesterone and estrogen)? Birth control doesn’t make women like men, it makes their bodies at like early pregnancy hormone level lol. So I don’t really get your argument. But I’m glad that we agree that women can be president just fine, even though you have a very odd stipulation there.
I think being a woman is a lot like being a short man. Some people take it in stride, some develop a real complex about it. Hilary is dangerous not because she IS a woman, but because of how she FEELS about being female.
Do women’s hormones preclude them from being president?
Exactly the opposite. Women of genius can be great leaders, and several women have served as leaders of great nations.
However…. women who deny their feminine genius cut themselves off from their source. I mean that women who try to too hard to be men fail at being effective leaders. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton come immediately to mind.
The average age for US women at menopause is 51, so quite often, women in positions of truly high power would likely be past most of the hormonal issues, in the first place.
And anyway – when you look around at how well men have done, who cares if women would be “hormonal.” I say give them their shot.
There is the old joke, that if women ruled the world’s countries, there would be a lot less war, but there would be some awfully tense negotiations every 28 days.
The phrasing of the question — in terms of hormones — troubles me at two levels:
1) The presumption that a woman is enslaved by her biology, in some sort of deterministic, animal instinct. As is a woman is not a rational being.
2) It also underlines the modern error, that every modern person is ruled by his or her hormones and unable to exercise self-control over his or her sexual appetites.
I think we should kill the hormone question. It is worth discussing how birth control hormones lead women into making bad decisions about risky sex with unsuitable partners — but we should not ask about hormone levels of potential female leaders.
Evaluating leaders is simple enough: If he or she has shown poor judgment in the past, she will likely exercise poor judgment in the future. (The guy who supported letting children die in the hospitals of his jurisdiction proved to be unable to make wise decisions about national healthcare.) We don’t have to talk about any hormones.
“I think we should kill the hormone question.”
Better question:
How do you make a hormone?
– Don’t pay her.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
That’s a pretty stale old joke, don’t you think so truthseeker?
Nasty, Johann.
Deluded lib. That is an interesting point about birth control actually increasing the level of female hormones. In that respect I stand corrected and I should have been clearer in what I meant to say. A lot of people make fun of women and their natural cyclic hormone level changes. I think the natural hormonal cycle in women is ok.
Thank you for the retraction about my comments on this thread being sexist. If you don’t mind Deluded Lib, explain to me why you say you think I am sexist.
crickets…..
bats…..
Reality,
you like answering posts for Ex-RINO and Deluded Lib. Tell me some of the sexist comments I have posted in the past. If you cannot, then it will be plain to everyone once again that the bats are in your head.
this should be good…. he is probably going back a year to find something he can try and pass off as sexist… and then another five years to find something else…
you like answering posts for Ex-RINO and Deluded Lib – while that may be a convenient statement for you to make I shan’t respond to its inaccuracy.
Chase your jottings back for a year? I don’t think so.
I think the location of the bats is already well established.
Oh you shan’t huh? Well, well now. Why doesn’t that surprise me? Because you couldn’t find anything I said that was sexist. Eat bat guano, you could use the nitrates for your brain.
Eat bat guano
:: laughing ::
http://www.charter.net/tv/3/player/vendor/CNN/player/cnn/asset/cnn-female_ceo_claims_a_woman_should_not_be_president-cnn
“The average age for US women at menopause is 51”
And here I always thought Doug was a man.
Sorry, Doug. I forgot to point out that I was just joking. Periods are important.
Sorry, Doug. I forgot to point out that I was just joking. Periods are important.
No problem at all, Praxedes. : )
It took me a long time to get it….. : P
Because you couldn’t find anything I said that was sexist. – didn’t doesn’t mean couldn’t. I think your record speaks for itself.
Eat bat guano, you could use the nitrates for your brain. – displaying your usual intellectual prowess I see.
” didn’t doesn’t mean couldn’t. I think your record speaks for itself.”
Not even one example of anything I said that was sexist. You are a shameless crew. Just one more baseless personal attack from team progressive, without apology of course.
Not even one example of anything I said that was sexist. – I did say I wasn’t going looking didn’t I.
You are a shameless crew. – if so we are barely beginners compared to your expertise.
Just one more baseless personal attack from team progressive, without apology of course. – HAH! Coming from you that’s amazing. Sooooooo shameless.
Reality,
We know you are willing to lie and smear without conscience. Especially to try and jump in and derail the thread when your progressive cohorts are looking so bad.
Deluded Lib, I didn’t really expect it from you without any supporting evidence or quotes.
We know you are willing to lie and smear without conscience. – no we don’t. That may be the picture you’d like to present but it’s nonsense. Show me where I have lied or smeared.
Especially to try and jump in and derail the thread when your progressive cohorts are looking so bad. – my ‘progressive cohorts’ never look bad. And given your propensity to bloviate all over the place it’s obvious who the ‘derailer’ is.
“Show me where I have lied or smeared.”
When I said “Because you couldn’t find anything I said that was sexist.”
Your response/smear was
“didn’t doesn’t mean couldn’t. I think your record speaks for itself.” If you can’t post any evidence then it is a smear.
Now where in my words does it actually state that you are sexist? That’s right, it doesn’t.
I don’t need to smear you :-)
You spent the past few days supporting the smear and pretending like it was true. A progressive mind may be able to bend that into honesty and justice but to everyone else you are full of crap
You seem to have a rather florid imagination I must say.
To be full of c**p I would have to absorb the nonsense you spout. I don’t so I’m not.
It must be the guano from all the bats in your belfry
I know whose bell has been well and truly rung :-)
Y’all making me chuckle. If I had a corncob pipe and a rocking chair I’d be making use of both of them.