Since I basically don’t have much to do these days besides go online job hunting (which is often interrupted by short sessions to ASOS and Dereon), my friends can testify that I have become quiet annoying to be around. At least on MSN, that is.
I recently talked to a good friend of mine that has a semi-rumored reputation as a man chauvinist, but both he and I know that it’s just a facade. We got talking until he came around the opinion that in his ideal society, a woman would, and could never obtain a high position in politics. In other words, a woman would never be in political leadership.
I wasn’t really astonished by his opinion, but decided to throw myself in what ended up to be a very long MSN chat. Informative, heated and interesting for sure, but very long.
His opinion regarding female leadership was, in all due honesty, not narrow-minded nor primitive. It revolved around basic assumption that women and men think and thus act differently. He stated that a woman would think from her heart more strongly than a man, and despite the fact that we could use a bit of humanity now and then in politics, we humans cannot simply change the “law of the jungle” as he put it.
This is a discussion that is as familiar to me as my own shadow. Female leadership has always been a heated point of argument and despite the many views that come into progress; it really is, in the end, broken down into categories.
The first is the traditional “men think logically, women think emotionally” argument. To all the feminists out there, hold your horses. Because, in context, it is true.
Various studies have shown that women think differently. This difference in the sexes is often reflected in our daily lives. Women are more likely to enroll into humanitarian areas, such as doctors, nurses, teachers and alike while men walk towards careers in business, math and engineering. The question is always whether we are brought up in a society that teaches us these norms, but let’s just assume for a moment, that that is not the case, and it’s all already biologically programmed. So let’s say that women think with their hearts and men with their heads. How would that affect a leadership? I understand that my friend expressed his concerns when he stated “women would be weak when it would come to war”, but let me get this straight… the President isn’t actually participating in the war is he? The President isn’t actually going to pull the trigger on the gun is he? So the amount of push-ups the President would be able to do has nothing to do with how well they perform in the office.
And lets not forget. Hilary Clinton voted yes for the Iraq war, as the majority of her male-politicians, with the exception of Obama. The problem is, if Obama was a woman and had voted no for the Iraq war, would we have seen that as a good logical decision (as we do for Obama) or would we look at it as a weak, emotion-led decision? The problem is that we automatically look at the gender and then we make up our minds regarding that decision. It seems that no matter what a female leader decides to do, it would always be scrutinized because she is a woman. If its a yes for a war, she’s not thinking straight, and if it’s no for a war, then she’s still not thinking straight.
And, when it comes to political decisions, how do we separate decisions made from the heart and decisions made from the brain? A political leader who creates a program to educate poor village woman, is that a logical decision, or a emotional decision? A political leader who tries to negotiate rather than throw bombs, is that a logical decision or a emotional decision? The matter of fact is when cannot and do not know. We’ve had Presidents who are eager for war, and we’ve had Presidents who are eager for diplomatic relations and discussions, all male. We’ve had Presidents pouring money into the military and we’ve had Presidents who pour money into health care and education, again, all male.
But when we criticize these Presidents we don’t go, “Oh, well, that’s ‘cos he’s a guy, that’s why”. So why do we use the sex against a woman?
I believe that we’re still stuck in that old world where women were considered the lesser being and the weaker vessel. Yes, the woman is weaker physically, but mind you, she’s stronger biologically. Studies show that women are more likely to survive diseases, heavy blood loss. Women die later than men, women don’t lose as much hair as men, women are less likely to commit suicide and less likely to lose their minds (in which I mean that men are more likely to fall into depression and the majority of patients of mental illnesses are male).
Men are considered (generally) better at Math, but in universities, we’re seeing a higher trend in women enrolling and we’re seeing a higher trend in male drop-out. Girls tend to do better at exams than boys at school, and are often more focused than their male classmates when it comes to deciding about the future. So I often ask, why is the woman considered a weaker being? Because she can’t lift a tire? Because she has the ability to be pregnant or because she shows emotions, that seems to lack in both everyday life as well as politics?
Men are stronger physically, but both psychologically and biologically, the women are stronger.
But does that matter?
In the position as a President, one has to be strategic, be able to multi-task and be able to relate to what the people want, and be able to win hearts. Both men and women can do this job. Obama may be elected President, Michelle Obama could, in my opinion, be just a capable President.
Isn’t Michelle Obama educated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School? She worked in a Law firm and a part of the mayor’s staff. In fact, I remember watching an episode of The Daily Show Wit Jon Stewart, where the guest was a former teacher of both Barack and Michelle. He stated that he always saw Michelle as to become President while Barack was more the mayor sort.
She’s been in many executive positions, and Barack has always mentioned that she’s been the rock of his campaign. If we added a few years as a senator, she would make a fine presidential candidate, wouldn’t she?
What about Benazir Bhutto? She led a hard and rough life, lost her father to politics, lost her brothers to politics, tried to pull a nation out of hope together and in the end, died for her country.
Or what about Queen Elizabeth? Her ways of ruling can always be discussed (but so can the regimes of men), but she ruled quiet a lot, wouldn’t you say? Or Cliopatra?
“Exceptions”, my friend stated, “Besides, a woman in high political power is against the Islamic shairia”.
Oh, how I love when religion is brought into such discussions. The discussion about Muslim female leaders has been around for a very long time, and has been disputed. Why? Because the whole concept of “No-female-leaders/female leaders make bad leaders” revolves around one hadith. For all those non-Muslim readers out there, a little 101 for you. Quran=Holy Word, Hadith=Man written words on events and what the Prophet said. And when there is only one hadith, over 300 something year old, and most probably altered when gone from mouth to mouth, the chances that the hadith is authentic is slim.
I do not believe that Islam can in anyway prohibit a woman from becoming a political leader, as Islamic history proves that we’ve had several women in the visual front with both power and knowledge. I do believe however that there are probably preferences and given the orthodox Islamic values and “rules”, it’s also probably much easier for a man to become a political leader. In traditional Islam, a man who’s in political leadership, leads the prayer, and since a woman can’t, the result would be that a woman cannot be a political leader. But in Shariah countries today, the political leaders rarely lead prayers. Husbands help (or are supposed to anyway) to strengthen their wives position, as the wives do for their husbands once the men are in power.
Then it’s the image of a country. According to my friend he stated that a country with a female leader would give off… well… wrong signals of a country. Would you be threatened by a country with a female leader?
Yes. A, as Tyra Banks would put it, fierce woman that looks like she could cut your privates off is very much to be afraid of. And not to mention, her military probably has enough atomic weapon to blow you and your country off the map. Isn’t that something to be afraid of? A smart, sharp and elegant woman is to be as respected and feared like any man. And if a man with political power cannot respect or accept that fact, that not only shows an image of the society that has elected him, but also shows what needs to be changed. Just because your name isn’t “Ahmadinajad” or “Obama” or “Putin” doesn’t mean that the world cannot take you seriously.
And finally, my friend said, “Men have been ruling all these years. There is a reason for it”.
And my response is, that just because something has been done for a long time doesn’t make it right. The most corrupt, inhumane, evil and terrifying regimes have been of men. The Pharaoh, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Bush, DICK CHENY? Girls were buried alive in Arabia (before Islam was introduced), does that make it right? The blacks have been suffering injustice from the creation of time, does that make it right? Children are sold and re-sold, does that make it right? Yes, I know that comparing child prostitution with male regimes is very unfair and unrelated but I’m trying to draw you a sketch. Maybe, this world has come to a drowning point (which it has, thanks to the economic meltdown and the ice polar meltdown) and it’s some sort of message from God, “Change your fucking ways or I’m making our little meeting on judgment day a bit earlier”. And besides, when was it women got the vote? Not that long ago.
But at the same time, some of the very just, historic and memorable regimes have been of men too. Men have created history, men have brought justice and men have changed the face of the Earth. Mandela, Gandhi, Jinnah, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King.
So where does that leave us?
After an hour of debate, I and my friend concluded that coming to a mutual decision was not possible. He believes that if given two perfect candidates, one man, one woman, he’d vote for the man. Given two ordinary candidates, one man, one woman, he’d vote for the man. He’d only vote for the woman if the man was a real, real bad candidate. Which I assume is a killer. But killers can’t become Presidents. Sort of.
Personally, if given two ordinary candidates, I’m not going to look at what sex they are. I’m far beyond that, and I don’t care. This whole blog has been showing you atrocities that men regimes may bring, but in truth, I believe a good leader can be either male or female, just like a bad leader can be either male or female. I look up to both men and female political figures. I’m going to see who’s views and goals I can relate to most (I’d vote for Obama than Hilary) and then vote. Gender and sex does not, in my eyes, show who is more qualified. But I respect my friend’s decision, and think that he has his all the right in this world to have his opinion. I’ll just give him a hard time if he’s ever elected President for his country 
So you can make up your mind. A leader called Samuel or a leader called Angelina?
Oh and just one other thing with the whole “women think with their emotions, mean with their heads” thing. Yes. Women may think with their emotions, and men may think from their head…. but just not the right one, understand me?
Marilyn Monroe and Monica Lewinsky are probably one of the many, many witnesses to that, don’t you think? 
Until next time,
Mamashaal (( desi diva ))
