A Christian organization helping couples build healthier marriages and families.
Is more estrogen the answer to an ethically ailing, morally decaying body politic? Would more high heels in politics eliminate the real heels?
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 over hairsplitting, that is 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 D.C. Madam's client list gone public didn't exactly have the folks who frequent the Lindy Boggs women's lounge in the House of Representatives 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 scientific background to figure that one out. 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's circulation = 2.5 million. Playgirl's circulation = 0 (it migrated to the 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. Become bullies or borderline masculine. We turn into Barbara "call me Senator," Boxer, not Bill "call me daddy" Clinton. Female elected officals 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 the ol' 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've 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.
I dont know who is doing what or why..But I will agree the men need to be more discreet.Its pretty embarssing when the president is playing "hide the cigar" in the oval office with an intern.High profile powerful men risking it all for a little hanky panky it sad and embarrising.John Kennedy did it too..And so did his brother.Not to metion all the uber wealthy high profile religious.
Look at Jon and Kate? Who got caught on tape?
As I said ..I dont know who is doing what..But the men seem to be more willing to drop their pants in risky situations than women.And men are supposed to be the "logical ones? It seems to me they lose their minds in front of a pretty face.
Love
Dallas
pooh girl:Sounds like we need more women in leadership and politics.
I do think women would possibly(in fact do) have to work so much harder to get in that position..and not be so willing to risk her postiion for a roll in the hay with a stud.
In two hundred and twenty years ..not ONE woman has held the highest office of the USA..
Maybe if she did she would start chasing around for men.She would take her power and start "lifting up" her skirt in between vetos..and invading other countries with our armies.
But I would hope she would have enough sense to not be blazen about it.
Is more estrogen is the answer to an ethically ailing, morally decaying body politic?
spare_parts:I think she is missing the boat if she is claiming women have some sort of ethical superiority.I sense that in this question she poses, Is more estrogen is the answer to an ethically ailing, morally decaying body politic?Estrogen has nothing to do with ethics. Neither does gender. What is missed again is that I believe all those men were having affairs with women, not other men. (There may be exceptions, I didn't look that closely at the list. Some may have included homosexual trysts, but I suspect 90% of them included a woman, if not more than one woman.So again, I don't believe there is any evidence to claim that estrogen or gender makes for moral superiority as it appears she would have us believe.
Its not about moral superiority ..Its about tendencies.
spare_parts:Again, as Christians, we teach that one should not be a stumbling block to others. So to say the married man's sin was worse than the woman who went along with the affair still baffles me.And, as you've pointed out, it may not be a single woman, but a married woman.If either party is married, BOTH are guilty of being involved in the affair, not just the married party.Again, some might say they didn't know. Yet it seems God is pretty clear here, no sex with anyone except your spouse.So is anyone going to argue these folks didn't know the man or woman they were sleeping with was not their spouse?
divorce in church: spare_parts:Again, as Christians, we teach that one should not be a stumbling block to others. So to say the married man's sin was worse than the woman who went along with the affair still baffles me.And, as you've pointed out, it may not be a single woman, but a married woman.If either party is married, BOTH are guilty of being involved in the affair, not just the married party.Again, some might say they didn't know. Yet it seems God is pretty clear here, no sex with anyone except your spouse.So is anyone going to argue these folks didn't know the man or woman they were sleeping with was not their spouse?If this sounds like Im going the other direction with blame....Im not....BUT I will say, like putting alcohol, icy cold and delicious in front of the drinker, putting, well, ahem, in front of the man is a stumbling block.Now, let the accusations of my dismissing the mans responsibility begin.
Women have stumbling blocks too.I think women are more likely to calculate..thats not the best idea.She is less into immediate gratificatiion.
But she is quickly catching up to men..So you shoud be happy.She might even surpass the men eventually to where a man cant find a woman to be found that will put up with him.Or care if he puts up with her..
Women are less likely to even have children.Because..its not in her best interest.
Its quickly turning..Its not the men that dont want commitment..Its the women.Because they know they have more to lose.And of the women who do commit? They are tired of it.
And by the way gentlemen..women have filed for divorce more often than men for a LONG time.In 1890 the stats are women filing 60% of the time in the USA.
spare_parts:Well, if she takes her clothes off for him, knowing he's married, she owns a good part of the scenario.I'm not, nor would I ever say she forced him, he can't help himself.But the same applies for her. They both have the same ability to say NO.
Shes not married.He is.He had to know other women existed.now didnt he?
