Clinton: Women Govern Differently Than Men

Hillary Clinton has continued her national speaking on what the Democrats should do to win back the White House.  For many, Clinton’s advice after losing to the most unpopular presidential candidate in history strikes a certain dubious note. However, there was an interesting component to some of her last appearances: referring to women as better or at least different leaders because they are women.  It raises a glaring but rarely discussed issue in the media.  The question is whether a male politician would be allowed to claim that voters should vote for him because men govern differently and have special leadership skills do to their gender. It is a view rejected by many women who voted against Clinton — women who Clinton promptly dismissed as controlled by their husbands. It seems like a verboten debate. It is considered fair for politicians to say that being a father or mother makes them a better leader. However, Clinton and others have gone further in suggesting that there is a gender difference to leadership and governing. Activists have argued that women are superior to men as leaders for such reasons as “They know how to spend and save money even when money is scarce.” Even academics are now arguing that women are inherently better leaders.

Clinton was asked whether female leaders govern differently than men.  She immediately responded “of course” to the rapturous applause of the audience. She then pointed to Jacinda Ardern who, after the New Zealand massacre, “showed the heart not only of a leader, but of a mother.” At a time when “Founding Fathers” is viewed as sexist, it is hardly consistent to say that “Founding Mothers” would be celebrated.

Clinton previously raised gender as a something that voters should consider in voting and it was an element of the “I’m with her” campaign in 2016. Nevertheless, according to the New York Times, Clinton carried only 54 percent of the female vote against Donald Trump. However, nearly twice as many white women without college degrees voted for Trump than for Hillary and she basically broke almost even on college-educated white women (with Hillary taking 51 percent). Trump won the majority of white women at 53 percent.

Ironically, Clinton previously stated that she viewed herself as one of the main characters in the series.  I assumed that the character would be such tough women as the Dragon Queen and “Breaker of Chains” Daenerys Targaryen or perhaps the fierce warrior Brienne of Tarth. Instead, Clinton picked the one character that every focus group would likely tell her to avoid at any cost: Cersei Lannister, a loathsome and incestuous character who has no qualms in using torture, murder, lies, and betrayal to attain power.  Indeed, for Clinton critics, Cersei seemed to sum the Clinton era with her statement that “Everyone who isn’t us is an enemy.”

In her book “What Happened,” Clinton described the hate that she encountered from Trump supporters: “Crowds at Trump rallies called for my imprisonment more times than I can count . . . They shouted, ‘Guilty! Guilty!’ like the religious zealots in ‘Game of Thrones’ chanting ‘Shame! Shame!’ while Cersei Lannister walked back to the Red Keep.”   Clinton was referring to a scene where Cersei was forced to walk completely naked through the streets by the High Sparrow as a “walk of atonement.” Of course, Cersei’s status as a mother hardly gave her more “heart” in killing off anyone who stood in her way and ultimately causing the death of her own son. 

I personally fail to see the difference and I have long objected to people who vote with reference to the gender of candidates as I do their race or religion.  Whether politicians are playing a macho or maternal angle, it all strikes me as low-grade effort to claim inherent superiority. I have long viewed all politicians as being crushingly similar in their motivations and actions. It is self-advancement that tends to guide their positions. Indeed, Clinton was ridiculed as changing positions once they became unpopular from opposing same-sex marriage to the Iraq War. Trump has shown the same relativism and self-advancement.

Clinton lost the election because she was the second most unpopular candidate to run for the presidency and has long had low polling for authenticity.  Clinton was also viewed as hawk who not only pushed the country into the disastrous Libyan War but supported the Iraq War.  In her case there was no evidence that gender meant “ many women will govern and lead differently.”

My interest in the statement however is more one of consistency than contentClinton.  It seems that the reference to gender is only worthy of condemnation when made by or about men – unless it is a negative statement about the flaws of male leaders. Consider this hypothetical: a male politicians is asked whether he thinks males govern differently and he says “Of course. Men are fathers and look at problems differently. They must be strong and leaders.”  That politician would be torn apart.  He would be accused of dog whistling sexists and suggesting that women do not have those attributes.  Yet, when Clinton says that women govern differently because they are mothers, it suggests that men categorically are by their gender less compassionate or lack the same “heart.”  

Many in the audience would likely be appalled by a male politicians saying his gender allows him to govern differently or better but they were thrilled by the use of gender by Clinton.  

I frankly do not care if people argue that their gender gives them different strengths or insights or values.  I only believe that the use of gender-based qualification arguments should not also be tied to a refusal to allow the same gender arguments by others.  The media did not raise a single concern over whether the statement that women govern better or differently is sexist or unfair to men.  The fact that Ardern reached out to the Muslim community is hardly distinguishing despite Clinton’s comments.  After 9-11, George Bush reached out to the Muslim community as did Barack Obama and even Donald Trump after attacks.  I considered such efforts to reflect their humanity rather than their gender.

Once again, I am not sold on gender as a criteria or consideration for office. I think it reflects not just an inherent sexism but an overgeneralization of such elements.  Nevertheless, I do not object to people discussing their views of gender so long as they show the same tolerance for such gender-based arguments by male politicians.  

What do you think?

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/heart-of-a-leader-and-mother-hillary-clinton-lavishes-praise-on-jacinda-ardern/ar-BBVV56T?li=AAgfYrC

123 thoughts on “Clinton: Women Govern Differently Than Men”

  1. Time for the psychological and psychiatric world to weigh in.

    Some decades ago as in more than a few the Israelis announced they were not going to assign womens to combat units anymore.

    The reason given was while men could be programmed into being good combat soldiers and could be de programmed back into ‘peaceful’ citizens that women were a different story.

    The short version is women do not forget and do not forgive. Even with large amounts of time passing.

    Imagine that ‘inability’ translated into a red button capable road rager and Commander In Chief.

    1. I could deal with Joni Ernst in the White House. She’s articulate, tough, has a military background, and literally was a castrating female prior to her entry into politics. My personal experience with women friends who’ve served is that they’re no different than men with respect to their ability to forgive.

      Hillary Clinton’s not representative of women. She’s a pathetic sociopath who shows evidence of being increasingly isolated from reality. You can no more draw good conclusions about women as leaders from HRC than you can judge men as leaders from Charles Manson.

      1. Welp, if rank anti-semitism weren’t enough, the left now has another reason to hate Israel. For them, everything, every single thing, (military effectiveness, the survival of nation-states, etc. ad naus.) has to take a back seat to equality of outcome.

        1. “For them, everything, every single thing, (military effectiveness, the survival of nation-states, etc. ad naus.) has to take a back seat to equality of outcome.”

          Except, of course, anti-semitism. Almost mistook their prime directive there.

          1. Jay, why do you think the Left is motivated by antisemitism? I am curious about this as I hear the assertion on the radio this morning too.

            Jewish people have mostly built “the left” since Karl Marx the son of a rabbi came up with his famous theories. Bernie for example, is Jewish. I don’t really understand why people think the Left is antisemitic. I think we could find 10,000 Jewish people in the US in prominent positions in academia and so forth who proudly consider themselves Leftists. So this doesn’t really compute for me that the left is antisemitic.

            Perhaps they are foolish Jewish people who don’t understand their interests would be better served by Republicans immigration restrictionists? I could see that much.

            For example, Trump’s man on point for immigration restriction, Stephen Miller, apparently is Jewish too. They see the light like Stephen Steinlight did back in 2001, but, an argument can be made that the immigration reform act of 1965 was staunchly backed by mainstream jewish organizations– and thus the turn of opinion on this issue by some Jewish people, is an ironic one. Anyhow, I say that and people call me antisemtic, but it’s a historical viewpoint that I can provide ample support for if you want to debate it. Or you can debate Steinlight who said it too.

            Anyhow, I am not going to join in the bandying about of antisemitism as an insult. It’s been hung around my neck a few times too.

            I can think of 20 reasons not to like Ihlan Omar before that.

            1. The dems had the opportunity to condemn Omar’s anti-semitic comments clearly and unconditionally. They choose not to. If the republicans were smart they’d submit their own resolution and challenge the dems to vote against it.

            2. why do you think the Left is motivated by antisemitism?

              Mr. Kurtz, they are motivated by anything that sells. By sells, I mean anything that will differentiate them from conservatives and get votes. The moment it doesn’t, they’ll abandon it and move on to something else. What we’ve seen since the age of Trump is they have been forced to sell crazy because common sense has Trump’s name all over it.

              1. i cant tell Olly, some days they just seem so stupid and like such saboteurs of the common good, i can’t figure them out.

                The “Left” to the extent it exists owes some legacy to Gramsci, who theorized that the cultural habits of the “bourgeoisie” are what REALLY kept capitalism in place, holding back the worker’s paradise, which was why he and so many other ‘leftists” shifted from economic issues of the working people to craziness like third world liberation and eventually gay rights and so forth.

                they are pretty much just iconoclasts. in some sense, being that, eventually they would become antizionists, I suppose, given the success of Israel at establishing its own legitimacy, they may wish to urinate upon it, too, just as they do every other commonly accepted wisdom– as you say, common sense.

                1. they are pretty much just iconoclasts.

                  This is why I say for now, they are playing with house money. They seem to believe they can go as crazy as they want, because we still have systems in place to protect us and them from themselves. But if they succeed in taking the safeties off, then they are putting the house at risk. And that will never be acceptable.

  2. Funny, I’m 54 and the very worst “leader” of my entire lifetime is…Hillary Clinton! I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life, and I’ll still say that. She’s so stupid that she didn’t get the message about how much she is hated outside her core group of sycophants back in 2008 when she lost to Obama.

    This year I support Tulsi Gabbard…not because she’s a woman, or a minority, but because she is the best PERSON running for president. Hands down. Hillary Clinton should just GTFO already.

    1. “This year I support Tulsi Gabbard…not because she’s a woman, or a minority, but because she is the best PERSON running for president.”

      Certainly she’s the sanest of the eligible (read: not white, cisgendered, heterosexual males who don’t use fake hispanic nicknames) democratic candidates.

    2. Tulsi is a smart, capable, pretty lady and a good candidate. For this, the Democrats will punish her. In the year of gay mayor Pete, they are hell bent on losing again.

  3. Let’s sum it all up. All programs of the communistic welfare state and amendments after the Bill of Rights, including the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th amendments are unconstitutional and must be rescinded and abrogated with extreme prejudice. Every amendment and program stemming from Lincoln and his criminal successors is unconstitutional and must be fully abrogated. The U.S. Constitution is the greatest document of governance in the history of man. The original “manifest tenor” of singularly the Constitution and the Bill of Rights must be re-implemented.

    Nothing after the unconstitutional and criminal “Reign of Terror” of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln is constitutional or otherwise legitimate. The nation of the United States of America was seized by an insane despot who ruled not by fundamental law but by brutality and violence. “Crazy Abe” unconstitutionally suspended Habeas Corpus and ordered his gestapo to destroy the presses and throw thousands of members of the press in jail without the right of arraignment. Lincoln issued a proclamation with no legal basis or authority, confiscated private property and conducted a war of aggression against a sovereign foreign nation undeclared by Congress, after which his successors imposed unconstitutional and improperly ratified amendments, injurious to the Constitution, under the duress of post-war military occupation and oppression.

    “Crazy Abe” Lincoln should have been immediately impeached, convicted and thrown in prison for his egregious, unconstitutional acts of violence and treason against America and its Constitution. The entire criminal legacy of Lincoln must be abolished and the dominion of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution reestablished.

    1. ““Crazy Abe” Lincoln should have been immediately impeached . . ..”

      Thank you for your timely and highly pertinent critique.

    2. Perhaps so George but he had the backing of the Army so that was that. And now we have the 14th amendment.

      So George you can keep on fighting one lost cause or another or proceed to whatever opportunities lie before us today.

  4. New poll: Four white guys lead the Democratic field

    I know what you’re thinking but there’s actually plenty of diversity among the frontrunners. Two are extremely old white guys whereas one is a middle-aged white guy and another is a youngish white guy.

    See Also: Massive fire at Notre Dame cathedral in Paris

    Every time I have a rash thought like “A candidate as allegedly strong as Kamala Harris probably shouldn’t trail a dark horse like Pete Buttigieg at any point of this race,” I remind myself that Jeb Bush was leading Republican primary polls at this point in 2015.

    Then I remind myself that all of the guys trailing Jeb at that point went on to lose as well, in most cases even worse than he did. So maybe there should be a whiff — not a stench or even a smell, just a whiff — of anxiety in Harrisworld right now.

    Congratulations to “serious” candidate Cory Booker on trailing Andrew Yang and not-at-all-serious candidate Kirsten Gillibrand on trailing literally everyone. Fingers crossed that she’ll eventually break that tie with Marianne Williamson at zero percent.

    https://hotair.com/archives/2019/04/15/new-poll-four-white-guys-lead-democratic-field/

    1. ouch, the beautiful lady Tulsi is only at 1% even Chairman Yang is polling better than her

      did somebody say Hillary said something? gag

        1. Yang says crazy stuff but this is the genius of using social media to educate the public, like the great POTUS Donald J Trump has done.

          UBI seems crazy, but you will see the AI decimating more and more jobs and it will not seem so crazy too far off.

          Should guys like Jeff Bezos vacuum up more and more of the world’s commerce, with massive social disruptions>

          As Yang said, it is not socialism, it is just capitalism where everyone does not start at zero income.

          That sounds like a dodge, but it isn’t. The money is all fiat money in the first place. So don’t get too scared about it. Congress passes it out like cookies to their patrons. The average low level white male sucker doesn’t have any clue how much welfare is being tossed about in 20 some different’ Social insurance programs” that service the lumpen hordes.

          And then when you have a federal reserve artificially extending billions of dollars to megabanks that cocked up their own business, and a thousand other sweet deals that service big business that one way or another all come back to the a-historical Midas touch of the US dollar as world reserve currency.

          Only a pack of fools would say: ok, let everyone dip their beaks but us. But indeed, we have been a pack of fools, mostly, again and again. Fools and if we keep it up, losers and bigger losers as things wend their way on down this path to AI and robotic displacement of massive parts of the workforce, especially us.

          Perhaps that is why “Racist alt right” likes Yang.

          https://theoutline.com/post/7214/andrew-yang-campaign-alt-right?zd=1&zi=wx2kv3cl

          1. i meant to emphasize the Fed was giving out loans to insolvent business at ZERO PERCENT INTEREST too. That was BEFORE the TARP. Can I have a loan like that? Oh i didnt think so. Some capitalism we have here!

    2. Kamala is the annointed. She’s very boring and predictable like her Mentatrix HIllary.

      They have gay Mayor Pete as a backup. He’s got the ironic quality of being gay, yet not obnoxious. That’s a new one for sure.

      They hate Bernie. They would rather lose again than back Bernie. You know the Democrat Hillary rah rah team on here hates Bernie too, always dissing him here. Sad!

      ORourke is not ready for prime time. Forget about him.

      Yang and Tulsi are worth listening to for many good ideas.

  5. Trump did not defeat Clinton, the electoral college did. What a crock! We need rid of that anachronism.

    1. CSA:

      Funny, Chuck, your ire was raised only AFTER the election where your gal lost. BTW Trump won according to the rules. Now living in some flyover state you might want to consider that losing the anachronism will mean unending rule by NewLosAngecago and all the joy that entails. Careful what you wish for.

    2. Read ;The Indispensable Electoral College’ How the Founders’ plan saves our country from mob rule. By Tara Ross.

    3. Charles, the Constitution created the Electoral College to ensure that all the states have a say in who will lead them as President of the United States. Trump won the electoral college by a landslide. Hillary Clinton only won CA and NY by a wide margin.

      Should the Electoral College be abolished, only CA and NY would be kingmakers. The rest of the country would have zero say in the election of the President. I doubt any candidate would ever bother to campaign in any of the Other 48 again. A President could fit the Other 48 with nuclear waste dumps, and there wouldn’t be a thing they could do about it.

      It would usher in a Hunger Games dystopia, where NY and CA would be relevant, and the Other 48 would be tributes. It would disenfranchise most of the country, put two states in charge of what happens in the rest of the country, and we would no longer be a representative republic. In essence, those in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and NYC would determine how the country was run, and the President would care less how the rest of the country felt about it. No one in the Other 48 would have any reason to vote at all.

      It would be tyranny. It is disturbing how often Democrat policies seek to disenfranchise and weaken individual rights.

      1. Karen doesn’t care about individual rights, she cares about GOP rights. There are 60 million individuals in NY and Ca, and she thinks their rights are secondary to the cattle on the King Ranch.

        The electoral college was another compromise with the morally bankrupt slave states, not high minded protection of minorities. We have the Bill of Rights for that and the Senate for the teeny states.

        1. “. . .she thinks their rights are secondary to the cattle on the King Ranch.”

          I hate to have to be the one to break it down for you like this, but the King Ranch (at least the best known of the operations that use that name) is in Texas, a state with 28 million individuals by itself, well ahead of NY.

            1. 🙂 Good point; but perhaps they should be. The states that actually produce the food consumed by everyone is by necessity unable to populate in the same way as high-density metropolitan areas. So when it comes to the EC, they will always be dependent on the will of the metro areas, even though the metro areas are dependent on them.

              1. “. . . even though the metro areas are dependent on them.”

                I wouldn’t be too sure: they’re doing amazing things with soy (an estrogenic foodstuff highly favored by self-loathing white male lefties).

                  1. it may be lean and it may be protein, but it is most definitely not good. People with the goal of having a healthy diet should avoid phytoestrogens at all costs.

                    Except left-wing soy boys. You guys can go right ahead.

                    1. maybe you are right Jay, for what little i know, but it has not affected my abnormally high level of testosterone. And i have been eating it occasionally for decades. ma po tofu, gotta love it!

                      i never have liked soy milk. that’s the main culprit i think.

              2. NO we won’t, because, unless the major metros can command the Army for an occupation of Flyover, then they can’t force us to ship food, while we starve them out.

                I tell you now, this is an existential question. Make no mistake, that one goes to the mat. 100% physical political commitment to the point of and up to an including CW II. The electoral college will be the one salient acid test to come.

                Either with us or agin us.

          1. Gee Jay, thanks for making an irrelevant and petty point with information you’re not sure of, and also for correcting me on the status of livestock with the EC. I did not know that.

        2. Anon…….Son, you are going haywire again. You say such hateful things.
          How do you function with so much toxic hatred?

          Since you’re from the South, your verbal behavior must be coming from guilt. But you shouldn’t feel guilty.
          I doubt that you ever owned slaves.
          Be proud of who you are. Slavery ended 160 years ago………time to bury whatever “shame” you think you should feel,
          along with that venomous attitude.

    4. “Trump did not defeat Clinton, the electoral college did. What a crock! We need rid of that anachronism.”

      a fine whine

  6. Lock her up….and him too

    https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-hold-mueller-to-the-comey-standard-20190402-4joqlfc7yjhxtjrnlwrmqcqora-story.html

    Hold Mueller to the Comey standard: If he condemns people he didn’t indict, he should be criticized just as the former FBI director was

    Jim Comey will be remembered by history for the two words he used to describe Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server: “extremely careless.” Nearly every Democrat and even many Republicans were shocked that the director of the FBI went beyond the usual role of Justice Department officials in announcing the decision to not indict Clinton: simply stating that she would not be indicted without further comment. His judgmental rhetoric was a gratuitous political gift to the Republicans and their candidate. No one will ever know whether it influenced the outcome of the election.

    Now it appears that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may be doing something similar. It is difficult to imagine that a nearly 400-page report detailing his 22-month investigation will not include criticisms of persons who were not indicted, most especially President Trump.

    If the report includes such criticism, it will be a political gift to the Democrats and their 2020 candidate. Yet the same Democrats who rightly condemned Comey will likely praise Mueller for going beyond the “indict or not indict” statement they insisted Comey should have limited himself to making.

    On the other side of the aisle, many Republicans who praised Comey for expressing his views about Clinton’s carelessness will probably condemn Mueller for going beyond stating that Trump did not conspire or collude with Russia and that he would leave it to the attorney general to make the decision regarding obstruction of justice.

    Don’t expect consistency from most politicians, especially these hyper-partisan days. They applaud whatever seems good for their party and they boo whatever seems bad, regardless of what they have said in the past. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, as Ralph Waldo Emerson once cynically commented, but consistency in politics is far better than the kind of hypocrisy that dominates today’s political dialogue.

    Democratic Party defenders of a wide-ranging report that includes criticisms of Trump can be expected to point to the fact that Mueller is a special counsel, not an ordinary line prosecutor, and that special counsels are required by Justice Department regulations to file a report with the attorney general. But these regulations do not dictate what information should be in the report. Nor do they specify to whom it should be reported beyond the AG. The regulations do not require that negative comments about non-indicted individuals must or may be made public, and the traditions of the Justice Department do not encourage the publication of such comments.

    If Comey had been a special counsel appointed to investigate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, would Democrats have praised him for going beyond announcing that he had decided not to indict Clinton, and telling the American public that she had made some serious mistakes? I doubt it. They would have condemned “Special Counsel” Comey as forcefully as they condemned FBI Director Comey.

    I expect that these legal niceties and moral consistencies will not deter Attorney General William Barr from releasing the Mueller eport without redacting any negative information about non-indicted subjects of the Mueller investigation. The pressure from Congress, the media and the public to release the entire report is simply too great.

    I understand these realities. But in reading the report, remember that it is a one-sided prosecutorial document, not the product of adversarial testing at a trial. When a defendant is indicted, he has the right to defend himself at a trial. When a subject of an investigation is condemned without being indicted, he has no legal recourse. His only option is to respond to the condemnation in the court of public opinion.

    So if and when Trump and others are criticized in the Mueller report, do not rush to judgment before they have the opportunity to respond in the court of public opinion — the only court available to them.

    Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of “The Case Against the Democrats Impeaching Trump.”

  7. Leave it to Hillary to “frame” leadership skills with strong reference to gender. She’s not helping anyone with these comments. Leadership emerges out of real life experience helping groups navigate uncharted waters.

Leave a Reply