Letters to the Editor
calcareous
Published Letters: 303 Editor's Choice: 50
-
V-blogs and Biology
[Read the article: Debating Clinton's datability]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On V-blogs: Mixed feelings.
One of the nice things about the written word is that it narrows the communication to the direct or implied content. No facial expressions, or tone, or appearance considerations - from a content standpoint it offers a clearer statement, well suited to a more formal and thoughtful discourse.
On the other hand, verbal communication is what humans specialize in, and the ability to convey nuance is increased with body language. It also is true that most people are better speakers than writers, so in a sense it is a more democratic medium. (not implying anything, Tracy is a fine writer as well)
It is possible that a V-blog offers an opportunity for some of the worst aspects of online communication to converge. The anonymity and disposition of trolls, coupled with the wide array of ad hominem attacks possible when personal appearance enters the equasion.
These can be in part mitigated if the V-blog content avoids showing the speaker, simply pairing voice-audio with supporting images - the slideshow approach.
On Dating Hilary: No simple answers.
Biologically speaking, we are the same animals we have always been, and patriarchal social systems don't exist arbitrarily, they exist because they are compatible with human impulses, desires and needs. When people are born and raised in a more progressive environment such as post-feminist America, their biological dispositions don't simply disappear, they instead learn to regulate the expression of them. Consequently, anybody who approaches the concept of female leadership as if it were a purely intellectual question is going to miss much of the bigger picture.
I think for many men (almost all of them, if they were honest and self-aware) a female leader produces conflicting feelings. An uncomfortable collision between biological impulse and intellectual ideals. Some handle this better than others, but this tension is what makes the topic such a rich source for debate and discussion.
Personally, I think it is probably better for a female leader to not be sexually desirable, or she risks being objectified by men. As they picture themselves "conquering" her (for lack of a better way of putting it), in their minds they strip her of the strength that a leader needs to have. Some women in history have succeeded in both leading and remaining an object of desire, Elizabeth I of England for one, but with the principle of divine right behind her she never had to stand the scruteny of a vote.
Speaking of monarchies, should Ms.Clinton win the election and then a second term, we will have been led by members of one of two families for 7 terms. I find the question of general openness of our government to new participants to be more disturbing than questions about whether we are ready for a female president. Taking the example of George W. Bush, you can argue that Ms.Clinton couldn't possibly do worse, and I think that is probably true. But given the democratic party's leadership, and Ms.Clinton's senatorial efforts, you can also make a pretty solid arguement that any change will be incrimental at best.
-
@ AKA Smith
[Read the article: Debating Clinton's datability]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]> Clearly, you see the biological impulse of men as domination.
I'm trying to be careful not to over-simplify, so I wouldn't put it that way. Everybody is an individual, so you see a range of behavior within each gender, however in the net I think that men are more assertive. For example, men are more likely to think in terms of "how can I convince this person to go out with me" than of "how can I make myself more desirable to attract them to ask me out". While impossible to seperate the effects of nature and nurture, I think that nature is at least part of the cause.
> What is most interesting is your phrase "strip her of the strength a leader needs to have." That would bode ill not only for a woman wishing to lead a nation but also for a woman wishing to be an equal partner in any relationship with a man.
Not at all. People expect different things from their mates than they do from their leadership.
Most functional relationships involve people of complimentary but somewhat different dispositions. Competetition within a relationship generally is harmful to the relationship. In terms of equality, if two people aren't identical, then how can they be completely equal? One will always be more capable than the other depending on the measure you are choosing. Thankfully, equality in a relationship is not one of capability, but of equality in terms of importance of each individual's desires. It is mutual respect and acknowledgement of the other as a peer, independent of any differences between the individuals.
Contrasting with relationships, people seem to choose their leaders based on similarity to their views, and like to think of them as being like themselves but more capable. From a competetion standpoint, the ruled are yeilding to the rulers. Consequently the perception of strength is critical for a leader, and there are ample and appropriate ways for both genders to display it.
Most people will agree there are differences between the genders, but soon as you start discussing specifics things can get messy. So I know that to some extent I'm asking for it when I put these sort of statements out for consideration.
Just because our natural human impulses exist, does not mean we are slaves to them. The act of functioning in a society with rules and norms is based on restraining and channeling one's impulses. People often like to pretend otherwise, but people are not purely rational actors, part of their behavior derives from their biology. In short, I am arguing for looking at this from an evolutionary psychology viewpoint. I'm not too attached to the specifics of my stated hypothesis, its just a suggestion, and I'd have to think it thru more before I'd be ready to mince details.