Historically the United States has had a major streak of Puritanical weirdness within the culture starting with the first colonist -- essentially cult member rejected by the motherland. Not only is this streak alive and well but it's running amok with the Christian right and evangelicals.

How refreshing to read about politics devoid of Puritanical baloney and uptight morals that ultimately lead to the Ted Haggards of the world. Thanks for the article Salon.

Why is it "unsettling" that France could elect a female head of state before the US? And why is this considered "a cultural phenomenon I don't understand"?

Was it also unsettling when Britain elected Margaret Thatcher or Germany Angela Merkel or the election of various other female senior ministers throughout Europe and elsewhere?

What's unsettling for me is why Americans should find this unsettling. Maybe this says something about Americans' understanding of the rest of the world and their place in it.

It seems she's been building a political career on her own, not based on her husband's popularity.

Also: why are Jospin's comment supposed to be part of the chauvinistic resistance? It's perfectly normal (at least it should be) to oppose a politician you disagree with.

With respect to the notion that it is "unsettling" that the French could "elect a female president before the United States," I have news for you.

America is in bad shape, and at this point in time we need the best leaders possible, regardless of gender.

The fact that millions will vote for Hillary Clinton simply because of her gender is a travesty and is, in fact, disrespectful to women. We know Europeans are enamored with gender favoritism in the name of "progress" (witness Spain with its "cover girl" ministers). But most Americans are aware now that this sort of mindless favoritism is just as bad as discrimination.

"It contradicts both the French reputation for chauvinism and the American self-image of equality. Perhaps, Weber suggests, "Americans like to tell people they're not sexist or racist, but in the voting booth it's something else."

Why should people vote for someone according to gender, and not according to pure qualifications ? Many things are more unsettling in US and/or European votes.

One of the things I dislike with Segolene is that she is heavily playing on her being a woman. I don't try to fulfill some quota of positive discrimination when I vote, I just try to choose the best person. Someone arguing that politics are handled differently according to gender shows prejudice.

"One of the things I dislike with Segolene is that she is heavily playing on her being a woman." - Marie-Aude

Does she? Or it it that the media in France plays it up so much? I've watched and read a lot of Segnole's campaign and I don't agree with you at all that she plays up being a woman. That's something you yourself impose on her words and her campaign.

Anyway, the notion that western democracies are ahead on this issue has long been out of date. It's a measure of western ignorance that there is never any mention of third world countries who decades ago elected women leaders democratically, such as India and Pakistan.

I'd just like to point out that female political leaders, be they empresses, queens, prime ministers, dictators, or presidents, have already been in political control of some of the most profoundly sexist societies in the world, including India, Pakistan, Qing Dynasty China, and so on. Why people believe that simply having a woman as head of state implicitly advances women's rights more than having a man advancing women's rights? Did it require a female president to give American women the vote? Did having female prime ministers in Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka make those countries into shining beacons of feminist equality? No, it did not. Patriarchal societies have produced female political leaders before; indeed, most of them did so before fully enfranchised democratic systems have. What does this tell us? The article is silent.

My concern is that Hillary, or Segolene, once in power, will have to prove themselves more macho than a man would. Maybe France could take a little tough love if it came from a woman; the welfare state there definitely needs it. But Hillary is going to be faced with a completely different cast of problems, and I suspect her whole militaristic stance on Iraq would endure, simply so nobody could call her weak. There is no leader more likely to committ MORE troops than Hillary. They said Nixon was the only one who could pull out of Vietnam and initiate dialogue with China, because his tough guy credentials were secure. Well, what kind of political leader is going to be secure enough to withdraw from Iraq without getting crippled by accusations of cowardice?

I agree with David. The unsettling part of the stance taken by Ms Papenfuss is the Euro/American focus. Meanwhile many parts of the world have already elected female leaders.

Check it out...http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Current-Women-Leaders.htm

JG

Pakistan is a case in point - The Bhuttos were a "power couple" as well. Benazir held many, many positions in the government over the years, not in traditional women's concerns but in defense and Energy and so on, and was not just head of state. She and her husband, like the Clintons, were savaged by the Pakistani media and the fanatic right-wing opposition and dragged through the courts. Unlike Bill Clinton, she was removed from power and, allegedly, disgraced. But the Bhuttos fought back and cleared themselves in court.

Since Pakistan's elections are even more crooked than ours, she was unable to regain the leadership of the country. It's left in the hands of an unholy alliance of militarists, rogue intelligence agents, faith-based organizations and confrontational fundamentalist religious leaders.

The United States, no shocker here, helped the right-wing fundie fanatics take power in Pakistan because they were more corporate-friendly.

But anyway, Pakistan was less patriarchal under Benazir Bhutto (and her father, admittedly). Since she was their only female head of state, and since conditions during her leadership were at their best in pakistan, there might be a connection.