- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Here's the problem...According to the insightful book Women in Power, by political scientist and psychoanalysist, Blema Steinberg, women who have become state leaders--she uses Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gahndi as examples--do tend to demonstrate more dominating styles of leadership than men. Generally they have to, or they wouldn't get where they are. In an interview I did with Steinberg last year she pointed out, rightly, that it would be inconceivable for a woman with the laid back personality of a George Bush or Ronald Reagan to become a head of state. Only women who work their asses off could even come close.
Is it sexist to point this out? Is it sexist to worry about the history of dominant leadership styles? Both parliamentary cabinets who put Gahndi, and Meir into power, thought they were going to be submissive figureheads whose inexperience would make them needy for counsel and for advice of elder statesmen.
Didn't quite work out that way. Is it sexist to worry about that dynamic. Especially when we're talking about important feminist rights being repealed.
Sorry, but so what if Republicans made bad jokes about Hilary. We should be afraid of a potential dominatrix in power, and we can't allow a fear of hypocrisy to submerge this debate.
