To honor Women’s History Month, Bill O’Reilly went off the other day on his concerns that “there’s gotta be a ‘downside’ to have a woman president, right? Something that may not ‘fit’ with that office – correct?”
The two women guests, a Democrat and a Republican, seemed a bit flummoxed by the entire thing.
You gotta love the expression on the Democratic consultant’s face in the middle, above. The Republican was equally confused, but attempted to laugh it off.
Now, while I think, generally speaking, there are, sometimes, differences in the sexes beyond the physical. Do women approach problem-solving differently than men? I’m pretty sure science say ‘yes.’ And do women, generally speaking have a different than men – meaning, are men bigger a-holes, bigger hotheads? Sometimes I think that might be a fair assessment.
I don’t think it’s ridiculous to say that, generally speaking, men and women are often different in terms of their approaches to things. But it’s not a given. And, more specifically, who’s to say that even if there is a difference, that it would be a bad one? I seem to recall Madeleine Albright talking about this years ago, perhaps it was in one of our classes at Georgetown, or our lunch group we used to have of Gtown Foreign Service school grads after we all graduated. But I remember he talking about women might just be less likely to go to war at the drop of a hat.
I don’t know if that’s true. And I certainly think it’s absurd to suggest that women can’t be ballsy enough, to use the word, to be leader of the nation. Look at Margaret Thatcher. Whatever you think of her politics, backbone the woman had.
I almost wish O’Reilly hadn’t hedged, had just said what he was thinking. What trait do women have that would supposedly disqualify them from the presidency? I don’t get it.