Manly Men in the White House: Girly Girls Are Needed

So Bush's problem is that he is too (read a scholarly look here) manly. So says Washington Post writer Ruth Marcus in her article Man Overboard. Since the government works via checks and balances, we can only hope Bush balances out the girly-men and not-so-manly-women in Congress and checks the closeted men and sleeping women in the Supreme Court.

Only in Washington do we have discussions on the problems with a man's manhood. So far removed are the insiders from men who actually do something besides enthuse about the efficiency of their hybrids. That it why it was almost funny how the press portrayed the whole Cheney shooting thing with bated breath and shocked dismay. Nevermind that many men hunt, that they take risks when they do it, that often a flask of whiskey accompanies them and that stuff happens out there sometimes and because guns are involved, sometimes the "stuff" is permanent.

Tiresome.

To reduce policy arguments to gender politics further denegrates women. That a woman like Ruth Marcus doesn't see this by now annoys me. Bush's policies are not bad because he is too manly or has the testosterone of a racehorse turned out to stud. Bush's policies are bad on their own merit. Or not.

The notion that a woman cannot be aggressive, provoking, dominating and in charge because she lacks testicles (they make the majority of the testosterone, afterall) strikes me as the argument a man would use to dismiss a woman's ability to take the mantle of leadership. Bull dookey! Women might lack the upper-body strength of a man, but last I checked, that was not a requirement for signing bills into law and reading a teleprompter.

If a woman is to ever be President of the United States, women must stop using gender and by extension hormones as a shield for battling issues they disagree with. Women throughout history have excelled at things as distasteful as war: Catherine the Great, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Victoria, Margaret Thatcher, to name a few that pop into my head. But these women were also skilled at managing the intrigue, they endured attempts on their lives and were courageous. Are these characteristics exclusively manly? Could they not be describe as the best human traits? (Or worst, if you're Ruth Marcus.)

Yet today, a woman or man may disagree with these historical female leaders' decisions. Should we decry them as too womanly because they war-mongered? Too feminine? Too manly, even? Bah! It is condescending and simple-minded to do so. It is chauvinism at it's worst.

Ms. Marcus is free to debate President Bush on the merits, but can we please leave his gonads out of it?

UPDATE: MaxedOutMama has more on Bush's manliness.