I think Putin would be terrified of a female POTUS who was pre menopause. I remember when my wife was cycling many years ago, I lived days of sheer horror that I was going to think or do the wrong thing and it would be DEFCON 1, so I kept my hat in my hand.

Sorry, just a little holiday margarita's doing some humor talking ;-)

While I think Palin made a mistake in resigning, to be fair to her, it wasn't just a matter of being slandered.

The unique ethics laws in Alaska, which she was partially responsible for instituting, allowed the filing of ethics complaints by anyone, including some cartoon characters, that had to be formally responded to.

Since she was marked as a rising Republican star she was a target. She found that the office of the Governor was being almost completely occupied by responding to ethics complaints.

Hey Wm: You need to make a strong post in favor of a woman being president.

I will be seeing you at the office tomorrow!!!

Jan

The most powerful, responsible human on the planet? I'm not sure that's a valid job description. The job has a lot of power, but very great limitations as well.

There are certain skill sets involved in being the executive of a constitutional republic (pretending that we are one). That does not mean that someone with those skills could not look up to someone with different skills.

I will admit that I'm having a problem with the dissonance between Rand wanting an intellectual equal and having to look up to the man. If someone is an intellectual equal, don't you have to both look up to each other?

I have to agree with AR and I do so from much the same rational basis as her. If there are those that 'veer from her tutelage' on this issue, they do so as the result of not following the pure rational logic of her philosophy. There are a few factual basis that have to be analyzed first before addressing the question of a woman being suited for President.

First of all is that women qua women are the inheritors of the genetics that have survived and won out through the evolutionary process of mankind, as are men the inheritors of their successful genetics. There is no inequality or inculcated trap in understanding those actualities or values offered by both, woman qua woman and man qua man. It is simple biology and evolution proofing. A woman fighting to be a man or to do a function better done by a man is by definition a woman that's unhappy with the fact of her femininity, her biology and inherited genetics. That is very close to the definition of a psychosis.

Next is AR's views of what a president in an Objectivist world should be and the proper role in an Objectivist government. By her definitions, that role is to lead a minimalist government dedicated to protecting and enforcing the individual and natural rights of citizens. And in such a position, the respect for that authority must be natural and accepted by those over which the president is in charge of and directs and supervises in enforcing retribution for violations of rights and to protect the country from outside attack.

The president must as well be able to represent the country to the rest of the world which includes many peoples with many different cultural backgrounds and histories, and work with a legislature and the courts and the states. While it may not be politically correct to say so, the facts of the world are that all of those others make decisions when dealing with others in equal positions based on perceptions of who holds the office of the president. Many will bring up Margaret Thatcher as an example of a woman that could do all of those things while they set aside that she really rode the coattails of Ronald Reagan in international affairs and also gained from the legislative acts of the UK.

Any argument used to try to convince me otherwise will have to first of all demonstrate how AR's reasoning and rationale is in error by addressing nearly her entire philosophy.

I want to know why she was fired. It might not have been a bad thing. I heard she ticked off the old boys. What did she do. Why did she do it, and why didn't they like it?

Ayn Rand was wrong when she said that, and she is still wrong now. The criterion for a job is 'the capability to perform that job'. Nothing else matters.

Jan

And Steve Jobs was fired from Apple in 1985.

As to leading the Armed Forces, we have repeatedly elected men with no military service at any rank. From my own biased position (retired military) I think that is a mistake, but the R's and D's don't always give us suitable alternatives :-(

I don't agree with the concept, However if Hillary and dizzy lizzy are what is available, then I agree. If Carly F is the Repubs choice, I would vote for her just to vote against Hil. We need a good person male or female please.

While Fiorina tries to spin her time as CEO of HP as positive, she was fired from that position.

Does America "need" a female president...no.

I don't say that we should never have one...I merely state that we shouldn't elect one, just because we want more "change".

We need to fix this country. We've had good presidents and bad presidents, all of them have been male. Does that make the male a bad choice...no. Does that make the female a good choice, again...no.

A female presidency would be "different", but "better" would only be determined after an election, not just because some of us wish it. I've seem some pretty pitiful governments with women in the lead, as well as men, so you can't convince me that electing a woman would fix everything.

Now, there are some creditable women, out there, whom I believe would do a fine job of the presidency. However, I don't believe any of them are currently running for office.

I, too, would have liked to have seen Sarah Palin as vice president, at the very least. With a female vice president, to observe, we could at least have some idea as to whether or not we wanted a woman in the highest position, at some time in the future.

She also wasn't living in the information age. We are in a different place in society than we were 40 years ago. Back then, women were mainly cooks and nurses in the military, now they have combat experience and have a more broad view. AR, thought, IMO, that the society that she wrote about in AS wouldn't come about for 100 years, and it was accomplished in less than half that time.

I would have to partly agree. There are women who just don't have the guts to be President -- I believe Sarah Palin showed this about herself by resigning as governor when slandered.

There are also some pretty tough women who do have what it takes. I agree with RMP that Lady Thatcher did.

But I'm not really afraid of either of those types in a crisis. No, what worries me is that a woman president like Hillary or DiFi will feel the need to prove she is tough by starting a war or committing an atrocity that doesn't need to happen.

I disagree with Rand on this point, and many others. Shermer wrote an interesting article, which is mostly (not completely) accurate in my view.

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-unlikeliest-cult-in-history/

I doubt there is any human being on this planet whose views I will 100% agree with.

ooohhh, yuk. The video you posted is a problem for me, but I'm going to chalk it up to Ayn's perception of a majority of the women of her time, not something objectively correct. If a majority of women believe as they are brought up that men need to take care of them, they probably are not suited for this job, but there are clearly some excellent women leaders. Margret Thatcher among them.


WRT present candidates, I don't like Hillary for her positions, and I don't like Carly Fiorina because she has shown no ability to succeed. She made a mess of HP. Why would anyone giver her the US to lead, except that she is not Hillary?

Although I am not a woman I can see that being a woman in this issue would make a difference. How one sees oneself and what kind of a position one can envision and its ramifications would reflect a decision to seek certain positions. I cannot see myself seeking the job of a nanny although I could do the job, I just wouldn't be comfortable with it if something else was available. Ayn Rand didn't say a woman couldn't do the job but was concerned with how she would feel about herself and the world if she had to.

I can think of a few woman who would be infinitely better than the Micky Mouse we now have! Hillary is certainly not among them. The POTUS does not need to do it all but he/she does need to select the right people for the inner circle and if you look now at who/what we have driving this train wreck there is little wonder why we are off the tracks.

One needs to carefully read the article in question: in The Objectivist, 12/68. Here are excerpts:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/femininity.html

To state flatly that women are unsuitable to serve as POTUS is a good argument starter but there are too many counter examples that challenge the validity of that position. Thatcher is one and Golda Maier is another. Character and strength are not the unique properties of the male gender.

Rand's position on this point has always bothered me. I don't see why a woman could not be President although I admit I don't see any on the horizon that I would vote for.