A potential kick in the face for male politicians

Feminist strategies have taken many different forms over the years. In the 1960s, women fought for equal pay by saying that they were just as qualified/smart/ambitious as men, that they could perform the same roles. In the late 19th century, women convinced the American college system that they needed access to higher education. Their reasoning? - they needed to be smart so that they could provide a good at-home education for America's sons.

What does this have to do with the present day? Well, one of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton will probably not win a national election in 2008 is because much of our society still thinks (at least subconsciously) that women are fundamentally more emotional (read: less rational) than men. We get moody, we change our minds frequently, we cry, we break dishes, we are 'pussies'. Putting the rational/emotional debate aside, if it were the case that a candidate had less 'rational' ability, they probably would not be as desirable a political leader.

Now, this article about one of the side-effects of Viagra indicates that taking this drug might make you a more 'emotional' person. Viagra apparently increases the production of a "love hormone." [Cue satire] Now we all know that that feeling of love can mess with our decision-making skills. And we all know that some large percentage of those crusty white guys in Washington are popping the little blue pills. So how can we trust political leaders who take drugs that compromise their rational abilities and risk the safety of our nation? These men are turning themselves into women.

So I propose that we ban the use of Viagra by political leaders, police officers, men in the military, CEOs, market analysts, and anyone who clings to the myth of male rationality as a justification for not allowing women into their field. Let's keep male space pussy-free.

looking toward '08

So I've been following the Democratic presidential candidates this year a little more closely than in the past few elections. The main contenders present an interesting conundrum of issues: while Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all seem to be forward-thinkers and have decent platforms, I worry that Americans simply will not, when push comes to shove, elect a woman or a Black person.

Which makes me want to put my eggs in Edwards' basket. But for some reason, the media is giving him less coverage, he's doing worse in the polls, even though his 'poverty' campaign is one of the best platforms I've seen since Dennis Kucinich. And maybe that's why he has not been as successful. Anyway, Scholars and Rogues has a really good analysis of why the American public might not be willing to hear about poverty and privilege and wealth gaps. And it gets back to my earlier post about Rocky Balboa and the American sense of toilocracy.

I suppose the brain-popping-realization of classist practice in this country is much easier to take when you're 18 than when you're 50, lower-middle-class, working your ass off to make ends meet, and can't figure out why you haven't experienced the American dream.