If this isn't macho, I don't know what is! via myra bluebird @ flickr
Where would international relations be without the wisdom of Kathleen Parker? I feel very grateful that she took the time yesterday to share her insights into just why President Obama’s diplomacy is viewed as being unmanly. I wasn’t aware this was a pressing issue, but thankfully Ms. Parker enlightened me.
Parker notes that, “Unfortunately, most of world history seems to have pivoted on the balance or imbalance of hormones, with testosterone presenting the greatest challenge. (I note this as a fan.)” A fan of what? Testosterone? She goes on to say:
In what may prove to be an epochal development, Obama seems to have his [hormones] under control. He doesn’t strut, swagger or flex. He doesn’t even notice the hydrant.
Holy shit, a leader who is not ruled by his testosterone! Could it be that Obama is the first ever world leader to think things through and not be a slave to his impetuous hormones? Amazing! Apparently this is supposed to be a bad thing. We’re supposed to want a leader who is overwhelmed by machismo, thinks with the wrong head, and is at the mercy of his testosterone. It would also be a bonus if he peed on hydrants, and by “hydrants” we mean “Nicolas Sarkozy.”
If George W. Bush was a cowboy, Obama is a group hug.
I’ll take a hug over “cowboy diplomacy” anyday, but that’s not really the point. Parker is trying to say that Obama lacks testosterone, ergo he is emasculated, ergo he is ineffective. Only macho men are fit to rule. The same hormones that she seems to view as being so beneficial to a man’s governing capabilities would be a liability if they were female hormones. You know, the old rube of “a woman President would push the red button when it’s that time of the month!” If Obama is not macho enough, does that mean that any woman leader will be similarly “un-tough” and therefore unable to bring about diplomatic success?
He says we should show leadership by listening. That we should work in partnership with others. That we should show humility. This is, of course, pure porn for women.
Huh? Really, what is that about? It’s nice of Parker to assume that only women would embrace listening to others (what a radical tactic!) because men are too busy bashing one another over the head with clubs. Women are the ones who use our emotions and feelings and empathy and we know how to listen. Apparently nothing sets off a political orgasm among women quite like a male politician who listens to others! Maybe Americans of both genders embrace this because it’s a lot more reasonable than McCain’s “Bomb Iran” song that was sufficiently macho and sufficiently idiotic.
Parker equivocates at the very end, closing on an almost laudatory note:
To answer the original question: When you’re the big dog, you can afford to smile. The saber is understood.
Except she still seems to think that diplomacy is a dick-measuring contest and doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with that — which makes sense, given that she’s a fan of testosterone. This whole issue of “is Obama manly enough?” makes me think of the failed attempt to smear him with the ridiculous “elitist” label last year. “Elite” should not be a pejorative term; it means the best of the best, something that you would think is a positive quality in a leader. In a similar linguistic misappropriation, “diplomacy” does not mean a pissing contest or a violent rugby scrum. To be diplomatic in the pure sense of the word is to use intelligence, tactical discussions, finesse, subtlety, and courtesy. Machismo does not seem to have a foothold in that definition. Maybe someone should tell Parker that sometimes it’s best to let the testosterone cool and wiser heads will usually prevail, and also to just stop talking about diplomacy in explicitly male-centric gendered terms. Remember the big strong cowboy of a man who was going to get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive”? That was a real success, huh? I’ll take a smile and a perceived group hug any day.
If Obama’s so lacking in testosterone, why do I still want to hit that? (It wouldn’t involve a lot of “leadership by listening,” that’s for sure.)
I hate that so many make the mistake of equating machismo with bravado and drama.
The patriarchy hurts men too!
just stop talking about diplomacy in explicitly male-centric gendered terms
And, of course, women. Especially those who want to enter the world stage. Excellent.
I’m also really uncomfortable with any suggestion that the President of the United States of America is in any way porny. Is she thinking of that horribly offensive book in which there are pictures of men vacuuming and asking about your day? I guess it’s just hard for me to think about a statesman crafting erotica rather than policy. Silly me.
To be honest, since I know what too much testosterone means from a biological point of view (being very aggressive, impatient and um, horny) I’d rather have a leader who was very rational, male or female.
I watched Obama’s town hall meeting in France. He said that the Europeans must provide military support for our mission in Afganistan and THEY APPLAUDED. This is what happens when the President acts diplomatically–our allies are actually willing to work with us. I cannot understand how people who supposedly care about the US’s security favor swagger over talk, when talk is so clearly more effective in meeting our own interests.
Lady hormones make us unfit for leadership but an abundance of something as wild as testosterone is a requirement.
The way Parker’s piece is shaped, and where it ends, with that “the saber is understood” (which is just so incredibly gross) makes me wonder what sorta racial tie-in she’s got hovering in her mind. There was/is so much about Obama needing to not be seen as “threatening” or an “angry black man” during the campaign, I can’t but think that the spectre of race and the Big Black Dick remains.
Which: please, please, people, it’s 2009, we’ve got plenty to deal with vis-a-vis race, but can we get over dick-measuring? I don’t want to think about any elected official’s (male or female) genitals.
But PhDork, Obama is sooooo hot. Get with the program.
@PhDork: As long as men still occupy positions of power in the world, then no, we cannot get over the dick measuring. I mean, men have these convenient measuring sticks just, like, attached to their pelvises — might as well use ‘em to settle debates every now and again, right? /snark
In all seriousness, I am sad that a woman had to write a piece embracing the idea of dick measuring. Way to play into the old “penis envy” stereotype, Ms. Parker.
Yeah, because the last 8 years of testosterone-fueled (really, I don’t want to blame testosterone, I’d rather blame, hmm, small brains?) leadership have worked sooooooo well, eh Kathleen?
Seriously, I’m so happy to have a calm, cool, collected, rational, thinking president that I could seriously pee my pants. It’s like, return of the smart people. Reminds me of that picture of him someone made during the election that was Obama captioned “RELAX, HE’S GOT THIS.” “Testosterone” (so far as it means penis-measuring politics) does not relax me. SMARTNESS is very relaxing.
@SarahMC: Yes. Female hormones = instability. Male hormones = strength in machismo. Hooray for double standards!
Oh… Obama’s got a swagger. He’s hella ganster. But then again, he’s speaking in that secret Black people code so it’s clear why this douche missed the cues.