Frontiers in Sex Equality


Christina Hoff Sommers had a great response to an, er, easy target of a tweet by Broadway producer and former Hillary Clinton "LGBT Outreach Grassroots CoordinatorTom D'Angora:

Now if we're going to take hereditary monarchs, I'm pleased to report that a good chunk of what is now the U.S. (part of the empire whose American portion ultimately separated in a civil war) had a woman leader in Queen Anne, from 1702 to 1714. On the other hand, Wikipedia tells us that much of Korea, including parts of North Korea, was ruled by a regnant queen (which is to say a ruler in her own right), Queen Seondeok of Silla, from 632 to 647, so let's let that sink in. And of course, let us not forget the great words of the great Queen Elizabeth I:

I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too.

My sense, by the way, is that a culture's willingness to accept a female monarch probably says something about its attitudes towards women. But not a whole lot.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: April 26, 1995

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m not sure how much Noth Korean “culture’s willingness to accept a female monarch” has to do with who succeeds in becoming the next dictator of this poor benighted country.

    1. I’m not sure it does, either, and I’m sure it doesn’t have much to do with it. But it might have something to do with it, because it may influence whether Kim Yo Jong can get the loyalty of the relevant military and state security powers (especially compared to possible male contenders).

      1. Well, the issue is that he murdered Kim Jong-nam but didn’t kill her, apparently not considering her a threat to his power. She could be a Khrushchev, seen by the army as better than her brother, much as Khrushchev was seen as better than Stalin.

        What’s not widely known is that China is feeding DPRK — they don’t want the refugees coming across the border — and as the DPRK literally stole their trains, they now load the grain into old boxcars and push them across the bridge (engines remaining in China) with them coasting to a stop somewhere in the DPRK. A CCP member told me ‘we know we won’t get them back, but they are old boxcars.”

        The true wild card in all of this is China, which was in a major (but fairly secret) recession before the Wuhan Virus outbreak. Would they be willing to make a deal with her — nukes for food — ao as to gain grace with the US? Who knows….

  2. So what’s going on with the current Kim guy? Has he passed on to Godhood yet?

    1. This is the one I wanted – he went after Sony for making it.

      1. Of course there would be rifling on the shell and the round (fired from below) would have hit on the bottom and not side of the helo, but I still love watching this.

        And it’s particularly ironic if it’s true that he was injured in a mishap relative to his missile test on April 14th, the last time he has been known to be OK (as no missile test is allowed without his personal permission).

      2. Such an underappreciated movie. It is still that duo’s best comedy to date. An unapologetic middle finger to the DPRK’s leadership and a great bromance, where they each get their girls (and a puppy) in the end.

    2. They aren’t saying. We can say that he hasn’t been seen in public for two weeks. There has been no announcement. However, it is well within their normal operations to pretend that he is all well and good even if he’s been dead for some time.

      So, it could be anything.

      1. Ben — the haven’t released the footage of the April 14th Missile tests — that either means that something went wrong or Kim isn’t able to approve their release, or both.

  3. I’m pleased to report that a good chunk of what is now the U.S. (the empire whose American portion ultimately separated in a civil war)

    I think you meant UK, not US.

    1. He was referring to the American colonies, bernard11.

      1. U.S. (the empire whose American portion ultimately separated in a civil war)

        How was the U.S. an “empire whose American portion ultimately separated in a civil war?”

        That makes no sense. I assume he was referring to the British Empire, and that the civil war in question was the American Revolution.

        1. The empire phrase refers to the chunk.

          IE “A good chunk of the empire whose American portion ultimately separated in the civil war, which is now part of the US”.

          1. Not so fast. Mr Volokh might have in mind the legal usage of Empire meaning a ‘sovereign state’ applies, cf. Henry VIII’s remark that “England is an empire”.

    2. He’s right — the Revolution really was a civil war. My family was on the other side…

      1. Some families slew each other. I seem to recall being informed that one third of the population were loyal to the Crown. Yorkists? Loyalists? Either way, a considerable migration ensued. Not ethnic cleansing, but I’m sure an ethnic split ensued.

        1. Yes, and the remaining third wanted nothing to do with it.

          At least in New England, it was the merchant class and those who traded with the British versus “the deplorables” — Maine east of Portland remained loyal to the British largely because people down there cut firewood and sailed it down to Boston to sell to the British, returning with grains (and flour) that would not grow on the damp (foggy) coast of Maine. By contrast, John Hancock was a notorious smuggler — he’d be a drug smuggler today.

          Boston had a “North End Gang” and a “South End Gang” who would fight on Boston Common on Sunday afternoons (think soccer hooligans). They became the Patriots and found it a lot more fun to steal from the British and the Loyalists.

          My statements on the middle ceasing to hold are based on my knowledge of what happened in the latter half of the 18th Century.

      2. You mean “the unfortunate events of 1776”, as I believe Jeeves referred to them.

    3. Sorry, meant to say “part of the empire whose American portion ….” — I originally accidentally omitted the “part of”; my apologies.

  4. The defeat of Hillary Clinton — in which an eminently capable, tough woman lost to a brazenly corrupt, weak and incompetent man — did in fact say quite a bit about our country’s attitude toward women as leaders.

    1. Oh look, another Trump criticism. *yawn*

    2. That’s funny! Capable and tough? Capable of corruption, not much else.

      1. That’s funny! A Trump supporter “against corruption”

        Next thing ya know, he’ll accuse Clinton of being a liar!

    3. Actually Hillary is an illustration of a very general principle – that women still struggle to rise to power otherwise than by succession.

      Obviously women succeed to the throne in monarchies, and it appears they may be able to do so in North Korea. But we don’t have any examples (that I’m aware of) of a woman establishing a monarchical line, or a dictatorship. If they get a shot, it’s by way of succession.

      But that also seems to be true, in significant measure, of women getting to, or nearly getting to power, in democracies or quasi-democracies. Indira Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Marine Le Pen, Keiko Fujimori, Benazir Bhutto, Isabel Peron, Cristina Kirchner etc, they were all riding dynastic or marital coat tails. Ditto Hillary.

      Exceptions seem quite few – Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel and a few very recent ones in Europe and NZ.

      I am not suggesting that dynastical succession is irrelevant to male political success – obviously not. Justin Trudeau is a current example.

      My point is that of those political leaders that paddle their own way to the top, very few indeed are women, and democracy seems to be the only way to do it.

      1. I can think of a couple who legitimately seized power, usually by the time honored tradition of getting themselves declared regent to an underage heir. Hatshepsut of Egypt and Empress Wu of China are the standouts that I can think of in that regard – notably, once both of them were out of power, later monarchs did their best to villify them (Wu – who did actually declare a separate dynasty, although it did not survive her death due to the incompetence of her successor) or outright erase them From history (Hatshepsut).

        1. Except they both got their start in the sack. They’re examples of conjugal succession.

          I don’t mean to imply that their succession was automatic and that no political talent was required. Alexander the Great succeeded to the Macedonian throne, but he seems to have been quite talented.

          I’m simply drawing attention to the lack of female Napoleons, Mussolinis, Kim Il Sungs, Juan Perons, Pol Pots, Nelson Mandelas, Fidel Castros. There’s also a relative lack of female Ronald Reagans, Bill Clintons, and other self made leaders in democratic polities – but at least there are some.

      2. I am not suggesting that dynastical succession is irrelevant to male political success – obviously not. Justin Trudeau is a current example.

        Plenty of examples in the U.S. , most recently George W. Bush.

        1. And if Hillary had won, that would not be? Some (cough cough) seem to be implying that she was not elected because the populace is a bunch of backwards hillbillies.

          1. So what’s your point?
            That bunch of backward hillbillies (and many flatlanders I might add) was smart enough to get a man elected.

            1. I suppose TDS is my point. All these politicians are freaking out because they cannot understand that Trump was elected because he is not an ordinary run-of-the-mill politician, and they are grabbing at straws, throwing themselves against every wall in sight, over and over, desperately trying to get more attention than Trump, and they never will until they acknowledge Trump as not being an ordinary run-of-the-mill politician.

              (The other half of TDS is the bootlickers who think defeating Hillary was a miracle and he must be worshipped. But they are not the idiots in charge of all these states and cities.)

              1. Yes and no.

                Trump was elected because he’s a tantrum-throwing man-child who promised to wreak havoc with the established order. I suppose that qualifies as not being an ordinary run of the mill politician. What his election proved is that there’s a significant part of the population that votes out of rage. (Oh, and also that the claim that the electoral college would keep demagogues out of power is a laugh riot.)

                The problem with voting out of rage is that burning Washington to the ground isn’t actually a great strategy for governance. Hopefully cooler heads prevail this time around.

                1. Or perhaps it merely proves that voting out of rage doesn’t actually result in burning Washington to the ground. Burning Washington to the ground may still be a sound governance strategy.

          2. And if Hillary had won, that would not be

            No. It would have been. As a Gore win in 2000 would have been.

            It’s a bipartisan phenomenon.

        2. I am not suggesting that dynastical succession is irrelevant to male political success – obviously not. Justin Trudeau is a current example.

          Plenty of examples in the U.S. , most recently George W. Bush.

          And, had she won, Hillary.

        3. bernard : Plenty of examples in the U.S. , most recently George W. Bush.

          Weeell. Since we’re including near misses, ie defeated candidates for President (otherwise we wouldn’t be including Hillary) I’ll have to agree that George W Bush is narrowly more recent than Al Gore jnr, since Bush ran in 2004 as well as in 2000.

          But Mitt Romney beats Bush having run in 2012.

          Less recently of course George HW Bush also qualifies as the son of Prescott.

          And when googling Prescott Bush I noted that he was succeeded as Senator by Thomas J Dodd, the father of the non female, non Kennedy slice of the waitress sandwich. The Kennedy slice of course owed his Senate seat to his brother (and the family machine.)

          It seems Americans like their political dynasties.

      3. Dennis Thatcher versus Bill Clinton — do you not see the difference?

        Hillary “hooked” an upwardly mobile young lawyer/politician at Yale, and rode his coattails to the nomination. Like she’d been elected to the Senate had her last name been Lewinski….

        1. Without Fred, Donald John Trump would be running a three-card monte on some street corner, so what’s your point?

          1. Fred did not start a political dynasty. Bill and Hillary thought Bill did. They may yet throw Chelsea into the ring and try again.

            1. Better Chelsea than Don Jr. Please tell me we at least agree on that?!?

          2. Ever hear of Prescott Bush?

        2. See, I think you’ve got that exactly backward. I think Hillary was far better for Bill’s career than the other way around.

          There’s an old joke that after the 1992 election the Clinton’s stopped for gas at a convenience store in rural Arkansas, where they ran into one of Hillary’s old boyfriends who was now running the convenience store. As they were driving away, Bill said to Hillary, “Just think, if you’d married him you’d be working at a gas station.” To which Hillary responded, “Nope, if I’d married him, he’d be president of the United States.

          1. Someone who moved to my neighborhood from Arkansas for the Clinton campaign (and never left) tells a similar story as if it might be something more than an old joke.

          2. The hilarious part of that joke is that Hillary is so obviously blinded by her unjustified arrogance that you can actually believe she’d seriously say something so patently ridiculous.

            1. Or perhaps she has a sense of humor?

              Conservatives — for whom humor is mostly Jim Gaffigan and Greg Gutfeld, and who must observe wistfully all of the best comedy, music, movies, and television shows, which they just can’t get — might not understand.

          3. No, Hillary lacks Bill’s people skills.

      4. “Exceptions seem quite few …” – you left out some. Julia Gillard in Australia, for example, whose lasting importance comes from her epic “Misogyny speech”, responding to critics of women in power, decrying entrenched prejudice, obstacles placed in the way of talent, and the hypocrisy of those calling her government sexist. It remains a powerful indictment of political misogyny.
        But not worldwide: of the “… very recent ones in Europe and NZ,” that last, as my law school lecturer pointed out, remains the only nation in history to have ALL the top jobs in every branch of government held by women: in particular the head of state, prime minister, governor-general, attorney general, chief justice, as well as speaker of the house and the leader of the opposition, were all women duly elected, appointed, or acclaimed (in the case of the Queen).

    4. Hillary didn’t lose because she was a woman. She lost because she was Hillary Clinton.

      But if you really want to do some self introspection, ask how Joe Biden will be the nominee for the Democrats this year, despite so many other women on the ballot.

      1. None of the Democratic women were subjected to the double standard crap that Republicans threw at Hillary.

        1. Such as?

        2. You mean like covering up for Bill’s dickadillos while pretending to be a feminist? Including the smearing women who dared to claim Bill had assaulted or had relations with them. Even appearing on national TV to “stand by her man”.

        3. Look, I’m genuinely amazed at Hillary’s political chops, and powers of manipulation. It takes genuine skill to get as far as she did while having all the personal appeal of a rotting fish. She’s as pure an example of the triumph of skill and theory over innate personality as you could ever ask for.

          But the greatest example of this skill is convincing most of the people in a whole party that a decades long reputation as criminally corrupt was all manufactured via a smear campaign.

          1. Hillary doesn’t meet a birther’s standards?

            1. You’d have to ask one.

            2. That’s funny, Rev, because Hillary was the birther “patient zero”.

              1. Yes, and ‘Democrats are the real racists.’

                Carry on, clingers. Not much longer, though.

              2. I thought Obama’s literary agent, Acton & Dystel, acting on Obama’s behalf, was birther patient zero.

                1. Depends on whether they were also working at his direction, in which case *he* might be birther patient zero.

                  1. Of course they were working at his direction. Any suggestion otherwise is absurd.

    5. That’s just the tip of the iceberg of American sexism.

      A quick Internet search confirms that Roseanne Barr ran in 2012 as the candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party (after first trying to be the Green Party candidate).

      She even did a movie about it called Roseanne for President! (exclamation mark in title)

      Now, Barr is obviously a well-qualified woman with plenty of experience and a willingness to speak out on the issues.

      What, apart from sexism, can account for her losing in 2012?

    6. Not capable enough to make a campaign appearance in Wisconsin.

      1. Do you honestly think an appearance in Wisconsin would have changed the outcome?

        1. “Do you honestly think an appearance in Wisconsin would have changed the outcome?”

          I guess we’ll never know. Do you honestly think that pouring resources into blue states like California got her votes in Wisconsin?

          1. Did I claim that pouring resources into blue states like California got her votes in Wisconsin?

            1. You kinda did: You were defending her spending time in California instead of Wisconsin. Why would that decision have made the least sense if it wasn’t going to help her in Wisconsin? It’s not like she was plausibly going to lose California.

              1. I did not say a word about her having spent time in California. If she had visited Wisconsin, I doubt that it would have made a difference, because there’s pretty good evidence that Trump carried Wisconsin because of voter suppression in minority neighborhoods. But, we’ll never know, so it’s just one more of the many “what if” questions.

                And she didn’t go to California because she thought California was in contention. She went there to raise money, something for which California was a far better use of her time than Wisconsin.

                1. Voter suppression? Because minority voters didn’t want to vote for Hillary, so they stayed home instead?

                  1. …with their pal Johnny Walker, and his brothers Blackie and Red?

                    Wait, that was some white guy.

    7. The Democrats also rejected her in 2008. I can only assume it was because of corrupt motives, because that’s how you play this game, right?

    8. Ruthlessly corrupt does not mean “competent” at this level….

      Remember when she discussed our nuke secrets during a debate?

      1. “Ruthlessly corrupt” from a rabid Trump supporter.
        That’s. Absolutely. Hilarious.

        Trump is so corrupt he used his charitable foundation to pay little Don Jr’s seven dollar Boy Scout fee. Of course his entire foundation was a complete fraud for that matter. The man inherits hundreds of millions for his rich daddy and still launches a petty stupid con like Trump University. He howls with indignation over an investigation whether he sought foreign assistance to aid his election campaign, watches that investigation end on 24July with Mueller’s testimony before Congress, then tries to extort foreign assistance to aid his election campaign on the very next day.

        That, people, is the criminal mind in action. Beat the rap, step out of the courthouse, immediately start the next scam…..

        1. Trump is so corrupt he used his charitable foundation to pay little Don Jr’s seven dollar Boy Scout fee.

          If you ever wonder why nobody takes your constant stream of bitter lip-flapping seriously, come back and look at this post. It’s as though there are no actual problems in the world or something.

          Oh, and may I please have your tax returns for the past 30 years?

          1. I’m curious, Life of Brian : What exactly is your point?

            (1) Are you challenging the fact? Good luck with that; dozens of sources are just a Google search away.

            (2) Do you claim it’s too petty a criminal act? Well, that was one of my points: Trump’s criminality ranges from a fraudulent “university”, to a fraudulent “foundation”, to using United States foreign policy for his own personal benefit, to stealing $7 from a charity – just because a supposed-billionaire was too much the crook to simply open-up his wallet.

            (3) And you’re fine with all of that? Here’s a suggestion: Maybe you should come back and look at my post before you think of voting for this sleazy piece of garbage next election…..

            1. The laughable thing isn’t that you think this makes Trump corrupt by average standards. He is, he’s no saint.

              The laughable thing is that you think this makes Trump corrupt by Washington standards.

    9. “…in which an eminently capable, tough woman lost to a brazenly corrupt, weak and incompetent man…”

      Whatever else she may or may not be capable of, and however incompetent he may be, she was incapable of beating him in the election. That is the only test of competence that counts for this purpose.

      1. Your rationale has a very ugly history.

    10. “…in which an eminently capable, tough woman lost to a brazenly corrupt, weak and incompetent man…”

      Sure…just like several examples from the 2020 Democratic Presidential primary race…

    11. An eminently corrupt woman, who has been among the most hated people in the country for decades and won the primary at least partially through use of active fraud (this is in dispute, as the Clinton campaign getting the debate questions early is unquestioned), was replaced by a loud celebrity who was nominated specifically because he was not a politician, as a vote of no-confidence in the entire political class.

      It says nothing about how much we hate women, and everything about how much we hate career politicians.

    12. Sorry, but “a woman” wasn’t running in 2016. One specific woman was running. Rejecting a woman with a long history of dishonesty, incompetence and what looked an awful lot like corruption doesn’t necessarily say anything about attitudes toward women as leaders. A woman without Clinton’s trainload of baggage might very well have won.

      1. what looked an awful lot like corruption

        🙂 I’d be impressed by your idea of a slam dunk.

        What happened to the other $459?

    13. an eminently capable, tough woman

      Hillary Clinton is “eminently capable” like snow is black.

      Her entire legal career was as a neoptistic proxy for her husband — hired at the Rose Law Firm started very shortly after Bill became state AG, she was made partner very shortly after Bill became governor. Her time in charge of the health care task force under her husband was an utter disaster. She was parachuted into a Senate seat by her husband the sitting President, and over the next eight years initiated or sponsored zero legislation of significance. Her first run for President, she turned massive name recognition, institutional party support, and a massive war chest into a loss to an almost-unknown first-term senator. Handed the job of Secretary of State in the name of party unity, she wasted a massive amount of US credibility on a foredoomed effort to repair relations with Russia, then took point on the utter policy debacle that was Libya.

      The only thing Hillary Diane Rodham ever proved herself capable of was marrying the right man, then ignoring his blatant, frequent, and pathological adultery in order to stay on the gravy train.

  5. “No one votes in North Korea.” the leader votes.

    1. The Leader is the “one person” in “one person, one vote.”

      1. To be precise, it’s one God, one vote.

        1. Gods don’t vote. They will things into being.

          In the case of Dear Leaders, that’s dictating law.

      2. Technically, a lot of people have a “vote” in situations like that, but things have been arranged so that anyone who “votes” differently from the rest loses their head. So everyone “votes” for the dictator or their designated successor, that being the only safe vote.

        Dictators don’t maintain their position by being loved, or by personal power. They maintain their position by making everybody around them afraid to not do their part in maintaining it.

      3. Terry Pratchett said something similar in a Diskworld novel, regarding the tyrant of Ankh-Morpork, which practised a system of ‘One man, one vote’: “The Patrician was the Man. He had the Vote.”

  6. Nikki Haley 2024!!!!!

    I cannot WAIT to hear the cognitive dissonance! “It’s not fair — it’s not the same!!!!”

    1. You’ll see more sexism from the media in 2024 than you have since 2008 when Sarah Palin ran as VP.

      CNN: “So Nikki, can you be President also also be a mother at the same time? Is that fair to your kids?”

      1. You’d think even the most zombiefied-right-winger would hesitate to bring up the embarrassment of Sarah Palin.

        Damn. You people really are without shame, aren’t you? Tho in retrospect, I guess she was the warm-up act for our reality-TV pro-wrestling-style POTUS today…..

        1. “You’d think even the most zombiefied-right-winger would hesitate to bring up the embarrassment of Sarah Palin.”

          Kinda reminds me of a right-wing AOC.

          1. TwelveInchPianist : Kinda reminds me of a right-wing AOC.

            Get back to me when the Democratic Party tries to make AOC VPOTUS.

            1. She’ll be eligible in five years. There’s already been a few think pieces lamenting that she isn’t eligible to run for president this year.

              1. Yeah, from the same people lamenting that Bernie isn’t the nominee this year.

                Look, the Democrats have just as many fringe nutcases as the Republicans do, but we don’t nominate ours for President.

                1. Yeah, but both sides nominated pussy-grabbers this year so…

                  1. I’m active in Democratic Party politics at the national level. I’ve had probably a dozen conversations with Joe Biden over the past twenty years. My perception is he’s less a pussy grabber than he is someone who just doesn’t get appropriate social boundaries.

                    But assume he is a pussy grabber. Will you agree with me that nobody who voted for Donald Trump has any business criticizing anyone else for being a pussy grabber? Or for being corrupt?

                    Mind, I’ve argued that Democrats ought to have higher standards than Republicans do, and just because the Republicans nominated Donald Trump doesn’t mean we can’t do better. But, if we end up not doing better, I don’t see how the Republicans can plausibly turn it into a campaign issue given who your nominee is going to be.

                    1. Your 11-year-old daughter is safe attending a reception with Donald Trump — but I’ve seen news footage of Biden hitting on an 11-year-old at some event when he was VEEP.

                      And remember when Biden revealed the SECRET deep shelter under the VEEP’s residence? Trump wouldn’t do something like that!

                      And Biden has major exposure in the Ukraine. There’s a recording of him bragging about his corruption — getting their AG fired.

                    2. And this — at 1:45 Biden takes the little girl’s hand (brown hair) and presses it into his crotch. Slow down the speed and you can see it.


                    3. “Your 11-year-old daughter is safe attending a reception with Donald Trump”

                      Donald Trump mused about whether it was wrong to be more sexually attracted to your daughter (photographed posing on his lap) than to your wife — when his daughter was 13.

                      Other than that, though, great comment.

                    4. Dr. Ed, you forgot to mention that Biden’s father is a UFO space alien and his mother raised money for Osama bin Laden. I know this is true because I read it in the National Enquirer.

                    5. “My perception is he’s less a pussy grabber than he is someone who just doesn’t get appropriate social boundaries.”

                      I’ve heard one of his staffers had a different perception.

                      “But assume he is a pussy grabber. Will you agree with me that nobody who voted for Donald Trump has any business criticizing anyone else for being a pussy grabber? Or for being corrupt?”

                      Sure. But would you agree that nobody who criticized Trump for being a pussy grabber has any business voting for Joe Biden?

                      And would you agree that no one who opposed Kavanaugh because of a decades-old allegation from someone he’d never met has no business voting for Joe Biden?

                      And of course you could have done better. You had a choice between a pussy grabber and a socialist, and you went with the pussy grabber. It’s a defensible choice.

                    6. You may have heard that one of his staffers has a different perception; I’d like to see better evidence than what you’ve heard before I commit myself.

                      Assuming Biden really is a pussy grabber, I don’t think Kavanaugh is relevant one way or the other. (I was skeptical of the allegations against Kavanaugh, by the way.) If the allegations against Kavanaugh were true, there were plenty of other people in line to fill that seat and denying him confirmation would have created no greater disruption than having to appoint someone else. That’s not true of either Trump or Biden in which achieving their party’s nominations were fait accomplis and replacing them would have been massively disruptive.

                      But as between Trump and Biden, I don’t think that’s an apples to apples comparison either, because while it’s true that in 2020 the choice may be between two pussy grabbers, that was not the case in 2016. Whatever Hillary Clinton’s faults may have been, she has never been plausibly accused of sexual harassment. So, anyone who did vote for Trump in 2016 is not in a great position to criticize Biden.

                    7. “So, anyone who did vote for Trump in 2016 is not in a great position to criticize Biden.”

                      Heck, I don’t know if that’s even true. Personally, I think we ought to apply the presumption of innocence unproven allegations, out of fairness to the accused. But if the accused himself has asked you to apply a different approach, then it’s certainly fair to apply the approach that the accused has asked for.

                      So applying the fairest possible approach to the allegations, I think we can presume that Trump is innocent of the allegations against him, and Biden is guilty of the Tara Reade allegation.

                    8. Oh, the ways the liberals twist themselves into knots over these issues… But, let’s answer your last question.

                      ” I don’t see how the Republicans can plausibly turn it into a campaign issue given who your nominee is going to be.”

                      Let’s assume you’ve got a subset of voters who deeply care about women’s rights. They’ve had past male bosses who were “overly friendly” and it left them disturbed. Let’s also assume they tend to vote more Democratic than Republican.

                      Then, the Democrats are running a guy in his late 70’s with a history of “likely to touchy the womens” and a reports of rather more. And the GOP puts it out there.

                      What’s the response? “Trump did it too?” Then they just might not vote period. Which still ends up as a win for the GOP.

                    9. Armchair Lawyer, I thought we were discussing what is philosophically consistent rather than the political realities. If you want to talk about the political realities, the scenario you set forth is one possible outcome, but I can think of a half dozen other possible outcomes, and it’s far too early to where I would comfortably bet the rent on any of them.

        2. Sarah Palin wasn’t the most eloquent of speakers.

          But the sheer amount of sexism she faced from the liberal media was astounding.

          Infamously…(and just one among many) CNN’s John Roberts recently pondered on air: “Children with Down’s syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of vice president, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?””

          1. What’s the college-degree-to-unplanned-pregnancy ratio among Sarah Palin’s children?

            How about the college-degree-to-arrest ratio for her family?

            The Republican Party’s “family values” on vivid display.

            Carry on, clingers.

            1. What’s the crack addict to kicked out of West Point ratio among Biden’s kids?

              1. You wish to compare Biden’s children — a mixed bag — and the Palin collection of uniform losers and trashy hillbillies?

                1. Interesting question: What’s better: Winning dirty or losing clean? It’s true none of her children are raking in millions, let alone hundreds of millions. But, then again, none of them are crack heads, either.

            2. “What’s the college-degree-to-unplanned-pregnancy ratio among Sarah Palin’s children?”

              That’s right, they not only questioned her ability to be VP because she was a mom, they said her daughter was slutty.

              Once again, Kirkland reminds us that the Dems are the real sexists, in addition to being the real racists.

              No surprise at all that they’re nominating a rapist!

    2. On second thought, the cognitive dissonance is going to drive me nuts…

      The amazing turnaround by Democrats and liberals in response to the Tara Reade allegations is…stunning. Believe all women… Uh huh.

      1. Armchair — imagine Reade as Trump’s guest at the debate….

        1. We can only hope, though my impression of her is that she wouldn’t be willing to do that.

      2. “The amazing turnaround by Democrats and liberals…etc”

        I’m one of those two things, and I believe her. Do you? Since it’s a Democrat being accused. Always amazing how hypocrisy works both ways.

        1. “I’m one of those two things, and I believe her. Do you?”

          There’s really no way to know if she’s telling the truth or not, is there? Just like any other he-said, she said allegation.

          1. There’s really no way to know if she’s telling the truth or not, is there? Just like any other he-said, she said allegation.

            “Know” is a high bar. But there are certainly ways to compare the strength of some he-said she-said allegations against others.

            An allegation first made forty years after the alleged event is inherently weaker than one made immediately after it, and then repeated forty years later. An allegation which remains the same with repeated tellings is more credible than one which frequently changes. An allegation which is internally consistent is more credible than one with internal contradictions. An allegation of a deed that is reasonably straightforward to accomplish is more credible than one requiring the conjunction of unlikely events. An allegation of something that the alleged perp had done before is more credible than an allegation of new, out of character, behavior.

            And so on.

            1. ” But there are certainly ways to compare the strength of some he-said she-said allegations against others.”

              Sure, you can weigh a bunch of factors and try to intuit whether or not the allegation seems true. I don’t think that there’s anyone who believes that you can do so with any degree of certainty.

              How to respond to that, whether by defaulting to believing the “victim” or by accepting the fact that you can’t know, has been the subject of some controversy recently. And the response to the Tara Read allegation demonstrates that the “believe the victim” side has simply fled the battlefield.

              “An allegation which remains the same with repeated telling is more credible than one which frequently changes.”

              The left likes to cite research claiming that stories that change frequently are perfectly credible, perhaps even moreso.

        2. Maybe I don’t frequent the correct dungeons of right wing internet thought, but I really haven’t spotted righties claiming that Joe Biden is slam dunk guilty. And from what (admittedly little) I’ve paid attention to, the case against him – in re Reade – seems to be, well sorta maybe, maybe not.

          But mostly what I’ve seen is righties arguing that her case appears to be roughly an order of magnitude more solid than Christine Blasey-Ford’s. (Who was about three orders of magnitude solider than the other anti-Kavanaugh allegations.)

          So, since lots of lefties – including several who frequent these pages – were all-in on Christine Blasey-Ford, and since the (lefty) media carpet bombed the news with her story (and even the Avenetti productions) and has completely ignored the Tara Reade story, and since it is lefties who are the ones banging on about “Believe all women” – it seems to me that a charge of hypocrisy against the lefties is well warranted. Not all of them, no doubt.

          Whereas, righties, not so much.

          1. Basically yes.

            Do I believe the full allegations Reade made? I don’t know. And I wouldn’t comment further on it. There does seem to be more evidence than in Ford’s case, but it’s still on the low end. But when I look at the discontinuity between the magnitude of the response given to Ford’s allegations and the magnitude (or lack thereof) of the response given to Reade’s?

            I’m kinda disgusted. “Believe all women”….is a joke. If you’re abused by a powerful Democrat, the very people who should be going to bat for you will suddenly vanish into the woodwork. All the mantras, all the powerful speeches….vanish into the winds of “politically inconvenient”. These types of episodes do more damage to women’s rights than most things in the last 50 years.

            1. Believe all women doesn’t mean all mean are guilty, it means investigate all credible claims.

              1. “Believe all women doesn’t mean all mean are guilty, it means investigate all credible claims.”

                Then how come Al Franken had to resign before the investigation?

                Senator Gillibrand brought Emma Sulkowitz, the “mattress girl” to the state of the union. Sulkowitz famously dragged her mattress around campus to insist that the man she accused be expelled, notwithstanding the fact that he was cleared by the school’s title IX investigation and the police found insufficient evidence of a crime.

                It’s completely unsurprising that the #metoo crowd is now saying that we shouldn’t believe women when they say that they think that we should believe women.

                1. Al Franken involved a picture.

                  Now if he’d held up two fingers behind her head — “bunny ears” — that’d actually been funny.

                2. “Then how come Al Franken had to resign before the investigation?”

                  Given how minor the charge was in Franken’s case, the only thing I could conclude as reasonable was that somebody else had a serious charge against him they didn’t want to wallow in the mud themselves proving. But when the fuss started up, they used it as an opportunity to make an ultimatum: Either resign and have people think you did it over something minor, or refuse and be forced out over something major.

                  1. Haha, this is some vintage Brett speculation reveals Democratic perfidity.

              2. “Believe all women doesn’t mean all mean are guilty, it means investigate all credible claims.”

                Too bad nobody explained that to Biden, who said in response to the Kavanaugh allegations that if a woman says she was assaulted, we should presume that she is telling the truth.

                1. If Biden said that, he was wrong.

                  Still better than being a bigoted clinger.

                  1. “If Biden said that, he was wrong.”

                    It wasn’t just Biden. It means that your party was wrong on on an issue that it had staked out as central to its identity over the past several years.

                    I mean, it happens. Both sides have some issues that they are majorly wrong on. But this is a big one to get shown up on.

                2. You’re arguing Biden is more extreme than jezebel on this issue?

                  1. “You’re arguing Biden is more extreme than jezebel on this issue?”

                    Currently? I haven’t seen what he’s had to say, post Tara Reade.
                    I remember the iconic Jezebel post, “‘Is the UVA Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax?’ Asks Idiot” didn’t seem to be so much about investigating credible allegations as it was about not even questioning allegations. But they appear to have softened their stance. Maybe Biden has too.

                    1. My point exactly. I am not a big jezebel fan, I posted as a statement against interest. And if you’re arguing Biden managed to be more radical than they are…

              3. “Believe all women doesn’t mean all mean are guilty, it means investigate all credible claims.”

                How about when the claim fails to include anything that can be investigated? That describes Ford’s initial claim against Kavanaugh – an alleged event, in private, 30 years ago at an unknown date and place cannot be investigated. It could be used as an example of how to make up a lie that can’t be disproven. And then she tried to name people who could confirm merely that she and Kavanaugh had been at the same party once, and none of them could remember any such party.

                Tara Reade’s story may be false, but it did include details that might be possible to confirm or disprove. And Democrats, including most of the news media, don’t want an investigation, they want the story buried whether it’s true or false.

              4. Oh, it get better than Jezebel walking back their standard! Behold Leonard Pitts Jr.:


                If Reade were sacrificed to the cause of preventing that, it would be painful and unfair, yet arguably defensible. Because if there are two evils here, Biden is much the lesser.

                But let us at least admit, if only in the silence of individual conscience, that this is the calculation we’ve made, the terrible choice forced upon us by the exigencies of a fraught moment. We live now in paradox and emergency where, Heaven help us, principle may have become a luxury too costly to afford.

                So yes, Joe Biden stands accused of sexual assault and that’s truly appalling.

                Vote Joe Biden for president.

                I guess ANY woman would just feel honored to be offered up a sacrifice for the Democrat politician de jour.

                Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

                1. Jezebel: Time to bend over for Biden. And we’ll be very sad, but support Biden anyway.

                2. The funniest part is that the MSM sat on the story for like a month until Bernie dropped out, and then they’re all like, gee, Biden’s a rapist? Bummer, but it’s too late now.

                3. Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

                  I googled for the infamous quote from the liberal journalist who weighed Ted Kennedy’s Senate career against his role in Mary Jo Kopechne’s death and concluded :

                  “Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it”

                  But in googling I found this follow up article by the same gal, complaining about the unfair right wing pile on – which only serves to underline that she still didn’t understand what was crass about her remark.


                  She simply repeats herself at greater length :

                  The short editorial discussed Kennedy’s accomplishments and the role Kopechne may have played in them, and speculated as to whether she would have felt that his singular career (made possible by his failure to serve jail time for her death) might be worth the injustice she suffered.

                  That very unpleasant, likely slow, and possibly avoidable death is euphemized in the balance into an “injustice.” OK then.

                  But Ted Kennedy is an excellent reminder that loathsome Democrat politicos getting a free pass from their colleagues and from the media – “The Lion of the Senate” remember – is not a recent invention.

              5. The problem with “investigate all credible claims” is party affiliation being used as a proxy for credibility.

        3. See Lee’s comment below.

    3. Michelle Bachmann 2924…..

      1. Hailey would be far better than Cuomo, and I suspect would have a good chance at beating him. But Bachmann? Please, no. What a train wreck.

  7. Doesn’t it all just make you want to shout “Rex fuit Elizabeth: nunc est regina Jacobus!”?

  8. I guess the primary qualifier for an elected official is not their genitals.

    But, if you vote Democrat, they basically hung out a sign that said “men need not apply” for the Vice President position. Of course, not illegal, but only in our hyper-politically correct, identity politics fueled society can I think that having such a blatant, discriminatory qualification is enthusiastically received.

    1. Jimmy, that’s one way to look at it. Here’s another: For our entire almost 250 year history, no woman has ever been elected president or vice president, so maybe 45 administrations into it, it’s time. Plus, for a pretty big chunk of that almost 250 years, having a penis was absolutely part of the job description; no woman would even have been seriously considered for the job. Even if this one time (well, twice if you count 1984) the nomination goes to a woman specifically because she’s a woman, the men are still ahead by more than 50 elections.

      1. Maybe that makes sense to a diversity bean counter. Doesn’t to me.

        1. “Bigot is blind to misogyny”

          That seems to qualify as a headline at the white, male Volokh Conspiracy.

          1. Once again Kirkland just says meaningless words.

            1. This blog is staggeringly white and inexplicably (unless someone is discriminating against women) male. That seems important, although perhaps in a manners that differs to stale-thinking conservatives (rather than modern Americans).

        2. Jimmy, do you find it equally as objectionable that for most of our history, women would not have been considered for the presidency, or is it only when women benefit from taking gender into account that you find it objectionable?

          1. You either discriminate based upon sex, or you do not. I know where *I* stand (against,) Biden and his supporters? Not so much.

            If it wasn’t for double standards, some folks would have no standards at all.

            1. This is essentially the affirmative action argument, just repackaged. The argument on the other side is that in the days when overt racism and sexism meant that only white males were considered for important positions, white males managed to get 3/4 of the way around the Monopoly board and acquire most of the valuable properties, leaving minorities and women still at “go” (and in most cases without even having the $200). So it’s not really fair to say that now that white males are firmly entrenched thanks to past discrimination, going forward we’ll agree not to discriminate any more.

              You may or may not find that argument persuasive, but it’s not an off-the-wall argument. It does have a basis in practical reality.

              1. Yeah, the argument is quite unpersuasive.

                I would not take advice on marital fidelity from Donald Trump any more than I could take discrimination complaints from those who discriminate — for the same reason.

                Walking the walk is HARD …

          2. History is history. Unless you have a time machine available we can’t change it. Public policy operates in the here and now.

            I know it is a fundamental argument in the identity politics circles that because of discrimination in the past we must now discriminate in the future. I think that is a backwards argument though.

            We can offer equal opportunity now. And that is the right thing to do. That involves though offering equal opportunity, not just using hollow words to justify your different kind of discrimination.

            1. No, we can’t change history, but sometimes we can mitigate the consequences. And what I think I find most offensive about your view is that it basically acknowledges the past injustice but then says oh well, that was then and this is now, without even trying to fix the results.

  9. What does the remarkably white, strikingly male nature of a blog in 2020 say about its proprietor’s attitudes toward women?

    (Spoiler: standard-issue, stale conservative thinking, circa 1955?)

  10. It’s hard for me to say exactly why Hillary Clinton lost, and in particular whether she gained more votes (in the right places) or lost more votes as a result of her sex. But my sense is that, if South Carolina could elect an Indian woman governor (and South Carolina Republican primary voters could choose an Indian woman as their candidate), America could elect a woman President. Perhaps Hillary Clinton just wasn’t the candidate that Americans wanted to elect, just as Sarah Palin wasn’t on the ticket that Americans wanted to vote for, and Hillary Clinton wasn’t the candidate that the Democrats of 2008 wanted to choose.

    1. A lot of women didn’t want Bubba back in the White House.

      1. I think the misogyny narrative vastly underestimates this.

    2. These are very divisive times. Can anyone name a woman from any party who could unite this country? I thought we had a suitable man for a while with Andrew Yang, but alas that was not to be.

      Unless and until we have several viable candidates, the issue of gender is irrelevant. Hell, I’d even vote for a non-human if could unite us.

      1. “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos!”

      2. “Can you name a woman from either party who could unite this country”?

        The Kim Kardashian ticket? It might unite the country. I’m not sure in which direction, but it might do it.

    3. You can make a list of reasons people didn’t like Hillary Clinton and none had any basis in reality. For example: She was called “corrupt” even though she was extensively investigated and never charged. While the clearly misogynist Trump was given a free pass even though his record of corruption was real and he even boasted about it.

      Granted, a Republican like Haley has not been subjected to what Hillary went through.

      1. Doesn’t “extensively investigated and never charged” apply just as much to Trump?

        To be clear, it doesn’t really mean a whole lot when a prominent Democrat is “extensively investigated and never charged” during Democratic administrations. Means a little bit during Republican administrations, though.

        The real problem, though, is that you’re demanding that we ignore anything short of a prosecution, even where she was saved from prosecution by running out the clock until the statute of limitations barred a prosecution. Remember the Rose law firm billing records mysteriously disappearing, and then showing up out of the blue in the Library room of the White house right after the SOL ran out?

        The Clintons are a textbook example of what successful obstruction of justice looks like, and if they’d just gotten their hands on that semen stained blue dress, you’d be convinced Bill hadn’t been cheating on his wife, either.

        1. The difference between Trump and Mrs. Clinton in this context is that, so far as I am aware, the Department of Justice never applied a ‘can’t charge the sitting president’ standard in an investigation of Mrs. Clinton.

          1. No, it was the standard, “Can’t charge any member of a Democratic administration” standard, which is even more predetermined.

            1. The Trump administration has had plenty of opportunity to investigate any foundation for Trump fans’ ‘lock her up’ chants.

      2. Seriously? In the runup to the 2016 election, the description of how Clinton was treated in the obstruction investigations was absurd. Clear and unambiguous obstruction and destruction of evidence was just swept away like it was nothing. The investigators were practically ordered from the start to not to find anything.

        By the standard of the Roger Stone case, most of Clinton’s staff should have gotten 10 years behind bars.

    4. I think it is fair to say she lost because she was a terrible candidate. Just like Romney and McCain were also terrible candidates.

      Despite the fact the media always used the line “most qualified person ever to run for President” right after mentioning her name, she was far from that.

      1. Jimmy, the idea that the media treated Hillary Clinton favorably is just nonsense. There have been several studies done that show that her press coverage was almost uniformly negative.

        She was also a terrible candidate. But having nonstop negative press didn’t help her any.

        1. Do you seriously think the media gave her coverage that was “uniformly negative?” The only media that did that might have been AM talk radio.

          Up until the moment she conceded the press was talking like the Age of Aquarius was being finally shuffled in with our first woman President. There was also not even a single mention of her name without adding “the most qualified person ever to run for President” like it was actually in her name. The press treated her like she was god.

          You want to talk about negative coverage during the election – look at how the media treated Trump (and still does).

          1. No, to be fair, she did get pretty negative coverage. Not as negative as Trump did, mind you, (Only FOX treated Trump as well as the median outlet treated Hillary.) but negative none the less.

            You can’t really measure what level of negative coverage is appropriate, though, without comparing it to what’s being covered. I’d say that by that standard, they were spinning in her favor as strongly as they thought they could get away with, it’s just that spin could only do so much.

          2. Jimmy, I think you’re suffering from confirmation bias. I remember almost all of September 2016 being devoted to her emails. I remember Jake Tapper, after the Comey letter came out. asking John Podesta, in a prosecutorial tone, “Isn’t it true that this is all Hillary Clinton’s fault?” I remember every negative story about Trump being accompanied by a negative story about Hillary Clinton, even if they had to stretch to find one, just so they could say “both sides” and claim to be fair and balanced. And all that is the allegedly liberal mainstream media.

            1. That isn’t negative spin, those are legitimate questions. Hillary has a lot of “skeletons in the closet” and it was hard to talk about her with at least having to mention some of those little inconvenient truths. But, the liberal media was also quite kind to her.

              I don’t put too much into “studies” of the media, but reviews of articles and coverage clearly found Hillary was cast in more of a positive light then Trump.

              1. No they weren’t. The email stuff was nonsense from the very beginning. One of the reasons Hillary lost is that she failed to appreciate the media’s ability and willingness to take a complete bullshit issue and hammer on it for months anyway.

                1. That’s pure Democratic talking point. She used a private server with lousy security to circumvent FOIA. This was discovered when somebody did a FOIA request for her official emails, and none were found.

                  While it was possible to legally use private email for government work, even a private server, she did NOT do what was required to make it legal. (Configure it to back up to the government’s own system for archiving purposes.)

                  So, even if we’re going to pretend that she didn’t on occasion illegally transmit classified information over it, she was in violation of the law, and violated it for the exact purpose her sort of conduct had been prohibited: So that she could delete her emails if anybody started asking about them.

                  The whole thing stank on ice.

            2. Sometimes candidates are just terrible and lose because they don’t have mainstream appeal. That was Hillary’s story. That was the story of Romney and McCain.

              Trying to spin it as “low education voters” not wanting a woman in the White House might get the 20% of man-hating feminists in New York City to vote democrat every time. But it does little to raise the appeal of the party to anyone outside of that 20%.

        2. “There have been several studies done that show that her press coverage was almost uniformly negative.”

          Press coverage is a two-way street. A competent candidate would have handled the issue better.

          1. It’s hard to have coverage that isn’t negative, if there’s not really much to say about you that’s positive.

    5. Also hard to say (for some people): Why is the Volokh Conspiracy so odds-defyingly male and so strikingly white?

      1. Why are you so bigoted against men and whites?

        1. With defenders like you, the Volokh Conspiracy doesn’t need accusers.

          It could use a ,less damning record on whiteness and maleness, though.

          (Should law schools consider a professor’s blog in faculty evaluations or hiring decision?)

    6. ” just as Sarah Palin wasn’t on the ticket that Americans wanted to vote for,”

      The problem with the ticket Palin was on, was that part way through the general election McCain apparently had second thoughts about wanting to be President, and gave up on the idea. Suspended his campaign, and then never really resumed running in earnest.

      Since Palin was, explicitly, an exercise in ticket balancing, McCain then faced the realization that he had advanced the political career of somebody from the opposing wing of the party, without any political payoff for himself. So he devoted the rest of the general election campaign to destroying his own running mate.

      Pretty shocking behavior in any candidate not named Dole or McCain. I often wondered at the time just what was wrong with the GOP that they were nominating candidates whose reputations revolved around their efforts to damage their own party.

      1. Interesting concession: Trying to steer your party away from ignorance and bigotry is “effort[] to damage their own party” in the context of a Republican.

      2. McCain was a terrible candidate. Should have never been given the nomination. What people want from a party candidate for President isn’t someone who is going to be a maverick, but a rank and file type person. They want someone who is predictable, who will literally vote the party line.

        Trump is an aberration and frankly he was only successful because of the hyper partisan nature of the day and time he ran. He is now more of a “mainstream” candidate after four years in office, but not nearly as rank and file as Biden. And Trump is going to have a tough time beating Biden, for lots of reasons, but a main one being Biden is just a more mainstream candidate and what the voter wants as President.

        1. Both Dole and McCain were party establishment picks. Yes, they were lousy candidates, but for the exact reasons that endeared them to the party establishment: Both had made a habit of sticking it to the party’s base, and somehow surviving anyway. The party establishment, which purely HATES their own voting base, only wishes they could survive being that “maverick”.

          Trump was successful in getting the nomination because the base had become so sick of establishment picks that they revolted against the establishment, and voted for the guy the establishment obviously opposed. Even so, he wouldn’t have gotten the nomination if the establishment’s favored candidates had been winnowed faster, he was winning one state after another by pluralities.

          Then he only won the general election because Hillary was almost uniquely awful, and Trump surprisingly competent at campaigning, albeit in an unconventional manner.

          I’d have said Trump was a shoe in this fall, if not for the lockdown triggered recession. He may still be a shoe in if ending the lockdowns triggers a prompt recovery, or Biden’s deterioration becomes too obvious for even Democrats to deny, too late to replace him.

          1. Trump’s bigotry, blunders, and backwardness do not seem to bother you Brett . . . or influence your electoral analysis.

  11. Madam Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that a woman can be just as corrupt and devious as any man and thus provided a fine example of someone trampling any and all barriers to sex equality.

    1. Kerr Mudgeon : “Madam Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that a woman can be just as corrupt and devious as any man”

      Don’t know how you figure that. Hell, Ms Clinton wasn’t even the most corrupt candidate running for president in the 2016 election.

      You do realize that, right?

    2. If not more so corrupt and devious then a man…

      Women are not these nice, gentle creatures which they are portrayed as in movies and television. Some are downright even nastier then men are ever capable of being.

  12. Benazir Bhutto’s rule of Pakistan is another example of the anomaly of a society in which women have very low status nonetheless having a female ruler. And is in most other cases, she more-or-less inherited the role from a male member of her family.

  13. Across the ditch they might take a different view. This from Conservapedia: “New Zealand is the only country in the world in which all the highest offices in the land have been occupied simultaneously by women: Queen Elizabeth II, Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright, Prime Minister Helen Clark, Speaker of the House of Representatives [and Attorney-General] Margaret Wilson and Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias were all in office between March 2005 and August 2006.”

    1. Maybe New Zealand doesn’t have quite so many vestigial clingers remaining in its population. I expect Americans to continue to improve along that line, erasing any “clinger gap” with New Zealand, soon enough.

      1. Don’t know. On checking, NZ has had three female heads of government. Even the Nordic countries haven’t had that many: Australia and the UK trail with one (so far). It could take the US a while. Looking back the NZ leaders were universally held to have been just, competent, and benign – at least by comparison with their male equivalents. So now the population there is used to the idea.

        1. It may take the United States a while to elect three female presidents, but we have been closing the “clinger gap” at a steady pace — and that seems destined to continue as America improves.

        2. Australia and the UK trail with one (so far)

          Poor Theresa May, forgotten already.

          Sic transit gloria mundi.

  14. Well, considering that all of the potential female candidates for Democrat were pushed out in favor of an old, white, known serial molester with dementia, I cannot fault anyone for being a bit bitter.

    As much as I disagreed with Warren’s policies, she’s hasn’t been shown feeling up young boys on live video and she doesn’t routinely lose track of her points mid-sentence.

    That says far more about how much the Democrats don’t care about their supposed diversity priorities than anything else in recent history.

    1. The only reason why Dems play any lip service to the whole “diversity” thing is for the votes. They stop caring about it all when the ballot box is counted.

  15. Of course there’s a different way to look at it: winning our national election requires sickening levels of dishonesty, astonishing ruthlessness, unbelievable arrogance, and willingness to subject one’s family to disruption, abuse, and humiliation.

    Women might be less likely to have those qualities. Although one came very close.

    1. Historically speaking, most candidates for office lose, so it’s not that surprising that most of the Democratic candidates lost the race for the nomination.

      It has been shown that women win elections roughly in proportion to the rate at which the bother running, and are a decided minority in politics only because they mostly don’t run.

      1. Why, in your judgment, Brett, is the roster of Volokh Conspirators — especially those who contribute regularly — so lopsidedly male and white?

        You may wish to do the proprietor a favor and refrain from responding. He seems to prefer just letting this issue linger, without being addressed.

        1. Are you a white male? If so, shouldn’t you resign your troll position in favor of someone who isn’t?

        2. Why does their race or genitals matter to you that much Kirk?

        3. What’s to address? Maybe they’re just not as race and sex obsessed as you are.

  16. There have been a lot of female leaders in the United States. In fact, there are many in power today.

    We do not have a unitary Government like North Korea. Governors are the leaders of the state executive branches, Chief Justices are the leaders of state courts, the various Houses and Senates of the states have leaders (as do the Federal legislature).

    There have been women in most of these roles. We haven’t had a female President, but that’s a pretty narrow field. There have only been 44 people who have served in that role.

Please to post comments