Sadie's Gathering : DO WE HAVE THE OVARIES TO ELECT A WOMAN?

Where should I begin?

First, let me say that right now it's quite a while before we elect the next POTUS.

Plus, this post is not about either of the candidates above, although I am a supporter of Ms. Clinton.

Also, let me clarify about the title of the post.

"Do We Have The Balls/Cajones/whatevers to elect a woman?" Somehow, didn't ring true.

Not to mention that that phrase has never made much sense to me. Considering that other than housing a variable amount of "swimmers" that 99% of, have no purpose; and just with a mere nudge to the male testicles will cause the owner to wince like a baby, and render him useless for a period of time. Where is the strength and fortitude in that?

Imagine.

Not too long ago, in response to this article: There's A Reality About Hillary Clinton That Many Liberals Need To Face

I commented: "Well stated. I know the next 20 months will be tumultuous at the very least. If you're not for Hillary, please don't waste your breath telling me why, thinking that you have a good argument or point. You very well may. She's not perfect. But here's another fact; neither is any other candidate. And there is not one candidate that's stepped or is rumored to be stepping up for the GOP, that doesn't scare the hell out of me. From an inability or maybe it's an unwillingness to recognize the importance of separation of church and state; to skulk behind "desire to leave decision to state" whatever the decision be- it's just a slimy way of saying they're against the decision; to denying gender inequality and global science; to trying find a way to hinder the pursuit of happiness for all. We'll never move forward as a nation, let alone as a world, if we still have to keep fighting for rights that should have always been."

Somehow, after reading that, a male friend commented that I was voting for Hillary solely due to her gender.

How he came to that conclusion, I'm still baffled.

To be clear, what I meant was I didn't want to hear yet again, about a candidate that I knew most about. Ms. Clinton's been in the news for the last 20+ years. There's good and bad. Rather, I wanted to hear what was so great about, and why someone was leaning toward, (fill in the blank).

But it did get me thinking...

Right now there are 22 countries in the world that employ women as their highest ranking officials. This is an all time high. Sounds kinda good. Twenty-two women running things. That is until you consider there are 195 countries in the world. Great. Women make up 11% of a world's leaders where 49.6% of the world's population is female, and 50.8% of the United States' population is female.*

I remember when I was young, back in the Stone Age, a little girl that I played with said that women could not be president because of their hormones. Because we were the "weaker sex"blah,blah,blah. Sadly, it kinda made sense to me at the time. Then I considered my family and the women that were in it. Most of whom, in addition to bearing children, worked outside the home. Yet they still did the majority of the household chores, and cooked all the meals. They also did part of the gardening and part of the lawn work; and remained in civil moods. The men worked outside the home. Did part of the gardening and part of the lawn work; and they too remained in civil moods. So, at the time, I put that down as a thought to get back to and investigate further.

As with everyone, time and my experience have formed the woman I am today.

Then...

Three months ago, Cheryl Rios, a Dallas CEO made a statement that brought that time, that memory, back to mind.

When I heard about Ms. Rios, I rolled my eyes. I also remembered back to my childhood friend. Given that time, was in the 70's and years before we were even dealing with our own hormones, fairly certain she was mimicking what she'd heard from her parents.

Then there was the good Doctor Gunter's statement, that Hillary is at the PERFECT AGE FOR POTUS, thanks to menopause.

And then we have the wisdom of Phyllis Schlafly. You'll have to Google her if you want read all that moon bat schtuff.

Thank goodness, for the sanity of a few good women. Check out:

Mel Robbins', "Hillary Clinton and the Clueless Hormone Argument"

Gina Loukareas', "ARE WE SERIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT HILLARY'S HORMONES?"

Sarah Oakes', "Why Are We Talking About The Link Between Menopause and Politics?

19th amendment.

Does the hormone factor still make us jumpy and question a woman's ability to handle pressure and lead? Really? And about that PMS; does it stand for Pre Menstrual Syndrome? Or, rather as I heard 30 years ago, Putting up with Men's Shtuff?

Howzabout we chat about that testosterone factor. Testosterone is the hormone responsible for aggression. Not reason mind you; aggression. And I think we all know which gender has more of that special ingredient. Responsible for snap judgements, and philandering. And woe; if we're gonna talk about hormones and the ability to lead, we best be finding out, which candidates are on Viagra. Not only does that affect hormones, but if someone is so concerned about getting it up; can they really be focused on the welfare of the nation?

Even with those disconcerting facts, we manage to elect man after man.

Why?

BECAUSE THEY'RE MORE THAN JUST A HORMONE.

AS ARE WOMEN.

Equality is good for EVERYONE.

I will not vote for a candidate just because she's a woman. Wish I could be certain that there were not those, who will not vote for a candidate, for the same reason. Perhaps that is the reason President Obama won in 2008; the other side had a woman. Seriously? Incidentally, that was my argument to my friend above. If I was the type that just cared about getting a woman in the White House, I would have voted for McCain/Palin in 2008. Gimme a break.

It's a long time before even the primaries, so there's bound to be lots to talk about. Donald Trump is giving plenty of folks, lots to talk about. Can anyone tell me what causes that level of cra-cra? I can't help but wonder, does the fact that Hillary is running, (and for many, the front runner) have anything to do with the fact that there are to date, 15 candidates running for the GOP? Perhaps they thought, "The other side has a girl; when else will I get such a chance?" A tad simplistic and dated; but consider the source. Because you gotta wonder what some are thinking with some of those backgrounds. I mean what makes a person think that when they're in the midst of a legal scandal, THAT'S THE TIME TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT!? A wiser one than me is welcome to explain it to me, because I'm admittedly baffled and befuddled. Is it too much to hope we elect a leader with sound judgement?

I often have heard, "It's a man's world."

My reply for such a statement: THAT EXPLAINS THE MESS.

I'm a fan of President Obama.

Still, as many of the male candidates drone on, I find myself thinking:

Maybe it is time to give America, a woman's touch.

Again, it's a long time before the election, but when all is said and done, I hope our new leader is a model of diverse, compassionate, strength, and reason, that represents all of our ever-changing nation. Regardless of gender.

Saw this the other day, and couldn't help but put it here: