National leaders, war, and gender bias?

Question

In the US presidential campaign, BHO is receiving some criticism because he has not served in the military, while McCain has. Bill Clinton was criticized for this, too. Similarly, George W. Bush and Dan Quayle were called "wimps" for their National Guard service, but not serving in Vietnam. The criticisms include that they were not willing to serve in the military but would have the power to send troops to their death. Would these criticisms been leveled at Hillary, had she won the Democratic presidential nomination? They were not leveled at Geraldine Ferraro when she was a VP candidate. In England, Margaret Thatcher was a "strong woman and leader" for exercising her nations military powers and sending young men to their deaths in the Falkland Island war. Quayle, Bill Clinton, and GWB were called "wimps" for not serving in the military; Margaret Thatcher was called "strong." Why is this? (Remember: In the US only men have to register for the draft.)

Answer 1

I don't think gender is the issue here at all.

Instead of criticising female as well as male politicians for not having served in the military, we should stop criticising everyone. Some people choose to serve, some people don't. The military isn't for everyone, and just because you haven't served doesn't mean you can't understand foreign policy.

Similarly, I am against conscription for both genders.

Answer 2

For the next decade or so, most presidential candidates will be old enough to have served in Vietnam, in which most soldiers were drafted. After that, the "big war" will be Iraq. A lot more women are serving in that one (by choice), and I bet a fair portion of them will end up running for office. THEN they will be expected to have a decent military record, depending on what sorts of shenanigans will be going on in the world.

Answer 3

Thatcher was called strong because she built her own career. With Hillary, there would be more about her contradicting feminism ("strong" woman who needed a powerful man to become anything) and her extreme liberalism. Women aren't expected to be in the military, so you can't hold it against her.

Answer 4

I don't believe that any one of those candidates were referred to as "wimps" for not serving. The question was could they have the experience in foreign and military matters. In that case then it is not a gender issue at all. A wimp is one who doesn't stand behind their own solid convictions. (I'll let you decide which of those politicians were like that).

Margaret Thatcher is a brilliant example for any woman or MAN that you don't necessarily need military experience to exercise military might.  I have always believed that you don't necessarily have to play the game to be a good head coach, you just have to be a good student.  And a woman is just as capable as a man in that regard.

IMO I think BHO is a poor student of foreign and military policy.  I think Hillary was a better student and I think McCain is better than her. But, not because of his gender; just by what he's been saying versus what she said.

Answer 5

Great & thoughtful question!

The different standards are interesting. Judgements are made based onones vantage point. In the book Primary Colors where the liberal reporter was not upset that the presidential candidate dodged the draft, but that he was so "connected" that he could do it. I know a lot of people that think that not serving in the military require a certain stregnth of charecter, but I do notice the "experience" issue still seeps out of some of their mouths.

These are such interesting times

Answer 6

There is absolutely no obligation to join a war you don't believe in. Just because you're willing to blow up innocents because some idiot of a general tells you to doesnt mean anything. Id rather have a smart, carefully thinking person as president then a macho, trigger happy person. Strong does not equal fighting. And your second point about George bush aka the monkey in the oval office being a whimp is pretty much right. Theres nothing wrong about avoiding war, but to send other men to the same kind of war that he avoided makes him a complete hypocrite. Obama for 08, bring a brain into the oval office for the first time in 8 years.

Answer 7

That's a good question. In a fair world, Hillary Clinton should surely have been just as ripe a target for her lack of military service as Bush, Bill Clinton or others.