But, because of recent advances in technology and culture, the penis has been largely eclipsed as a tool of national governance and international diplomacy.
Today, brains are thought to give women the same gravitas that penises gave men in the past. With the ubiquitousness of Blackberry personal organizers and laptop computers as symbols of power and social status, these electronic instruments have supplanted the penis, both in ordering the thinking of our individual leaders and creating that international connectedness that in the past a penis alone was thought to provide.
Now, unlike penises, when cell-phones ring in the bathrooms of the United Nations, they serve to bring leaders together wherever they are, regardless of their gender.
Because old habits die hard, the question is still asked, “Can a leader govern without a penis?” With the prominence of women such as US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and US Senator Debbie Stabenow in this country, as well as women heads of state in Chile, Ireland, Latvia, Finland, Liberia, the Philippines, Israel and Germany, the answer is coming back loudly and clearly that, yes, a leader can govern and govern well, even without a penis.
Cross-posted with other irreverancies at the Francis L. Holland Blog
francislholland@yahoo.com
That picture.
looking between the mid thigh and the navel of a person facing to your right, naked and semi aroused.
be a requirement for posting at Blue Mass Group?
<
p>
Just wonderin’.
But your recent post about the budget was just exactly what we needed.
<
p>
So you’re saying men no longer think with their penises, but with Blackberries? Or do you mean they now just divide the thinking time between the two, whereas before all thought was penile? You cite both Blackberries and laptop computers. Which is a better though surrogate for the penis? I’m guessing laptop, due to all that RAM, but then again a warm laptop on one’s lap top set to full RAMming speed may itself be distracting. Could you clarify?
for your blog, but come on already. Did you giggle as you typed penis into the title of the post and drew the somehwat phallic graphic? If you want to ask why women are appearing as leader more and more, no need to find a juvenile way to ask. (Strange that you’d leave off your list of countries the UK/Margaret Thatcher — the most powerful woman in modern history).
<
p>
But come on — you’re saying that the UN worked because delegates were holding penises (theirs or…?) in the men’s room? Did the League of Nations fail because of a lack of urinals? If only Kurschev and Kennedy had taken a whiz together, maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis has been averted.
<
p>
But you say that the vital role of the male sex organ in governing is being taken over by the Blackberry. That’s right, the anatomical male organ used for procreation and expulsion of wastes has been usurped by a complicated cell phone. And somewhere in there was the magical ability to attain power. Wouldn’t that just double males’ potency? Or did the penis lose its magic somewhere along the way?
<
p>
The major change is a willingness to support or at least accept women leaders, as well as growing opinions in much of the developing world that women leaders are inherently more trustworthy than males.
Loosen up, I don’t advise writing such a serious critique to a snarky post. While I didn’t find it particularly funny, certain replies made me chuckle.
<
p>
(Lightiris never fails.)
<
p>
That said, why Thatcher? Come on (and why am I not surprised that got snuck in there). I know she was powerful in her own right, but the only good thing that woman did was turn the UK liberal for the next decade. The taste she left in her country’s mouth was that bad! She’s still somewhat of a leper at this point. Thankfully, England never sufferred the amnesia that followed America after the Reagan administration.
Are you at the point of searching out my comments for personal attacks? As for Thatcher, you seem to confusing power with popularity. Measure it anyway you’d like — international trade, military prowess, UN veto power — the United Kingdom is the most powerful nation ever with a woman head of government. (In a side note, one can quibble with Ireland’s inclusion on this list, as Presidents McAleese and Robinson were assuredly women, but the HoG in Ireland is the Taoiseach, which has always been a man.)
That’s the simple answer. I just happen to read, a lot, and we’ve both commented to each other quite a bit.. Just like we’ve both traded barbs before, so I doubt either of us are innocent when it comes to forum geniality. I wouldn’t want to be the pot calling the kettle black if suddenly a little sarcasm equals personal attacks.
<
p>
However, I’ll readily admit that I’m an internet hot-head and ranting is my specialty. So, if you take offense, I apologize, yet I don’t see how criticizing you for a) not getting that this post was supposed to be snarky and b) that Margerette Thatcher was an interesting mention on your part (revealing?) is in any way personal. It’s not any more personal than any reply written on this board.
Okay, over to you Ryan — who do you think is the most powerful woman leader in modern history? Because I start with Thatcher and work my way down through Bhutto, Sukarnoputri, Mier, Clark, etc.
<
p>
Be prepared to explain any answer that doesn’t include being the head of government for a member of the G7 that has a UN veto, a nuclear-armed military (far more lethal than Golda Mier’s or Benazir Bhutto’s maybe-maybe not bombs), a “special relationship” with a superpower, and an awesome global cultural presence. Thatcher was a detestable leader, and she was the most powerful female political leader in modern history. The two are not exclusive.