So I was reading an opinion article at Opinion journal from the Wall Street Journal, by Peggy Noonan. She analyzed Hillary Clinton’s efforts to “seem more like a woman.” Noonan makes the statement, “The question, actually, is not whether America is “ready” for a woman.” However, I think that the question is worth asking. Gender does matter and it comes with real consequences.
Here is a personal thought that may bury me, but I don’t think that I’m alone on this. Here it goes: despite the amount of virtue and power a woman has, her ability to inspire large assemblies of men to greatness and action is less than that of a man. I’ve had the privilege of knowing some amazing women and listen to them speak on virtue, truth, and transforming the culture. They’ve delivered great speeches, very well said with great passion, and yet I don’t find myself eager to fix bayonets and charge into battle.
After listening to men speak on the same things I find myself ready to do whatever it takes to save the world and destroy the enemy. This has been my personal experience but I don’t think that it is unique. If so, I hope that people will tell me through the comments.
What I’m saying is that, from my experiences, the question of whether America is ready for a woman president, is important. If many men share the same experiences as mine, I wonder how men in more dire eras, such as the Great Depression or World War II would have managed. Would they still have acted with such great courage and determination?
However, I don’t want to end this post as if to say that women can’t inspire men, because that is not the case in at least two powerful examples. For instance, what great cause can inspire a man to great action that only a woman can provide? Defense of his mother of course. Even the softest of men will rise to the occasion to defend the honor of the woman who bore him and nurtured him. At the same time, it is the love and respect of a woman that can inspire a man to do great things. John Eldredge in his book, Wild at Heart, explains that a man needs a beauty to fight for and to win her love. It is part of what makes a man come alive.
Therefore, I will conclude by stating something terribly unoriginal. It is in being a mother and a wife that a woman most excellently inspires a man to greatness. And it is the greatness of men that will determine the fate of our nation and the world. It is profoundly accurate that behind any great man is a great woman, but I wonder if we will ever be able to say that in front of great men is a great woman.
Please add your comments, critiques and criticisms…
26 responses so far ↓
1 John // Oct 23, 2007 at 8:34 am
What you just elucidated, Matt, is the premise behind most men’s uneasiness with the possibility of a female president. I wholeheartedly agree. Women do not often inspire me with their words and speeches; rather they inspire to fight by their existence and through my love for them. Unfortunately (for her at least), I can’t see Hilary Clinton as a wife or a mother nor can I see our nation being led and commanded by a woman.
That final summary sentence is perfect, by the way.
2 NKStanley // Oct 26, 2007 at 9:18 am
As I have reflected upon Salvation History, it interesting to note that for the most part men have been called to lead kingdoms and cultures. This was not without the proper collaboration of women, but God choose men to lead his kingdoms and armies. However, there have been time that a person like Joan of Arc has been called to the forefront. But I do not think Hilary Clinton is another Joan of Arc by no means.
I would like to add that in my four years as a FOCUS missionary, my direct superior has been woman. I have never seen this as a hindrance to my work, due to the fact that we constantly have collaborating in our efforts to share the mission in our complimentary ways.
Great Post, Matt!
3 Alex // Oct 28, 2007 at 10:46 am
Maybe that’s the fatal flaw in our system, Matt. We elect a man, or possibly in the future a woman, to lead both men and women. Maybe what we should do is elect a couple, a family, to lead our country. Not just a man to lead men and a woman to lead women but a cohesive unit whose work is united in such a way that it is able to inspire both men and women…
4 Kelly // Nov 1, 2007 at 8:05 am
Interesting idea, Alex…though I think it could go both ways–consider what would happen if Hillary did win, wouldn’t we, in a sense, be electing a “couple.” I doubt Bill will be just sitting at home watching the football game while his wife runs the country. Do you remember how influential Hillary was as First Lady? I think that we already are looking at voting in a “couple” as an option.
5 Kasia // Nov 2, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Matt, great points! From a woman’s persepective, there is nothing about a power-hungry woman that inspires me. On the contrary, it is a feminine woman who doesn’t fight to be in the spotlight and who humbly serves her family that taps my heart into the Greater things. And I think that any woman after God’s heart also truly desires to be feminine and to serve, not be served.
We need to make people aware that we are also electing Bill if we as a nation elect Hillary. Maybe that will make people think twice about electing our first woman president.
I came across a sobering article about Hillary and her uncompromising and extreme views on abortion. Check it out (it starts half way down)
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58294
6 Susan // Nov 7, 2007 at 12:47 am
What about Mother Theresa? Queen Elizabeth? Joan of Arc? Elizabeth Cady Stanton? Susan B. Anthony? Judith? etc? The Blessed Mother has “lead “men to Christ.
7 Rachel // Nov 7, 2007 at 2:00 pm
As a wife, medical student, and officer in the Air Force, this blog strikes uncomfortably into the heart of who I am. I have taken up, and will continue to take up, many leadership positions. Trying to figure out when it is holy for a woman to lead, and when she should seek to follow, instead, is a difficult, lifelong struggle. Yes, go ahead and applaud and say, ‘yes, we need more women physicians’ or ‘yes, we need a feminine balance in the military,’ yet this post seems to directly oppose those things. Of course men inspire ferocity and courage in battle, and that is a good thing in a time of war. But what about when we are not all about being in battle? Although the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, he does not spend the majority of his time inspiring troups. He spends more time judging what is best for our country - healthcare, poverty, crime, and all manners of difficulties. How is it that a holy woman (OK, OK, just not Hilary), is not as capable, if not more so, at knowing what the people need? At perceiving what will best serve their ultimate needs? That is how I see the role of the President, although I may be mistaken, not necessarily as an inspiration to armored men.
Basically, I think it is a gross distortion of Catholic doctrine to say that the Truth of the Faith as it realates to gender, always supports male leadership in government.
8 Kelly // Nov 7, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Quick note: Matt never says that a woman can’t lead or should never be put into a leadership position over men, but rather that psychologically, especially in dire circumstances, men may be more ready to follow a fellow man than a woman.
Edith Stein (a female and prominant German philosopher) often specified that even when women lead, they naturally lead in a specifically feminine way. JPII called this the “Feminine genius.” They tend (granted we are making generalizations) to be subjective and “person oriented” rather than objective and “object oriented” in the way that men are. Neither of these qualities in men or women are necessarily negative or positive, it depends on how an individual uses their strengths.
For instance, Joan of Arc, while leading an army, was “person oriented” in her considerations towards the soldiers. She went above and beyond her expected duties to personally tend the wounded, comfort the hurt and upset, and empathize with the general moral of her army. She was a strong woman leader who used her feminine genius to lead her army to unexpected victories against the English.
[It may help us though to realize that this and many of the other instances of women heroically leading men stemmed from a supernatural call to step out of their usual daily life and fulfill God's will in a unique and specially sanctified way.
Susan, please don't use Queen Elizabeth as an example of admirable female leadership before you check out the details of her reign. She led one of the largest and bloodiest religious persecutions in history, was known to be emotional and make irrational decisions (she killed her best officer because he saw her without her wig on), and she seized the throne from the rightful heir. Female leadership like hers is exactly what scares people away from electing women.]
Now, looking at the office of the President of the United States…I think the concern many people have with a woman president (and this is just people, not the Church’s official stance as far as I know), is that she will not be able to be as objective as necessary in her decisions about all sorts of things, but especially regarding war tactics and high stress situations. As Rachel mentioned above, there are many women in various occupations who have to make those decisions every day. May they be praised for their ability to do so. However, many people, especially men, don’t trust a woman to default to her less natural form of analysis (objective thought) rather than her stronger and more instinctual tendency (subjective thought) in a high pressure situation involving a decision that could hold lives in the balance. Is this prejudice totally justified? Perhaps not, but it does exist.
One last thought (I know this is a long comment–my apologies), let’s suppose that families are indeed the building blocks of society. And garnering various reflections from Catholic theologians and philosophers and psychologists, we see that the father is more naturally the head of the family unit, since his more external nature is to be a protector and provider and leader. Perhaps, the general structure should reflect the same natural order that is seen in the strong units of which it is composed. Ergo, a man may be the more appropriate and natural leader of the larger community, namely, the United States of America.
9 Matt // Nov 7, 2007 at 10:40 pm
I’d like to add a few responses to the some of the last few comments although I don’t have much to add because Kelly has done such a great job that I don’t really need to do to much.
First in adding on to what Susan noted about all the possible exceptions from women in history. I think Kelly did a great job of explaining Joan of Arc’s uniqueness and supernatural call. I wanted to also mention the reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary as a leader of men. However, mentioning her as a counter-example to my idea doesn’t work because those men through the centuries who rose to the occasion by Mary’s inspiration were doing so because she is their Mother. Motherhood is the first example I gave the way a woman most effectively inspires men. They fight for their eternal Mother, the greatest Mother possible, and her cause, which is always Jesus Christ (”Do whatever he tells you.”)
In regards to Rachel’s comment I want to stress that I don’t think that by default men are better decision makers than women. Kelly did a good job of explaining the possible prejudices men have concerning women making decisions objectively. The discussion of whether that is an appropriate prejudice is for another day I think. However, I’m not advocating men as better leaders simply on account of the possibility that they make more objective decisions.
Also, in speaking specifically about the president, no of course he doesn’t spend a majority of his time inspiring troops. But in times of crisis he does, and not only the troops but the American people as well. We saw this during and after the 9/11 attack. Nonetheless, the president’s job of inspiring and motivating isn’t limited to troops. Whenever the president is making a decision, signing a bill or making appointments he is setting a course of direction for the nation. He then does some sort of interview or speech to explain what he did, why he did, and how it is going to benefit our nation. In doing this he is motivating and encouraging Americans to get behind him.
I would return to the book by John Eldgridge, Wild at Heart, where he explains that it doesn’t matter if a man is a doctor, a teacher, or a ditch digger, every man wants a battle to fight and an adventure to live. So not all men are fighting the battle of defending freedom in the military, they should still be fighting a battle to defend freedom, whether it is for life, or for ending poverty, or whatever. The president’s hand is in all the most important issues and the president has a responsibility to inspire the American people to action. From my experience and the experience other men have shared with me the role of inspiring men into action is best served by a man.
Finally, concerning the statement that: “it is a gross distortion of Catholic doctrine to say that the Truth of the Faith as it realates to gender, always supports male leadership in government.” takes what I said a bit too far. I wasn’t advocating that Catholic doctrine teaches men should always lead in government. However, again I will ride Kelly’s coat tail and reference her final paragraph. It does seem the natural order of things is to have men in positions of leadership. Adam was created to provide and protect Eve and the Garden. It is in this role that the Fall most effects him. Due to this he will hide from his intended duties and allow Eve to take his place which she can do (being the height of creation). But this isn’t what Eve was made for and she will not be at home in this position. Nor will Adam be able at home in hers. Just because they can, doesn’t mean they should.
10 Hilary // Nov 8, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Please don’t pre-judge this comment because of my name.
Kelly brings up in her last paragraph an issue I have been wondering about for some time. Does a man’s headship in the family necessarily extend to the public sphere? Although she makes a compelling argument, I tend to believe that it does not.
Adam ruled Eve as man to woman, yes, but primarily as husband to wife. Christ the bridegroom exercises headship over his bride the Church, and the clergy must be male because they, in persona Christi, lead the Church as a husband. Therefore, I suggest that it is not a man’s maleness that gives him authority in these situations but rather his “husbandness†(which, granted, depends on maleness). A wife is not subject to every man the way she is subject to the specific man that is her husband.
Organizations outside the Church and the family are not founded on a spousal relationship. Leadership in the public sphere is (ideally) based on merit. Gender may be a consideration, but it is rarely the determining factor. Any sane board of directors would choose for its CEO a capable woman over a weak man.
Finally, a note about leadership and inspiration. What exactly are we being inspired to do? If the most important thing in the Christian life is to take up arms and do extraordinary things, then let’s fill leadership positions with men who can inspire us to bold actions. If, however, the Christian life is about the thousands of daily sacrifices that unite us to Christ’s sufferings on the cross, then inspiring others requires only our witness of personal holiness.
11 Matt // Nov 9, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Though Eve was under the mission (Eph. 5 style) of Adam as wife to husband what the Genesis story shows is that Adam’s (men’s) natural role is as leader, protector, guide. I don’t think the story is limited simply to spousal relationship. In the second account of creation we see that Adam is given everything as his domain, he names every creature. By giving them a name he is showing his dominion over the created world as it was given to him by God. Also, Adam is keeper of Eden. His headship is not simply related to Eve, but all of creation. He is in his natural state as leader, protector, provider and guide.
Of course, for organizations, if you are picking between an unqualified man, and a qualified woman for CEO you would not want to choose the ‘unqualified’ man. The contention is not that by the simple fact of being a male are you automatically a better leader. (However, it is possible to make that contention when speaking of man and woman before the Fall I think.) In general, taking humanity as a whole, men who are striving to be as God intended them to be as Adam was intended to be will be better leaders and motivators. However, we are fallen, and men don’t live up to their original roles and duties and so some men are not as qualified as some women to lead.
Finally, to comment on the the question, “What exactly are we being inspired to do?” I don’t think I’ve been able to articulate this well enough but I’m going to keep trying. Whether the Christian life is about taking up arms and doing extraordinary things (sometimes for some people it is) or it is about continual daily sacrifice (which is the case for most people) for Men to embrace the need for daily small sacrifices they need to understand that those seemingly (that is a key word here) small acts are actually extraordinary things or are part of an extraordinary thing. We need to be a part of something important, something big, something greater than ourselves, something that challenges, an adventure, a battle, an idea worth dying for. Men need to understand each small sacrifice is itself a tremendous battle between good and evil, and it is the preparation for a great battle that they will eventually have to face at some point in their life. It takes motivation and conviction to see daily sacrifices in that way, and like I’ve said, before I think a brother in Christ is better suited to lead men to this conviction than a sister in Christ.
12 Rachel // Nov 9, 2007 at 3:07 pm
It may well be that most men are better at following other male leaders, no matter the size of the challenge. But the question then is, whether or not that is a good thing. Is that a virtue or is it a fault? Is it something men were created with, or something they have adopted since the Fall?
I personally can see no particular virtue in men being limited in who they can best follow. Although it may bring no obvious harm to men, as they lead each other to holiness and share in fellowship, I beleive it can have strong negative impacts on women. Women in this situation would miss out on valuable, character-forming leadership experience and of getting to know her male brothers in the special way that only a leader does. Not to mention the possible blows to her self-worth as a woman. There may also be not-so-obvious damage to the virtue of the men involved, that I can’t think of at the moment, but that is usually present as with any fault.
Do any of you have ideas on how males needing male leadership would by virtuous?
13 Dave H // Nov 9, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I’m going to try to address what I believe to be some of the underlying issues in my next post. Suffice to say for now, I disagree with strict, categorical assignation of temporal roles along gender lines (e.g. “Only males can authentically be in leadership, only females can authentically be nurturing”) . This is a confused way of appreciating gender difference. More soon…
14 Susan // Nov 10, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Dave I like your train of thought…. so far!
And as for Kelly’s comment about refraining from using Queen Elisabeth “as an example of admirable female leadership”. I never said she was admirable, I know exactly who she is and what she did. I simply pointed her out as a leaderof men.
If you notice, some men have been rather harsh in their reign as well. …..
15 Susan // Nov 10, 2007 at 1:20 pm
and I object to Hilary Clinton as President, not because of her gender but because of her political stance. I feel we should not discriminate against people in power because of gender.That kind of attitude will retard society and hinder the progress we have made as far as women’s rights are concerned.
16 Kelly // Nov 11, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Pardon my confusion, Susan. And thanks for all of your continued interest in this discussion. I find it really intriguing.
17 Susan // Nov 11, 2007 at 10:24 pm
intriguing? lol! how so?
18 Kelly // Nov 15, 2007 at 10:08 am
I find the whole discussion in general intriguing b/c I think people are bringing up a lot of good points. Now I need to actually write a new post…sorry for the delay!
19 Hal // Nov 19, 2007 at 7:03 am
Margaret Thatcher is a modern example of an effective, tough female head of national government. She lead her nation in war (albeit a short one). I think the post’s really just appealing to sexism - men won’t be inspired to battle by women, so we shouldn’t have a female commander in chief, and by the way God intended it that way. That God has reserved certainly religious leadership roles for men does not suggest that such reservations exist for government.
I hope this sort of sexist thinking is not par for the course at FOCUS. I was approached for donations at my parish. I could not support the spread of such thinking.
20 Matt // Nov 19, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Hal, I would disagree that this is sexist. I understand sexism as thinking that men have a higher dignity than women (thought it could go the other way). I don’t think anyone here has tried to argue that women have less dignity than men.
What my contention has been throughout this post and the following comments is that men and women are wired in specific and unique ways, each having their differences, and because of these differences men in public leadership (politicians, coaches, officers, etc..) lead in a way that inspires other men more effectively. I don’t see that as sexism. If it is, please show me how that is so that I may change.
Also, I’d like to comment on the sentence, “That God has reserved certainly religious roles for men does not suggest that such reservations exist for government.” This is correct. God reserved priesthood for men only, but he did not limit government leadership. More reasons exist for why God selected Men to be priests and leaders of His Church than I could ever know, but I think that one of those reasons has to do with the way He wired men and women which makes men more inclined or predisposed or naturally suited for public leadership positions. I’ve mentioned before the creation story and what I think that tells us about a man. All throughout scripture and salvation history God has put men in charge. Whether it was over the house of Israel or his domestic house, his family. Because of that I have to think that their is something about the way God created men that gives men the capacity to be more effective public leaders and also makes men more easily led by other men.
Finally, on the ‘about’ section of this blog site it says:
“*While this blog is affiliated with FOCUS, the views expressed on this blog ought to be construed as those of their respective authors, and not necessarily of FOCUS.”
This post was written by one man, myself, speaking for one man, myself, about my own experience. In no way do I speak for anyone in the FOCUS organization or on behalf of the FOCUS organization. I have had great conversations with my regional director (who is a great woman and sister in Christ) and my female teammates (who are also amazing sisters in Christ) about this topic and many others pertaining to the differences between men and women. Par for the course at FOCUS is that half the regional directors are women, nearly half the team directors are women (just thinking off the top of my head), and a large majority of women are involved in the day to day decision making and planning of events for FOCUS (especially our National Conference).
I apologize for any offense done by this post. We hope that Luceat is a venue for sharing ideas and having healthy discussions about things that are “true, good and beautiful.”
21 Peter Fournier // Nov 22, 2007 at 11:25 am
Hilary asks this question and makes a comment: “Does a man’s headship in the family necessarily extend to the public sphere? Although she makes a compelling argument, I tend to believe that it does not.”
I think this gives a bit of a peek under the rug as it were of all discussions about male female etc. etc. etc..
If the family is the fundamental cell, the fundamental unit of society, then I think that perhaps there are many things about society and the sexes and family that do necessarily extend out into the public sphere, at least as probabilities.
Perhaps the “argument is not compelling” but on the face of it I think that the idea is. And further, I think arguments against seeing a necessary connection between family and society should assume there is a very high bar against a contrary conclusion — if only because we were all babies.
Now, that is not to say that anything in the above challenges the idea that women have a role in government — including the presidency.
But equally, given a role in government and leadership, is it reasonable to think there would not or should not be differences as compared to men in similar roles?
22 Mary // Nov 27, 2007 at 10:04 am
This is great. Most of the world shys away from any great debate that scratches the surface of the consequences of our human identity. It’s personal and it might mean changing the way we think or live.
And it’s tough to change.
We could probably host a conference JUST on this topic! We could spend ages mulling this over…
23 Olivia Stear // Nov 29, 2007 at 1:43 pm
What about Our Mother Mary and St. Joan of Arc? They specifically come to mind when I think of battle warriors. I think virtue is the level playing field. I would rather have a virtuous woman than a vicious man. On the issue of Hilary I question her virtue more than her gender.
24 Matt // Nov 29, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Olivia, great point about a virtuous woman rather than a vicious man. Of course a virtuous woman would be better than a man full of vice and without character. A woman can fill the role quite well when compared to a man who lacks the necessary qualifications of virtue and character.
As far as virtue being a level playing field I think that could mean a lot of things. I think it is true that men and women can both have virtue, however there have been a number of articles in different publications commenting on the uniqueness of the virtues in lives of men and women. A few are: “The New Catholic Manliness” in Crisis Magazine; “The Catholic Origins of Manliness” by Michael Foley.
I am writing about a situation where a man and a woman have an equal amount of virtue and character (I’m not even sure if that can be quantified, but for sake of discussion I’ll roll with it). In that situation I think my comments hold true.
Also, the point was not to bring about a discussion about Hilary Clinton, an article about her was simply the catalyst for the discussion.
Finally, concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary as a leader I would not disagree. However, I would say that she leads as a mother, the perfect mother of course, and in my post that is one of the ways I mentioned that a woman shows incredible leadership. For a much more eloquent explanation of this please see “Women Leading Men Part II” by Katie. Also, concerning St. Joan of Arc I would point to Kelly’s comment, number 8.
25 Joan of Arc // Mar 8, 2008 at 10:36 am
To really understand who Joan of Arc was requires full study of her entire life. She is certainly a great example of a strong woman who was a great leader.
26 Lauren // Jun 19, 2008 at 9:41 pm
This type of gender discrimination is exactly why I left the Catholic Church at age 16 after attending church every Sunday for my whole life. Now reading this again only reminds me why I’ll never go back.
Leave a Comment