If Bill Clinton can be called our first “black President,” with all due respect, President Obama may well deserve the honor of being our first “female president.”
Parker puts it this way:
No, I’m not calling Obama a girlie president. But . . . he may be suffering a rhetorical-testosterone deficit when it comes to dealing with crises, with which he has been richly endowed.
That’s not to say Parker is in any way insinuating that being a female leader is in any way deficient, but the President’s new title simply shows us a new “evolutionary achievement.” However, she admits, although we are an “enlightened” people, our “lizard brains have a different agenda.” Lizard brains that God created, I might add. Parker states the reality of the situation, in stark contrast to her belief in our “enlightened” minds.
Generally speaking, men and women communicate differently. Women tend to be coalition builders rather than mavericks (with the occasional rogue exception). While men seek ways to measure themselves against others, for reasons requiring no elaboration, women form circles and talk it out.
The BP oil crisis has offered a textbook case of how Obama’s rhetorical style has impeded his effectiveness…No one expected him to don his wetsuit and dive into the gulf, but he did have the authority to intervene immediately and he didn’t. Instead, he deferred to BP, weighing, considering, even delivering jokes to the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner when he should have been on Air Force One to the Louisiana coast.
His lack of immediate, commanding action was perceived as a lack of leadership because, well, it was. When he finally addressed the nation on day 56 (!) of the crisis, Obama’s speech featured 13 percent passive-voice constructions, the highest level measured in any major presidential address this century, according to the Global Language Monitor, which tracks and analyzes language.
I find this interested on many accounts.
The Political Ramifications
Obviously, the political ramifications are quite interesting. As Kathleen Park points out, “Obama may prove to be our first male president who pays a political price for acting too much like a woman.” The question is clear: do we as America want a male leader who acts like a male leader? I really think the answer is yes. There is a clear reason God created men like he has. They are to cultivate and build and grow things – and sometimes fix things. They are leaders in the home and in the church. I do think they should be leaders in the political arena as well.
We want a man to stand up for what’s right, to protect what has been entrusted to him. The President should fit into that category.
“Manliness consists not in bluff, bravado or lordliness. It consists in daring to do the right and facing consequences whether it is in matters social, political or other. It consists in deeds, not in words.” – Gandhi
The Spiritual Ramifications
I think this is of vital importance to consider.
Dr. Mohler highlighted the chilling article from The Atlantic recently called “The End of Men,” where author Hanna Rosin says the following:
“Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind. But for the first time in human history, that is changing—and with shocking speed. Cultural and economic changes always reinforce each other. And the global economy is evolving in a way that is eroding the historical preference for male children, worldwide.”
“The bottom line is the claim that the trend and trajectory of the global economy have for some time now been headed toward female skills and talents,” says Albert Mohler. “At the most basic level, this means a shift from physical strength to intellectual energies and education. At the next level, it also means a shift from leadership models more associated with males toward the nurturing leadership more associated with women. In any event, the changes are colossal.”
Rosin talks about what many are calling the “he-cession,” our current recession that is impacting countless men across our nation and across the world.” Dr. Mohler continues:
In many cases, it is husbands and fathers who are unemployed and wives and mothers who have paying jobs. This means a huge shift in male function, and many men just exit the family process or forfeit decision making. Rosin refers to these men as “casualties of the end of the manufacturing era.” Across the nation, older men are increasingly unemployed and younger men face little hope of a job in this sector — the virtual birthright of previous generations.
For Christians, this reality is of the utmost importance to acknowledge and react to:
For Christians, the importance of this article is even greater. God intended for men to have a role as workers, reflecting God’s own image in their vocation. The most important issue here is not the gains made by women, but the displacement of men. This has undeniable consequences for these men and for everyone who loves and depends on them.
The failure of boys to strive for educational attainment is a sign of looming disaster. Almost anyone who works with youth and young adults will tell you that, as a rule, boys are simply not growing up as fast as girls. This means that their transition to manhood is stunted, delayed, and often incomplete. Meanwhile, the women are moving on.
This brings us back to our issue at hand, the President being dubbed our first “female” president. There is not a disappearance of men on the scene, as Dr. Mohler has put it. This is another clear case of the disturbing disappearance of manhood. We find ourselves in a time where there is a blatant war on manhood – and it’s clear it’s now coming from the top.