philandering politicians

[muttmeister]

First of all, let me be quite clear: this is not a political thread. It is about something else entirely.

I have watched the last few years and seen NUMEROUS examples of politicians (and other powerful men) who can't seem to keep their business in their pants. It has made me wonder why we don't hear the same kinds of things about women in power. I have my own theories.

Is it because, up until recent times, there have been so few women with that kind of power that we just don't have enough for a good statistical sample and they are really just as guilty? (Personally, I doubt that one.)

Is it because women find powerful men sexy but men find powerful women scary?

Is it because to achieve power women have to work so much harder and be so much better that they don't have the time to get involved with another man (or in some cases even one man)?

Is it just that women have better sense (not sure about that one either).

So what do you think? Are powerful women just as guilty as powerful men? If not, why?

 

[klmno]

Our newspaper inteerviewed a psychiatric around here about that. The response, which I find viable, is that men are typically seeking sex outside the marraige, if they stray. Women are typically seeking emotional fulfilment. If women who stray are emotionally involved with someone else without sex being involved, it isn't illegal. Even in the situations where sex is involved, my guess is that women are still able to think more with their heads than men.

 

[klmno]

You bring up some good questions though and I bet some of those facts are playing into it as well.

 

[DammitJanet]

Maybe most of the women are gay and its harder to catch them. Less evidence. No illegitimate children, no stains on dresses and if a woman has another woman over for drinks, well....she can just be a friend. If Barbara Boxer and Hilary Clinton have drinks who is gonna say anything?

 

[Hound dog]

Interesting thread.

Janet I roflmao at your response.

Personally, I think for women.......the power trip is enough. A forfillment of sorts. And if it isn't......they used their heads and are more descrete. A women in power knows all eyes are on her and wants to protect the position she's in.

With a man........they take it for granted. And when one body part gets switched on, the other seems to get switched off. lol

 

[Star*]

We think........period.

 

[witzend]

in my humble opinion Powerful men have been doing this type of thing all of their lives and getting away with it. If it wasn't cheating on their wife it was cheating on a test or their taxes. Women clean up after them and they tend to advance in their careers instead of being punished because the men in power have always gotten away with it too. There's lots of dirty laundry to be aired, and no one wants to get that herd of cats out of the bag.

Powerful women - the few that there are - have been aware throughout their lives that one false step could have them working shift work at K-Mart. They don't do these things because they know that there is a woman out there who will stab them in the back and step over their lifeless body to the top. Most of the women who do these things don't have power because someone used it against them years ago.

 

[WhymeMom?]

Yep, Janet you took the leap that many take, if you are a powerful woman looking to achieve you usually get accused of being gay........

My theory is most women can think ahead of their "drives"....... where will this get me? and how much is it going to cost me? And Witz's answer provides some incentive....... always watch your back.......

 

[flutterby]

There was one woman in Congress who admitted to having a years long (6 or 8 years) affair.

I think women do it, probably just as much as men. I think the spotlight is still on the men; the women in Congress aren't scrutinized as closely it seems. However, women have to work twice as hard to get where they want to be and they can't afford to lose it by some stupid mistake. I think men in power have the "luxury" of taking things for granted.

And don't for one second think the women behind these powerful men aren't powerful themselves. They are just as powerful, if not more, in most cases. They just work in the background while their husbands are in the spotlight.

I don't for one second think that these women take their husbands back because of "weakness" or whatever else the media wants to call it. They like their lifestyle. They like the power and prestige. And they want to keep it.

That's just my two cents.

 

[DaisyFace]

My opinion is that these men feel that society's rules just do not apply to them....

That's why they feel perfectly justified telling you how to act, passing laws about how you should behave, and coming up with all kind of ideas for YOU.

They, on the other hand, are so much better than you that their "reasons" for cheating on their wives, or their taxes, or otherwise acting like a creep seem like reasonable excuses to them.

Women in power are just as guilty of abusing it, though usually not by having affairs.

I, for one, am sick and tired of the double-standard that seems to apply to government vs ordinary folks.

--DaisyF

 

[Marguerite]

Maybe most of the women are gay and its harder to catch them.

Interesting observation, Janet, but I'm surprised - it's usually the male response. I've been subject to that label myself, from blokes I worked with. Because I got on with the job anddidn't fall at their feet frothing at the mouth in a fit of sexual frenzy, the blokes labelled me as "butch". In their mind there had to be SOME reason for me not finding thme attractive; the possiblility that they were not my type or that I already had a hhusband who was as much as Icould ever want or handle, never occurred to tem. In their minds, it had to be me who had the problem, not them. Because every bloke has to consider himself to be irresistible, right? well, at least the ones in question that I worked with...

Thinking about women in power - I'll list a few and see if you can consider them to be the slighrtest bit attractive (from a male point of view) -

Margaret Thatcher.

Indira Ghandi.

Golda Meier.

And in Australia -
Joan Kirner.

Carmen Lawrence.

Bronwyn Bishop.

Amanda Vanstone.

Our earliest female politicans were Edith Cowan (1921) and Enid Lyons (1943). Neither of them young or attractive, although both imposing. Enid Lyons was the widow of an earlier PM, Joe Lyons. When she entered parliament there were no women's toilets in Parliament House and they tried to use that as an excuse to keep women out of politics.

The names we label our powerful women with - "Iron Butterfly" "Iron Maiden" or in Australia, "Steel Sheila" and "Perfumed Steamroller" (applied to one of our most influential political reporters, Jana Wendt) - they speak volumes. The general message is of frightening power, "do not cross this woman or she will crush you".

Not exactly a male aphrodisiac.

Currently we have a female deputy PM who until very recently, EVERYONE assumed is a lesbian. She always wears trousers, has short hair, wears no make-up (not so you'd notice) and can really kick it with the boys in politics, she's already had several turns at running the country (and doing it well). But there was a recent 'personal story' TV program which revealed the man behind the powerful woman - her long-term partner (not husband).

We do have some attractive female politicans. Cheryl Kernot was leader of the Democrats in Australia for a while and before her, Janine Haines. Both attractive. InKernot'scase, she famously dumped her party and crossed over to "the enemy". the Labor Party, courtesy of a (later disclosed) illicit affair with Gareth Evans.

She was followed by another attractive (and very competent) female leader, a child genius called Natasha Stott-Despoia. 'Tash' looked more like a uni student tan a politican when she first entered parliament. She would go to work with her backpack and wearing jeans, rather than power suits with briefcase. Blonde, pretty but again, not often wearing make-up. She stuck with the Democrats and tried to hold them together after kernot's defection but finally had to walk away to raise a family and find a job which had more purpose and potential. The Democrats have since died in Australia as a political party. A pity - they were the first major party to really allow women to hold high office, and they reaped the benefits.

But in general - women in high political office have as much chance of being lesbian as women in any other part of the community. But being seen as attractive - far less likely than their male counterparts, even when they do happen to be pretty. Because more women are attracted to power, than men..I think it's because for some women, vicarious power is sufficient and sometimes seen as the only option, whereas most men prefer to get power for themselves rather than via someone else's coat-tails. Or stilettos.

I think there is a basic difference between men and women, in attitudes to sex. I've heard it said that men give love to get sex; women give sex to get love. Women generally want committment; men tend more to want diversity and freedom. The outcome is what we see - women in high office keep their eye on the ball, as a rule while men in high office are more likely to attract sex-related scandal than their female counterparts.

An interesting topic.

Marg