On November 5, 2005, Maureen Dowd wrote: “I've said it before and I'll say it again: Men are simply not biologically suited to hold higher office. The Bush administration has proved that once and for all.” She goes on to rip apart the current powers that be, using terms and phrases that are often reserved for women. Example: “These guys can't be bothered to run the country. They are too obsessed with frivolous stuff, like fashion and whether they look fat.”
The Weekly Standard simultaneously criticized her for caricaturing the men in office (not only in this editorial, but in all her editorials), but it’s a glaringly weak criticism when the fact of the matter is that it’s not terribly difficult to caricature people who make caricatures of themselves. She did the same to Clinton (which, of course, the Standard approved of). And she’ll do the same with whomever next occupies the seat. When and if he deserves it.
Excuse us. When and if he or SHE deserves it. And why not? we ask. For as Maureen concludes, “Women are affected by hormones only at times. Vice's hormones rage every day.”
Which brings us swiftly to our point. If women are not well suited to office because of their hormonally ruled natures, wouldn’t a post-menopausal woman be ideally suited to the job? Republican or Democrat aside, there are numerous still-fertile women and peri-menopausal women who would be just as well qualified as the current cast of characters (if not better). But how could we ever be sure—our persistent detractors would remind us—that PMS wouldn’t cause Ms. President to—to what? imagine WMDs? At least if she were over all that upsy downsy hormonal shifting, we could rest assured.