Campaigning and raising sons are mutually exclusive, eh?

Le Jacquelope

Loves Spam
Joined
Apr 9, 2003
Posts
76,445
Don't jump on me, I didn't write this article :eek:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081223/us_time/08599186808400/print

White House Family Values: Where Are the Boys?
By BELINDA LUSCOMBE Belinda Luscombe Tue Dec 23, 4:00 am ET

In at least one respect, President Barack Obama is not bringing change to Washington. Just like the Bush administration, and the Clintons, Nixons and Johnsons before that, Obama will oversee a White House unencumbered by male children. In the 80 years before the Obama administration, only the Kennedys brought a boy into the White House.

In some countries, being son-less would be considered a weakness, especially in a leader. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has two sons. So does Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, while French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy has three. Even his Majesty King Letsie III, potentate of Lesotho, has a son. (See TIME's Top Ten Photos of 2008)

American voters apparently have evolved beyond such simplistic notions of what makes a good head of state, but they were not ever thus. In the 19th century, the occupants of the White House had herds of boys. The Lincolns had four. The Grants had three sons and a daughter. The Hayeses had seven sons and a daughter. The Garfields had seven kids, five of them sons. Not all of these male heirs lived in the White House - many died young, or were too old to be living with their parents - but several did.

So why no modern manlings in the east wing? I have a theory, born of careful historical analysis and solipsism: It's impossible to be elected to the White House if you have young sons, because that would mean you have to campaign with them.

Campaigning and raising sons are mutually exclusive. Campaigning requires lots of travel, enormous amounts of time in the public eye and months and months of sitting down quietly listening to the same guy talking while wearing your good clothes. It's like 11 straight months of being in church when you're the preacher's kid - with long car rides in between. It's torture on adults, let alone children. But it's worse for boys. Try this experiment: next month ask your son to be on his best behavior in front of other people, from now until November 2009. See how far you get.

"Boys are generally more competitive, risk-taking and defiant, which makes them less manageable," says Meg Meeker M.D., author of Boys Should be Boys and Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters. And the 24/7 scrutiny of the modern campaign makes every small risky and defiant act a public affair. So if you get a little bored of what dad's saying, because he's dad and you've heard it eleventy million times before, you end up here.

The Obama campaign was noted for its discipline, its rigor and its self control: three things most young boys are not noted for. Of course, Obama didn't take Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, everywhere he campaigned. But long fatherly absences may make the boys even more likely to be unhelpful. "If dad's away on the campaign trail a lot, [boys'] tendencies towards defiance and impulsivity are exacerbated," says Meeks.

Young girls, on the other hand, can be an asset to a candidate's image. "There's definitely something in the father daughter-relationship that makes being in the public eye much easier," says Meeks. "Girls want to please their mothers and particularly their fathers. Their dads can take their daughters places and do things with them and the girls won't act out."

Yes, some modern Pesidents did have sons in the White House. But none of them had to campaign with them. John F. Kennedy, Jr., was in utero for most of his dad's campaign. The Reagan and Bush sons were already grown by the time their fathers were elected. Jack Ford lived with his parents at 1600 Pennsylvania, but he only moved there when Nixon resigned, not through the crucible of a campaign.

And then there's Roosevelt. Teddy and Ethel moved in with two daughters, Alice and Ethel, and four sons: Ted Jr., Kermit, Archie and Quentin. The White House has been recovering ever since.

"Roosevelt's sons were fantastic scoundrels," says Bonnie Angelo, author of First Families: The Impact of the White House on Their Lives. They would sneak around behind the lamplighter on Lafayette Square extinguishing the lamps he lit. They'd slide down the grand staircase on kitchen trays. "When Archie was sick, his brother Quentin - with the aid of a White House staffer - brought their pony Algonquin up to his room in the elevator to make him feel better," says Angelo. These pranks were tolerated, she notes, because the President enjoyed them more than anyone. "The only thing he stopped the boys doing was shooting spitballs at one of the early presidential portraits."

Jack Ford wasn't even a young man when he moved in, but he still gave his parents agita. On one occasion says Angelo, "he had a young lady visiting him in his quarters when he heard his mother showing Barbara Walters around the residence." He managed to avoid making what could have been television history, but it was a close call.

In tough times like these, it would be nice to have a bit of that harmless White House mischief. And the Obamas are still a young couple. With ready access to government-sponsored childcare. No pressure of course, but would it be too much to ask to give the ol' dice another roll? Maybe you can't campaign with a son, but it sure sounds like fun to try and govern with one.
 
*Snerk* Sorry but this writer is a dumbass. When you start an article out with:

Just like the Bush administration, and the Clintons, Nixons and Johnsons before that, Obama will oversee a White House unencumbered by male children.

You kind of lose credibilty as soon as people realize that none of the cited Presidents HAD any male children! Fucking, Duh!
 
*Snerk* Sorry but this writer is a dumbass. When you start an article out with:



You kind of lose credibilty as soon as people realize that none of the cited Presidents HAD any male children! Fucking, Duh!
Uh, I think that's the point the writer is trying to make.

They didn't have any male children, and that made them somehow more easy to elect. Because girls are cute and well behaved, and you can show that you have "family values" by having them wave at the crowds at campaign rallies.

She's still grasping at straws though. Sounds like an op-ed sprung form a situation like this: "Two hours until deadline, and this advertiser just backed out. We need to fill this page. You there, write something! About Obama. People like to read about Obama. Go, go, go!"
 
Uh, I think that's the point the writer is trying to make.

They didn't have any male children, and that made them somehow more easy to elect. Because girls are cute and well behaved, and you can show that you have "family values" by having them wave at the crowds at campaign rallies.

She's still grasping at straws though. Sounds like an op-ed sprung form a situation like this: "Two hours until deadline, and this advertiser just backed out. We need to fill this page. You there, write something! About Obama. People like to read about Obama. Go, go, go!"
Well, it seems she does have one strong factual point.

America doesn't give a rat's ass whether you have male heirs to the so-called throne of power or not. That is a dramatic change from when a certain King's wife that we know and love from the history books, got beheaded for bearing only daughters.

It also deals a swift kick to the legs of the belief that girls are harder to raise than boys.

I'm not sure where she's supposed to be grasping at straws. I'm surprised more women aren't happy about this article... I mean it is saying boys are a liability on the campaign trail... snakes and snails and puppy dog tails and all that.
 
I'm surprised more women aren't happy about this article... I mean it is saying boys are a liability on the campaign trail... snakes and snails and puppy dog tails and all that.
Oh, c'mon!

You're coming across as a woman-hater here. You're better than this.
 
Oh, c'mon!

You're coming across as a woman-hater here. You're better than this.
That comment was in reference to the universal ire that I attracted the last time I pointed out the flagrant stereotyping of males on here.

I didn't see too many women saying it was wrong - but I did see a ton of people get mad because I called some whiny woman out on her male bashing.

I've got 3 daughters. I pray we don't have sons that wind up getting fed to the machine. Exactly who am I supposed to be hating here?
 
That comment was in reference to the universal ire that I attracted the last time I pointed out the flagrant stereotyping of males on here.

I didn't see too many women saying it was wrong - but I did see a ton of people get mad because I called some whiny woman out on her male bashing.

I've got 3 daughters. I pray we don't have sons that wind up getting fed to the machine. Exactly who am I supposed to be hating here?

I don't get involved in those types of arguments usually, simply because they seem to devolve into a bunch of fingerpointing.

I have a daughter and two sons. All three brought their own challenges and joys, irrespective of gender.
 
I don't get involved in those types of arguments usually, simply because they seem to devolve into a bunch of fingerpointing.

I have a daughter and two sons. All three brought their own challenges and joys, irrespective of gender.
Well I find it funny that women can flagrantly bash men and belittle boys like in this article, and no one protests it... but if a man writes similarly belittling crap about women, it's on the prime time news for a week.
 
The article is utter crap. The idea that the gender of a candidate's children has anything to do with their electability? Please.. :rolleyes:

One only has to look at the escapades of Jenna and Barbara Bush to dispel the notion that girls are any easier than boys to keep on the straight and narrow. Bad behavior has nothing to do with gender, as any parent can tell you. Every child presents it's own difficulties unrelated to their gender.
 
Well I find it funny that women can flagrantly bash men and belittle boys like in this article, and no one protests it... but if a man writes similarly belittling crap about women, it's on the prime time news for a week.

It looks as if nearly everyone that's responded to the thread has berated and protested the content of this article as crap. TIME apparently had a page to fill and chose something that appears should be taken much more lightly than you have seen fit to. This is, after all one of your pet peeves is it not, as evidenced by your last statement?

The author is the Arts Editor at TIME and frequently writes essays intended to be humorous.. Such as her plea to Warren Buffet to make a better fitting bra or the article on Inter-facial couples.
 
Last edited:
*Snerk* Sorry but this writer is a dumbass. When you start an article out with:

Quote:
Just like the Bush administration, and the Clintons, Nixons and Johnsons before that, Obama will oversee a White House unencumbered by male children.


You kind of lose credibilty as soon as people realize that none of the cited Presidents HAD any male children! Fucking, Duh!

Both Carter and Reagan had sons but they were young men during the presidential campaigns. They were children while those two men were running their gubernatorial campaigns and There was no negative effect evident there.

Carter did have a young daughter while he was president.
 
One only has to look at the escapades of Jenna and Barbara Bush to dispel the notion that girls are any easier than boys to keep on the straight and narrow.
Ah, but you're talking more-or-less grownup girls there.

My experience has been pretty much the stereotypical one. Both when it comes to me, my family and my friends. Up until puberty, girl were neat and tidy and well behaved, while boys broke things, fell out of trees and chased the cat with squirt guns. With puberty, the girls rebelled by drinking, smoking, hanging out with too old boys, and sneaking off to parties, which they were frequently dragged home from, kicking and screaming. Boys rebelled by becoming mono-syllabic, pimple-faced oafs, and locking themselves in their rooms with video games and porn.
 
Back
Top