Andrea Tantaros

Men need to play catch up

2010-03-25T00:00:00-04:00

When powerful female clients come to her office, Patti Stanger tells them to "check their penis at the door." Stanger, star of the Bravo show "The Millionaire Matchmaker," offers valuable advice.

Women shouldn't seek to dominate men in their romantic lives the way they dominate their respective career fields, but they also shouldn't lower their standards to find a relationship. A woman who is successful and confident shouldn't have to compromise who she is or what she has rightfully earned to find love, companionship and commitment.

Powerful women are accused of intimidating men, making them feel insecure or insufficient. But maybe it is men who need to change. After all, women are becoming increasingly more comfortable embracing their prosperity; it's the boys who often have trouble getting their arms around it.

Obama's Ol' Boys Club Keeping Women Out?

2009-10-29T15:38:37-04:00

Apparently, the writers at the New York Times don’t read the front page of their own newspaper. Rather than delve into the hard hitting questions facing the nation such as what to do about the increasing instability in Afghanistan, the strategy to repair a still lackluster economy or how much debt we really are poised to pass onto future generations, one Times journo decided to explore the real hand-wringer of the day that’s keeping Americans awake at night: is there too much testosterone in the White House??

The article was sparked by recent outrage from women’s groups (and apparently one very isolated, out of touch, culturally delusional Times employee) over an all-male basketball game hosted by the President. The author writes about how Obama is an “unabashed First Guy’s Guy” who boasts “encyclopedic knowledge of college hoops” (as if to imply that an impressive aptitude in sports trivia is somehow the measure of a man and that George Bush and Bill Clinton were somehow Presidential girlie men who, if spontaneously interrupted, could be caught painting their toe nails while listening to old Liza records).

It continues:

“The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.”

What impression? And who exactly is the President battling this faux “impression” against besides The National Organization for Women (NOW) who called basketball game “troubling”?

Isn’t the real concern that the President recoils when it comes to making any big decision?

As someone who is frequently critical of the President, a female, and a conservative, insinuating that a handicap of his is the fictional perception that he is operating an exclusive chest bumping, fraternity like good ol' boys club is mindboggling, even to me.

Obama has given women notable placement in his administration. While militant maniacs seek to destroy us abroad, Hillary Clinton is our Secretary of State and Susan Rice is a Senior Foreign Policy Advisor. As we face a global pandemic Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services and Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security Secretary, are faced with how to keep citizens safe. From Valerie Jarrett to his wife Michelle, Obama has elevated females to positions of power seeking their leadership on some of the most serious and sensitive of issues.

Even the White House’s official Fox News basher, Anita Dunn, has been given a megaphone with which to whine (a bizarre one, but a megaphone nonetheless). Though I disagree with these women ideologically, it’s indisputable that they are, in fact, women.

Perhaps most importantly while these females try to do their important jobs, having a campaign for affirmative action in the White House in the midst of all the other problems we face seems misguided. When I look at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue I don’t see Greek letters on the front and a keg in the back. I see a dark cloud overtop.

With unemployment on the brink of hitting 10 percent, escalating violence in the Middle East, and a ballooning national debt, the media should be focused on the President’s ability to put points on the only board that matters using the team he surrounds himself with off the courts.

Instead, the "Gray Lady" and those on ABC’s The View reliably and unsurprisingly lambasted the President for not letting Hillary suit up that day. Elizabeth Hassleback insinuated that if Obama’s daughters looked out the window and saw an all male basketball game, the President had somehow failed them as a father.

“He presents himself as a feminist, so the hypocrisy is glaring,” insisted Joy Behar.

Girlfriends: how about discussing contradictions that count, such as Obama campaigning on balanced budgets but now breaking the bank? Or his crafting of ethics laws to keep lobbyists out of government but then changing course? Or his waffling on sending more troops to wage a war that he called a necessity?

It’s insulting to females everywhere to deduce that because our gender wasn’t represent to shoot three pointers that day, the President is somehow a misogynist “towel snapper,” who puts us at a disadvantage, and is corrupting his children.

These types of temper tantrums undermine women, distract and reverse decades of progress. As long as women and men view every issue through a prism of gender, females end up marginalized. Women have made tremendous progress. We should embrace it, not seek to disprove it. Real women don’t complain or pout, we play ball, whether the President invites us or not.

Uncle Sam Out, Aunt Samantha In?

2009-06-25T07:17:00-04:00

When it comes to politics and extramarital affairs the two, sadly, go hand in hand. There’s Edwards, Vitter, Clinton, Fossella, McGreevy, Sherwood, Hart, Spitzer, Condit, Ensign and now Governor Mark Sanford (I could go on, and on, but my columns have word limits).

When this situation occurs, as it regularly does, the public constantly finds itself debating hairsplitting, obscure theories of moral relativism --- but right or left, there is no question that adultery lacks party affiliation. It’s driven by power lust, or just plain lust, not political stripes. But what's the common thread, besides a complete lapse of judgment and perception of untouchability? Answer: they're all men. So should we be electing more women instead?

When it comes to females and elected office, it's typically about power, not sex. There are most certainly exceptions, and women absolutely aren't immune to cheating, but when is the last time you saw a pant-chasing woman politician admit to soliciting sexual services? Or one caught hopping a jet to South America to visit her Latin lover? The DC Madam's client list gone public didn't exactly have the Lindy Boggs women's lounge in the US House hiding for cover. Yes, Diane Feinstein likely faces jaw-dropping documents at her desk everyday. A Chippendale’s calendar is not one of them.

Men are genetically engineered to think about sex more than women. You don’t need a scientist to expound. Think of all the surveys and studies (or just think about your boyfriend or brother). Drug companies spend billions on drugs like Viagra for a reason. Playboy circulation: 2.5 million. Playgirl: zero (it went all web due to financial troubles). Now add power to that equation and you have aforementioned list of offenders.

Women morph into totally different creatures when granted authority. We get thick-skinned. Bossy. Bullying. Borderline masculine. We turn into Barbara “call me Senator,” Boxer, not Bill “call me daddy” Clinton. Women electeds don't typically have trouble keeping their zippers up, or their skirts down. We just have trouble. Period. And pun intended.

Which brings me to my next question:

Is more estrogen is the answer to an ethically ailing, morally decaying body politic? Would we be spared the slimy, disappointing marital disclosure with fewer men in control? An all female Congress would bring about snares, but think about what it would eliminate.

It’s true there are a disproportionate number of men in office than women. (For the record, I’m not debating the law of averages). However, there are more women in office than ever and still no salacious soap opera like sex scandals.

In fact, a 2008 Pew Research Center study shows that “when it comes to honesty, intelligence and a handful of other character traits the public values highly in leaders, they rate women superior to men.” When asked who makes a better political leader, 69 percent said men and women equally make good leaders (21 percent said men make better leaders, six percent said women) yet men still hold a majority of positions of power. Baby pressures and ole boys club aside, what gives?

Females arguably work twice as hard to achieve power than men do, even to this day. If we're smart but also attractive they call us bimbos no matter where we went to college, how many degrees we have, or how many languages we speak. If we're tough they call us bitches. Emotional equals weak. Passionate? Critics' code for crazy. And no matter what we look like you can bet we're getting scrutiny from both genders on our hair and wardrobe. Just look at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Would anyone argue they had it easy?

By the time women have risen to a position of power, we’ve invested far too much to blow it on prostitutes and private jets. We’re more careful with what’s at stake. Our intuition and perspective is driven by leadership, not libido, respect, not raunch.

Male or female, every elected official has the duty to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, but when it comes to bedroom behavior, the guys consistently get it wrong. Would more women get it right? To sum it up: is the sad status quo more evidence that spatial judgment in government is desperately needed? Will high heels eliminate the real heels? Uncle Sam out, Aunt Samantha in? I’m just asking.

What a Democrat Woman Wants

2008-09-05T15:37:00-04:00

If Sarah Palin isnt it, what kind of woman is the right (more like left) kind of woman for female Democrat voters? Democrat women across the country are claiming Palins pick is an insult. They will not have a fast one pulled on them. This is NO Hillary Clinton clothed in better pant suits. Well on that point, theyre right. Sarah Palin is a far, refreshing cry from Hillary Clinton.

But even if liberal women are not going to vote for Palin, their arguments against her ring phony and hypocritical. Sarah Palin cant run the Eisenhower Building and her own family at the same time. Sarah Palin has a bachelors from the University of Idaho; Barrack Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review. Sarah Palin doesnt support special needs children. She was the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 residents. Maureen Dowd mockingly speculates that if Palin one day takes over as POTUS and faces an international challenge, shell have to put away her breast pump while facing down the threat, pointing her rifle, kissing her husband and changing her babys diaper all at once. Wait, isnt that the heroine of every feminists wildest dream?

How is it that the very women who have fought for womens rights and equality and opportunity are so opposed to a woman who lives and breathes their talking points?

They challenge her level of education and her judgment as a mother, but lets be honest the real reason theyre attacking her is due to their narrow-minded belief that theres only one kind of woman who can ascend to the White House. Theres only one kind of woman who can stand up for other women. There is only one kind of woman who can fight the boys club in Washington and shatter the glass ceiling. If it cant be Hillary or a liberal clone, it shouldnt be anyone else.

Unfortunately, this kind of intra-gender discrimination will ultimately lead to a fractured female front and put the brakes on the remarkable progress womens rights advocates have achieved.

The criticism from one organization in particularNOWis perhaps the most disturbing. NOW President Kim Gandy has said Palin is not the right woman. Odd coming from the same person who once said, There is no job that women should be excluded from because of their gender. If you can do the job, you should have an opportunity to get the job. If you can't, you shouldn't be there, male or female. Note that Gandy doesnt list reasons why Palin is not qualified for the VP slot, only that she is not the right woman.

NOWs mission statement claims government and the mainstream media, among others, engage in pitting us against each other as an essential mechanism for maintaining the status quo. For an organization whose aim is to unify women who are being pitted against each other, why is NOW leading the effort to pit women against one woman who is poised to make historical strides for her gender?

The truth is, no other candidate for the White House in U.S. history has so effortlessly represented the many dimensions, faces, hats, and attributes of the American woman. And it's not just women of the West or female athletes or beauty pageant contestants. It's women of all walks of life, levels of education, races, marriage statuses, and hair color. She's real. Her personal tribulations are gritty. Her triumphs are hard-won. Her principles are firm. And her human warmth permeates through the television. This is one woman whose advisors will not need to caution to shed tears "spontaneously" at a campaign coffee stop to woo women voters.

Anti- Palin feminists are threatened because the tables have turned. They were convinced a woman would take the country by storm in November and change Washington forever. But their gal didn't make it. And in their narrow field of vision, they never imagined an even better female contender would fly in out of right field and energize the nation. At least not from the right.

Liberal women are all for women's rights until the woman in question is everything they ever dreamed of except she's pro-life. Many women will overlook this issue and break with their party. But to those who seek to assail Palin, they should take a look a hard look at what women's rights really mean and get behind one of their own who has exercised her right to choose. If not, it's time for a new mission statement.