REBUTTAL: No, Mark Hamill, Being Female Doesn't Magically Make Women Great Leaders
Oh, Mark Hamill. I liked you better when you received a big wet one from your on-screen sister. You had to go and further ruin your iconic status with this number:
For centuries, men have had their chance to rule government with middling-to-poor results. Who's ready to let women… https://t.co/dWqZrDuaTf— Mark Hamill (@Mark Hamill) 1542141923.0
Loathe though I am to cite whataboutism, what were your thoughts and feelings about Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina, and Marsha Blackburn? Because were I to guess, I'd say you're not aboard the female leadership brigade as much as you're aboard the Democrat-female brigade. An unoriginal way of masking loyalty to the Democrats while hiding behind a forward-thinking and pro-WOMYN facade.
Just a hunch.
But hey, lemons and lemonade. It is nice to finally see the left accidentally admit there are differences between men and women. So if men like you, Mark, want women and women only to lead, I guess that means you're tired of male-style leadership. Implying women would lead differently than men. Implying women are different than men.
But back to the crux of your virtue signal pretending to be an argument. Being female doesn't make one a great leader. Being male doesn't make one a great leader. A person is a great leader through a combination of personality, experience and wisdom. Leadership ability is not determined by jockstrap or bra size. Leadership is not best expressed through lipstick or face stubble. Nor is it determined by a power tie from Hugo Boss, or stylish heels from Jimmy Choo.
Genitalia, chromosomes, and hormones do not confer leadership qualities. Period.
Now there will be people on both sides of the political and gender spectrums arguing over these points because there are differences in the sexes. If you're out there already warming up your shit-posting figures, I'd ask you to hit pause. Before you start citing different talking points passed down generation to generation thanks to conventional wisdom, don't. I'm speaking of little diddy's like this: "Women can't be great leaders because they're ruled by their hormones/emotions." Or some variation of the patronizing idiom. Before you say it, write it, or believe it, think back on a few recent or historical leaders who let their hormones/emotions completely rule them: Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Henry VIII and any number of male leaders who stuck it in everything female that moved.
That's just the long way of saying "Spare me."
"I don't make any concession to the fact that they’re men" ~ Margaret Thatcher, 1990. #MargaretThatcher https://t.co/3piunMdy8T— Margaret Thatcher 👜 (@Margaret Thatcher 👜) 1541434826.0
In a true, progressive society, leaders should be chosen based on their record of capable leadership. I'd rather not repeat myself, but feel I must. In a society free of actual sexism, leaders should be chosen based on their merit. Not by whether they pee in a standing or squatting position. In a society which actually wants the best for itself, leaders should be chosen based on a proven track record of actual leadership. Not determined by gender. This shouldn't be hard.
So no, Mark Hamill. Electing only female leaders for the sake of their femaleness is just as backward for electing only male leaders for their maleness. Great women and great men want to be acknowledged and chosen for their greatness: for their accomplishments, their wisdom, their experience. Not for their X or Y chromosomes.
We'll never be a free and equal society so long as people like you, Mark, insist people should be raised above others for their gender. This may be hard to believe, but most women, I'd even go as far to say even leftist women, want to be judged "by the content of their character," not on their anatomical equipment. Sure, sure, a few feminist screech-whales will insist their femaleness grants them magical powers, but they're just louder than the rest of us. You may win their approval for this tweet, but the feminist screech-whales cannot be appeased for long.
Most people, PEOPLE, want to be seen as individuals, not herded into a group as you and your leftist ilk continue to do, for the sake of diminishing individual values.
So spare us the virtue signals. We get it, you want to ensure people see you as NOT A SEXIST but a LOVER OF WOMYNS. But next time, examine what meaning is actually conveyed in the supposed progressive sentiment you express.