I saw and heard his speech and an hour later made bf watch and listen. It was rivetting. I'm so glad he talked about the attempts of Tr--p to take down democracy and the ability of the country to resist those attempts. I know that's not exactly what you meant, steve. When we say, "Her speech was downright presidential," what does it mean? Does it have a different meaning from "His speech was downright presidential." I hope we find out exactly what that word can mean in the coming years. Anyway, I totally agree with you about leaving the past behind. I no longer follow Tr--p on Twitter. It stopped being entertaining. Welcome to the future.if Joe Biden wasn't downright presidential in the remarks he made.
I'm having trouble with the word presidential. The word seems weighted with 200 years of masculinity. I looked up synonyms for presidential and found: administrative, dominant, ruling, ascendant, controlling, determining, executive, restraining, supreme, and absolute.
That's a very good question, lil. To me, there are two defining characteristics of presidentiality that should transcend gender. One is the ability to take in a lot of information (some contradictory) and a lot of opinions, and maintain an ability to separate the signal from the noise to make a decision about a course of action. Two is the ability to get others on board with one's decision making, which is primarily dependent on one's ability to communicate and connect with people. These two together, for me, are what define leadership generally, and presidentiality in particular. I think whether a woman or a man is at the helm of a government or a company or a group of any sort, formal or informal, that both of those traits define leadership. Edit: I think that "decency", "morality", "integrity", etc, are all proxies for trust, which just makes it more likely to be able to connect with followers and adversaries alike, but they're not great leadership qualities per se. Trump is very good at connecting with followers, almost magically so. He is not good at connecting with adversaries, because no one trusts him.
Absolutely agree. Theories of leadership have developed a lot since the end of the last century. It used to be the top-down synonyms that I found on line: controlling, dominant. Leadership must include extensive consultation as you say -- taking in a lot of information -- but ultimately, making decisions based on the best information; then getting others on board through relationship and trust not through fear. This conversation reminded me to check these principles of what has been called feminist leadership. It also reminds me of why I need to participate on hubski to stretch my own thinking.One is the ability to take in a lot of information (some contradictory) and a lot of opinions, and maintain an ability to separate the signal from the noise to make a decision about a course of action.
Two is the ability to get others on board with one's decision making, which is primarily dependent on one's ability to communicate and connect with people.
That's an interesting link. I have a bit of a hard time with broad statements like, "Everyone will be heard and respected." One of the problems that leaders face is in deciding who should be heard. There are people who and opinions that are inherently bad. It takes a careful sort of mind to shut out pure noise. Letting bad opinions into a conversation can at times be harmful, if, say, the forum is big enough. I'm not one to think that words are too dangerous to be spoken, but I am one to think that those with their hands on the levers of power have a responsibility to filter inherently dangerous opinions from the mainstream.
AGREED. Broad statements need to be qualified and there have to be mechanisms for filtering out ideas based ONLY on greed and ignorance -- as hubski well knows. When I see "everyone will be heard and respected," I think of a meeting, any sort of meeting -- there are people who have earned a place at the table -- who are silent. I feel strongly that if you are at the table (or a virtual table, like a hubski jitsi meetup) then those who are doing all the talking should invite everyone to speak up. Still, even Tsar Nicholas II had his Rasputin. One last thing about seeing Biden talk last night: he seemed to have a moral compass that was rooted in ideas beyond his own whims. A moral compass is something like a personal mission statement or set of values and ideas that you look to when making difficult decisions.The definition of Moral Compass: An internalized set of values and objectives that guide a person with regard to ethical behavior and decision-making.
George W Bush has a moral compass. It's something but it's not everything. One area where I think women might excel compared to men is in terms of flexibility. Men tend to fall into camps of idealists and rationalists, the former being absolutist in their thinking and the latter being heartless followers of Realpolitik--pure motive vs. pure outcome driven thinking. Where I think women could improve on that is in being better at balancing competing interests that values vs. outcomes often present. I've had several powerful female bosses, and to me that's what tended to stand out the most vs. male counterparts. But of course that's a very broad generalization, which is itself maybe not helpful.
The best part of the English language, American-style, is that it is fluid. In my life I have watched the words "pimp" and "hack" go from pejorative to adulatory. The masculine baggage associated with any given word is generally one use case from vanishing forever.I'm having trouble with the word presidential.
So true about "hack" to the point that winning a hackathon is brag-worthy. Language is absolutely fluid. I'd love to see the meaning of "presidential" to be firmly in the realm that steve suggests below (thoughtful and having integrity) along with the meanings that b_b embraces. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary doesn't bother to suggest any definitions -- merely that it is the adjective form of "president." Being presidential is not a big deal in Canada and we never talk about being prime ministerial. Like language in general, people will assume the meanings of words --- until their assumptions lead to misunderstandings. I'm grateful for people who frequently say, "What do you mean?" before assuming they understand.
It's very much an American word. The world has had dozens of female prime ministers so female leadership isn't particularly novel. However, American democracy, being basically a Mennonite political system, remains chauvinist. I am eager for this to change.
see? that just gives me goosebumps. I can respect that... so I'll throw out a few synonyms that I associate with the word, and we could use instead: . dignified refined yet accessible having integrity thoughtful . you know... several important things that we've gone without for four years. I am intrigued that the word "presidential" has always just seemed like the things I would want to see in a president... but not necessarily in the context of a male president. I would just as easily apply that word to a woman president in all the same ways... but we've not yet had the opportunity. I'm often wrong about words and their meanings.... this has been pointed out to me several times. I appreciate you opening my mind on this one. Even though I didn't mean it in the patriarchal - it could be taken as such. As always lil - thanks!Welcome to the future.
I'm having trouble with the word presidential. The word seems weighted with 200 years of masculinity.