- This topic has 21 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by Lilmod Ulelamaid.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 13, 2016 12:17 am at 12:17 am #618672👑RebYidd23Participant
She should be called “Mr. President”, same as any other president, and her closest female relative should be First Lady, same as any president without a wife.
November 13, 2016 3:01 am at 3:01 am #1191646akupermaParticipantThe consensus is that she would be “Madam President”. While originally “Mrs.” and Madam” which is French, meant the same thing, is American English the use of the French form is consider more respectful to a person of high status.
There is no consensus at what the male spouse would be called. Some have suggested “First Gentleman” (reflecting that “gentleman” like “madam” is traditionally a title for someone higher than average.
November 13, 2016 3:13 am at 3:13 am #1191647JosephParticipantThe English counterpart to Lady is Gentleman.
As far as honorific, there is always Mrs. President (as the closest equivalent to Mr. President.)
November 13, 2016 3:14 am at 3:14 am #1191648JosephParticipantLet’s daven that we never have a female president so that the above conversation remains only theory.
November 13, 2016 4:30 am at 4:30 am #1191649Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantI’m not sure that he should have a title. A wife has a title because “behind every great man is a great woman”, but the same doesn’t apply the other way. In a way, I think it might even be insulting to him.
November 13, 2016 4:51 am at 4:51 am #1191650👑RebYidd23ParticipantSo far, when the president does not have a wife, the closest female relative is First Lady. Why should that be different just because she herself is female?
Also,the title “Mr. President” doesn’t need a female equivalent. Just as she is President, not the “female equivalent” of the male creature that is a president, the title can also be the same.
November 13, 2016 5:09 am at 5:09 am #1191651yehudayonaParticipantJoseph, why do you oppose the idea of a female president? Would you have protested Devorah and Chuldah?
November 13, 2016 5:11 am at 5:11 am #1191652Lilmod UlelamaidParticipant“Let’s daven that we never have a female president so that the above conversation remains only theory.”
And now the real reason why you don’t like Hillary comes out. 🙂
November 13, 2016 5:41 am at 5:41 am #1191653JosephParticipantA woman’s place isn’t in the public arena. This isn’t a novel idea. Shulchan Aruch, Rambam, Chazal, etc. share this point.
November 13, 2016 10:17 am at 10:17 am #1191654iacisrmmaParticipantJoseph: That may be for the frum world. KOL KEVUDA BAS MELECH PENIMO is not part of the SHEVA MITZVOS BNEI NOACH.
November 13, 2016 12:44 pm at 12:44 pm #1191655JosephParticipantThat is a natural part of the human condition. Modesty is not only intended for Jews. Gender roles are a fundamental function of humanity.
November 13, 2016 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm #1191656iacisrmmaParticipantDo your saying that Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir were immodest?
November 13, 2016 2:22 pm at 2:22 pm #1191657Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantAccording to Halacha, women aren’t allowed to have certain types of leadership positions such as being a king. Devora and Chulda did not have postions that are forbidden for women.
Even though this halacha does not apply to goyim, it could possible that the reasons behind it do (depending what the reasons are).
For example, if the reason is that woman’s natural talents cause her to be someone who does not have the ability to be in a leadership position (since every quality has both a positive side and a negative side), this is something that would presumably apply to goyish women as well.
However, if the reason has something to do with the person themselves (meaning it wouldn’t be good for her as opposed to not being good for everyone else) then it would not apply.
November 13, 2016 3:11 pm at 3:11 pm #1191658It is Time for TruthParticipantThe US is a staring Bald Eagle
A nation’s animal represents their identity
Does a women fit that?
November 13, 2016 9:31 pm at 9:31 pm #1191659👑RebYidd23ParticipantFemale bald eagles are just as powerful as male bald eagles if not more.
November 13, 2016 10:53 pm at 10:53 pm #1191660Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantWhat is the significance of a staring Bald Eagle?
November 13, 2016 11:31 pm at 11:31 pm #1191661👑RebYidd23ParticipantThey’re American and they’re bold.
November 13, 2016 11:36 pm at 11:36 pm #1191662flatbusherParticipantJoseph: Just when I was thinking that what normal person would actually not vote for Hillary because she is a womwn, you make your comment. Indeed there were women in Jewish history who were leaders.
November 14, 2016 12:07 am at 12:07 am #1191663Lilmod UlelamaidParticipant“Indeed there were women in Jewish history who were leaders.”
As I pointed out above, according to Halacha, there are different types of positions, some of which are forbidden and some of which aren’t. I think that women might not be allowed to be president. On the other hand, they are allowed to be Nevios and Poskos like Chulda and Devora.
I think the reason that women are not allowed to be Rabbis is based on this halacha (that women are not allowed to have leadership positions).
In any case, I don’t know whether or not this would be a reason not to vote for Hillary since she is a goy, but I don’t think it’s a crazy idea. Not necessarily because there is a halachic issue involved but because the same reasoning could POSSIBLY apply here.
November 14, 2016 1:46 pm at 1:46 pm #1191664It is Time for TruthParticipantIt’s a cold unfazed stare
Admittedly,Have any male presidents of the last 20 odd years fit?
November 14, 2016 2:16 pm at 2:16 pm #1191665I. M. ShluffinParticipantIf it were up to Benjamin Franklin, our national bird would have been the turkey. He thought they looked more scary (if comical) chasing after the redcoats. Maybe that image would have sooner allowed for a female president?
November 14, 2016 3:51 pm at 3:51 pm #1191666Lilmod UlelamaidParticipantAnd would you want a president who does?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.