I just finished reading a blog comment thread attacking one Carl Unger in the city of Montgomery somewhere in the United States of America. Mr Unger had advanced the view, in a letter to the editor, that a female should never be elected president because her monthly period would impede her decision making leading to crucial errors. Carl’s point of view sounds quite narrow and insular admittedly, but sound conservative minds have never seen fit to put a woman in the ovary office, I mean ovulating office, I mean oval office so far. Not to say it will never happen, since many women on the rag are not that moody or difficult to get alone with.
Now the other side of that coin would argue it shouldn’t matter whether or not Clinton still menstruates, because it has absolutely nothing to do with her ability to serve as president(this is a mere assertion rather than a sound argument). Femal monthly cycle dogma/stigma is inherently sexist(factual), and to imply menstruation should have an effect on someone’s competence is ignorant at best, and damaging at worst.
Hillary lost, not because the waxing and waning of the thickened lining of her uterus every month, due to her take it for granted attitude that she would win and the general perception she is a liar who sold access to our government through the Clinton foundation. Also many Americans were afraid she had more power than than FBI after they inexplicably exonerated her from a federal crime anybody else would have been locked up for.
The whole time of the month debate is probably moot given that the Clinton Matriarch is 69 years old. Lawyer Donna Johns of Iowa USA is a mother who who appears to hold Unger in high contempt for his sexist remarks. Johns defiantly exclaims that when a female is elected president, it will still be none of his business. Probably not in your lifetime Donna.