A woman for President!

More women need to be in politics but one has to remember that women won the right to vote in 1920(I think thats right) which isn't that long ago when looking at history. Plus the women's rights movment didn't really gain strenght until the 70s. If you think about that there is no denying that women have made hudge strides in politics and also other areas. Should we be happy with oru progress? Yes. Should we reamain where we are..no. Hell no! There is still a lot we can do to progress.

I do not doubt that a woman could get votes from either party, if she was in the middle and not too radical. Furthermore, we have to realize it all depends on who this woman is running up against. If the other choice is eh..I dunno Bush's brother well...I dunno how that would go. Or what if this woman ran against NY's state Governor Pataki, I think they would easily win.

 

Think clearly for a momen, diz. The biological differences between men and women will, and have for thousands of years, invariably influence our cultural differences as well. Men tend to be more aggressive than women, the same pattern is repeated within other mammelian species. This tendancy as played within our culture features men, more often than not, taking leadership roles as compared to women. This aggression is not necessarily in the violent sense as the term applies towards assertiveness and dominance.

The only problem here is that you are too hell-bent on being PC that you cannot even discuss these differences without taking offense. Get a clue, men and women are not the same; men and women have innate biological differences; men and women think differently thus men and women react differently to stimuli-physical, mental, and emotional.

Pointing these out is not pseudo-science, only common-sense.


Ciou-See the Sig

 

I would love to see a woman as President or Vice President. I think eventually it will happen, but we need to make sure we're voting for a woman who is right for the job, not just having a woman President for its own sake.

Let's not forget, we've had a woman run for Vice President: Geraldine Ferraro with Walter Mondale in 1984. I think their loss had less to do with people not wanting a woman in that office, and more with the fact that most people couldn't take issue with Reagan's accomplishments.

We have had women in numerous other offices that could lead to the Presidency. There's Condoleeza Rice. We have female Senators and Representatives. Even female Governors. Ann Richards was Governor of Texas before George W., and only lost narrowly. And she got a lot more done than he did. The education reforms he claims to take credit for are really the work of Ross Perot.

 

Think clearly for a momen, diz. The biological differences between men and women will, and have for thousands of years, invariably influence our cultural differences as well. Men tend to be more aggressive than women, the same pattern is repeated within other mammelian species.

I've thought about this quite a bit, thanks, and it has nothing to do with being PC. The claims of evolutionary psychology with regard to broad sex-based behavioral differences have never really panned out in the cross-cultural data. The evidence just isn't there.

Anyway, this is only tangentially related to our topic.

We have had women in numerous other offices that could lead to the Presidency.

Yes, we do, but the problem is you can name them all. Now try to name all the white males in political office.

 

To tell you the truth I can remember more stuff female leaders have done in history than male leaders. I'm mainly talking like with the constitutional monarchies of Europe and during the end of BCE and the start of CE.

There is a shift in gender. The women are outperforming the men in the sociological circuit. Ever since women got their right to vote in 1919 / 1920, it seems like over time, they're becoming the dominant figure.

I don't think gender really has anything to do with it. Some men like to take command, some would prefer their women to do it. I think they are capable for sure and believe me I don't want to get into entertainment media, but the propoganda of Commander in Chief is making this easier for feminists.

 

We have had women in numerous other offices that could lead to the Presidency.

Yes, we do, but the problem is you can name them all. Now try to name all the white males in political office.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to argue here. Is it that having more males makes each male, or any prospective male, more qualified, or is it that we need more females in office to achieve equity with the males? Or something else entirely?

The fallacies I've heard against having a woman President are all things like, "what happens when she has her period? Will she lose all judgment and launch a doomsday device?" Which is ludicrous in and of itself, but I could answer that easily enough: first, as I've said before, we've had women in every other office, without her gender causing any irrational behavior. (I'm willing to bet Pa Ferguson would have made the same "good enough for Jesus" quip that his wife did.) Secondly, you didn't see Margaret Thatcher launching nukes to correspond with her menstrual cycle.

 

Women are no less capable at being presidents than what men are. I come from a country where we have had a female president for 6 years now. And she hasn't done a poor job at all. Women tend to be calmer and less power hungry than men.

 

I'd vote for Rice in a heartbeat.

 

A classical pianist as a President? That'd be so cool...now all we need is a VP who is a poet and we'd have a literary Presidency rather than inherited wealth like most Presidents.

I've thought about this quite a bit, thanks, and it has nothing to do with being PC. The claims of evolutionary psychology with regard to broad sex-based behavioral differences have never really panned out in the cross-cultural data. The evidence just isn't there.

Are you seriously going to try and argue that the inherent biological differences between men and women do nothing to influence our behavior and thus society? PPOR please.

Yes, we do, but the problem is you can name them all. Now try to name all the white males in political office.

If there are more men in political office than women, fine. The "lack" of women in public office is not inherent sexism in and of itself. Of course, I am sure feminists will see a problem with this, claim sexism anyways, and force us to get more women into public positions instead of letting women do it of their own accord. Kinda reminds me how feminists today complain of the "lack" of women in math & sciences, as if these Uni. deptartments and businesses are purposefully excluding women. Guess what, politics nor math & science careers are sexist against women, men tend towards these avenues more than women.


Ciou-See the Sig

 

Maybe you would like things better if women were subjected to the kitchen and popping out your ungreatful little brats? Honestly. Of course there are biological differences in men and women. HOWEVER that does not mean a woman cannot take on a more aggressive role. If we look at history we can see that women, when given the opperunity, will and do take up arms, are vocal and are political. To say a woman would never be aggressive is foolish. Of course more men have been in power. They have been the dominate sex. They have kept woman in the kitchen and out of political life. First they used the Bible as an excuse then they said a woman's mind could not grasp these hard things. So yes, you are right, more men have been in power than women, but there is a reason for that. It is not because women cannot do it it is because women have not been given an opperunity(until recently) to do it.

To say that women are kind and gentle by nature is very Victorian of you. I am not being p.c. yet your sexist views maybe getting in the way of thinking logically.

Oh, and I'll have to get the stats(I believe they are on my desk at work) but the gap between girls and boys in math and science are closing, rapidly. Look at the recent article in Newsweek, which states boys are in serious danger of falling futher behind girls in school. As stated before, women are furthering their careers and are going to school more than boys. While you maynot think so, this will have a huge impact on the future as women explore higher education.

 

And frankly Moriarte your thoughts are a little disappointing. To think that people would cling to the idea that women are still helpless creatures, whose biological makeup casts them as inferior to men is simply astounding.

Well, perhaps if a woman does become president she will hit the nuke button when she has PMS and end this mess with the Middle East. A woman, of course would do that, after all, considering we are unable to think during that time and get very hostile.

 

I think we are a long, long, long, long ways off to having a woman president. If Hillary Clinton does manage to get in, it will be because of her popularity, not because of her political savy. In this American society, as a whole, feminism has not been accepted well at all, and because of this reason, there won't be a woman president in the white house no time soon.

 

My wife is a huge fan of Oprah Winfrey (sorry DM!) and apparently there is some momentum to the "Oprah for President" movement in the US?

I don't know if it is true but it is an interesting idea - a black celebrity billionare woman president.

 

I think it depends on what you mean by feminism for it has gotten this bad wrap. Often times when people hear this(no thanks to Rush Limbough) people think of radical women running around wanting to cut off men?s penises. The majority of men out there don?t fall for this type of stereotype. And I think that most of the replies in this thread(with a few exceptions) shows that most men do not believe that women are inferior and that if there was a good candidate they would indeed vote for them.

While I do not know what Hillary intends to do in ?08, I have no doubts that within 20 years we will see a woman run for prez.

 

Dude, he states the fact that men tend twowards math more than women do and you claim he wants to jail women in kitchens doing housework? You feminazis tend to dramatize even the simplest of statements..

WARNING: SEXISM ALTERT!

Duh. Women tend to not choose the more aggressive role. It's a personal choice, not something you should be commanding other women to do.

Are you suggesting women don't have the same opportunities as men? They are treated equally (if not better than) compared to men.

Moriarte never said that. He noted that women tend to gravitate to areas that are not science or math. How you turn that into an absolute about aggressiveness is beyond me. Did you try reading his post first?

OK.

All men? Funny how you claim sexism against women (poor, poor women) and then generalize your hate speech to half of America's population.

PPOR.

Well, if women were really as aggressive as you say they are, this never would have happened, would it?

Aggressiveness has more to do with making opportunities than lazily waiting for one to come around.

I do believe you are the last person in this solar system with the authority to lecture someone on thinking logically.

Please explain why his or my views are sexist, and don't even try to claim I'm sexist by saying "please" much in the same manner that you would claim sexism when a man opens a door for you.

OK.

Well at least we know that you're sexist according to your own standards.

I cry sexism! :'(

Well, you're not helping to get rid of such a stereotype considering you've had to make up all of these "ideas" and insert them into Mor's posts.

 

If we look at things historically, then we do see that men have been in more powerful positions than women. Why is that? Becasue they were in control of the power. If you do not want to believe this then so be it. But I do not see how you can argue that. They dictated society. They told women what was expected of them. And men have tried to influence women in different ways. Some have used the Bible(Eve bad, fall of mankind..etc. etc. Mary Mags a whore..etc. etc. Witches..etc. etc.)laugh if you do not wish to believe it. Later, it was stated that women could not handle politics and should not be given the right to vote. These are all things that did happen. I am not sure how you can debate them when they did happen. Now, can I say that all men believe these things? No, ofcourse I cannot. Just like I cannot say that all Northerners wanted an end to slavery. Some men wanted things to stay the same. Some men didnt care. And some men fought to change things like William Lloyd Garrison(who was considered very radical for the time)

And when did I say women didn't have the same opperunties as men? Historically have they? No. Currently do they? Yes.

And I am saying that more women are gravitating to math and science than in years past. This can be seen by the closing gaps.

"Well, if women were really as aggressive as you say they are, this never would have happened, would it"

IkritMan you need to crack open a history book.You need to look at things historically, which it seems, that you are not.

And I am not sexsist.
And yes I am tired of hearing about the bilogical difference in men and women that it appears is so radically different that a woman would be unable to be the president or have any other positions of power because she is a woman. That's what bothers me.

 

Well, I simply mean men have a problem with women who are in charge of things. Even on some jobs men who are subordinates hate taking orders from a woman in a higher position. I think a Black man or Hispanic man will win the White House before a woman does.

I have older brother who was in a relationship with a feminist and it was the most miserable five months of his life until he ended it.

As a woman, I believe women's rights are a good and neccesary thing. But also sometimes a lot of us women expect men to bow down to us and when they don't, we hate them for it. That's one of the reasons why the idea of women world leaders isn't received positively....but that's neither here nor there. But I just wanted to clarify to you what I meant by feminism.

 

LOL

Not going to happen in this lifetime, LoH.

heh

That would be the biggest joke ever. On the next Presidential meeting, President Winfrey counsels Bin Laden on his anger management issues....



Condaleeza Rice is a much more likely scenario for an African-American woman President, but I don't think she can win, either.

There is no woman on the national stage at this time that the country would elect as President.

If the time comes where there is a viable candidate, it will be a conservative, rather than a liberal, woman who is more likely to win.

 

Actually, I suspect it has everything to do with it.

Look at the last prominent female Western leader - Baroness Thatcher. Is she the embodiment of feminity, or masculinity?

Women need to act like men in politics to get taken seriously, otherwise they're ignored.

E_S

 

I don't disagree with you. I know some men who have issues with women in power. In fact I often hear this when I disapline students. (Tommy has a problem with woman in positions of authority.) I've heard it more times than I care to count.

I only ask about how you define feminism because there seems to be so many views on it.

 

Ah, but that was not your claim. You implied that all men seek to oppress women and are still trying to control them. Those are two very different things, Divia, and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth.

Probably because I don't.

Just like women have tried to influence men in different ways. Historically, women initially carried the power (like they do in some civilizations even today) due to their roles as the life-givers. In these civilizations, men were told what to do and how to think. Despite these facts, I don't hold a grudge against women. Why? This occurred thousands of years ago, where these offences were committed by people I don't know against people I don't know.

You are no longer oppressed by society, just as I am not. Stop using "omg i'm oppressed *cry*" as an excuse to diss the male sex.

I've never heard a Christian use that argument in that way, considering that Adam ate the apple too.

Many of those statements coming from women themselves. This still doesn't change the fact that YOU ARE NO LONGER OPPRESSED. Don't you get it? My black friends aren't complaining that, hundreds of years ago, in a far away place, complete strangers did some bad things to other complete strangers. So why are you doing it?

Your point being...?

Because I'm not debating them, I'm asking you how they're relevant to the discussion.

So why bring them up now? The only other reason history would be brought up would be 1) to learn from our mistakes in the past (which obviously is not your reason), or 2) to slam men (ding!).

OK.

Please explain. You say that women are very aggressive, maybe more aggressive, than men. Then you claim that women were always treated poorly and never given opportunities, and that's why they couldn't rise to power. However, if they really are as aggressive as you say they are, then 1) they would have never ended up in that situation, and 2) they would have shoveled themselves out if they were forced into that situation (and no, the women's rights movement doesn't count considering it took thousands of years to actually do something).

I'm only using your own standards. If Moriarte is sexist for stating scientific facts regarding the biological differences regarding males and females, then you are sexist for claiming girls are smarter than boys.

Then you shouldn't be bothered at all. Moriarte explained how those differences could ac

 

That is an interesting remark, E_S, because that leads us into the debate of whether or not there are such things as "masculine" traits and "feminine" traits; learned or genetic?

From your post, you appear to believe that Thatcher did not lead "like a women." What do you mean by that implication?


Ciou-See the Sig

 

Um no I didnt. I never implied that all men seek to oppress women. You're reaading into it.

Women have been in control of the domestic sphere. I agree with this. But please expand on what civilizations there were where women told men what to do.

Again, I am not. Never once did I say that I was oppressed? Did I? No. I have even stated that women are making great progress. More women are going to college than men. The gaps between boys and girls in science and math are quickly falling away.

Historically I am speaking.

I NEVER SAID I WAS OPPRESSED. And actually there are blacks who want money for slavery. Not all, but some.

I am stating why women haven't been in politics and why they are coming into fields that were tradtionally closed off to them.

Reason stated above. You really need to calm down about this whole slamming men thing. Honestly.

Really? I said this? No.I think that is you putting words into my statement. I said that women could be aggressive and have been aggressive and no they are not all quiet shy creatures. And that they could be strong leaders. That is what I said.

If by meaning "treated poorly" you mean were not allowed to own properity, and vote then yes, this is an issue. And I was speaking historically. Women have it better in this country than in others. Does that mean we cannot improve? No. There is always room for improvement. And there is a reason it took so long for the movement to do something. Women were isolated from politics and its been argued that they really did not start to gain momentum until the Temperence movement, and some historians even say the Abolistist(sp) movement. Its hard to be political, and start a movement when you are sitting sewing by yourself.

 

Regan and Clinton; two presidents that I actually thought did a fine job. It would be interesting to see what a woman would do in the Presidency. Can't be any worse than what we have right now. I never voted for Bush. Not the second time around either. I'm sorry, but the election choices have been sparse since Clinton. Things have changed, and there's been a lot of examples in the past of great women leaders. Biological, mathological...now don't tell me women can do something a male can do because of biological reasons. That's been disproven before (in all fields such as science, the arts, etc.). Why not see how the world progresses if you make a good choice, not out of fear because of biology, but by making a good choice. If a female runs for Pres and I don't like what she has to say, then I won't vote for her. I'll vote for the male that I do like (after hearing what he has to say).

 

I would have agreed with this statement 5 or 10 years ago, but we've become so divided as a nation that I can't see many women crossing party lines simply because a woman is running for President. There's no way, for example, that card-carrying members of N.O.W. would vote for Condoleeza Rice simply because she's a woman. Likewise, red-state female voters aren't about to jump on the Hillary bandwagon just because she's a female. We're simply too polarized now.