A woman for President!

Please expand your slavery reference.



Black women upon the abolishment of slavery had a much easier transition into the work force due to the nature of their work during slavery ( for the most part ). They worked in homes, ate better, were taught to read and write, and just had an all and all easier life than the field slave, who were mostly men. Take nothing away from the overall horror that was slavery, but from an anthropolgical stand point these conditions actually helped the black woman socially evolve much, much faster in a anglo-male controlled society. In alot of ways they are way ahead of even anglo women right now in this day and age because of those factors. The proof is in the unprecedented numbers of black women who are graduating college, are being hired in lucrative corporate positions, are growing in the political realm, and are being hired in top spots in every level of goverment. And remember, African Americans only make up about 12 % of the population, so this is pound for pound, and pound for pound they have completely taken over the mantle of the most upwardly mobile people in the country from the middle class Asian female. I stand by my prediction - you'll see a black woman as President of the United States before you see a white woman or black man. Also, actually working along side men for a much longer period of time then white women gives them a tremendous insight into men.

 

Hmmm.

Interesting. Though, I am a little hesitant to believe that slave women were taught to read and write. Well, it sounds as if you mean every black woman could read which I am sure you are not saying.I assume that you are not making this claim due to the laws that were in place at the time. Besides male or female...they were still slaves. Women ate better? I'd like some historical evidence on that please. While it is true that plantation owners didnt starve their slaves..a dead one isnt much good in the fields...I dunno if women would eat better. I will grant you that it was easier for women than men to move into free society. Women, espically black women, were not seen as a threat to society. They had kids, did household tasks and that was it, much like white women. No threat there. Now, black men on the other hand..is what white society got all nervous about. I mean just look at Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey. Both black. Both slaves. Both men. And of course we had the preveiling wisdom of the South that black men didnt want equality they only wanted white women. Men coming out of slavery and into a free world would have numerous problems. Whites wouldnt hire them to do labor and had hostilty towords the blacks. Blacks wanted white women, blacks were now free and weren't slaves...black men could rise up and take over the South. Women on the other hand could easily find jobs as washer women(those were the lowest paying jobs) and well, again women were not seen as a threat to society as free black men were.

I need to look up the percentage of women as field hands.

So while I agree with you to a degree, I also disagree.

I still do not see why you say that they are ahead of white women.

But again I still believe that you are more likely to see a white woman than a black woman. Why? Well, because, as much as I hate to say it, I still believe old hostilties still hold true.

 

Women on the other hand could easily find jobs as washer women(those were the lowest paying jobs) and well, again women were not seen as a threat to society as free black men were.


Which gave them a tremendous jump when you take a step back and look at the whole progression. And, yes - there was a tremendous difference in the way the house slave was treated and the way the field slave was treated. As bad as it was the house slave just lived better. As far as " historical " evidence, I cant really think of anything specific right at this second. There was a great documentary on HBO with black celebrities reading the journal entries of freed slaves thats pretty enlightening.

 

I don't see why a woman can't be president, just as long as she's not elected just because having a woman president would be a novelty. The best person for the job should always be elected.

 

While, yes I agree that there was differences between field and house slave both had a pretty crappy life. I'm sure we cannot debate that fact.

Women working outside the home, no matter what race, was very important. This gave the ecnomoic freedom. We can study the early textile mills and see that young girls were leaving the farms of their parents and living on their own with desposible income(granted not that much) but they had the freedom to buy things. So yes, I agree, no matter what the job it did provide oppertunties for women to get out of the domestic sphere and into the public. That being said, while getting a job was important you have to look at the jobs. These were easily given to them becuase they were not seen as important.

I have not seen that doc. The only reason I ask is because I have studied this subject and I have had the privilage to be taught by a well known professor on this subject. I thought perhaps there was a book you had gotten this information out of. Thats why I ask.

I enjoy discussing slavery, for I havent had the opperunity in quite some time.

 

The shall we say extreme dislike for Hillary on all political sides doesn't have so much to do with her being a liberal (lol) or a woman, or Bill's wife, or really any of that. It's just while we may not be ready for a woman president, we are SO not ready for a Cylon president.

 

The Washington Post has an interesting review of recent polls about HRC and her chances for election to the presidency in 2008. Here is the link.

The writer's conclusions: Hillary is the definite front-runner for the Democratic primary, but seems very unlikely to win the presidency given the 51% of the population that refuses to vote for her (though granted, it would depend where those voters live as to determine how that would play out in a national election).

Another interesting piece from the article is that Condoleezza Rice polls slightly better, but the most surprising (to me) is that in a theoretical head-to-head contest, John McCain would defeat HRC 52% to 36%! That is an amazing lead.

Of course since we are still more than two years out, a whole lot can change, but I think that these polls indicate that voters in the U.S. are not automatically opposed to a woman running for president, but that her politics matter more than her chromosomes.

 

Which doesn't explain why a woman hasn't been VP before. I can't think of a better way to get female votes than to put a female on the ticket. Perhaps society isn't ready (women might disagree), but covert sexism may be stronger than outward signs indicate.[/quote]

Tell that to Demoractic presidential loser Walter Mondale.

 

I nominate my Mom!

Elect her, I say!

 

Since when did a woman be ideal for president let alone a Democratic one?

Male or female, should it matter?

 

I'll state it plainly. I would not want either Hillary or Condi for president. I'd prefer Hillary, but she's on this anti videogame crusade which spoils it for me.