The support of having a woman for president is higher than ever in the U.S.A. I think what we really need to consider in making that determination is so much more than our capability of accepting a gender breakthrough. The quailifications of the candidate are the only aspect that should be considered. What would happen if name, gender, and race were replaced with alias's on the ballods and we could only see a bullet point list of qualifications? Point is, gender should not matter.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/03/opinion/polls/main1281319.shtml
For the most part I would agree with you. A person's characteristics, beliefs, political views, and ideologies are what make a candidate.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are fundamental differences between the sexes. Those differences could make a difference depending on the types of situations.
It is known that women are less likely to go to war then men. That could be an important factor to any country that is interested in world peace and diplomatic solutions to the worlds differences.
So with any issue, its not just a question of black and white. On the surface, yes gender shouldn't make a difference, but it does, to some degree. As for me, I think what this country needs is a change. It would be very interesting if we did have a woman as president someday, then again, that might not please the people who own stock in General Dynamics and/or other weapon companies. But who am I to complain, money is much more important than human survival.
Well, if all of those things were blacked out and we know nothing of race, sex, or even name--well hell, we would probably be a more efficent democracy.
ReplyDelete>However, there are fundamental differences between the sexes.
ReplyDeleteBut there is little evidence that these are anything but socially-constructed, which means they don't necessarily apply to all people.
>It is known that women are less likely to go to war then men.
True, but just as you can't generalize from an anecdote, you can't take a general trend and force it onto an individual. While it is true that women are less likely to lead a country into war, it doesn't mean that all women are less likely to do so in all situations. As with any other aggregate, there could be individual women who are more likely to lead a country into war. Beyond that, the sample size for women leading modern countries is too small for any of these generalizations to be valid at the presidential level.
The whole thing isn't fair which is what I dis-like. Things have become warped, from prejudice to what I call reverse prejudice. People are getting selected for things due their being a minority. Gays, African-Americans, Womens, and other minorites in certain cases are more likely to get a job over others just because they make the company more diversed. What's that? From one extreme to the next.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou can't have reverse prejudice. Prejudice simply means prejudging someone, which goes in any direction. Technically, "reversing" prejudice would mean not having any.
ReplyDeleteWhile there are some minorities who might get a job simply because of their race, gender, etc., this is still a rare exception and there is still widespread discrimination against women and minorities.
It is really funny that men today feel as if women cant run this country..I feel that any race or sex could have better control over the country than the control that it has at this present time...Anything a man can do a women can too and probably better!!
ReplyDeleteI think women are as equally to men intelligence wise but women tend to express more emotions then men. For good portion of history men provided food and money threw jobs for women. Women usually took care of the kids and tending to them and were better at because they could express their emotions better towards them. I know that this wasn’t always the case but most of the world basically knows this. Therefore having a women president would make us look weak. Also women hormones can cause mood swings the ability for the women to get pregnant can also put her and the country at risk. The first women president could easy miss up by trying to be to manly or easy on a situation because she wants to prove a female could do it to. I think a women president will come future once the world is ready for it.
ReplyDeleteTim, there is almost no scientific evidence to back up any of your claims.
ReplyDelete>Therefore having a women president would make us look weak.
Women have led many countries without any of this coming true. Margaret Thatcher led Great Britain for a long time in the 1980s and nobody accused them of being weak. In fact, she was widely seen as one of the strongest and most efficient leaders in the world. She wasn't unique.
>Also women hormones can cause mood swings the ability for the women to get pregnant can also put her and the country at risk.
These are stereotypes that aren't backed up by any real evidence.
>The first women president could easy miss up by trying to be to manly or easy on a situation because she wants to prove a female could do it to.
Men can also make mistakes by trying to be "manly" or prove that they can do it.
>I think a women president will come future once the world is ready for it.
The world has nothing to do with it, since women leaders have headed many countries. It's a matter of whether or not America is ready for it, and we'll know when they vote in 2008.
I agree with the fact that any one could run a country better than the current administration, but that is also like saying that an trained ape could do a better job than a severely mentally retarded 5 year old. It is true, but it will suck either way.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a great idea but it'll never happen. In an ideal world we'll ignore race and gender and religion.
ReplyDeleteOn CNN there was a man refusing to shake Mit Romney's hand because he's a morman.People think Hilary will make the U.S. appear weak in the eyes of other countries.There was a news story on Americans voting for politicans based on their looks.
I also say a story about students at NYU saying they'd give up their vote forever for an iPod.
Some people just don't care.
>I think it's a great idea but it'll never happen.
ReplyDelete"Never" is clearly not accurate. Numerous countries around the world have had female leaders, including countries with a lot worse treatment of women than us. Also, keep in mind that according to almost every scenario out there, Hillary would win the election if it were held today. Things could change between now and next November, but Hillary has to be the odds on favorite to win as of right now.
>In an ideal world we'll ignore race and gender and religion.
You don't have to ignore it for a woman to be elected. In fact, it makes women and minority voters more likely to vote for someone if they are a woman or minority.
These other examples are true, but not representative of most voters. Typically, the people who act like you cited don't actually vote.