There are many places on A.D. I could have placed this debate, but I felt this was a woman's issue first and foremost.

Women have always been perceived, stereotypically, as nurturers; whereas men seem to occupy a more dominant leader stereotype. Hence, I suppose, that is why men have always been the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. But the more I think about it, the less I am convinced that we have made the right decision.

The population of American voters has changed significantly in the last 83 years: the majority of voters are women and women’s votes seem to be steadily gaining influence in determining the outcome of presidential elections. An yet, no female presidents. Do we, as women, not trust our own capability to lead this country better than a man? Have we fallen prey to the stereotype that a women's place is not the Leader of the Free World?

How many sex scandals can you think of that involved a Female politician? Women seem to be able to control their sexual urges better than Men.

How many wars have been started by female leaders in other countries, especially wars that have been speculated to have been started for greed, war lust, or revenge? A women seems to lean towards talking out problems, and thinking more about the big picture. It is well established that women communicate their feelings and listen to others better than men. The prison system is full of men that choose violence over calm mediation.

I would like to debate that not only should America elect a female president; America needs a female president.

-Kisov

Kisov,

Fantastic topic. I thought to myself for a moment and couldn't think of any reasons we shouldn't have a female President, nor why we haven't. Then I realized that there really hasn't been a strong female leader on the national scene that has had wide appeal on a national level, save Hillary Rodham who for political reasons won't openly discuss her race for Presidency.

Can anyone name a female leader from a national platform that has had the charisma and appeal that men have? The answer is no. But why? In my opinion, America doesn't have putting women in the Oval Office on it's mind and so women don't capture the attention men do off the bat. If anyone is in the position to challenge the norm on this subject it is Hillary (God help us).

Kisov, may I start my side of the debate by asking for a list of potential presidential female presidents? I really can not think of one at this time, one that is truly electable, my favorite female law maker of all time being Barbara Jordon, who, has unfortunately, passed away.

Of 100 Senators, we have 13 women, of 435 in the House, we have 61 women. Less than 20% female representation for over half the population.

Are women running for office at the levels that men are? I think not, so far. More and more are, over time, and winning, so its not really a voter reluctance to elect females.

Women have come into the politcal spectrum slowly, and with difficulty. It's only been in recent years that 'the ole boys club' got their icy stance broken by women with a mission...to make it in politics and force correctness, decorum and respect from male members. That has been accomplished, hence I believe we will see more representation from women who desire to serve public office. As the public becomes accustomed to seeing more women in power (and not defiling their sexuality as a matter of course, ie: accusing them of being lesbians or being non-feminine, non women because they are powerful) we will move farther towards the possiblity of having a female President.
(Remember the Hillary remark about, 'Im not sitting at home baking cookies' that shook the nation a mere 10 or so years ago.)

The US is certainly lagging behind on the "women leaders" scoreboard. I think it would be great. And, politics aside, it would be pretty neat to have a husband and wife who were each elected president!

Denmark is widely held to be an example of a nation where women are given equal rights. And yet, although Danish women have had the right to vote since 1915, we have not yet had a single female prime minister...

And I'm not sure if Sweden has either, though Norway and Finland certainly have (Finland even had a female PM and President at the same time)

I don't think having a female leader is nearly as important as having a good leader, though I'll be the first to admit that women might possibly make better (if cautious is better) leaders than men...

I for one would like to see a female president (just not Hillary) because it would be a boost for equal rights. But i think a majority of Americans don't want one because they don't want to change the status quo just yet.

Would that other Americans shared these opinions in a major way. Women have had a few brave males stand with them during some crucial struggles to gain the right to practice medicine and law and the right to vote. Sally Ride was the first American woman in space, but not the first woman. This country is still very 19th Century when it comes to women assuming leadership positions. One of the few things I credit GW Bush with is appointing a woman, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, to a position of authority in his cabinet.

Let's look at the reasons that have shot down the idea of women in leadership in the past, for obviously they are still here.

Women are the weaker sex.
Women are subject to their husbands if they are married, and if not, they are subject to their fathers.
Let the women keep silence in the church; I do not suffer a woman to teach a man.
Women have menstrual periods.
Women have hot flashes.
Women are too tender-hearted.
Women are illogical.

Some readers might laugh at these reasons, but I'll guarantee you that there are other readers who will be nodding their agreement. The old prohibitions are alive and well.

I would challenge those who would exclude us due to the above "reasons": How would you feel if you were not allowed to fulfill your life's potential because of prejudices?

It doesn't take a penis to run a country; it takes education, leadership, and a willingness to serve.

(edited to say: Also, sadly, it takes a massive amount of money from supporters to mount a successful campaign)

Yes, and women are indeed equal even in bad leadership, take Margeret Thatcher or Benazir Bhutto- both horrific failure of leadership. But the interesting part of that equation, is that the Muslim fundalmentalist pakistan elected a woman before we did. Same with India, oh yeah, I almost forgot Ghandi (the daughter of the first Ghandi, I can't remember her first name)- she was utterly corrupt as well. I guess our propaganda agaisnt the entire muslim culture can't be all true if they are willing to elect a female leader in Pakistan though eh?

In my question about female American presidential candidates, I was fishing for ELECTABLE female candidates. I am not asking for too big a stretch, right now our democratic candidates that are male are not all that electable.

Are you saying that Hillary Clinton is not electable?

I'm not really debating women in this current election. What I'm stating is that a woman would be a better President than a man. Women voters make up the majority of voters. And yet they do not seem to hold enough faith in their own leadership abilities to elect a female President. . .or even vice President.

The more I think about it, I can't help but wonder if it has to do with the fact that women aren't aloud in combat . . .so maybe the idea of electing them Commander-in-Chief scares people because "what would a woman know about war".

-Kisov

Has everyone forgotten about Margaret Thacher!? What an iconic leader of the eighties. I think it is high time a woman was in the oval office.

Saying: We need a woman President is all well and good. Finding one who could lead this country is another matter.

Woman are equally likely to be qualified as men. Why aren't they running for higher office?

Name a candidate. Simply saying "she's a woman and we need a woman" is bigotted. You need to put a name to the title "a woman" and then we can debate the issues.

I have nothing against a woman President. I just haven't seen anyone willing (and able) to do the job...

Remember Geraldine Ferraro?, why wasn't she supported by more women? What about Carol Mosley-Braun? Even Democrats don't mention her name (at least not here...)

Oh Amlord, there's nothing wrong with having a dream. I wouldn't just vote for a woman for President, just because she's a woman. She'd have to hold the ideals that are important to me. But I agree, there's no woman out there today that I know of that I'd vote for at the moment.

If only there was an American clone of Dame Thatcher....

A couple of thoughts. I think a female candidate would be very attractive to the American electorate as would an african american candidate. I don't see us voting for someone just because she was a woman. The most electable woman we have ever had as president was too far ahead of her time, Eleanor Roosevelt. I think Elizabeth Dole has the personality but she is politically unknown to me. I do not think Hillary has the personality but she definitely has the clout.

I think the first women and first minority presidents are more likely to be Republicans. This would attract voters that do not traditionally vote in large majorities for the republican party to that particular ticket.

And BTW Indira Gandhi was NEhru's daughter, not mohandas Gandhi's

As I related earlier; I don't think having a woman in Office is a bad idea,
I just don't know of any woman I trust right now that could run the countrey
through the problems we're having. As it stands there are few men who
have been exemplary enough at this point in time to lead and no women
really seem to be stepping up to the plate.

Just because as Quark related, it might be "nice" or "fun" even to have
the wife of an ex-President as current president, "nice" or "fun" far from
qualify anybody to be President of the United States of America. It
hasn't been proven to me that Hillary can take on the task and to place
perspective on that point I would say that few men have shown me they
are ready to take on the task.

This much I know, in terms of what it takes to be President, only Dianne
Feinstien comes close. She has what it takes to stand up and be STRONG,
to fight for what's right and to lead the country and to be honest (as
honest as a liberal can be in politics). Yet as much as I think she has
what it takes for a woman to be President I despise her standings way
too much to ever vote for her. This is where my theory comes in; If we
are to elect a female president, she must be a Conservative. Only a
Conservative female can push across the board in terms of approval to
get the nomination and the Electorate votes.

At this moment (as usual) only Conservatives can get Conservative vote.
Further than that they can also walk away with many moderate votes
and swing a few Liberal votes from feminists and others that have good
intentions rather than real politics on their mind.

And the previous paragraph standing the way it is, this window is steadily
closing for this oppritunity as the Left is doing what ever possible to keep
Conservatives of any kind out of any office. Then again I can rebuttle my
own argument on that issue just by citing almost every national election
in the last year.

Edited to add:

I don't think we should put it on our agenda right now to elect an "African-American"
or "Female" President anymore than we should have on our agenda to find the right
person for the right job be they black, white, yellow, green or purple. In these times and
always let's find the right person for the right job.

Click on or copy and paste the link below for a discussion with female senators, who the majority of think the "good ole boys club" is history. Diane Feinstein said she would run, and thinks Hillary Clinton will run in 2008, and quite possibly Elizabeth Dole may give it another try.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthoma...805/detail.html


Connie Rice has the steel and brains, but I just don't think she would even consider running. As I posted previously, she loves sports and has indicated her dream job would be owning or managing a team.

When you think of the thousands upon thousands of people (male and female) that are qualified to be President (inside and outside of the Washington loop) but wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, it tells you that this office, and all that goes with it, is not for everyone.

I know Hillary will consider running in 2008, but I don't look forward to it because the media and others will be treasure hunting for more scandals and rehashing all that we have been subjected to for eight years plus....and I for one am tired of hearing about the President's dirty laundry/scandals-old or new! And if she does run, poor Bill will have more than security protection following him all over the country...more like sleuthhounds!

Are you sure Hillary's not going to sneak in there in '04? every once in awhile the idea of her jumping in resurfaces. Could she win this late out?

If a woman has the qualifications needed for a President of the most powerfull country in the world and if she can speak for me, then absolutely, she'll get my vote. There is no reason that she couldn't do better or as worse than a man.

Oh, the Democrats would be overjoyed if Hillary would change her mind and run in 2004 because they think she is the magic bullet to win the election. I think, for once, when she says "absolutely not" she means it for 2004. She is a shrewd lady and knows a winning proposition when she sees it and a female (with lots of excess baggage) running against an incumbent President with an overall approval rating above 50% is just not in the cards...at least not in her deck. Apparently, her husband agrees with her.

I think Artemise makes a great point.

I'd like to add the reason I think we haven't had one yet (and haven't' had a minority president yet for that matter) is that neither group has had a voice in politics for all that long. Women have only been voting since 1920! We've had 16 presidents total since 1920 one of which is Wilson who was in office from 1913-1921. If you think about it also, we didn't have a non-Protestant president until Catholic Kennedy in the 60's. The traditional American President is a white protestant male in their late 40s or older.

I hope that slowly we will start to have more variation in the type of people (by type I mean different from the above listed traditional) we elect into Presidential office. I think that a change as different as a woman or a minority is going to be a while in coming. I think that it will happen one day though. I wonder if the current voters would vote in a woman VP? Women are proving themselves apt politicians everyday in all levels of office (except vice president and president). Its only a matter of time before a woman with the credentials to become president and the voter backing to win runs. I would vote for a woman if I thought she was better than the other choices in that particular election.

*I for one, would NOT vote for Hillary Clinton though....She is not the type of person I want running my country.

I'm ready for a woman President ... but it'd have to be one that I can agree with on the issues and has the character and ability. That means NOT Hillary, whose policies I cannot support and whose honesty I do not trust. I would like to see Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-WA) achieve the kind of national prominence to make her a likely candidate, though it doesn't seem she has the ambition for it, since she had the chance to advance in the House leadership and didn't take it.

IMO the reason we haven't had one yet is mainly just the size of the pool of women politicians to draw from. There aren't enough female Governors and Senators yet, though Washingtion has two women Senators, neither of whom I voted for due to policy differences --- they're liberal Democrats and I'm not.

Incidentally, I think the reason we haven't had minority nominees has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the particular candidates: Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, Al Sharpton and Carol Mosely Braun have not been taken seriously because of short resumes and fringe politics, not because they're not attractive otherwise.

Historical trivia: Does anybody know who was the first woman to receive an Electoral Vote?

Christine Todd Whitman is a woman who I would be curious to know more about as a potential President.

I would give more credit to a woman candidate than a man just because we have not had one so far. This would not be a primary consideration but would push me off a fence.

For me, Hillary does not get anything right. Carol Mosely-Braun is in the race to collect a million dollars. There is just not any female (nor male) candidates in which I have strong positives and many have strong negatives.

Whitman blew her chance at any further elections except in tightly controlled Republican dominated situations. Her handling of the EPA wasn't bad -- she was put in a lot of bad spots because every policy had to be cleared through Karl Rove and Co. who don't care much about the environment (we have a lot of it, right, so why do we care if we waste a little of it for our buddies in the oil companies? ). The problem is that the EPA policies that WERE cleared will make her look bad against any moderate opponent. Her career is now tied to Bush's environmental policy instead of her own policies as governor of NJ. And that's not good for a career.

Edited to add: I don't think we have a woman politician in a high enough spot in politics at this point with the drive and ego to run for President... except for Hillary and the conservatives keep teeing off on her even when she says she's NOT running.

amf, I can not tell if you think Whitman has done a good job or bad job as the Environmental Secretary. Specifics would be helpful to understanding what you are saying.

It's not really Whitman that's done the bad job, but the overall Bush strategy for gutting environmental regulation that's going to hurt her resuming any political career.

Bush is sabotaging the laws that have protected America's environment for more than thirty years

A few quotes:







People actually expect the head of the EPA to work to PROTECT the environment, but her record indicates that she wasn't doing that. Or wasn't able to do that. Either way, it badly hurts her politically in NJ.

I come from Bangladesh, a poor, underdeveloped, Muslim country, and we've had female prime ministers for decades- although it is, almost truly, said that countries like Bangladesh dont give equal rights to women. I wondered why a developed country like America doesnt have female leaders or even candidates. Is it because women dont stand for election or is it because they cannot move up through the male dominated system or is it simply not a woman's job.
I'd never vote for a candidate just because its a woman- but its surprising that there arent any woman candidates to vote for.

but sometimes we elect a penis to run the country (cough...Bush...ahem)
LOL!
sorry, I couldn't resist -


I read an interesting article a while back about why our traditionally male occupations remain void of females.

The author presented the view that the reason women do not go into certain fields is because women don't see those fields as representing the values they hold dear. I think that as we see more and more women put off having families until later in life, women will learn to identifiy with the traditionally "male" values - money, power, patriotism, greatness, leadership - in short - the political arena. Family women identify more strongly with education, welfare, and more recently justice and even ingenuity to an extent - hence the influx of women in he law enforcement and science feilds (however small). I think we are starting to see a transition from women being on the defensive from the government or at best bystanders and cheerleaders, to the offensive - watching their the big business female CEO counterparts successful in leadership roles. We'll begin to see more confidence in women, not from men, but from other women. Especially as my generation grows up where very few of us hold the old prejudices. To us, women have always had equal rights - since before I was born and there was no time in the past where I can really picture that they hadn't.

When I think of famous women leaders throughout history, a few names spring to mind. Cleopatra, Boudicca, Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher. What do these women have in common besides being in leadership positions? They've all waged wars, either directly or through proxies. I think it is a myth that our species would be less likely to resort to violence if women were at the helm. The myth also ignores IMO, that war is sometimes a necessary extention of foreign policy.



America needs good, strong leaders. Their color, creed or sex is irrelevant. None of those have any effect whatsoever on leadership ability.

LOL! So true, so true.

Anyways, I do agree that we should elect a woman as president. A woman president would probably have somewhat of a different perspective for how America should be run. I believe that she will do America some good, unless we elect a horrible woman...

I for one like Hillary and think that she will do some good in the Oval Office if she does run (which she probably will in '08) and if she does get elected. She's a very powerful and strong woman and I think that she will make America a better country. But yet again this is my opinion.

With me, I don't care if we have someone with a vagina or a penis to run the country, as long as they are good leaders, and are willing to make America a more prosperous, and wonderful land. But I do have to say - a change would be nice.

Why women can't be President, from the files of Criminal defenses that work for women, but not for men. (Note, these defenses have succeeded in getting women reduced sentences, if not off scot-free, in murder cases.)

1) PMS
2) Post partum depression.
3) The abuse excuse.

Excusing sociopathic behavior as a result of biological factors that are common to ALL women may be a handy tool for an individual defense attorney, but it plays hell with the notion of a woman with "The Football." It doesn't help that the only way to dispel the idea that Woman X is going to go all Jekyll & Hydette is for her to behave as a "right hard bitch," which really hurts the ol' likeability factor. Its hard enough for men to tread the thin political image line between "likeable" and "hard *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** I want on MY side."

Incidentally, I believe all of the proferred instances of elected heads of state have come about in countries with parliementary systems, which have a different electoral dynamic than the US. How much of a role that plays would be an interesting subject for a PoliSci term paper, eh?

Welcome back, Bikerdad!

I think one thing should be kept in mind when one reads the aforementioned spin. That is, excuses or not, more men are murderers!

That certainly explains why men are considered anatomically/psychologically better suited to be President, don't you think? (Especially when women outnumber men not only in this country, but worldwide, and most of us do not succumb to the base instinct of killing somebody?)

Yeah, PMS is a real problem! And men never go ballistic, right?


(Edited to say: But you might have something when you point out that it is the parliamentary systems that have female leaders.)

Actually, I have mentioned her name in other threads. (Then again, a Republican who doesn't read other people's views is likely simply following the example of their party's leader.) I am sorry that she dropped out of the race, as I found her responses in the debates were frequently some of the most level headed and sensible comments made. I would still like to see her on the ticket as V.P.

A pattern of "Leaders must be male." and "Women must be kept barefoot, pregnant, and at home to raise the children." likely goes back centuries to when leaders with swords chose themselves with their prowess on the battlefield.

The opportunity to cast my vote for a woman has not been there, but it does not mean that I would not, if I were given the opportunity. I have to look at the fact that a modern act of leadership means the ability to sign something into law with a pen, and so I see no reason to believe that the ability to write one's name in the snow is a critical factor on election day.

(Didn't read all posts)
The fact there are still only ever white men as candidates is looking rather contrived. 60% of the voting public in America are women or black or hispanic people. 38% of voters are white men. Now, considering that more women tend to vote for Democrats and the same can categorically be said for Blacks and hispanics then you can see that America should never have a Republican, White, Middle Class, Middle aged man in office.

If the "stuffy", "dusty" old UK can have a woman prime minister staying in power for 12 years then the US should certainly have had one by now.

Thank you.

What spin? Have, or have not, lawyers successfully used those defenses to get their female clients off?

True, but society does not consider biologically driven impulses in men as acceptable justifications for homicide. In short, men are expected to be ABLE to master their emotions. The PMS/PPD/Abuse defenses are all predicated upon the women's inability to master her emotions, so she is "excused." I don't buy it, but enough of our society appears to do so that one is led to conclude that a deep distrust of women's emotional control remains. When the "leaders" of the feminist movement come to the defense of a murderer such as Andrea Yates, what's the rest of America to think? Strong, successful feminists endorsing the "she couldn't help herself, its her biology" defense, and then they want to turn over control of enough nuclear weaponry to give the cockroaches cause to rejoice to other women who share the same biology? It gives Average American subconscious pause.

This is an analysis of the situation, not my personal view. I don't doubt that a woman could be a successful President. I don't see such a woman on the national American political scene yet, but I'm sure that there are probably a few score potential candidates out there in the hustings right now, serving in city councils, as mayors or county commissioners, etc. As for whether there are any nationally prominent women would COULD be elected President, sure, Hillary stands a shot.

Need I remind you, neither do most of US. I will, however, toss more fuel on the fire by pointing out that men's motives for murder are generally more rational than women's. The sad fact that a child murdered by a parent is far more likely to have fallen victim to the mother than the father attests to this.

Of course we do, we just don't get a pass on it because of testosterone. As for whether or not PMS is a problem, I guess it depends on who you ask. The woman experiencing it, or the folks around her?


hmmm. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes, Carol-Mosley Braun, and those are only the folks who've tossed their hats into the presidential ring. "only white men"?
"Should"?!? What do you propose to remedy this failure of the universe to conform to your vision?

So why don't they? You asked where your spin is, and there you have it. Since men are expected to master their emotions, and since defense attorneys make arguments as schmaltzy as they can when defending females in murder trials, then women cannot seriously be considered for the office of the Presidency. (I'm glad to read you don't buy it, incidentally )

But since when do defense arguments in murder trials have ANY BEARING on politicians running for the White House, unless they are murder suspects???

No, I would argue that the Apostle Paul's writings have more sway than anyone really knows. And this is deliciously ironic since so many people who repudiate the teachings of the New Testament profess to have no belief in Christianity and refuse to acknowledge it. Soooo.....

If you consider yourself a person who has no religion, or another religion, or does not acknowledge the religion of the Christian Bible--

Why are you continually being influenced by its teachings??

(If this does not apply to you, the reader, please disregard. For the rest of you,
you know who you are.)

Oh, so what you are just "STATING" is that " a woman would make a better President than a man." What else did you learn from your Crystal ball, or Time Machine? Who is stopping you ? You run girl! Are you at least 35 years old and a U.S. Citizen? Alot of us "MEN' followed Joan of Arc! Stop making excuses and run already! Elizabeth Doll did but she probably wasn't the "Right Kind" of "Woman" was she?

Were any of those men the final candidates or just just in early rounds to compete for representing a party? By "candidates" I meant those that ultimately run against the incumbent president for either Rep or Dem.

Ain't my vision. By "should" I meant the clear statistics of the make-up and voting patterns of American society strongly favour Black or Female Democrat candidates statistically. It is just a sad fact that, as most of these people are in the bottom half of the earning chart, they vote less than any seciton of society. The working class, or poor, tend to vote significantly less than the middle classes or wealthy. Women earn a lot less than men even in the same job and we don't need to go into the racial differences in income. So this is why a women (or, indeed, non-white) president is still unlikely.

So exactly what tangible "thing", other than "tendencies", is stopping your "statistical" voting block from electing a black woman President? Money just buys advertising-nobody is required to believe it last time i looked! Condoleeza Rice in '08!!!

The more I read this thread, the more I'm convinced that the only reason we haven't yet had a woman President is the right woman for the job just hasn't come along yet. What's more, I believe the same goes for a minority President.

But because I'd so strongly oppose their policies, I would not consider supporting someone like Hillary Clinton, Carol Mosely-Braun or Diane Feinstein. I need some women candidates to choose from who are not liberal Democrats. Condi Rice is definitely a possiblity for the future.

Paladin, the point, isn't that men DO master their emotions and women DON'T, a construction that is false in only the way that truly bad generalizations can be, but that American society expects a higher level of self-control from men, and excuses a lower level in women. These social expectations are rooted in something, and the hypocritical stances taken in by most feminist leaders in the last 10-15 years regarding women's responsibility serve to reinforce the "something." Who, after all, wants a hapless victim of biology as President? THAT is the message those defense attorneys are sending, that women are hapless victims of biology and the patriarchy, and the endorsement of such irresponsible notions by the feminist establishment is quite harmful. The fact that these defenses WORK means that too many people believe it. For a more substantial (and articulate) discussion of this particular subject, I'd suggest that you read "The Death of Right And Wrong" written by Tammy Bruce, a feminist, lesbian, and former head of the Los Angelese chapter of NOW.

Murder defenses that are not based on simple facts have bearing because their success or failure is indicative of the general public's "mood" and perspective, and THAT definitely bears upon politicians running for office, eh?

Yes, the corrosive misogynistic effect of the New Testament must explain the paucity of women leaders in such countries as Japan, Korea and China as well.

I, personally, have to agree with Izdaari that the single most important factor is that the right candidate hasn't come along yet. Jackson, Sharpton and Mosley-Braun are professional victicrats, and Americans aren't ready to elect a professional whiner to the Presidency. Alan Keyes, who I believe would make a fantastic President, simply didn't have the "guns" to take on either Bush or McCain.

I must also add that Jackson, Sharpton and Keyes are pretty darn ugly women. Probably the most electable woman candidate I have seen so far, on the issues, was Elizabeth Dole. She did not do too well. I still believe the first minority or woman President will most likely be a moderate conservative, such as Dole. I think a liberal female would lose more moderate male votes than gain moderate female votes. Hillary could only win if there was a severe shift to the left.

There is an issue no one has raised yet, and for me, it would seem to be quite important.

What impact do you think Margerat Thatcher has had on the plausibility of a Female President. I know the countries arent comparable. But do you not think she may have created an archytypal image, and anyone else who emerges will somehow be squared up against her, and inevitably come up short.

In terms of power and confidence, its hard to match Maggie.

Would this be a shadow over the head of any future Executives?

Very good point, Hugo. On the minority question: Neither party would nominate him, since neither partie's nomination process allows a centrist to be nominated, but does anyone doubt that Colin Powell could win the general election?

Alan Keyes is a charismatic guy and a great speaker, but he lacked the resume, the political connections and the depth of support to win. He's also too openly a member of the Religious Right for most people's comfort. But again, does anyone doubt that in some parallel universe in which Alan Keyes happened to be a more mainstream Republican and was Governor of a large state, that he could become President? IMHO the GOP would be only too eager to nominate a guy like that, and he could win the general election.

On the Democratic side, Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. is still a little young and should hold a higher office first, but he is universally respected on both sides of the aisle and is pretty moderate -- just like Colin Powell. If he could win the Democratic nomination, he could win the general election.

Now, let's apply this to women: What if... in my hypothetical situations above, Powell, Keyes or Ford were replaced by their identical twin sisters, who had identical resumes and identical positions on the issues? Could they win? I think the answer is obviously yes.

Mosley-Braun ain't a beauty queen herself, but she is a better looking woman than those three. I must point out that their inclusion was in response to Schoolboy's posting.

Condoleeza Rice may have a shot. She's photogenic (which, as Gerard Depardieu ably illustrates, doesn't always mean 'good looking'), smart, apparently handles the press fairly well, etc. Unfortunately, she has no experience at all in elective office.

BTW, I do doubt that Powell would win. He COULD, but it would be challenging. Of course, barring a sex-change, a Powell win still wouldn't address the primary topic of this thread.

My question was, Why are you continually being influenced by [Bible] teachings??

Bikerdad said:


Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about the United States.... But since you brought up China, it seems to me that Mrs. Mao ran the country (or was a puppet leader) for a while, before she was accused of being a counter-revolutionary. And that's one more female national leader than the United States has had...



It's not the "guns" to take on other candidates, it's the "money" (cha-CHING!), or is that what you meant? Sufficient funds will not be contributed to female candidates until some attitudes change. So I'm sticking with the argument that the first priority is to work on the perceptions of the American people, then be willing to put money where mouth is and actually support that candidate.

Doubtfull at best. Bikerdad this is the first time I have actually heard anyone actually use a theory like this as credible. The ignorance and testosterone steeped self righteousness of our own has led to more pointless conflict and unjust wars than any woman has ever come up with on her worst bloated day.

There have been no real contenders simply because there have been no women with the charisma as of yet in politics. Dole was a joke and hillary will learn the hard way she doesn't stand a chance. Sooner or later one will come.

We are talking about the USA, and about the United Kingdom (Thatcher), Israel (Golda), India (Indira Ghandi), and Pakistan, with, upon a complete review of the topic, Bangaladesh and Norway tossed in for good measure. Since the US has been indicted for NOT having had a female president, and those FOREIGN countries have been held up as shining examples of equity, I thought it only fair to respond to your attack on the New Testament with examples of foreign countries where the New Testament doesn't carry much weight, yet have also failed against the standards of cosmic gender justice. (BTW, this is the first I've ever heard about Mrs. Mao being "the power" in the PRC, could you provide some references on that?)

In short, if the paucity of female American presidents was due to St. Paul's purported misogyny, what explains the same paucity in those countries not so informed? And how does the "Paul's writings" theory stand up to the Danish example offered by Moif? Thatcher? Heck, why hasn't CANADA even had a dark horse contender a la Ferraro or Feinstein? Aren't they more "advanced" than us poor, unwashed, ignorant neanderbubbas down here in Amerikkkkkkkkkkkkka?

Let's nominate Maxine Waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Qing

Madame Mao was the power during Mao's last years. While she was not technically called the President or Premier of the PRC, she did found the infamous Gang of Four and was the most outspoken and arguably the most ruthless of the bunch. Called "the white-boned demon" by some Chinese, she was the one who said, "Man's contribution to human history is nothing more than a drop of sperm." http://www.bartleby.com/63/26/726.html



While that may arguably be so, the United States, of all the "civilized" countries, is purported to be the most religious. I never claimed that the writings of Saint Paul were an effective deterrent anywhere else; you brought up the other countries.

When even a Muslim country can have a female Prime Minister, you gotta wonder what's up here?

And secondary to the need to reason through our centuries-long conditioning ala New Testament is the need to acquire power--that takes money and influential friends. We have a great governor here in Michigan who would make a wonderful President. The only problem is that she was born in Canada.

(Edited further to say: It is known that the Bible was also used to try to justify keeping slaves. It is a very convenient reference source, especially when the choice verses are taken out of context. I read the Bible and I have the utmost respect for it, but I hate the way it is often used to justify the reluctance of some to recognize women and minorities as equals, a notable one of those areas being in national politics.)

Thanks, it did help, although the oligarchal nature of the PRC doesn't contribute much to an examination of democratically ELECTED leaders, eh?

The PRC is an oligarchy in which political power and advancement depends on gaining and retaining the support of a informal body of people numbering one to two thousand who constitute the leadership of these organs.

You have claimed that EVEN FOR THE NON-RELIGIOUS, Paul's writings influence. Those writings are part of the core of Western Civilization, of which Denmark is certainly a member, as are both Canada and Britain. If Paul's writings influenced the US, why haven't they influenced the other countries? I contend that Paul's writings don't have that much influence on this matter, neither here nor abroad.

Incidentally, of the G-8 nations, only 1 has had an elected female head of state. Why single out the US? (aside from the obvious 1: 'Tis mostly American's on the board, 2: the US is politically, economically, and culturally the dominant country in the world at this time, and 3: its another opportunity to bash America)

As noted, Canada has never had one. Neither has France, Germany, Japan, Russia nor Italy. IF, as others have implied, we Americans haven't had a female president because we're backwards, with our feet stuck firmly in the mud of patriarchy, what's the excuse of the ever so progressive Canadia/ens, French and Germans?

Maybe we can shed some light on OUR situation by considering theirs.