Why can't women be presidents??

[yeawutever]

Hey people,

Yea, that's wut I been wondering for like 2 years ago. I'm hearing in a few latin american country, they are running for presidency, in fact, few of them became president there, so are two running in Peru. So why not here?? Is there any disadvantages besides gender, if it's just gender then it would be discrimination. In one of Queen Elizabeth quotes, says we weren't made to rule, that's just bs, women can do just as good as men.

[Mrocza]

Where is "here" for you?

 

I know it's hard to break the barrier into presidency in most countries. It's generally, the people with connections who make it to the top.

 

I mean, here in Canada, we've had one female prime minister. Just one.

"Unfortunately, Kim Campbell was never popularly elected, and simply assumed the office of Prime Minister following the resignation of a sitting PM. They were appointed by the governing party, and not elected by the people"

 

In the states, I think it's harder to break into that atmosphere. I mean, there are women striving to get involved in politics. But how many? Not enough.

 

I mean, it's not everyone's dream- man or woman's, to be responsible for governing a whole nation. It's HARD work. Plus the second-standards for anyone who is different in any way...it'll take a while for it to happen. I mean, as many chauvanists point out, women have just been considered equals to men for a little more than a century.

[BellaDonna]

Ailec1987,

 

That's a provocative question you are posing- and one that has been pondered time and again. Similar questions have also been posed about why individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds (male or female) have not become president in the U.S. either. I could go on forever as to theories of why...it's a very complex issue. I will spare enotalone from seeing my theory on all of this though.

 

To have a sucessful presidential campaign, a person has to have a lot of money- a lot of experience and a sound repuation in politics- as well as support from their political party affiliation. There are other things that come into play such as the country's fear of change, steroeotypes/discrimination (as you mentioned), etc. It's a multi-faceted issue.

 

I will just tell you that I have faith that I WILL see a woman become president in my lifetime. -Will she automatically have my vote because she's a woman? No. That would be reverse discrimination. Just like any other candidate- I would have to see what she stood for, and what she believed in- especially when it comes to issues that are important to me.

 

I think overall- having a more diverse population of presidential candidates could only be a good thing. I would like to see more women, and more individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds receiving the popular vote.

 

 

BellaDonna

[darkblue]

I realise this is a sensitive topic - but I'm not American and don't care:

How do you think Bush is the most powerful man in the world? I mean c'mon!

Money.

 

All it takes is some spoon-fed words and a hell of a lot of advertising.

 

Women in the UK are still having trouble fighting for equal pay as men in the workplace.

Women are stereotypically child-bearers.

Of course, that is all changing, and we could see a female president of the U.S. soon.

 

Germany has its first female Chancellor. Why not America?

There is no reason women cannot do the job.

They can.

[easyguy]

Hey people,

Yea, that's wut I been wondering for like 2 years ago. I'm hearing in a few latin american country, they are running for presidency, in fact, few of them became president there, so are two running in Peru. So why not here?? Is there any disadvantages besides gender, if it's just gender then it would be discrimination. In one of Queen Elizabeth quotes, says we weren't made to rule, that's just bs, women can do just as good as men.

 

The United States, ever since the very first days of democracy, has breeded the same type of person for president. Practically every president has been what are called WASPS -- White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. To break that trend is to break decades of tradition. While I do agree that there needs to be a change, it is not simple.

 

Being president isn't about laying out your agenda and pleasing the people, it's about power and greed (like Darkblue mentioned). I know people who have tried to be active in the political area, and they said that the second they got involved, they realized that the morals were much different than what they had expected. It was all about power, and nothing else.

[ShySoul]

This is coming at a time where Hilary Clinton is a leading candidate for the Democractic party in the 2008 elections. And I wouldn't put it past her to win.

 

Back when the country was founded, it was only natural for a white man to assume leadership. Women were not considered equal, blacks were slaves. So white men held the positions of authority. It also logically followed that to hold together a fledging country, the leader must be educated and able to motivate others. At the time, white males really were the only ones who fit the bill.

 

But as time has worn on, that has changed. Women and other races have made huge strives on all areas, including politics. California has 2 women senaors, Barabra Box and Diane Fienstein. It's only a matter of time before a women becomes President as well. It just will take the right women, a women who doesn't give into the idea that it isn't going to happen, a women with ideas and a women with the charisma to inspire a nation.

 

Being president isn't about laying out your agenda and pleasing the people, it's about power and greed (like Darkblue mentioned). I know people who have tried to be active in the political area, and they said that the second they got involved, they realized that the morals were much different than what they had expected. It was all about power, and nothing else.

 

To some it may be. But there will always be the greedy and selfish in every aspect of life. But if you honestly believe in what you are doing, if you believe in serving the people and making things better, then you can succeed. It doesn't have to be about money and power. The common folk can do just as much. Everyone has a voice. All that is left is for people to realize the have a voice and start speaking up.

 

A few months ago here in California, out governor suffered humilation as all of the initiatives he tried to pass (grabs at power) failed. People saw through it. They saw the lies and broken promises. And they spoke out. I recall an article about one women, a nurse, who organized protests. You don't have to be rich, white, or a man to make a difference. We all can.

 

I also give you Jimmy Carter, the guy who was a peanut farmer and then President. Not the richest of beginnings or born into a political family. He wasn't about power, he fought for noble things:

 

"he was successful in deregulating several industries, consolidating governmental agencies, creating a national energy policy and the Departments of Energy and Education, bolstering the social security system, appointing record numbers of women and minorities to government and judicial posts and enacting strong legislation for environmental protection, doubling the size of the National Park Service."

 

He won the Noble Peace Prize. A shining example that politics doesn't have to be about power and greed, and that a guy with good intentions can succeed.

[BellaDonna]

Interesting website promoting woman presidents in the U.S.

 

 

 

Though again- just because the person is a woman (and I too would like to see a woman president) , gender alone would not be enough to get my vote. There is one woman on their website that I would not want to be president even if she was the last living person in the U.S. I cringe at the idea. The good thing is- she does not plan to run for office apparently. Phew.... a happy relief dance is in order..\\

 

Here are women who have been leaders in the rest of the world:

 

 

 

 

BellaDonna

[ShySoul]

On politics in general, one of the reasons that it seems corruption and greed is so rampant is that people stopped believing it could be any other way. They only think that the rich and powerful can assume leadership, and when that is what you believe, thats what you will end up making happen. If you don't like the way things are, then fight it. Don't let yourself become convinced it will never be any other way, because if we do, then thats how it will always be.

[AwdreeHpburn]

Why can't we just get to a point in the states and all other countries where people are hired for the job they are good at regardless of their gender, color, religion (or lack of) etc.

 

SOOOOOOO many people agree with this philosophy, why isn't it happening.

I would love to see a woman president - scratch that, a handicapped, balck lesbian president, but most of all I want some one in there who is qualified.

[ShySoul]

Ta_ree_saw - People tend to fear change. So it takes a long time before things happen. Also, it takes the right person to step forward and want to do something about it. Most people say the like the idea, but few are willing to put themselves out there to be that women. They know its going to be a struggle and they will face constant criticism and be watched by everyone. Should a female run, there would probably be just as much focus on the fact that she is a women then on what she is saying. A lot of people can't handle that pressure.

 

I've every confidence it will happen. It's just a matter of the right women coming along and being strong enough to face all the obstacles in her way.

[tyler711]

I disagree. The last place "affirmative action" needs to be is in the U.S. presidency. I strongly oppose people getting more votes or more support because they are not white or male. If a black man or woman (republican, of course) were to run, and I liked their ideals, then they get my vote. If an Asian person were to do the same, then they'd get my vote. My point is, race has no place in politics. The reason all the presidents are white and male, is because this is 95% of your pool of candidates, not because "the man" or "big brother" is trying to suppress women and minorities.

[ShySoul]

Tyler, great points. I think most people would agree. A candidate should be chosen based on skill. The problem is, there isn't another differences in the candidates. Sometimes just picking between Republican or Democrat is like picking the same thing or the lesser of two evils. Solution is to encourage more people to run at all levels. If it starts on the local level, then those people will move up to the higher levels. But instead, most people believe they can't make a difference and leave it up to others to make decisions for them. Instead we should raise up and have a voice of our own. We all have the power to affect things, we just have to see we have the power and take action.

[Tesseract_Witch]

I honestly think women--just in my experience with the experimental "play-politician" arrangement of the school system--have absolutely no grasp on politics. Oh, just to prove how truly lost some of those backtime rulers were; Marie Antoinette: "Let them eat cake."

More recent ones include:

1) "A species goes out of existence every twenty seconds. Surely a new species must come into existence every twenty seconds."--Helen Chenoweth.

2) "Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women."--Phylilis Schlafly.

3) "Statistics show that teen pregnency drops off significantly after age 25."--Mary Anne Tebedo.

 

*All are cited from the book 267 Stupidest Things Democrats/Politicians Ever Said by Ted Rueter, copyright New York Rivers Press, 2000.

 

These are but examples, not to say all are incapable; but these are factual instances that sadly apply to many of the girls I have encountered over the years. Not only are they ignoramus to a great deal, they have no desire to alter that. Is it okay to not put forth the effort and then cry out about women's rights? No; rights are a privelage, despite the essense of the name, and should be treated as such. It is heinous to think of someone who will bash a government that has gone so far to give "squaking" women (meaning those who put forth no effort and in turn, complain) a say in events that they are totally oblivious to. What name, then, does that give all women; a dispicable one. Those "squakers" are beating themselves down, and then wondering when they'll be able to take a stand in anything.