Are you for or against the idea of a female president? If you're "certain" of what is right on either side of this argument, I think you'd be wrong. There are alot of things to consider, like American culture.
Printable View
Are you for or against the idea of a female president? If you're "certain" of what is right on either side of this argument, I think you'd be wrong. There are alot of things to consider, like American culture.
I voted "I doubt it's a good idea."
I do not believe sex is a factor in what this world brings. But with the current selections being provided I do not believe in all honesty that the agenda needs of the nation would be cohesive with that of the woman.
Males are very easy to change and negotiate with. Women are somewhat adamant in their decisive action. Which makes me very uneasy at times where aggression turns to war and so on.
I voted the same as lyingeyes and for about the same reasons.
Bipper
Really? That's interesting. I made it clear that about only the USA because several other countries have had the equivalent of female presidents. Or what you are saying is that that is the American stigma and fear? Or do you literally believe that? I'm really not sure about the answer to that. I just know other countries have them all the time and there's appearently little difference. Or is there?
I have nothing against a female American president (I'm not American, but I still think it's an important issue), but she would be chosen on the novelty that she's a woman, not for her political stance and knowledge.
I don't really care either way. When I vote nothing matters except who the candidate is and what they stand for; not what they have in their pants.
That said, I'm sure hoping there are some decent candidates for the next election. I'm tired of deciding between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. -_-;
Well studying psychology I have learned that males and females do think quite differently.
Males tend to think box to box. Like that of a waffle. One issue at a time.
Females think about several issues all at once.
In comparison if a male is subject to limited tasking it is simply easier to move or progress a decision on mark. Negotiations being a prime interaction between almost every foreign nation we engage with.
I'm not defiling the nature of the female. They are indeed intelligent and while lacking physical demand they are equivalent in the mind. Though the patterns of behavior are different it really makes me uneasy with a leader female.
A female is very geared in MOST instances torwards compassion. Women speek rapport talk. They intercept information and display emotion based majorily upon socialization. While males report talk situations and feel the need to try to help, even if they do not have the skills to repair a situation.
Both at an ends of negatively compassion is something clearly not needed in a time of distress between nations. You can see that Hitler making a fatal mistake by not moving his Panzer's was a step within 4-5 hours. Time is a very precious mediocre when talking about war.
If a female despises war, then do we simply submit? That is my concern. Because as a citizen I'd surely never back down from a threat.
Interally dealing with the U.S. alone I believe a female candidate would be BEYOND PERFECT. But when dealing with foreign relations I'd have to say I disagree.
I may sound like I am generalizing female behavior to one character-type. But to rule it out would somewhat defeat my purpose of having an opinion.
I've been studying psychology for five years and know the difference between males and females, I'm just saying that the differences aren't siginificant or drastic enough to warrant judging a candidate based on their gender rather than judging them based on who they present themselves as during their campaign.
Well I totally disagree then.
I do see a difference in how males and females gesture politics. The simple harda** vs. softcore features would make me nervous if a situation arose demanding immediate superiority and well thought action. Opposed to compassion for man, woman, and child of the nation.
I just cannot elect someone that only meets half of what I feel I need. Foreign relations have become a treasured concept to me. Because with the rising tension of Asian countries torwards America this quite possibly could evoke itself into a very serious matter.
And if you disagree that's totally awesome. That's why we have voting. Hooray! \o/
Note: My post above was not gestured to you, but to cookie. ;D
Well, I totally disagree, but meh. I mean I think your opinion is reasonable, I just think the candidates should be judged on their character, which will undoubtedly include gender differences, whereas you're judging them on gender differences which may or may not be a prominant part of their character.
I agree that mostly males only like playing war, and females don't. But I think that's as far as the difference goes. The war issue, as you seem to present it, ideally shouldn't be one, since ideally, America is supposed to not go to war as a preference, only as a last resort in defense of itself. If someone threatens a parent's children, they would most likely resort to violence if necessary to save the child's life, regardless if it was the mother or father.Quote:
If a female despises war, then do we simply submit? That is my concern. Because as a citizen I'd surely never back down from a thread.
So if you ask me, the concern over a female leader submitting to an enemy, is every bit as alarming as a male leader being a yahoo with an itchy trigger finger who shoots himself in the foot. These two things are the extremes and, to me, seem equally bad.
So you're saying this is the only way the people in the USA could manage to do it? Or people in general? If the former, I think I have to agree it's a possibility. Otherwise, did Margaret Thatcher destroy your country?Quote:
I have nothing against an American president (I'm not American, but I still think it's an important issue), but she'd would be chosen on the novelty that she's a woman, not for her political stance and knowledge.
Unfortunately the war ideal no longer holds that taste today. We are apart of the United Nations which gives us permission to take action if a resolution is violated. (This goes for any nation involved with the U.N.) And so forth that brings my fear. That we are becoming looked down upon by many nations. And personally that I do fear that a female is capable, but would not engage if necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by cookieface
I look back in history at Austria. Rolled on and raped from literally all angles by European elites. And at the hands of a female leader if this situation was to ever aleeve itself again would history repeat itself? I have yet to see a female leader since then take action when stressful foreign situations arise. So my current thinking has yet to be proven wrong. I do not solely vote because of a female. It's a given that people will vote because of political stance. But the behavior does influence a lot of my voting. And for a moment if the attitude offends my delicate thinking I'd have to be completely shut off from anything remotely jeopardizing my future. Even if it be so at the hands of a foreign motive.
:save:i am not from USA but I doubt it's a good idea.:save:
I find that the Western World even though the biggest movers in equal rights for women are more likely to not accept a female as head a country that that of Eastern countries.
People should elect candidates for president/prime minister because they agree with the policies, attitude and capability etc - gender should rarely come into it, if at all.
The way I figure it, a woman president could only be an improvement. If for NO OTHER REASON than that she'd feel like she needs to set a good example. Unlike these rich white guys (and they're ALL rich white guys) who have gotten lazy about it, because their predecessors were also lazy.
This makes it a whole other issue, since you're appearently basing it on the assumption that splitting from the UN was the prime thing to do. This could be argued for years and neither side would make a definitive case. This falls down to belief. Then again, so does the female president issue.Quote:
Unfortunately the war ideal no longer holds that taste today. We are apart of the United Nations which gives us permission to take action if a resolution is violated. (This goes for any nation involved with the U.N.) And so forth that brings my fear. That we are becoming looked down upon by many nations. And personally that I do fear that a female is capable, but would not engage if necessary.
But either way, the way I see it, deciding on military action does not require a propensity for war in a leader. An informed intellect seems to be among the top qualities a leader should have, when it comes to that. Though it seems to be taken for granted these days to the level of a morbid nihilism that doesn't exist as some believe it to be. But that's just my opinion.
And what else should I base it upon other than military interaction and political stance? Really economy does not concern nor phase me. A lot of America's political economics are pre-planned. It's not like a president steps in office and immediately begins shaping the economy to his or her fancy. The agenda is set and followed. Things are proposed there after.
And having quite possibly by most people's view the "worst" presidency serving his term at the moment. I'm living a quite normal life before and after his election. So I'd say I'm contempt with what suits me for now. I stopped thinking about America as a whole a long time ago. This nation truely is still divided by the principles of the politics. Democrats simply hate Bush because he is a republican. Not because of who he is or what he does.
I would seek the same attitude torwards an aggressor but I'm above that. I don't believe politics are covered by the "rich white male" description. If they are involved in politics they're already rich to begin with. So the need for more money is useless. I just feel differently when a female is up for leadership over a nation. And until I can see past simple promises and political views. That the elective has the balls to defend this nation against some outside force. Then so be it. I will vote them.
But today is not like our past. If you haven't noticed lately the cry for help is spewing out of North Korea. They make threats because they want food. Not independence or control. What happens the day we stop offering food and money? Oh.... War.
Anyway I think I've spoken enough here. I'm explained my view from literally all angles and my fingers are tired. D:
Later.
I don't see why we couldn't or shouldn't have a female president. As long as it's not Hillary Clinton.
I don't understand why everyone is generalizing based on gender differences. All forty some odd Presidents we've ever had have been men, and they've all lead the country in drastically different ways. Some being soft, some hard. Some open, some isolationist. So could a woman be any better or worse than the diversity we've had?
If we're talking psychology, then everyone should be aware that the biochemical way we think is only a portion of how we make our decisions. There are too many other factors concerning education, upbringing, and morality than to say something like different pieces makes a different leader.
In a country where we've had Presidents (good Presidents, mind you) who never finished highschool, do you really think that the way someone thinks is going to make that huge of a difference? Everyone has a different thought process, for different reasons.
it aint a bright idea.
South Park [img]http://home.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/heart.gif[/img]Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
While I am not at all opposed to a decent female candidate, I do not believe it is going to be happening any time soon. Frankly, gender doesn't really have much of a bearing on my decision, if I were to base my decision on broad psychological tendancies that may or may not be present in a person's makeup, I would never vote for anybody.
Are there many or any examples of female country leaders? In any case our (Canada's) example of a female leader was pathetic and laughable -- she lasted less than a year, was highly criticised for wasting taxpayer's money, and did I mention stripped of her title after less than a year?
Also when I find a woman who 'behaves in a similar way except for a minute portion which is 'caused' by sex, but isn't a big deal in the big picture', I'll agree with Shlupquack.
BTW I voted no way no how.
What the hell does it matter?
If, in the next election, we get a female that is a total idiot, I won't vote for her. If she's what the country needs, then I'll vote for her. Gender really doesn't matter.
It doesnt matter, but i agree with LyingEyes, females have this adamant type of thinking thats even apparent in instructors in college. The only thing that i am truly against is that if she is elected for the novelty thing, then boooooo...IQ points rated down for America.
I wouldn't mind a female president, except that "yes, it's time we had a female president" would undoubtedly be one of the major points of her campaign. I don't care if its a male or a female, but neither gender nor race should be a major factor in determining who's elected. If a female ran simply on the basis of her views as to what direction this country should move in, and I agreed with those views, I would vote for her. But running with "it's time we had a female president" as a major campaign point is ridiculous, and I think any female running right now would include such a point.
Amen to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
Well I am no psyc major but I have studdied it in school courses. And only three things were readily apparent to me.
1) women appear to be better at multi-tasking for whatever reason(something with what part of the brain they tend to use.. or whatever). This is probably a good thing for a president to have.
2) Women think more emotionally then men on average. Emotions can be controlled and when controlled they can be very useful indeed. Thus I don't see a problem here.
3)Women are more social on average then men, and like to get closer to those they know. Or something similar to that. This could be very good due to the "socialness" of the job.
However, none of the above matters if she is a *ditz* or can't keep her head or has the traits of a bad president.
As some of my personal experience of women in the workfield. Men have a bad habbit of coming up with inventive solutions(bad cause they are out in left feild alot and require more work then neccesary manytimes). Unfortunately whilst this can be good.. most males I know are also adamant in thier stance. Once they start something they don't like to stop till they finish. Every male I have meet is like this. Females have a tendacy(think 6 out of 10) to be better listners in my experience. They are willing to stop and rethink something.. of course getting them to change thier mind can be a pain.. but at least they will stop to listen... The men I know(including me) have a habbit of blowing off such suggestions.
This personal experience is probably quite skewed but I decided to fire it off so you could see what I have seen.
Voting for or against someone based merely on gender doesn't really make much sense. If a woman runs in the next election, and I feel she's the better candidate, I would vote for her. If I thought her opponent was the better candidate, I'd vote for her opponent.
I think Hillary Clinton would make a great president. I really respect her.
"I am sick and tired of people who say if you deface and disagree with this administration, then somehow you're not patriotic. And we should stand up and say, 'We are Americans, and have the right to disagree and deface with any administration!'." - Hillary Clinton
She's had experience in the white house already, so why not? If she runs, I'd vote for her. I'll be 18 by then.
According to my parents the filipino president which is a female is good, well despite her position shes doing well since the person responsible for the decline in the filipino economy was a male dictator!
I dont know about America since i dont live there but Bush should finish what he started!
if we ever get a woman president, I hope she is well into menopause, cause if she pms', and gets pissed then she is likely to blow somebody up.
just kidding, I dont see how a woman president could be any worse rthan any other president.
Edit: there, I changed it. :tongue:
What do you know, a thread lasted in EotW for a full page before turning into a Bush-bashing fest...
Out of curiosity, what do you think the chances are that a female (other than Hillary Clinton) will run for President in the near future?
NOTE: This is just a stupid joke/pun
Secret Serivice: " Mrs.President (insert country here) has just declared war."
President: " Ohhhhhh send him some flowers and a box of chocalates. Show him were nice people."
That is correct, it was a very stupid joke.
Anyway, I voted "yes". I don't think the US should have a female president just because "it's about time", but I certainly don't think she shouldn't get a chance just because of her sex.
I dont see how 'she' doesnt or didnt or whatever, get a chance to becom president. could you please explain this too me, because I was led to believe by somenewscasters that there was a woman running for president last term, but she dropped out.
While I said " I doubt it's a good idea." for most of the reasons that Lying Eyes had stated, I must also add that obviously platform has everything to do with the canidate.
I agree that it would be a shift in the winds to have a female president. One thing that you have to take in account is how publisiezed and over blown would the media make this president? She would prolly have paparazzi on her trying to make some dumb whitted story how she slept with Hitler or somthing. I think it would take the publics eyes off many of the issues.
To add, many of our terrorist enemies' religions are those that do not belive in women rights. The follow the old testements view of women, and the effects of having a women president, may fuel thier fire.
Agian, if her platform seemed better than her opposition's(s') (at least enough to weigh my concerns as well) then yes, she would get my vote.
Just a comple other concerns of mine.
Bipper
In Germany, where I live, are similar discussions:
On Sept.,18th are the next elections and you can vote for a female chancellor for the first time, too.
I wouldn't have a problem with her (her name is Angela Merkel), because I agree with her attitude and her plans for improving the bad economy and the high unemployment in Germany.
But, you won't believe it, some people in Germany have a problem with her appearance!Here you can see a picture of her. Here is a quote that really shocked me:
"What? You want to vote for Merkel? The other states will laugh at us when they see who governs us!"I think, it's clear to everybody, that a female chancellor doesn't look like Pam Anderson...( even because most important politicans are about 50..).
Do you think that things like THIS are important for making your decision??
But, of course, there are also discussions if a female chancellor is suitable for this job or not.
I'm excited how the election will end.
(Please don't mind my bad english)
Yes, I think looks are very important. The President is a major factor in other countries judging us. Even if you had the prodigy of a president whom is 18 and a stoner (not that that is possible due to the requirements needed to become the President) that would reflect badly on us.
Moraly, I belive that looks have little to do with a person. However polotics has an art of making trivial characteristics (& traits) into legitimate bases for discrimination, or appeal.
Its like comparing anything else. My friend has a new SUV and he wants to pimp it out (sadly this does add to the resale value (even to the dealer)) instead of keep regular maintance on it, or fix the minor kinks in it. While my other friend whom has the same SUV (minus all the extra work - and its black) and treats the thing like a baby, can only get about 3/4 of what my buddy whom pimped his out (at half the cost i might add) would get for his.
It is really relative when you think about it. Put on a good show, lil song and dance, and you will appeal to more people than the politician with the good clean platform.
Bipper
Exactly. The question is if the public biases are at a point where there wouldn't be a disaster for either party. It's hard to measure exactly the biases in the public. But I'm sure that if you look at both parties, they would be playing a game of chicken with each other, and the Karl Roves out there would be trying to learn it, if either one ever considered a female candidate. In truth, it's beyond reality to think gender would make much of a difference in the presidency. It's a half figurehead and half politician job. Maybe even more than half in the figurehead side. So what it boils down to is if Joe Stupid is comfortable with a non-male for that whole ritual side of the presidency.
Neither of those characteristics are looks.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Though I agree that looks do matter. It's why Kerry lost! Ugly bastard...
Yep, it does have nothing to do with looks :) Just putting up a negative (to most people) characteristic with a perfect platform. That is what the post was mainly about, not just looks.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
And do you mean to say Bush is sexy? I agree :D
Bipper
A chimp is better than a vulture, yes.
People will vote for a female president JUST BEACAUSE its a she, not for the right reasons. so I doubt its a good idea til people get some sense.
You and me both, pal.Quote:
That said, I'm sure hoping there are some decent candidates for the next election. I'm tired of deciding between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. -_-;
Not necesarily. They don't hate us because we have a secular government, they hate us because of our foiegn policy. Frankly, I don't see how they could get more pissed than they are now. BTW, don't confuse fanatics with a whole religion. Islam does value women, and is alot more feminist than most religions.Quote:
To add, many of our terrorist enemies' religions are those that do not belive in women rights. The follow the old testements view of women, and the effects of having a women president, may fuel thier fire.
I think wev'e reached the point where it wouldn't matter which sex or color the prez would be. It would be a novelty for a bit but that would be it.
Why does it matter? Sex has absolutely nothing to do with how good a person you are or how good a president you'd make. It depends on who you are, your views and qualities as a president. All the good and all the bad ones we've ever had, their sex didn't decide that. There may have only ever been one female Prime Minister, Magaret Thatcher, but she wasn't pure fascist evil because she was a woman. In fact, some people say that part of the reason she was so unpleasant was because she was forced to act like a man (I mean be aggressive, not wear a moustache. But she did anyway). There has never been a female US president so it would be quite nice to see one, but I don't want a president just because it's a woman. There has never been a president who hasn't been white and male. Kennedy was the only one who wasn't white, male and protestant. And, except for a handful such as Kennedy, they've all been white, male, protestant and British in origin. But, again, I don't nessecarilly want one who isn't just because of that. That's just dumb. But it shows something.
I don't think gender should stop a person from being President, but I don't think it should be the reason they get into office. Being female is no guarantee that they'll be a good leader. As RPJesus said, look at Thatcher- hardly a liberal's dream, was she?
Interesting point about all the American presidents except Kennedy being protestant. I'd never realised that before.