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.
Yes, it's about time. It must happen now.
Yes.
I doubt it's a good idea.
No way, no how
Female President? (USA)
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.
Last edited by tomamar04; 09-10-2005 at 10:38 AM.
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.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?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.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.
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.
Posting Permissions
i am not from USA but I doubt it's a good idea.
