I just don't think that there has been enough progress in gender equality to have a woman in the white house. Many people are just gender biased and history will look back at this. I'm going to turn the tide and vote for a woman as a VP candidate. I really think that America needs to get over it and realize that we must progress like other nations. I will be disappointed if she doesn't get elected and if she doesn't it will shows the significant progress we need to make in the area of gender equality.
Oh yeah. I talked to people that like her, but refuse to vote for McCain/Palin because we're still a generation from this being possible.
Except your mock sarcasm here fails miserably in that that there is statistical evidence to suggest a huge difference between a black candidate vs a female one. #1 - There are more female voters than male voters. #2 - Polls show that people don't have major concerns about voting for women; plenty of people admit to a hesistancy of voting against a black man. #3 - Looking nationwide at state offices, women win all the time. There is no evidence that people are unduly biased against voting for women. Black candidates, on the other hand, are far and few between. I believe there is ONE black Congressman from a district that is not majority-black. How many black Senators and Governors do you have? These supporting evidence is there that America has a hesitancy to vote for a black man. There is no such evidence that American won't vote for a woman.
One of my best friends is female and she's told me she'd love to see a woman president, however, just because Hillary was a female doesn't mean she'll vote for her... Vice-president, no problem for me, especially if she's hot...
I find this puzzling. My gut would tell me that people would have an easier time with a black president than a female president, finding it easier to defer to the leadership of a man.
quite the opposite, if McCain/Palin don't win it won't be because men didn't want to vote for the ticket with the woman candidate, but because women didn't want to. certainly there'll still be woman whom themselves don't vote for McCain/Palin because of some kind of brainwashing that they actually believe a woman can't do it despite their own gender, but I think if we're making random generalizations about the population now, I think woman are, generally, at least past this point. so, it will show that the women of this country aren't blind sheep ready to sign up for "one of their own" but understand gender equality for what it should be - ignoring gender completely and voting based on merit.
we know Obama is not ready for a female VP, and in fact it seems he's not ready to provide parity in pay for his female staff either. [rquoter]McCain, Clinton Pay Women Better than Obama Tuesday, April 29, 2008 By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer (CNSNews.com) - Non-intern female employees did better working on the Senate staffs of John McCain and Hillary Clinton during the latest public reporting period than they did working for Barack Obama, Cybercast News Service determined through an analysis of payroll data published by the Secretary of the Senate. Both McCain and Clinton also employed more female than male staffers, while Obama employed more males than females. However, Obama's staff was more balanced between male and female staffers than either McCain's or Clinton's. Also, McCain and Clinton had more female than male staffers making six-figure salaries, while Obama had more male than female staffers making six-figure salaries. The data were taken from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Only in the office of McCain, an Arizona Republican and his party's presumptive presidential nominee, was the average salary for women higher than for men. On the staff of Clinton, a New York senator contesting for the Democratic presidential nomination, women outnumbered men by more than 2-1, and held most of the highest paying jobs, yet the average pay for women and men on Clinton's staff was almost equal. A spokesman for Clinton's office, however, said that the salary averages calculated for her office by Cybercast News Service could be skewed because seven women and two men working on Clinton's Senate staff during the period in question were given additional compensation for outside work on her presidential campaign. The average pay for women who worked on the Senate staff of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of Illinois was at least $6,000 below the average pay for men working on Obama's staff. This held true whether the average pay was calculated for all of Obama's staff, only for his non-intern staff, or only for his staff making more than $23,000 on an annual basis. Obama employed slightly more males than females.[/rquoter] http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=31832
Except when McCain has had the opportunity to legislate such fair pay on a national basis (you know, the point of all this), he's declined. Shocking. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/23...-says-women-need-more-training-and-education/
Agreed -- it's definitely different for a potential president than running for any other legislative spot, because there's a huge perceived difference in the required "leadership."
I don't think it really has as much to do with deference on leadership issues. It simply has to do with the fact that there is a subset of the American population that simply isn't comfortable with black people. There just isn't that same level of discomfort with women. Poll after poll in the Dem primaries showed that people who felt gender was important in their vote favored Hillary by larger margins than the overall populations, and that people who felt rates was important in their vote also favored Hillary by larger margins than the overall populations. I'm not surprised it happened - but I'm surprised that so many people admit to it (it was something like 15-20% of primary voters in Ohio or Pennsylvania).
