An issue I have been considering lately has to do with freedom in action vs. freedom in reality, and in America this has many forms. We hail ourselves as the guardians of freedom, even so far as to take that guardianship into other lands when we are asked not to...or at least that is the last remaining premise upon which our latest escapade into aggressive international freedom fighting is based. So I thought it would be interesting to examine the whys and wherefores of that freedom in America...and for the purpose of this diccussion, at least initially, we can leave our history out of it, as many find that an uncomfortable place to begin a discussion of our right to intercede in other nations. So the question now is how free we actually are. There are many, many examples people will cite where a resident of the US has greater freedom, as we see it, than does a resident of, say, Iran. But what about when compared with less extreme examples? Forget, for a moment, issues like the Patriot laws, or racial prejudice, or antiquated drug laws...let's focus on another issue which would seem to scream out for attention, but about which we usually mumble something under our collective breaths, and then side-step... There are many questions to ask, but one to begin with is this: Many other nations, including Great Britain, Canada, Israel, etc. have had female leaders. We, supposedly the 'land of the free', not only have not had a female President, but most studies and polls show that we don't envision having one any time soon...This despite the fact that women make up more than half the population. How can we reconcile this with our contention of freedom? It is not an active example of prejudice based exclusion, like segragation or apartheid, but falls more along the lines of an unspoken bias...and I ask why. I would specifically like to hear from those who do believe that we are the standard bearers for Freedom and Justice...why, then, have lesser nations surpassed us in allowing the greatest demographic in the land to be represented in it's leadership? Polls show that we expect a balck male president...a representative of less that 15% of the population in color, and less than 7% in total demographic breakdown (male and black), before we expect to have a female President...and yet no one really questions this, despite women accounting for over 50% of our makeup... I would like real answers, not " It'll happen, just you wait..." Because A) That could have been said 50 years ago, and could still be being said 50 years from now. It means nothing. B) It doesn't explain why it hasn't happened yet in the Lnad of the Free. I would rather have an honest, albeit prejudiced response like " Women are just to dang emotional." than " Soon...." So, please, somebody tell me...why has the bastion of freedom and justice not been lead by one from amongst it's majority? And why does it seem that we are not exactly on the verge of ammending this seemingly inexplicable practice? WHy can the UK do it at one of it's toughest periods, and we can't? Why can a nation besieged, in a literal sense, like Israel accomplish almost 50 years ago what we might not yet have accomplished 50 years from now? Let's address this issue head on, and not shuffle off to the side, talking about how rich we are...Are we really that free?
I'm not sure what not electing a female to the presidency has to do with freedom. If we have true freedom, we have the freedom to never elect a female to anything EVER. It is more a measure of sexism perhaps. But then when the National Security advisor, many senators, representatives, governors, etc. are female, I wouldn't say that the US is very sexist. I do believe that the US is one of the standard bearers of freedom. You can just look at our society and see that it is a fact that we are one of the most liberal- minded countries in the world. The fact that we fought against the enemies of freedom- Nazi Germany, Communist USSR, etc., just further provides proof of that.
I don't know about you guys, but I sure as hell don't want a woman to have access to the button during her time of the month.
Perfect, RM95. My fingers were shaking with excitement to bring the discussion down with that zinger, but you beat me to it!
1) It has a lot to do with freedom. That is the demographic which most represents the majority, but has been excluded from the top office. Claiming that we haven't elected one, so it's just an example of our sexism is side-stepping. If we are so gosh-darned free, if we are one of the standard bearers of freedom, how can we excercise sexism to such a degree? Segragation was popular at one point too...and we could call it just an example of racism...but now that it's been eradicated, we see it for what it was. Gentleman's agreements, blackballing minorities, etc. are all exmaples of 'popular decisons' which can be argued as being only about racism, sexism, etc., but are in fact infirngments upon our collective freedom, both in practice and in principle. 2) Now, MC, I said I wanted to try and not turn this into a historical example of how not free we have been...please don't site one-sided assumptive examples of what you see as historical evidence of our freedom, especially not when it comes down to who we fought and why...( Quick example: we didn't fight Nazi Germany for any idealogical reason whatsoever, but because they decalred war on us...and prior to that US companies were their greatest arms suppliers)...Let's try and leave subjective historical 'evidence' of our past freedom out of it, and concentrate on recently: Why have other nations done what we still say we probably aren't going to do any time soon? 3) Honestly, MC..suppose their were a nation, say Iran...and suppose that Iran's population was over 50% one tribe...and suppose that that tribe was not now nor anticipated to be represented in leadership...( I say tribe because it has to be a bias different from ours, in theory)...and we were talking tought about them and casting around for reasons to invade, do you not think that this issue would be raised as a reason they need intervention? The Ba'ath Pary power restriction, having to be a member of the Communist Party in the USSR, etc. all of these were unspoken requirements, not legal ones, if you wanted to get into positions of power, and all of these practicies have been hailed by us as examples of oppression. Yet we have and will negate over half of our population from the highest office based on their gender...and that's not a problem with our freedom?
But seriously...even if you are not among them, can you try and put into words the argument for those who will look at this, and still say we are the Land of the freedom and justice? Do you think it just comes back to that kind of gross prejudice, and we have no real problem with it? Do you think that...say, 200 years from now, when this particular hypocrisy in our system is wiped out, we will look back at it as a major issue, or a minor one?
MacB, Are we a tad more puritanical in our roots than some of these other nations? I always feel that this aspect casts a long shadow. Another vague idea: political power is often linked necessarily with wealth here in a significant way. Women still do not accumulate wealth (in any economic system) as quickly as men do.
A) Very likely...and hardly an endorsment for our self-appointed position of judgement of other nations 'freedom'. B) Yeah...but that gets into a greater issue of freedom in theory vs. in practice. It is very on topic, but I wanted to start off about the Presidency because 1) It narrows the discussion, and 2) of the amazing studies and polls which show that, unlike equal pay, the Presidency is not something we feel needs to be addressed any time soon.
I think it has to do with the fact that our society is decidedly sexist. You don't have to look very far to find examples, from the "glass ceiling" (which, to be fair has been broken somewhat recently) to diparities in pay for women vs. pay for men. To be fair, however, we have not seen a viable woman candidate for the Presidency, at least not in my lifetime. Hillary might be the first really viable candidate this country has seen, and I think she might just have the stuff to run and win (based on the crap she put up with from the press, Ken Starr, and her husband). The real question might be "is there a woman out there who WANTS to be the President when it is much easier to coopt the presidency by being married to him?" Women tend to love running things behind the scenes in my experience. (The preceding paragraph was written in a joking manner and if you could have HEARD me make the statement, you would have laughed.)
I anticipated the argument of " No viable candidates' when wrtiting this, and the response is simple: How do you know? That's just the point...do we have a system in place which offers these women as viable candidates at all? South Africa could have used that argument 20 years ago...as no black candidates were seriously put forward. How many of us knew about Bill Clinton as a serious Presidential candidate before his party and political machine pushed him into the spotlight as an option? Or George W. Bush? And, conversly, how many female Presidential candidates have you seen seriously pushed by the political machine? Any? And the second response is that the same racism which makes it impossible for a woman to be President also seriously hinders her efforts to attain the stepping stone positions on the way. BTW...I didn't want to make this into a hidden " Hillary for President" debate...I actually don't like her all that much...it's more the broader issue...and don't play with that line for a bad joke...
The difference with segregation is that people were denied freedoms. I don't see women being denied any freedoms. The fact that we have no women presidents hardly means that they are oppressed. As far as gentleman's agreements and blackballing, shouldn't people be free to do such things? If I form an organization, and I want only people of certain political views to be elected, am I fighting against freedom? I don't think so. True, backroom deals against women on the basis of sex is wrong, but that doesn't necessarily take away women's freedoms. They are free to make their own backroom deals after all. And we have many women in leadership positions. And women have run for president a few times. I bet Hillary Clinton will run in 2008. I bet Hillary will make a few backroom deals herself. [/QUOTE] 2) Now, MC, I said I wanted to try and not turn this into a historical example of how not free we have been...please don't site one-sided assumptive examples of what you see as historical evidence of our freedom, especially not when it comes down to who we fought and why...( Quick example: we didn't fight Nazi Germany for any idealogical reason whatsoever, but because they decalred war on us...and prior to that US companies were their greatest arms suppliers)...Let's try and leave subjective historical 'evidence' of our past freedom out of it, and concentrate on recently: Why have other nations done what we still say we probably aren't going to do any time soon?[/QUOTE] Alright, we'll leave the historical stuff out of it. Is your queston referring to electing a woman president? Why do you think we won't do it anytime soon? [/QUOTE] 3) Honestly, MC..suppose their were a nation, say Iran...and suppose that Iran's population was over 50% one tribe...and suppose that that tribe was not now nor anticipated to be represented in leadership...( I say tribe because it has to be a bias different from ours, in theory)...and we were talking tought about them and casting around for reasons to invade, do you not think that this issue would be raised as a reason they need intervention? The Ba'ath Pary power restriction, having to be a member of the Communist Party in the USSR, etc. all of these were unspoken requirements, not legal ones, if you wanted to get into positions of power, and all of these practicies have been hailed by us as examples of oppression. Yet we have and will negate over half of our population from the highest office based on their gender...and that's not a problem with our freedom? [/QUOTE] First of all, we are not negating over half of our population from the highest office. You are acting as if women were legally barred from holding the Presidency. That is not the case. Women have every freedom to run for President, win, and lead the country. There is a difference between a woman not getting elected and not being free. There also hasn't been a 5'0 man elected either, I guess short men are oppressed. To try to compare it to a Theocracy which sees women as incapable of leading is ridiculous. There are many reasons women haven't been elected President recently. Some are bad, like sexism, and some are more benign.
Just as a side-note, what makes you think we "self-appointed" ourselves to be the defenders of freedom? I don't know about anyone else, but I would be happier if we could just ignore the rest of the world and all the atrocities and oppression that goes on. But the fact is we are threatened at some points, and at other points there are human rights violations that we have to stop. We didn't choose this role, nor did Europe or other nations who help us.
I would argue that Mandela was a viable candidate that WOULD have been elected before he was imprisoned (wasn't that about 30 years ago?). The stepping stone positions ARE occupied by some women and I believe that there were and are many females who are VASTLY more qualified for the presidency than Bush II. I know you didn't, but she is the obvious example. I believe that a woman could do every bit as good a job as a man as president, in fact, she would do a better job in some ways as it would show the world that we really are an open, free society. One of the main culprits is the two party system that we have in this country. The League of Women Voters used to put on all the presidential debates until Perot got in the debates and the GOP and Dems took control of the debate process. The biggest culprit, however, is the sexist, racist, elitist white males that ACTUALLY have the power in our society.
One of the reasons is the U.S. political system. Candidates for the presidency have to run on their own merits, and first have to pass through the primaries, etc. In Canada, Britain, Japan and many other democracies, the Prime Minister is simply the leader of the largest party. This puts people in power who would never have risen to such a position in the U.S. Take Jean Cretien for example. He is ugly, speaks both official languages poorly, and is not well liked or respected by any Canadian I have spoken to. However, he has been in power since Brian Mulroney left office (if I remember correctly), a span of at least 12 years. Jean Cretien would never have been elected if he had to run on his own merits or popularity like U.S. presidents have to.
2) Now, MC, I said I wanted to try and not turn this into a historical example of how not free we have been...please don't site one-sided assumptive examples of what you see as historical evidence of our freedom, especially not when it comes down to who we fought and why...( Quick example: we didn't fight Nazi Germany for any idealogical reason whatsoever, but because they decalred war on us...and prior to that US companies were their greatest arms suppliers)...Let's try and leave subjective historical 'evidence' of our past freedom out of it, and concentrate on recently: Why have other nations done what we still say we probably aren't going to do any time soon?[/QUOTE] Alright, we'll leave the historical stuff out of it. Is your queston referring to electing a woman president? Why do you think we won't do it anytime soon? [/QUOTE] 3) Honestly, MC..suppose their were a nation, say Iran...and suppose that Iran's population was over 50% one tribe...and suppose that that tribe was not now nor anticipated to be represented in leadership...( I say tribe because it has to be a bias different from ours, in theory)...and we were talking tought about them and casting around for reasons to invade, do you not think that this issue would be raised as a reason they need intervention? The Ba'ath Pary power restriction, having to be a member of the Communist Party in the USSR, etc. all of these were unspoken requirements, not legal ones, if you wanted to get into positions of power, and all of these practicies have been hailed by us as examples of oppression. Yet we have and will negate over half of our population from the highest office based on their gender...and that's not a problem with our freedom? [/QUOTE] First of all, we are not negating over half of our population from the highest office. You are acting as if women were legally barred from holding the Presidency. That is not the case. Women have every freedom to run for President, win, and lead the country. There is a difference between a woman not getting elected and not being free. There also hasn't been a 5'0 man elected either, I guess short men are oppressed. To try to compare it to a Theocracy which sees women as incapable of leading is ridiculous. There are many reasons women haven't been elected President recently. Some are bad, like sexism, and some are more benign. [/QUOTE] 1) Are you really suggesting that people should be free to restrict access to positions based on race or gender, as long as it's not put into legal form? So the color barrier in baseball was an example of freedom in action? As to the legal/not legal aspect you mention, I tried to addrsss it in my last post, but obviously wasn't clear enough...The examples I gave were of exactly that kind of practice; agreements, not legal restricitions. Ok, example: Nazi Germnay, during Hitler's rise...( ie before WWII) Now we know that one of the ways in which Hitler's regime was oppressive was in the practice of restricting positions based on whether or not you were a member of the Nazi Party, right? Ok, now, can you name the date that was put into law? Right...neither can I, because it wasn't. it was just put into practice, based on what 'the people chose'...That's what I mean, MC..Half the population, more, have never been represented in the highest office. There's no law, but there's a problem, and it's about freedom. Do women have free and equal access to that position? Clearly not. 2) I think it won't be rectified any time soon based on many recent polls, asking whether people envision a female President in the next ( selected) period of years...and studies done on the same subject. Without exception each one said not in the forseeable future, and where other options like " Black" or " Jewish" were offered, they all finished ahead of " Woman" despite reresenting a much smaller group. 3) See my 1st point. And please don't start with the standard " To compare the United Staes with _________ is ridiculous/absurd/offensive, etc. stuff. First of all, if you read my point, I wasn't comparing us with Iran as is, but was creating a hypothetical example of tribal restriction whcih doesn't even exist in Iran...the point was, were it the exact same prcatice that we have, but based on a prejudice we don't have, and we were starting to get bellicose with that nation, would we not site that practice as a restriction of freedom in Iran, or wherever? ANd secondly, that whole " To compare the US..." stuff is the equivalent of " No, you are.". It's often not true, usually beside the point, and only really an example of how we see ourselves as above the rest. Argue on points, not on prejudice.
I have to agree with Mr C here. I don't see much correlation. A representative does not need to be of the same sex as those s/he represents to be legitimate. Couldn't I argue that I'm being oppressed because the president isn't 27 like me, or skinny, or Franco-Texan, or any manner of thing? I think you put too much stock in political gender.
A) You skipped a couple of PM's, one of em female, but I get your point. B) What I don't get is what you mean by 'running on your own merits' as a response to this argument. Are you suggesting that the reason women can't get elected Presidents is bcause they don't merit the position? And you also don't understand the political situation of other nations if you feel that a party in general is elected, and then that party picks it's leader. It works the other way around, and effectively comes down to that leader being elected or not...Come Federal election in Canada, it is about Chretien vs. Others...yes, there is a minor amount of local part preference overriding antipathy for PM candidates, but it's minor. C) And, are you really trying to say that the US system, as is, is more of a representative meritocracy than Britain or Canada? D) I don't like Chretien, but his french is excellent. He has a condition which affects the muscles around his mouth, but, you are right, that hasn't largely been hailed as having a significant effect on his 'merits' for office here. You think it would be better if it did?
If over 50% of the population were skinny Franco-Texans, and despite that there had never been one on power in 250 years, and during that time there had been actually legal restrictions on skinny Franco-Texans as citizens, than yes, I'd say you had a complaint.
You think Mandela could have been put forward as a viable candidate for the head of the political system 30 years ago when he was in prison connected with 'terrorist' bombings? I think we are on different pages with respect to what we see as viable candidates. My point was that no black South African was pushed for office 30 years ago, because the prejudice of the system didn't even consider it a realisitc option. 30 years ago people were pushing for Mandela to be freed, not elected.
