Mrs. President?

No, I don't think it's okay to restrict people based on sex. That is obviously wrong. But your example of Hitler brings up another question- Did the Nazis have too much freedom? What if the German courts curbed their power? What if they had other insitutions that limited their political and military agenda? If they had some cubs on liberty, maybe they wouldn't have amassed so much power and influence.

And that's how I see this problem. As long as people have the freedom to vote for men only and be sexist, then we may have this problem for a while. If you require a woman to be elected in the next election, you are taking away freedoms for what may be a desirable result.

Again, I think it is simplistic to see it as a freedom issue. And also, considering your analogies to Germany and Iran, I think you are overstating the problem quite a bit. Women are free to run and do anything that men do.

Well, I think we are a lot closer. Joe Lieberman was almost elected Vice President. Colin Powell had great poll numbers before he decided not to run. Hillary Clinton will no doubt get many votes no matter when she runs. Elizabeth Dole was a credible challenger for the Republican nomination in 2000.[/quote][/b]

Alright I get your point, but you analagies are too extreme to make any logical comparison to the United States. The situations of Irani women or Jewish Germans has little relevance to what American female politicans go through. There has to be a better analogy. Maybe you can compare it to the lack of Female lead actresses who have blockbuster action movies.

 

Actually, I'd say those conditions have the opposite effect on the argument. Of course women would not have been president before they were given the right to vote. So, there are only several decades that we've gone when we could have had a female president and chosen not to. That's enough time to establish a definite trend, but I won't be bothered with what my forefathers did in the 1830 election. Even still, even today, I don't consider it an oppression if my rep differs from me. If the next president is a disabled latino lesbian from Alaska, I won't feel disenfranchised.

What you're asking for is we elect a woman to the highest office in the country solely for a symbolic gesture so we can say, "Look how progressive we are; we have a female president. That shows that we Americans don't discrimate against women." I'm not willing to use such an important decision to make a statement. If the most competent candidate is a woman, that's fine. But, I'm not going to force one in there.

If you want to know why it is, I think it is this: If a woman defers to her husband, she'll be perceived to be too weak to be president. People will say, 'I voted for her, not her husband.' If she's too dominant, she'll be perceived as not respecting her husband, and her moral character will be questioned. If she divorces her husband, she's even more of a b****. If she is left by her husband, she's pathetic. If she never marries, she's either loose or utterly undesireable. If she's widowed, she's brave and resilient and has got a shot at the presidency. Essentially, I think women have too much of an image problem tied specifically to her marital/romantic-power relationships.

Theory #2: Women are neither evil nor stupid enough to even want to president. Are you sure it's a bad thing women are shut out of the office? I can't be president because I was born in France, but that's kind of like telling me they won't let me sponge-wash terminal patients at the leper colony; I don't want the job anyway.

 

I was talking about before he was imprisoned, but he could have been viable if blacks had been able to run for office and vote at that time, yes.

 

I think you have to realize that we're not really talking about 200 years here. Clearly women have been underrepresented in leadership roles throughout history, and really only started accomplishing top leadership roles in the mid '70's.

If we look at presidents since the 70's, starting with Carter, you have:

Carter
Regan (twice)
GBI (Regans VP -- really a continuation of Regan)
Clinton X2
GBII.

So, we had Carter, followed by Regan/Bush, followed by Clinton, and then Bush II. Really, three changes of the guard. I don't think it’s enough to conclude a lack of freedom just because none of these changes resulted in a women president. We have many women in congress, women in the Supreme Court and women in other powerful roles.

I think, "just wait," is an appropriate response. The fact that Hillary Clinton's name comes to mind immediately is proof that the American people can envision a woman president -- they just may have reservations about that particular one.

Britain has had one woman prime minister -- a very strong individual. Canada's woman Prime Minister was appointed when the PM resigned (she was not elected) and lasted about a week. The party system also helps.

The people are ready for a woman president. Are free to elect one. They are free not to. They just need a good candidate.

 

1. Women have only recently become the majority. So it is not really an accurate depiction of events to say that the 'majority has not been allowed' to hold office.

2. Other countries may have different factors that propelled women into the highest office. At its creation Israel required participation of every available body to ensure survival. Women took many positions that may have gone to men in another place under other circumstances. In England there is a long history of female leadership, which was not based on popular support, but lineage. So in both cases you have material or historical factors that explain the accension of women to high office.

3. There are plenty of women in powerful positions: the Supreme Court, the National Security Advisor, former Sec of State, former Sec of Education, former EPA director, Governors, Senators, and Representatives.

4. Women themselves have been remarkably split about what their own role in society was supposed to be.

5. Hillary will be in the White House. Love her or hate her she seems qualified. She knows the political game, has some ideology to guide her, and has the ambition to pursue the goal.

6. One can say there has not been a women with the qualities it takes to be President just as easily as MacBeth can say we are not free because there hasn't been one. You can't really prove either. Its more an exercise in academic masterbation. Are we MORE free than every other country in EVERY aspect of society? No. But no one claims that and certainly that is a ridiculous threshold for the US to have to meet to be able to involve itself in international relations. By MacBeth's criteria you would have a situation like this: Should we intervene to keep Bosnians from being exterminated by Serbs? NO, because we haven't had a female president!!!

 

I'm not sure that that is exactly how it happened with the Nazis. There was plenty of anti-Semitism in Germany already, and many Germans went along with their ideas. "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust" by Daniel Goldhagen puts forth the idea that ordinary Germans carried out many of aspects of the Nazi plan.

It wasn't something where the politicans passed new laws and everyone said "Oh okay, it's the law, so we have to kill some Jews." It was more a case perhaps, of ordinary Germans being free to carry out atrocities. And this happens all over the world. When there are weak institutions, like in Rwanda or Bosnia, racial, tribal, and religious prejudice is hard to contain. In a sense there is too much freedom. If Rwanda had a strong military presence from America or the UN, they would have fewer freedoms, but the atrocities would have been avoided.

Some restrictions could have come from stronger courts who could have invalidated some of the laws that the Nazis passed. Or a system that gave minority parties more power. I'm not very knowledgeable about all the details, but certainly there should have been some checks and balances to stop the Nazis from absorbing all the power.

There are plenty of checks and balance on President Bush right now. He had to get Congressional approval for the war in Iraq, the legislature can stop him from getting the funds he wants, and the media reports on his every move. And even if Bush wanted to, I hardly think he could get Americans to perpetrate another Holocaust.

But I am not sure what is so bad about our "practice" of not having elected any women presidents. It's not equatable to forcing women to wear burkas or not letting blacks hold elective office.

 

MacBeth and interesting look at things, and I'm not sure I disagree. But I will throw out an argument anyway, which is similar to one that Hayes made.

While women may be over 50% what stances would represent them? I don't think they are unified 50%. There are the same differences among male candidates, so by lumping all women together and saying they haven't been represented in the top office of the land ignores the fact that no one women could hold that office and represent 'women' as a whole.

 

Once we have installed one of our own in the presidency, we intend to:

1. Replace the current national anthem with "I Am Woman."
2. Give generous tax credits for shoe purchases.
3. Make the "Vagina Monologues" required viewing for all men.
4. Spruce up the current uniforms of the armed forces. After all, khaki doesn't have to mean drab.
5. Abandon Super Bowl Sunday and replace with Figure Skating Friday.

Oh yeah, then if we get around to it, we'll reform education, institute universal health care, fix the environment, provide affordable day care...

 

Those are the issues I would vote for, at least all the ones after 1-5.

 

MacBeth,

The primary reason for the lack of female presidents is because this is a conservative country. People have a conservative outlook on matters like the society and family. I think your basic assumption for this thread is that conservatism is the opposite of freedom. That is certainly a false assumption. Is a liberal minded country necessarily a freer country? Women who choose to be housewives are less free than women who have to work because of financial needs?

Also, you mentioned about Iran. Yes, Iran is a very conservative country, and they haven't had a female leader. But what about countries like the Philippines, or Argentina? Are they freer than us?

 

1. America is not conservative. If recent elections have taught us anything, it is that we are solidly moderate.

2. What does America's political outlook have to do with electing a female president. From your statement, I would have to infer that conservatives would discourage high-level female politicians -- a short-sighted (and hopefully innaccurate) statement to make.

3. In your worldview, there are only housewives and women who work because of financial needs? Believe it or not, I've heard there are actually women who have careers simply because they want to...

 

Thread Nazi ...