shardsofnarsil Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 The purpose of this thread is not to debate whether or not any woman should be president, or whether or not a specific woman should be president. I am aware that there is a percentage of American citizens who believe, whether for religious, sexist, biological, societal, or other reasons, that the position of the President of the United States should not be held by a woman. I am simply trying to get some idea of what that percentage is. Don't bog down in extreme hypothetical what-if situations. In general, would you vote for a woman candidate? (If your response is something like, "Well, it depends..." then your answer is yes. I am looking for the percentage who, under normal circumstances, believe it is inherently unacceptable or unwise for a woman to be President.) Results will be posted and analyzed on my blog in two weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Yes, with a strong caveat: I don't like the idea of a woman being put up to running for president simply as a political ploy, so that party could cast the others as sexist or somesuch. That's using her as a political pawn on account of her gender, which is exploitative and wrong in a whole different way. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 I'd totally support Madeline Albright for President. It's too bad the only people working on fixing Article 2 are the Amend for Arnold yokels... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 You girlie man, Arnie for Presinator! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Madeline Albright !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! eeks. Didn't she used to be a man??? For the Pollster.........I'd vote for Condi over Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_p Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 What? Who? Why?! Shouldn't this be a poll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In My Memory Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 IMM for president '08! *ahem*... there is no reason why women shouldnt be president or hold high office. A persons sex is no guide to their abilities, and to pretend that it is would be fundamentally no different than racism. If we believe that it is defensible to give preferencial consideration to certain groups for irrelevant characteristics like happening to belong to certain sex, then we have no argument racists who believe we should give preferencial consideration to the interests of people who happen to be members of their own race. The basic idea is that the difference between the sexes (or races for that matter) is just a statement of fact without any moral connotations, therefore there is no logically compelling reason to assume that the given factual difference justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to those peoples needs or interests. This is a basic ethical imperative called the principle of equal consideration of interests, such that we would be acting unethically if we gave unequal consideration to two groups of people who differ only with respect to sex. I remember listening to a sexist rant about why he wouldnt vote for a woman president, and I think he was being completely honest in his opinions as he rambled almost every stereotype in the book. "Women presidents on their periods would start wars!" "Women are emotional, not logical." "Women are 'naturally' not as smart as men." "Women dont have to defend their country so they would start more wars." "God made women to be submissive to men, not the other way around." It was both sickening to listen to, and really laughable as the sexist fit the stereotypical profile of a self-righteous ignorant redneck with heavy southern drawl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 then we have no argument racists Just to clarify IMM, should that phrase read "then we can have no argument with racists...."? Meaning that if a person supports one form of sexism or racism, it is illogical to decry another group for having the same attitude? On the original question. My view is that it is the person and their policies that matter. Who cares what sex or race they are? In my own voting habits, I don't even pay attention to the sex of the candidate. Who they are and what (they say;) ) they stand for are paramount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Yeah, ouch Bascule, we'll have to discuss that one in a separate thread. (chuckle) I'd vote for IMM, but I'd have to have some good transparency on her ties to the animal-right. (grin) (Get it? Religious-right... animal-right.... oh never mind!) ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In My Memory Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 JohnB, then we have no argument racists Just to clarify IMM' date=' should that phrase read "then we [i']can[/i] have no argument with[/i'] racists...."? Meaning that if a person supports one form of sexism or racism, it is illogical to decry another group for having the same attitude? It should say "then we have no argument against racists...". And yes, if you support sexism or racism, then it would be impossible to criticize other forms of prejudice without unforgivable ethical inconsistency. (Oh, and I should add: I have a very very bad habit of revising my writing several times to get the ideal forcefulness of argument and voice, but I admit to being the worst proofreader in the world especially of my own writing. Probably in 95% of my posts, I leave out whole words and phrases when trying to revise my posts for better clarify. Its so bad that I often have to run my posts through a text-to-speech program and edit 5 or 6 times just to be sure that my writing is intelligible ) Pangloss, I'd vote for IMM, but I'd have to have some good transparency on her ties to the animal-right. (grin) (Get it? Religious-right... animal-right.... oh never mind!) ;-) I'm not that tied with the animal-right, I only have 1 year of membership in the Animal Liberation Front to claim in my name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 We had a female Prime Minister here for a good many years, and she didn`t really cock anything up anymore than any other PM we`ve had in the past, in fact I quite liked her and still do. so Yeah, why Not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 It was both sickening to listen to, and really laughable as the sexist fit the stereotypical profile of a self-righteous ignorant redneck with heavy southern drawl. Yeah, idiots like that make all southerners look bad. Of course women can and should be President or whatever. There will be pressure on the first woman, black, atheist or whatever President to set a standard for their group. It isn't right, but that's reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 as long as I agreed with her political agenda, I don't see why not... unfortunately I have never agreed fully with a president's political agenda, and I don't expect their are too many people who would run for president that I would agree with; male or female. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Absolutely. I think women are better than men at seeing the big picture and long-range planning. I think the best president would be the right woman. Unfortunately, most are too smart to get mixed up in the Beltway Brawl. In fact, I'd vote for matriarchal Hunter/Gatherer politics for a change: the women make the decisions while the men implement them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 The purpose of this thread is not to debate whether or not any woman should be president' date=' or whether or not a specific woman should be president. I am aware that there is a percentage of American citizens who believe, whether for religious, sexist, biological, societal, or other reasons, that the position of the President of the United States should not be held by a woman. I am simply trying to get some idea of what that percentage is. Don't bog down in extreme hypothetical what-if situations. In general, would you vote for a woman candidate? (If your response is something like, "Well, it depends..." then your answer is yes. I am looking for the percentage who, under normal circumstances, believe it is inherently unacceptable or unwise for a woman to be President.) Results will be posted and analyzed on my blog in two weeks. I have no problem with a woman being president, generally speaking. If it's someone I like, I'll vote her in. If Ann Coulter is running with Michelle Malkin as her running mate, I'd vote them both into office in a year ending in 0. Hopefully, it'll restart the trend broken by Reagan of presidents dying in office when elected in a year ending in 0, and maybe start a new one where the vice president goes with. [smiley devil emoticon goes here] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Yes' date=' with a strong caveat: I don't like the idea of a woman being put up to running for president simply as a political ploy, so that party could cast the others as sexist or somesuch. That's using her as a political pawn on account of her gender, which is exploitative and wrong in a whole different way. Mokele [/quote'] That's what I'd worry about too. If a woman ran for president, and her opponent was a man, it could be quite easily to cast him as a sexist just for running against a woman. People might just vote for a woman just becuase she is a woman also, and that would just a sexist as voting for man just because he's man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 That's what I'd worry about too. If a woman ran for president' date=' and her opponent was a man, it could be quite easily to cast him as a sexist just for running against a woman. People might just vote for a woman just becuase she is a woman also, and that would just a sexist as voting for man just because he's man.[/quote'] This is the unfortunate truth. People should vote based on their political views... the problem is, the majority of the people don't have strong political views, and vote based off their prejudices. For example, I know this sweet old lady... She's known me her entire life, her kids don't treat her very well though, she lives all alone, and now shes over 80, and she can't very well take care of her house and things like this. She voted for president Bush... despite the fact that voting republican couldn't have helped her situation very much. Why? She said that she didn't trust John Kerry's face. And there you have it. Most people couldn't care less about a true political agenda... it's looks and promises and fancy words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhDP Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Should A Woman Be President? Yes, why not ? I doupt there's many articles in Nature proving estrogen is negatively correlated to political effectiveness. Seriously, I don't know how somebody can seriously think being a women is making someone a bad politician. Currently, my party is in a leadership election, we have the choice between two main candidates, a homosexual or a women and I'm quite happy to live in a society were the gender, sexual orientation or the religion doesn't matter. I have an article somewhere that show that, in Québec, most people don't care if the candidate is black, homosexual or if it's a women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 If Ann Coulter is running with Michelle Malkin as her running mate, I'd vote them both into office I think I'd prefer Michelle Malkin with Coulter as her running mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 <reminds Douglas that we're not talking about the next Playboy centerfold> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I think I'd prefer Michelle Malkin with Coulter as her running mate. I'd prefer we use Coulter as WMD, ala The Fifth Element - that mouth will kill anyone!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now