There is a lot of chatter on the news that Democrats are proving their women-hating ways by denying Senator Clinton her nomination.
Some argue its the press, with its focus on cleavage and her clothes, others say its lame excuses used to vote elsewhere.
I find those arguments lame, and the argument in general a great boon to Republicans. If they can convince any percentage of women not to vote for Senator Obama because of this feminist attack, they win. If they can convince any percentage of men to not vote for Senator Obama because of White Male Guilt, they win.
I believe that we are ready for a woman President, not just this woman.
We are ready for a woman who has made it on her own, not one who is seen as riding her husbands shirt-tales to the poles.
We are ready for a woman of integrity, and she just hasn't shown that much, in my opinion.
We are ready for a woman who is a strong and unique voice, and Senator Clinton has appeared to me to be the voice of the political machine.
We are ready for a woman who will challenge the other party, not one that the other party hopes gets the nomination because that will drive their own voters to the polls.
I guess what I am saying is that I am ready for a woman President, just not any woman, as I am not ready for just any man to be president. We need someone special, and Mrs. Clinton hasn't shown me that special quality yet.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Just be ready for the onslaught of stories if Clinton loses discussing this very issue. If Obama, assuming he is the Democrat Presidential nominee, even starts to slide against McCain we will be treated to daily reports on racist white America.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The presumption that the primary reason people aren't supporting Hillary is because she is a woman really ticks me off. I'm not ready for Hillary Clinton to be President because I don't like her politics, I don't like her campaign and I don't like the fact that she is willing to run the democratic party off a cliff in order to get the nomination.
I'm also not ready for McCain to be president, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for any white male.
Its interesting that Clinton's support in the primaries has come from older white women and older white men. If gender was the issue, I would expect that younger people who have grown up in a more gender equal world would be more likely to support her and they just aren't.
I do worry that her big wins in Kentucky and West Virginia recently reveal a latent racism in rural America but that may be simplifying the situation too much.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
No, I just think Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" was remarkably effective in those areas. There was a time I knew who had open primaries and who didn't, and who had time to change registrations.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Indiana was an open primary. Pennsylvania and Kentucky had closed primaries, but the registration deadline for each was well after Rush Limbaugh's original "Operation Chaos" announcement (March 24 and April 21, respectively).
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Obviously we're not ready for a woman president since even the democrats prefer to nominate a less qualified man.
I'm against Hillary because I disagree with most of her positions. However these positions aren't that different from the presumptive democrat nominee who, of course, has a penis. And less experience.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Pix, I know why I support Obama and not Clinton and it has absolutely nothing to do with his penis. You are arrogant and ignorant to presume you know more about why democrats vote the way they do than they do themselves.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rabbit: Please give some examples of stated positions where you agree with Obama and not Clinton.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Obviously we're not ready for a woman president since even the democrats prefer to nominate a less qualified man.
"Less experienced in Washington politics" and "less qualified" are not equivalent. Obama has more of the qualities that I consider important in a National leader (and none of those qualities involves his penis). In my mind, that makes him more qualified.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Well first off, and most important to me, are their positions (and history) on the Iraq war and Iran.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Obviously we're not ready for a woman president since even the democrats prefer to nominate a less qualified man.
I'm against Hillary because I disagree with most of her positions. However these positions aren't that different from the presumptive democrat nominee who, of course, has a penis. And less experience.
There is no way to determine whose "qualified" for leadership, JFK had nill experience afaik. Recently a town in Oklahoma elected a 19 yr old freshman to be their mayor and that seems to be going well.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I will also add that I see some significant differences in their voting records with Obama's record much more in line with my own sympathies.
The most recent example of this was their position on the Gas Tax.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lil more detail, Rabbit. Was Obama even in the senate for the vote on the Iraq war?
How do his positions on Iraq and Iran differ from his opponent?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Obviously we're not ready for a woman president since even the democrats prefer to nominate a less qualified man.
I'm against Hillary because I disagree with most of her positions. However these positions aren't that different from the presumptive democrat nominee who, of course, has a penis. And less experience.
There is no way to determine whose "qualified" for leadership, JFK had nill experience afaik. Recently a town in Oklahoma elected a 19 yr old freshman to be their mayor and that seems to be going well.
JFK was a senator, just like Obama (and the other two lamentable candidates still in the race.)
He got us involved in Vietnam, screwed up the bay of pigs invasion and almost ended the world with the cuban missile crisis.
The only reason people love him is becuase he got shot.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I do not believe that his actions in vietnam would have been any different from any one else who could have been president and I do not believe that the vietnam war was escalated during his tenure. His achievements in jump starting the Apollo program I put great importance in and how did he screw up the bay of pigs invasion? I see no reason why to give a bunch of damned cuban fascists air support.
As for the Cuban missile crisis what would you have done? An embargo was the only thing he could do without the Soviets immediately assaulting Berlin.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Also ever hear of the Civil Rights act? JFK had ahuge impact on the civil rights movement.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lil more detail, Rabbit. Was Obama even in the senate for the vote on the Iraq war?
How do his positions on Iraq and Iran differ from his opponent?
Pixiest, Given our history at hatrack, I think it would be a waste of time to bother.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think Obama very successfuly branded himself as an agent of change. Clinto went with experience which really just emphasized Obama as the change candidate. I think this is a significant enough difference to explain why people voted for him (beyond Clinton's lack of a penis). When you vote for a president, you can't know what situations will come up (for ex 9/11). So, the policy isn't as important as looking at how they make decisions. During this campaign, Clinton has disregarded the idea that experts in the field know more then her. She has picked loyalty over competence. She did not make long term plans or contigencies- she simply expected everything would go the way she wanted. She lied over a pretty obvious story, making me question if she has a deluded view of reality or thinks American's are just idiots. She has not demonstrated to me that she is a good decision maker. Experience is far less important to me then that skill. And I will not vote for a woman who I think will be a disaster as a president just to prove that I am willing to vote for a female.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Another reason to pick Obama over Clinton, that is not sexist: end the bush/Clinton dynasty. Enough of the entrenched elite, already.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Blayne, in a serious attempt to educate you, there is a difference between an embargo and a blockade-- namely that the latter is an act of war. Kennedy took that route. Fortunately, the Russians blinked.
The Vietnam war *was* escalated on Kennedy's watch... but had its roots as well as its worst aspects under others.
As for the Bay of Pigs, well, I'll let someone else handle that.
Kennedy was also loved for the way his tax cuts revitalized the economy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The anti-woman debate is ridiculous. Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in modern American political history. To ask that question takes for granted that she's just some average woman running for president without any baggage, which is no where near the truth in this instance.
I supported Clinton as a fine alternative to Obama in January, and since then she has dug her own grave. She has only herself to blame if this doesn't go the way she wants it. America is ready for a black or a female president the way it's been ready for a lot of things in the past: We'll do it, even if we have to bring some people kicking and screaming along for the ride, and eventually we'll all get used to it, and it won't be special any more, and when it stops being special, that's when you know you've succeeded.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think the specific details of any Presidential candidates domestic agenda are fairly irrelevant since it is ultimately the Legislative branch that will set the details. The more important quality I look for in a candidate (assume I share their values) is the ability to build support for their agenda. I think Clinton's record in this area is deplorable.
Sixteen years ago Bill Clinton ran on a platform that included Health Care reform. During his first year in office, Health Care reform was Hillary's baby. She headed the task force, drafted the plan and traveled the country trying to build grass roots support for the plan. She failed so utterly that its taken 15 years to get Health Care reform back on the presidential campaign agenda. I don't see any significant differences in either the plan she has this time around or her approach to building support for it that suggest she will succeed this time around.
Her record after 7 years in the Senate is decidedly unimpressive. Mostly she seems to have worked on avoiding doing anything controversial that might haunt her future political career.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Blayne, in a serious attempt to educate you, there is a difference between an embargo and a blockade-- namely that the latter is an act of war. Kennedy took that route. Fortunately, the Russians blinked.
The Vietnam war *was* escalated on Kennedy's watch... but had its roots as well as its worst aspects under others.
As for the Bay of Pigs, well, I'll let someone else handle that.
Kennedy was also loved for the way his tax cuts revitalized the economy.
I meant blockade, saying embargo was a freudian slipe but nonetheless agueing from the US perspective that having missiles in Cuba capable of hitting every major city in the US as being a "bad" idea and the only way to prevent more said missiles from entering cuba is a blockade considering that the alternatives of say... an airstrike and an armed assault on Cuba a member of the Warsaw Pact (more or less) would definitely lead to a world war while something as easily diplomatically manipulatable as a blockade may not immediately lead to a Soviet assault... what would you do?
1 decision leads certaintly into a war the other may or may not, you are between a rock and a hard place assuming of course that the action of letting it go by as being political suicide...
The point is that Pixiest is not giving JFK nearly enough credit, saying he's only thought well of because he was shot is to be discrediting and dishonorable to said presidents memory especially since he did much more for your country then some people are willing to admit. The Civil Rights Act, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Apollo Program are to me the defining moments of his presidency and to be what is defined is defined favorably.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I think the specific details of any Presidential candidates domestic agenda are fairly irrelevant since it is ultimately the Legislative branch that will set the details.
Between the tax cuts and NCLB, I think the Executive sets the agenda and the details.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Between the tax cuts and NCLB, I think the Executive sets the agenda and the details.
It certainly didn't work that way under the Clinton administration, even before the republicans took control of congress. It didn't work that way under Carter, Reagan or Bush I either and I don't see it working out that in the next Presidency either.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in modern American political history. To ask that question takes for granted that she's just some average woman running for president without any baggage, which is no where near the truth in this instance.
Definitely. I have a professor who is an avowed feminist and self-proclaimed liberal democrat, who said something along the order of it would be a cold day you-know-where before she ever votes for Hilary Clinton.
So, even among the Democratic base there are those who cannot stand her. This is a female, native New Yorker, who said she hates Clinton with a passion. *shrug* I feel this person would have no trouble voting for a woman, just as Dan said - not this one.
Another person I know is the president of the young Democrats club on my campus, says the same thing - she will never vote for Hilary. Now, of course, who knows what these people will do in the ballot box? And given a choice between Hilary and McCain, I don't know which they would pick. However, I was surprised to hear such vitriol from avowed Democrats toward one of their candidates.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The policy positions of Obama and Clinton aren't very different. Their attitudes are extremely different, and that means a lot to me.
Clinton in the White House means continued secrecy, continued power grabs, and continued infighting amongst subordinates while the President smiles and tells us nothing is wrong.
I might be ready for Kathleen Sebelius to become president, though...
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
What I've said in the past (and, fortunately, it seems likely I won't have to follow through upon) is: if Clinton got the nomination, I would vote for Clinton.
For Obama, I would vote, send money, go door to door, make calls, argue stringently with detractors... Possibly take a bullet...
For Clinton, I would vote.
Because for all my doubts, and for the disagreements I've had with some of her past actions, Clinton probably wouldn't keep us embroiled in Iraq, wouldn't put any more conservative activists on the Supreme Court, and is a basically competent and intelligent human being.
She's regrettably "politics as usual". But at least she can be counted upon to read the Cliff's Notes on a country before authorizing a military intervention.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree. In addition to the differences already listed, there is the fundraising difference. I would rather my President owe his election to an unprecedented number of small donors than to a few big donors, lobbyists and the politic al machine. And there is a difference is process. Senator Clinton will fight hard to win; Senator Obama intends to change the game to make it more democratic.
I would vote for Senator Clinton, but I will be very discouraged about what it says about the democratic process and the future of the country.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Just be ready for the onslaught of stories if Clinton loses discussing this very issue. If Obama, assuming he is the Democrat Presidential nominee, even starts to slide against McCain we will be treated to daily reports on racist white America.
This really bothers me. Just because I don't pick a woman or a black man doesn't make me a sexist or racist. For the press to say otherwise is rude. I'm sure, for some, it is so cut and dry, but for the most part, I think people are voting on the issues.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The exit polls, if I recall the reports correctly, did indicate that a lot of people in the recent W. Virginia and Kentucky primaries did factor race into their decision.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
We have in office presently an Executive that has grabbed power at an unprecedented rate, and we need a President who will relinquish much of what Bush has claimed, back down to Constitutional levels. Clinton will not do this; she does not talk about it, and does not deserve my vote. Obama isn't so great on this either...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What I see from the above is that when we don't complain of sexual bigotry when the wrong woman loses an election, we will be ready to elect the right woman.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dan: Condoleeza Rice isn't running.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wish she was. She'd get crushed.
The question of "are we ready for a woman president" is a dumb one to begin with. I think we're always ready for the right person to be anything. Asking about a generic woman president is dumb because make believe generic woman is unlikely ever to actually run.
Al Sharpton has run for president a few times and failed because he's just not a good candidate on the whole. If Louis Farahkhan ran and lost no one would say that we aren't ready for a black president, they'd say we aren't ready for THAT black president.
It's a dumb question, and I think it's designed to create divisions and make excuses.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: We have in office presently an Executive that has grabbed power at an unprecedented rate, and we need a President who will relinquish much of what Bush has claimed, back down to Constitutional levels. Clinton will not do this; she does not talk about it, and does not deserve my vote. Obama isn't so great on this either...
Somehow I just sense that Obama is equipped to begin the process of returning the balance of power to normal. Clinton is so willing to accept any possible advantage, I can't see her ever doing that.
It will be the test to see how Obama talks about Nafta now that Clinton is out of the race. The idea that the president should have the right to revoke treaties after they are ratified is one that comes from Bush, and it's wrong.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote: Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in modern American political history. To ask that question takes for granted that she's just some average woman running for president without any baggage, which is no where near the truth in this instance.
...
So, even among the Democratic base there are those who cannot stand her. This is a female, native New Yorker, who said she hates Clinton with a passion. *shrug* I feel this person would have no trouble voting for a woman, just as Dan said - not this one.
The question here is not whether or not Americans would or wouldn't vote for a woman--the question is *why* Hillary Clinton is such a polarizing figure, and whether or not (and if so, how) her being a woman has contributed to the negative opinions that some people hold of her.
A lot of this stuff isn't openly talked about--people have pretty strong opinions, for example, about her decision to stay with Bill. Was it for political expediency, or because she loved him? In conversations I've had, staying with him for political expediency is viewed extremely negatively--an indication of overly aggressive ambition. That leads us to the question of how Americans interpret overly aggressive ambition in men versus how they interpret it in women.
All I'm saying is the debate is deeper than we've touched here, and is about more than 'are voters sexist at the ballot box on election day?'. It's wrapped up in how we view "this woman" because her public image has been shaped by society (no matter what level of sexism you see present in that society).
Also--I agree with those who've said that the way she's conducted this campaign is responsible for her possibly losing the nomination. Particularly what scholarette said about the change message; people are unhappy with the incumbent, and running as the "heir apparent" just wasn't the right message for this election year.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kasie, I think your point underlines why the question "are we ready for a woman President?" is the wrong question. You're right in that it might have to do with societal views on women that go much deeper than simply holding office, but at the same time, there are several electable women out there. So clearly if we had two candidates, one female and one male, and were told "vote on them based only on gender, or you can ask for more information," I have to imagine a grand majority would ask for more info. That's because we'd elect the right woman, but what qualities does she have?
Is there still sexism out there? Sure, and double standards to go with it, ones that go both ways. But is isn't just the lack of a Y Chromosome that makes people not vote for women, it's something else. It might have sexist roots, way down, in the ways they do certain things, but women aren't patently unelectable. Often times the question we ask is just as, if not more important, than the answer we get.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Somehow I just sense that Obama is equipped to begin the process of returning the balance of power to normal. Clinton is so willing to accept any possible advantage, I can't see her ever doing that.
Exactly. Last year the Boston Globe issued a questionaire to the candidates and asked, among other things, the candidates' positions on executive power. Except for Mitt Romney, all of the candidates backed away from the current administration's opinions, but there were some interesting differences in what they would and wouldn't do. I was much happier with Obama's and McCain's responses than Clinton's. You can click on the links on the left of the page to see each candidates' answers. Compare those three to see what I mean.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The question of "are we ready for a woman president" is a dumb one to begin with. I think we're always ready for the right person to be anything.
Hmmmm, do you believe that Americans are ready for an Asian, atheist*, Muslim, or gay president? I don't. I think any one of those attributes would be enough to sink the 'right' person running for president, regardless of their stance on the issues.
Its a good thing that women's equality is so far along that we think the question is becoming silly for them, but there are still many other groups for which the question is still quite relevant.
* ready "again" possibly, and sadly
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: The question of "are we ready for a woman president" is a dumb one to begin with. I think we're always ready for the right person to be anything. Asking about a generic woman president is dumb because make believe generic woman is unlikely ever to actually run.
Well, I don't think it's a dumb question necessarily, I think the only dumb thing about the question is the notion that it could ever be employed to excuse blatant sexism. I am a supporter of Obama because I believe that he has more of an ability to bring people together, I believe he is not as polarizing as Senator Clinton, and I believe that their fundamental differences in areas such as health care and foreign policy make Obama a better choice than Senator Clinton.
That being said, what I have never understood about the notion that we aren't "ready" for something to happen is that it is employed to justify sexism, racism, and homophobia. No matter which way you say it though, it is never and can never be a justification for something that is inherently negative and destructive, and I think in this election, there are some who sought to defeat Senator Clinton because of a rampant sexism that pervaded the election. When a supporter approaches John McCain and says, "how are you going to defeat the bitch" and McCain laughs, it indicates that clearly there is a sexism that needs to be discussed here.
Part of the problem with Hillary Clinton is that she is polarizing, but part of that problem is that the reason she is polarizing to such a high degree is that some people, on both sides mind you, hate her because she is a woman so close to power. It's not her only problem and it does not encompass all of her detractors, but I believe that the hatred she receives is partly because she is a woman.
It is never a justification to say that we aren't ready for the correct moral position because humanity has the ability to learn and change, but it's not a dumb question to ask if thats part of the reason Hillary Clinton failed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Mucus -
I didn't comment on those questions. Those are separate debates entirely.
quote:Originally posted by Humean: but it's not a dumb question to ask if thats part of the reason Hillary Clinton failed.
That's a totally different question as well.
"Is the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman part of the reason she failed to secure the Democratic party's nomination?" is not the same thing as asking "Are we ready for a woman president?"
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:"Is the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman part of the reason she failed to secure the Democratic party's nomination?" is not the same thing as asking "Are we ready for a woman president?"
How so? I mean, inherently, both questions wonder whether sexism played a role in voters being turned off by her. If we aren't ready for a woman president, then clearly part of the reason Hillary Clinton failed to secure the nomination was because she was a woman. Thats not a totally different question, it's the same question asked differently, and part of the answer concerns the very nature of the sexism that she faced in the election.
ETA: You know what's interesting? The question of whether are not we are ready for a black President seems to be scoffed at these days, but the same question about women seems to be treated much differently. I think sometimes we are more willing to be sexist than racist, and though part of that problem is the perception of the feminist movement versus the civil rights movement, this election has shown us that there is an inherent problem that we must face in regards to both race and sex. If there is something to look fondly on about Senator Clinton's campaign it is that she will, hopefully, force us to face the problems inherent to our society concerning sexism, just like Obama has about race.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Lyr, I completely agree. The saddest comment is that the one woman who has even mounted a campaign with enough funding and infrastructure to run is the one who relied so heavily on her legacy as first lady. For her to turn around and claim sexism, after years of emphasis on her connection with her husband, is odd.
What is more odd, and what rarely sees the light in these conversations about her, is the dark reality of Bill's life, and his presidency. I for one thought he was a great administrator, but read his book, and the deep narcissism and total lack of personal insight on either of their parts is startling. He comes off as barely resembling a human being, while seeming to try quite hard to justify himself in his own eyes.
It's surprising to me that this aspect of the story was, in my view, treated very lightly by the press and public opinion throughout the campaign. But look at the last two months, and I think you can see the depths to which Hilary was willing to go to achieve the white house.
Also, I recommend that everyone look at the survey Chris posted. Of the big three, Hilary, Obama and McCain, Obama is the only one to attempt reasoned answers to every question, to consistently site precedent and law, and to go into specifics regarding the questions, while answering the prompts appropriately.
I don't know how Obama ever got a rep as being vague. Of the three, he alone presents a consistent and characteristic approach to the survey. His alone is the set of answers that actually tells you something about the way he think. Also, I think most telling: he is the only one, as far as I can see, who approaches the questions with an eye to answering them on multiple levels of detail.
Hilary answers a couple of complex questions with a simple "no." And her canned response to the last question is as follows:
quote: 12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?
I am happy to tell voters when I stand on the issues. I have a long record in public life, and I leave it to the voters to judge.
Why the canned response? Why the non-answer?
When asked who her legal advisors are, she responds simply: I have a diverse group of advisers" Obama gives names, as well as detailed job information. McCain declines even to respond.
As Chris points out in regard to the signing statements question, the most disturbing part is that her focus is on what she will do, instead of what her interpretation of the law, as it stands, amounts to. She as good as endorses Bush's use of signing statements by allowing that she will consider using them in the same way. and not offering a clear position on their legitimacy- only giving lip service to the notion that Bush over-uses them.
Obama roundly rejects the notion of signing statement in the context used by the Bush administration, and offers an appropriate context for their use, in which their application is clearly limited to that of necessity, bearing no resemblance to their use under Bush. He sites their appropriate use, but doesn't "leave the door open" for their abuse. McCain simply says: "I won't use them," which is a promise that may be inappropriate considering precedent. As a response, it also completely avoids the question of whether Bush's use of them is inappropriate indicating that McCain would not work to reverse the Bush precedent, merely avoid it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Humean -
quote:If we aren't ready for a woman president, then clearly part of the reason Hillary Clinton failed to secure the nomination was because she was a woman
For them to be the same question, you should be able to flip that around and have it work both ways yes? With the questions you have there, you can't.
I think that yes, if it were true that we aren't ready for a woman president, then it'd be a big factor in Clinton's loss. But, it doesn't automatically follow that since Clinton lost and she is a woman, that America itself is not ready for ANY woman president. One question specifically deals with Clinton, the other deals with every woman in the country. Both are under the umbrella of the gender issue, but they aren't nearly the same question.
It's impossible to separate Clinton's negatives and distill them and put value to each of them. You'd have to do a massive poll to find out what specific reasons people had for not voting for her, and then weight them all to see which was the most and least important. But even then I think it's silly because if not for Obama, she'd easily be the Democratic nominee, and I think she would've had a decent chance of beating McCain.
I think there are still big questions over whether or not this country will actually elect a black man (though I think it will), and polling data backs that up, though I do think you have a point about sexism vs. racism, but then, I think they are on entirely different playing fields. Gender roles are defined by different sets of criteria than racism.
I think in Hillary's case it has to do with gender roles and what I guess I'd call more subtle sexism. While I do think that there are some people out there who'll say "I just won't vote for her because she's a woman," I don't think that group is large enough to deny her the nomination or the White House. You'd have to look for something more subtle, like those who believe that she only stayed with Bill to use her marriage as leverage to get into office, and then you'd have to prove that a similar move from any woman compared to any man would garner the same response. You'd have to look at the role that gender played in the Republican smear machine building such a negative image of her. And even then we're talking about HER, not about every woman in the country.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: I think that yes, if it were true that we aren't ready for a woman president, then it'd be a big factor in Clinton's loss. But, it doesn't automatically follow that since Clinton lost and she is a woman, that America itself is not ready for ANY woman president.
If part of the reason Hillary Clinton failed to secure the nomination was because she was a woman, then it would seem that America is not ready for a woman President.
It's not really that hard, but my point was always that this sentence was true too. How so? Built into that first part of the conditional is the notion that some people voted for, voted against, loved, or hated Senator Clinton *purely* because she is a woman. It's also why I said that not everyone did so and this issue doesn't apply to everyone.
Part of the problem with debates like these is the fear from some people (I am not saying this is you lyrhawn, I don't really know if it is or not) that anytime a charge of sexism or racism is levied against something near you, a fear comes into play which tells you that you could be lumped in with those you do not deserve to be lumped in with. It's the problem we face in this PC culture we have created because when this happens everyone is too scared to talk about race or sex, and thus, nothing ever gets done and the problems this country faces with regards to race and sex are simply swept away by fear. It might be the case that most people voted for Obama or McCain or whomever because they simply liked them better or it could be the case that they would vote for a woman (just not Hillary Clinton), but I also think that for some people race and gender play key roles in whom they vote for in the presidential race. Some people (a few of my family members have said this) believe that because Hillary Clinton is a woman, that disqualifies her from being President (for instance, how would she deal with Muslim countries or what happens the first time she gets too emotional--I always answer "the same way Indira Ghandi or Margret Thatcher did" but they don't know who those people are and hence the problem becomes clearer), and that would suggest that some parts of America are not ready for a woman President. In that sense, thats why I believe it's not a dumb question--it is a perfectly good question because there are parts of America where that question applies. Thats just the way it goes, and the question is not dumb because if we can face it, then we can fix it.
quote: I don't think that group is large enough to deny her the nomination or the White House. You'd have to look for something more subtle, like those who believe that she only stayed with Bill to use her marriage as leverage to get into office, and then you'd have to prove that a similar move from any woman compared to any man would garner the same response. You'd have to look at the role that gender played in the Republican smear machine building such a negative image of her. And even then we're talking about HER, not about every woman in the country.
Well, there aren't any numbers to back up what you say here but thats not the most interesting thing--clearly there are other reasons she did not win the nomination (running a front runner campaign in Iowa for one--not looking ahead to a possible fight for the nomination are just a few) but when you say that it's *her* that I was talking about and not every other woman, you forget that however many people didn't vote for her because she was a woman would not vote for any other woman in the country either. I never said that this is why she lost the nomination, I only argued that it wasn't a dumb question because I think there are some people who could look at the way in which they treated her and realize that their actions came from a place of sexism, and thats something that is very important in realizing the nature of the sexism that still exists in America. The point of this whole thing is that I want to find out those numbers, the numbers of people who wouldn't vote for her simply because she was a woman, and that's why "is America ready for a woman President" is not a dumb question, and then, I want to see what we can do about changing this attitude so that we can be better for it.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I'm ready for a woman president.
LOHAN/SPEARS IN '08!
(If you disagree, you're sexist)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: It's not really that hard, but my point was always that this sentence was true too. How so? Built into that first part of the conditional is the notion that some people voted for, voted against, loved, or hated Senator Clinton *purely* because she is a woman. It's also why I said that not everyone did so and this issue doesn't apply to everyone.
It might seem simple, but there is no *purely* about it. The fact that she is a woman was also central to her campaign strategy, and the "pure" fact that she is a woman is a fact that was related, by her and others, to her treatment of other issues. If you were to ever claim that such a vote, "purely" against a woman candidate for that sole reason existed, then you'd have to show that those voters had no familiarity with her use of her gender. It's a weird tautology I can't get my mind completely around, but the fact that she is a woman also causes the fact that she is a woman to be an issue in the campaign. If that effect were minimized, then I might be more credible of the notion that there were any "purely" anti-female voters.
The problem is you are claiming essentially that this ground-state exists, in which the fact that she is a woman will affect certain voters, some of whom for that reason will either vote for her, or against her. But the fact that she is a woman is applied to a field in which her character and image, her issues, her history, and that of all the other candidates is also applied. There can be no "pure" sample of anti-women voters because even if they self-identify as such, they really can't be.
There's got to be a simpler way of saying that, but what I mean to say is that it is misleading to assume that anyone, anywhere, voted for this reason. The fact that the statistics bear out the gender division is not proof that the gender division is the root difference.
It's something I remember learning about in an anthropology and human behavior class- you cannot assume that a fact which applies statistically will apply to individuals in a predictable way. This tendency to infer the specific in the general is both the reason racism and sexism exist, and the reason we believe that racism and sexism stems from individuals, when in reality racism and sexism are not individual problems, but societal ones.
I had a philosophy teacher who I used to go out for coffee with after class (summer sessions) a couple times a week. Every time I would start mentioning what "ordinary people" do, inferring specifics in the general, he would always say something "who are these people? I've never met any." But I think the point he was making was that they don't really exist.
At no time is there an individual acting on this impulse, and this one alone, to vote against a woman for the fact that she is a woman. Each of those people, given the correct set of circumstances, is capable of voting for a woman. The views of individuals is expressed on a spectrum, not a set of discrete points. If the correct conditions apply, anyone will do anything you can imagine.
From what I've studied in psychology and sociology, behavior experiments consistently show that people are more like mini-societies in themselves, in which the proper set of conditions will produce a certain response, but that uncertainty applies, and not all of the conditions are measurable, so the response can only be predicted according to a spectrum.
Is there a sociologist who could sum that up more clearly?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If part of the reason Hillary Clinton failed to secure the nomination was because she was a woman, then it would seem that America is not ready for a woman President.
Part of the reason John Edwards did not win the nomination was because he was a white male. By your reasoning, it would seem America is not ready for a white male President.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:There's got to be a simpler way of saying that, but what I mean to say is that it is misleading to assume that anyone, anywhere, voted for this reason. The fact that the statistics bear out the gender division is not proof that the gender division is the root difference.
I worked for the Obama campaign here in Texas and saw many people who simply would not vote for a woman, many in my family would not vote for a woman under any circumstances, and the only thing misleading about thinking that some people would never vote for a woman is hiding from that fact. I have seen it, and unless the only people in the country who hold this view also work for the Obama campaign, then the attitude I have seen many places suggests that the problem is much more prevalent than we would believe. I would never argue that sexism is the sole reason Clinton lost nor would I claim that most Obama supporters are sexist, I would only say, and have said since the beginning of this debate, that there are people out there that contributed to the demise of Hillary Clinton purely because she is a woman. To what degree, I don't know, but I do know that a small part of Senator Clinton's loss was purely based on her sex.
Just like part of the reason that Obama has lost in some states is because he is black. Thats a fact that, as a nation, we need to face.
quote: Part of the reason John Edwards did not win the nomination was because he was a white male. By your reasoning, it would seem America is not ready for a white male President.
Not really. This is a straw-man counter-argument, and thus, does not hold any weight against the argument I presented.
ETA: I'll tell you a story that I heard from one of the people in my precinct. I did door-to-door canvassing in my precinct and I remember many of the people that I met. One was a man of about 60 who was a Vietnam veteran, and I got to speak with the man for a good 20 minutes. We debated Obama's patriotism (he believed the flag lapel thing and that he didn't like this country because he didn't place his hand over his heart) and his love of this country, we debated whether Obama could actually do anything in Washington with the little experience he had (I argued against that--I think Obama does have the experience), and then we spoke of Hillary Clinton as counter-point to Obama. His response about Hillary Clinton was that women shouldn't be President, and that there was a reason that men do the fighting in war and women are the nurses who tend their wounds far behind enemy lines. He said he would never vote for a woman because women are far too emotional and weak to do the tough job that is foreign policy and because he felt that Muslim countries around the world would not take us seriously with a woman President.
And the same goes for Obama in West Virginia for instance, especially if you saw the interviews they did with people who voted against him. Part of the reason, not the sole reason and certainly it wasn't everyone, that he lost West Virginia was because of deep racial divide that extended both ways in that state.
[ May 24, 2008, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Humean316 ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Humean, that's the problem with being in Texas. ;-)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Humean, You are once again getting confused between the general and the specific.
I have no doubt that there are Americans who would never vote for a Woman, but that does not mean that a woman could not win a US presidential election. I know a lot more Americans who would never vote for a Republican than those who would never vote for a woman, yet this nation elected a Republican President in the past two general elections.
The question of whether or not gender is a deciding factor for some individuals and whether or not gender is likely to be the deciding factor in a US Presidential elections and of whether or not gender has been the deciding factor in this primary election are 3 different questions.
I don't think that gender has been the deciding factor in this years primary. It has certainly worked both for and against Clinton and is likely at worst a neutral factor. I think if the right woman were running for President, the majority of Americans would be willing to vote for her.
I think that the more compelling question, is why the right woman hasn't ever run for President. This is the first time we have ever had a serious woman candidate for President.
Its interesting to note, that the country with the 3rd largest Muslim population in the world (India), elected a woman president over 40 years ago. The country with the world's 2nd largest Muslim population (Pakistan), elected a woman president 20 years ago.
To me, the question we should be asking isn't, "Is this country ready for a woman President?", but "Why aren't there more women out there who a ready to run for President?"
I think Hilary has broken important ground with her candidacy. I think it shows progress that gender has been such a minor issue during her campaign. I am confident that more women will follow in her footsteps in coming elections and hope there will be soon be a time when there is a woman Presidential candidate that I can throw my support behind.
Hillary just isn't that woman. I'm somewhat disappointed that she and her supporters are tarnishing her accomplishments in this elections with a bunch of sour grapes pouting about how the country isn't ready for a woman to lead them.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I have no doubt that there are Americans who would never vote for a Woman, but that does not mean that a woman could not win a US presidential election. I know a lot more Americans who would never vote for a Republican than those who would never vote for a woman, yet this nation elected a Republican President in the past two general elections.
Well, I never said that a woman couldn't either. The only thing I have ever said is that maybe the question of whether or not we are ready for a woman President is not a dumb one. I am not confused about the general and specific, my argument has been, and has always been, that maybe the sexism Hillary Clinton faced in this campaign is not simply confined to her or her policies, maybe its a more endemic problem that needs to be talked about and discussed. In some sense, the 60 year old veteran I spoke to also speaks volumes about the electorate itself. How much of Hillary Clinton's failure is a product of her gender? Is America ready for a woman President? The question isn't dumb because though there are people who would vote for a woman (just not this one), there are some who would not.
Everyone keeps saying, "Hillary just wasn't the right woman", but thats not even close to the point I was making. For some people that is true, for some people Hillary Clinton just wasn't the right woman even though they would vote for the right woman in a heart-beat, but as I have said over and over again, there are some who would not vote for a woman, even if she was the right one. The 60 year old Vietnam vet, my cousin, the man who called Hillary a "bitch" to John McCain (can you imagine *anyone* calling Barack Obama a N***er and getting away with it?--even in my post right here I am allowed to call a woman a bitch but I really can't use the N the word--are you really sure that sex had *nothing* to do with Hillary Clinton's loss?), are all perfect examples, and though yeah she wasn't the right person for you for whatever reason, the question still remains whether sexism had a bigger role in this election than we'd like to think.
We can also speak about how some people wouldn't vote for Republicans, Democrats, Muslims, or atheists but that is a different situation because those are choices that people make. Being a woman, an African American, or even a homosexual are all parts of the human condition that cannot be chosen. People can choose not to vote for a Democrat and I wouldn't cry anything, but if you don't vote for someone because they are a woman or an African American, then there is a cry of racism or sexism that should be levied.
ETA:
quote: I think that the more compelling question, is why the right woman hasn't ever run for President. ... To me, the question we should be asking isn't, "Is this country ready for a woman President?", but "Why aren't there more women out there who are ready to run for President?"
Which is our way of saying that we aren't doing anything wrong, it's the people we discriminate against that just aren't ready. Could it possibly be the case that there are women who are ready to be President but sexism has been one of the things that keeps them back? Could it be possible that the right woman has tried to run for President, but since women didn't get the right to vote until suffrage, that maybe our sexist and prejudice feelings had something to do with it? I don't think those are dumb questions, and I believe they are the more compelling.
[ May 24, 2008, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Humean316 ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Actually Humean, right after you say you are not confusing the general with the specific, you then immediately confuse the general with theh specific.
There is a very good reason why the anecdotal is so convincing, and also so dangerous. The fact that people exist who would not vote for a woman in present circumstances is irrelevant- those people are a minority, they are not representative.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:There is a very good reason why the anecdotal is so convincing, and also so dangerous. The fact that people exist who would not vote for a woman in present circumstances is irrelevant- those people are a minority, they are not representative.
Ahhh but for that to work you have to know that they are the minority. And just how do you know that? Do you have some kind of numbers that tell you that? A poll? What tells you they are the minority? And how do you know that it is not representative of a large group of people?
I have never said they were the majority, I tend to believe they are the minority too, but the question isn't dumb because we just don't know. Thats why I always ask if it's possible, I never say that it is because I don't know and have never said that I did, but inherently, thats why the question is important. Thats not confusing the general with the specific, thats wondering if something specific is an example of the general, which is a valid question.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think that if the office of the president is held by a woman we should give the title a feminine attache.
Presidania
Presidenette
Presidentia
Presidonna
Any other ideas?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Its interesting to note, that the country with the 3rd largest Muslim population in the world (India), elected a woman president over 40 years ago. The country with the world's 2nd largest Muslim population (Pakistan), elected a woman president 20 years ago.
I believe Indonesia had one a few years ago.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I forgot all about that. Yes, Indonesia the world's largest Muslim country elected Megawati (a woman) President in 2001. She governed the country until 2004.
I find it ironic that certain American (see Humean's example), maintain that we wouldn't be respected by Muslim countries is we had a woman president when the three countries with the largest Muslim populations in the global have all elected female leaders.
On one hand, I agree with Humean that this is a discussion we need to have in this country. If there are people who are willing to say they would never vote for a woman, there are certainly more who feel that way but won't say it. And even more who may not ever consciously think it but still feel uncomfortable voting for a woman candidate. Many maybe even most Americans vote based on their gut feelings about a candidate rather than rational evaluation of any criteria. And I know quiet a few people who consider themselves to be women's advocates yet who feel uncomfortable around women who have authority or are too outspoken.
On the other hand, I think this is the wrong time for this nation to have this discussion for several reasons. Right now it is impossible to separate this question from the Clinton campaign and has been noted many times the issues in her campaign are far more complex than simply gender issues. If you are a woman working in a man's field (and I suspect if you are a minority in any professional field) you very quickly learn that complaining about unfair treatment gets you worse than no where. You get branded as a whiner and someone unwilling to take responsibility for their own destiny. If the situation is too egregious, you can go to court and you may win a big lump of money but you will have to win enough to live on because you will likely be black balled everywhere from then on out. So right now, talking about gender bias in elections doesn't do Hillary any favors. It just makes her look even more like a bad loser.
Beyond that, asking the question right now is bound to offend a lot of people. Right now, that question essentially points a finger at everyone who is backing Obama (and maybe even McCain) and calls them sexist. In fact, certain people in this thread like Pixiest have done exactly that. You simply can't have a productive discussion about gender issues if you start off by unfairly accusing people of voting for Obama solely because he has a penis.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Personally a part of me wants Obama elected so that we can all stop going around trying to convince each other that we're all racists, even just for a week. A bigger part of me likes him for being a great candidate on the other merits, but I'd say handling his image the way he has, given that he's black, has only helped my estimation of his character.
Like Obama has said many times, the fact that he is black is an aspect of the race, but there's no god-given reason why it should be a bad thing for us to be aware of it. Boiling it down to the primary reason for his success would be a mistake, of course, because of all the black people in America, he's the one that so many believe could be president- so it's self-evident that his being black is not the only reason.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: On the other hand, I think this is the wrong time for this nation to have this discussion for several reasons. Right now it is impossible to separate this question from the Clinton campaign and has been noted many times the issues in her campaign are far more complex than simply gender issues.
I agree that the issues of the Clinton campaign go beyond sexism, but I also think the important question about her campaign (and her in general) is the notion of why she creates such a polarizing political environment. People tend to either hate her or like her, and I would bet that part of that hatred has to do with the simple fact that she is a woman (it's obviously not all and not the only reason).
Of course, I don't think it is ever the wrong time to discuss issues that we, as a country, need to face. In my very first post about this topic, I said that one of the reasons "are we ready for a woman President" is not a dumb question is because of our tendency to use this as an excuse to maintain the status quo. To me, humanity is always ready to be better, to fight intolerance, and to face the difficult choices and conclusions inherent to the human condition. Only our own weakness and inability to face those tough and difficult choices keep us from becoming better human beings, but that's a challenge we should always be willing and able to face.
quote: Beyond that, asking the question right now is bound to offend a lot of people. Right now, that question essentially points a finger at everyone who is backing Obama (and maybe even McCain) and calls them sexist. In fact, certain people in this thread like Pixiest have done exactly that. You simply can't have a productive discussion about gender issues if you start off by unfairly accusing people of voting for Obama solely because he has a penis.
Then don't do it. Being offended, being lumped in with those we shouldn't, and the fear we all have of being labeled as a racist or sexist in a PC society like ours are all problems we face in this debate, but we shouldn't shirk from our responsibilities or an opportunity we have to improve ourselves simply because the task at hand is incredibly difficult. Those difficulties will still be here in later years, and all we do, as we have done with sexism and racism over the years, by ignoring those problems is to create more problems for ourselves.
Who doesn't think our society would be better if we finally dealt with those problems of race we have so convienently swept under the rug? Who doesn't think that humanity itself would be better if we learned to be heroes and face the tough choices? The difficult discussions?
We have the ability to be better, all we have to do is get in the game. A wise man named Sorkin taught me that...
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:Its interesting to note, that the country with the 3rd largest Muslim population in the world (India), elected a woman president over 40 years ago. The country with the world's 2nd largest Muslim population (Pakistan), elected a woman president 20 years ago.
And Irami mentioned Indonesia.
I would like to point out (especially to all of those who believe Hillary's experience as First Lady is false experience), that all of those women were elected because of family ties; or, in the additional cases of Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir, because the country in question has a parliamentary system--meaning the executive is selected by party members (elites) from a pool of elected legislators.
Indonesia: Megawati Sukarnoputri is the daughter of Indonesia's first president, Sukarno. Elected 2001. Served until 2004.
India: Indira Gandhi's grandfather, Motilal Nehru, was a prominent Indian nationalist leader. Her father, Jawaharlal Nehru, was a pivotal figure in the Indian independence movement and the first prime minister of India. (Gandhi served 1980-1984.)
Pakistan: Benzair Bhutto, first elected in 1993 as prime minister of Pakistan, was the eldest child of former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Israel: Golda Meir (in office 1969-1974) was Israel's first woman prime minister and the third woman in the world to hold this office, but the first to do so without a family member having been head of state or government. Israel has a parliamentary system; she served in several cabinet posts before being chosen for the PM job by fellow elected party members.
UK: Margaret Thatcher, prime minister from 1979 until 1990, originally elected head of the Opposition in 1975.
Guyana: Janet Jagan - elected Guyana's leader in 1997 after the death of her husband, the previous president
Argentina: Isabel Martinez de Peron - sworn in as interim president of Argentina in 1974 when husband Juan Peron fell ill and died; kept power until 1976
Argentina more recently: Cristina Fernandez elected president, replacing her husband
The only example I can find of a woman running and being elected by the wider populace without having family ties to the office is the recent election of Michelle Bachelet in Chile.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You are forgetting Angela Merckel of Germany.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I also think your assessment that the UK and Israeli Prime Ministers aren't elected by the general populous is erroneous. In practice, the British Prime minister is selected by a general election as is the Israeli Prime Minister.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
You're right about Merkel.
But Rabbit, you lost me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Kasie, Officially in the US, we don't vote for President. We vote for members of the electoral college who will select the President. But in practice, I think its fair to say that the President is elected by the general populous. The electoral college just ends up being an elaborate and somewhere bizarre way to weight votes from different states differently.
In the UK, although on the books the Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen who is bound by law to select the leader of the party who holds a plurality in parliament, in practice its fair to say that the Prime Minister is elected by the general populous. Long before the elections everyone knows who the leaders are of each party. On election day, the ballot may contain the names of candidates for seats in Parliament by party, but everyone knows that a vote for a "Labor candidate" or a "Conservative candidate" is in actuality a vote for a particular Prime Minister. All the Brits I know think of their vote as a vote for a Particular Prime Minister much as Americans view their vote as a vote for President and not as a vote for the Electoral College. In fact, the practical reality is that the British Prime Minister comes closer to being chosen by direct election than does the US President. Your inference that Prime Ministers aren't elected by the general populous may be accurate in a technical sense but it doesn't reflect the practical reality of the situation.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Rabbit, respectfully, I disagree. In the U.S., the electoral college is designed specifically for the election of the executive. Sure, it's not direct democracy--and we can have a debate over whether the U.S. system or the British system comes closer to the ideal of direct democracy (if, in fact, you consider than an ideal)--but there can be no question that in the U.K. the leader is chosen by the party, not by the people. When people go to the polls on election day here in the U.K., they typically vote mostly based on party loyalties because the nature of the system means that the party in power *has* more power to get what it wants done. Sure, they might know that they are getting a particular prime minister--and they may vote against a prime minister's party because they don't like what they're doing.
But look at Gordon Brown, for example. The last round of British parliamentary elections was in 2005; Blair's Labour Party won. While there was wide speculation that Brown was likely to be the next prime minister, no one knew for sure; when Blair stepped down, Brown was tapped as his successor without a single vote from a regular citizen being cast. Now, it's entirely possible Brown's Labour Party will lose (as they did in the local elections held recently), but if they do, it will be for a more reasons than just a dislike of Brown.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
But Kasie, We aren't talking about Gordon Brown. We are talking about Margaret Thatcher. She had been leader of the conservative party for over 4 years before the conservatives took control of parliament and she became Prime Minister. In 1979, every one voting in the UK knew that a vote for the conservatives was a vote for Thatcher. It is virtually unquestionable that her leadership of the party played an important role in the conservative victory in 1979. Certainly if Brits had held a strong bias against having a woman head of government, they would have been less likely to support the conservatives and Thatcher. If other leaders in the conservative party had sensed that having a woman leading the party was a disadvantage in the general election, Thatcher wouldn't have got that position in the first place.
So my point is that claiming Thatcher doesn't count because she wasn't elected directly is splitting hairs.
Now its unquestionable that there were bigger issues in that election than Thatcher's gender, but there are bigger issues in this election as well. That's the point.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I'm saying that there were much bigger issues than Margaret Thatcher when she was elected. Voters had a lot more to consider than just a prime minister, just as they had more to consider than just her gender if they were thinking about a vote for the conservatives as vote for her. I'm also not disputing that there's more to consider than just Hillary's gender. All im saying is that the effect of gener might be underestimated by the participants of this thread.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:All im saying is that the effect of gener might be underestimated by the participants of this thread.
Then we are more or less in agreement. As I stated above, I think the question of why there aren't more women ready to run for high office in this country is an important question to address.
My point in bringing up countries that have had women Presidents and Prime Ministers was to demonstrate that the US isn't leading in this area. In fact we trail behind countries that a reputed for their regressive attitudes towards women. I'm not sure where that gender bias enters the equation. It could be that our electoral process tends to amplify the influence of personal traits like gender over position. Which is I guess what you were getting at.
It could also be that subtle cultural biases mean that women start opting out of career tracks that might lead to high political office when they are young.
It could be the WW II backlash where women who had held important jobs during the war were asked to step aside to make room for returning vets. It could be a reflection of the 1950's and 60's suburban trend which (for a time) made working women a curse of the lower classes. After all, even though those cultural conditions have turned around dramatically it takes along time for them to work their way through the system.
I fully agree that this is a discussion America needs to have. But I still maintain that this isn't the right time to have it because right now that debate is inseparable from Clinton's candidacy. As has been pointed out repeatedly, its important not to the confound the general and the specific.
Its possible that their are general biases that keep American women out of high office and that those biases are not a deciding issue in this election. Its possible that Hillary evokes gender biased reactions from many people who would not reactive negatively to some other woman. Having this debate now means we will have a debate that is overshadowed by the details of Clinton's candidacy and will miss the general gender issues.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: Then don't do it. Being offended, being lumped in with those we shouldn't, and the fear we all have of being labeled as a racist or sexist.
Humean, I wasn't mearly "lumped with others". Pixiest's accusations of sexism were directed specifically and personally at me. I was challenged to defend myself.
Realistically, that is the inevitable course of this debate. People like Pix who have a strong opinion that no one could possibly prefer Obama over Clinton for any reason other than his penis, will insult Obama supporters. You can't have a rational debate when you start by insulting a large fraction of the people. The result is the people become defensive rather than open to evaluating their own behavior.
Posted by Luna 9 (Member # 11326) on :
Ahem. 9 year old here! Well anyways, Hillary would be the first female president, but her health care plan is a bit iffy. Obama, however, seems like a sophisticated young man. People at my school have opinions that Obama is a muslim and will bomb our country, but them knowing a speck of politics in highly unlikely.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Argentina: Isabel Martinez de Peron - sworn in as interim president of Argentina in 1974 when husband Juan Peron fell ill and died; kept power until 1976
I wouldn't chalk that up as a win for democracy though. Pretty thorny history there.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Some might argue that the 1979 victory for the Conservatives, led by Margeret Thatcher, was more a reaction to the previous Labour government. Indeed they might go on to argue that if the Tories had been lead by a talking donkey they would probably have won too.
Not to equate Baroness Thatcher with a talking donkey. I would never do that. Some of my best friends are donkeys.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
"Are we ready for a woman President"
Who is We? I think if one looks closely at the "Are we ready for a woman President," or "Are we ready for a black President" questions, the answer comes down to white American men. Women or blacks don't have a problem voting for women or blacks over white men, and lumping the three categories together as a "we" subsumes and marginalizes the vast majority of blacks and women who have been ready for generations and are forced to wait for white men to get over themselves.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Do you believe that there are female racists and/or black misogynists?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Irami, that's a disgusting comment, aside from being wrong and overly simplistic. The "We" here is an open question, plainly.
There are approximately 100 million white males (non-Hispanic) in America, that's 33% percent of the population. You can go around whining about anything you want when it comes to white Americans, it's all been said, but there's nothing that changes that number.
If everybody else is ready and willing to vote for women and blacks, and has been "for decades" then I see little to stop them, even if all white American males, regardless of their heritage, social status, politics, wealth, education, or religion, voted as one big block. Oops, what you said was racist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* Some of the most virulent racists -- and misogynists -- I've ever met have been women, Irami.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Why is Senator Clinton such a polarizing character?
Recently she has been less than correct with the truth.
Those who are for her believe her.
Those who are against her do not.
This is the same division I see with President Bush.
Some people believe every word he and his crew say.
Some don't.
Thats where the shouting begins.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *laugh* Some of the most virulent racists -- and misogynists -- I've ever met have been women, Irami.
That's my experience as well. I think perhaps it is not a matter of women being any more prejudiced than men, but the imperatives for maintaining socially responsible appearances are different between genders. I think that many women who have fallen into this category don't seem to cultivate the insight, or the appearance of insight, necessary to defend their prejudices and remain apparently credible.
My late grandmother is an excellent example for me, of someone who was fundamentally racist, and had spent her life free of challenges to her assertions. My mother balks at such challenges in a way that my father could not afford to do. That doesn't make their opinions different, but their outward demeanors are. In our society, we unfairly assume that women posses intuition unattainable to men, and I think that some women use that assumption to justify indefensible reasoning. That at least, is my experience with my mother, take it as you will.
I think this is part of the reason shows like Sex in the City, centered around feminine empowerment, are insensitive and shockingly denigrating to male characters. A similar show, like Entourage, though it does show men objectifying women on a near constant basis, highlights the negative consequences of this behavior, and rewards characters for being sensitive to feminine needs. The women of Sex in the City never suffer realistic consequences of their poor priorities, but men in similar shows tend to. Entourage is almost entirely based on showing how men's priorities and behaviors have such negative consequences for them- even if the situations depicted aren't exactly realistic.