Does anyone see a woman getting elected to the US presidency within the next 25 years? Women make up the majority of our population, yet are severely underepresented in Congress, and state public offices. It looks like Hilary Clinton is the only viable female canidate out there, but I think people have tired of her. What would it take for a woman to have a realistic shot of being elected president? Is it even plausible?
25 years is a fair amount of time, so maybe. In the present climate though, I think election of any of the following is unlikely: * a female President * a black President * an atheist President * a President from a northern state
Women are still in a bad position in society to run for president. If they act the way 'women are supposed to' they will be seen as weak. Otherwise they seem too masculine.
i think a women would be able to do the job of the president just fine and i think it will happen in the near future. just please dont let it be hilary.
Aren't women less likey to take military action though? I know that women are 'generally' usually against wars. I think that the only two people in the senate or house or whatever voting against our involvement in WW2 were women. Some say that Bush is a war monger, but shit needs to be done, I'd rather have someone more apt to war than someone totally against war. Besides, if the people in our country *really* didn't want want this 'War on Iraq' it wouldn't happen, simple as that. Since Powell's speech support for the war jumped from 50-somthin' odd percent to 70-something' percent. This isn't just about military action though, the government was designed basically with men in mind, women were never even thought of as becoming presidents then. I wouldn't doubt if in the future a woman or a black/mexican/chinese/whatever man/woman will be come president. It'll eventually happen I guess... I just think that it'd be a terrible idea if a woman were president. Not because she'd make a bad president, just because of human nature. She'd be less apt to take military action, and we have enough protection against bad decisions as it is, no it's not *really* an issue. It's not like there is this huge number of wars we've been in that the country opposed and our war mongering president started, it's not really a big deal. --Another thing is that a female president can't represent a country like a man can, bottom line. If you need proof look up any of the hundreds of studies they've done on it. It's why women in business or positions of power wear business suits and not dress, it's why they wear stronger and bolder colors and not pink, it's why they try to appear slimmer (thinness is considered instictually a masculine trait...think of women and their 30% or so extra body fat), it's why they wear shoulder pads...they're trying to appear more masculine. Only 7% of communication is verbal, and a man conveys a stronger message than a women does, it's not bad or anything, it's just biologically how things are. Women are more *sensible* in most cases, more emotion and think thigns through more, but often times you need a snap judgement and some balls to make those decisions. A woman would make a great president though if all of the leaders in the world were women. In my opinion at least. But i doubt that'd ever happen. As things are now, men just do it better...though in my opinion things would be better if all women ruled the world as opposed to all men...thered be a conflist though, especially if the house/senate was made up of men and the lead positions were made for women....i don't know..I'm rambling...time to go to work Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Grey Seal: <i>Some say that Bush is a war monger, but shit needs to be done, I'd rather have someone more apt to war than someone totally against war.</i> I imagine you have no personal experience of war - correct? (No, I don't either, but I get the impression that war is not much fun.) <i>Besides, if the people in our country *really* didn't want want this 'War on Iraq' it wouldn't happen, simple as that.</i> Last I heard, only about 40% of Americans would back a war against Iraq without UN support. That doesn't mean the US won't go to war, though. <i>This isn't just about military action though, the government was designed basically with men in mind, women were never even thought of as becoming presidents then.</i> Yes, all <b>men</b> are created equal, according to your Constitution. Women are still struggling for equality. <i>I just think that it'd be a terrible idea if a woman were president. Not because she'd make a bad president, just because of human nature. She'd be less apt to take military action...</i> From my point of view, that would be a welcome change. There should be more of it. <i>Another thing is that a female president can't represent a country like a man can, bottom line. If you need proof look up any of the hundreds of studies they've done on it. It's why women in business or positions of power wear business suits and not dress, it's why they wear stronger and bolder colors and not pink, it's why they try to appear slimmer (thinness is considered instictually a masculine trait...think of women and their 30% or so extra body fat), it's why they wear shoulder pads...they're trying to appear more masculine. Only 7% of communication is verbal, and a man conveys a stronger message than a women does, it's not bad or anything, it's just biologically how things are. Women are more *sensible* in most cases, more emotion and think thigns through more, but often times you need a snap judgement and some balls to make those decisions.</i> Oh dear, you have been sucked in by the patriarchy, haven't you? If having strength and "balls" is what is needed to succeed in business or politics, perhaps it is time that business and politics started judging people on useful criteria - like business and political skill. <i>As things are now, men just do it better...</i> How do you know, if a woman has never been given a chance to try the job?
if you think women are less liable to go to war then you obviously have never competed with and against them in a sport. i have played alot of league tennis with and against women. men can play and never have any problems or complaints about the opponents, but women never fail to argue, protest and fight until long after the match is over. often times never speaking to the other people for weeks on end. its just like cats never fight.
Is that neccessarily a bad thing? I think a women would be willing to use military force when needed. Why do you feel women are totally against war? If Margaret Thatcher was the president, do you think she would shy away from war? Times change, I believe the govenment's design is more than capable of allowing a female president. I think your playing into the stereotypes of women. Look at other female World leaders, theses issues weren't a problem with them, why would it be with American women? I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I see no difference in the performance of female senators, governors, congresswomen, mayors, etc.., as compared to their male counterparts. Women wear this stuff to tone down their sex appeal, so they can be taken seriously. Their motives are not to look like a guy.
Black, Female, Gay, Tall, Short, Martian... What possible difference would it make? Does the President really run the US? I really see no difference in presidents. The agenda needs to change. It doesn't matter who the President is. Look at the idiot in office now. The agenda is still the same.
jesus christ you guys. i was in a hurry this morning and i know i didn't do a very good job in explaining my point of view, but hell, i didn't explain it that bad. many of the parts you've quoted aren't even worth responding too since i never had that opinion in the first place; it was a part of a whole, taken alone it has a whole different meaning. that is unless you had to cut out part of what i wrote to amke your point...i guess it's okay in that case... anyway... i have not been to war. but shit dude, please shut the fuck up. who the hell said war is a good thing? me? no, you? no...anyone on this forum? no... i simply implied that sometimes things have to be done. think of it this way, if you could save 1 million children by slapping yourself 20 times in the face would you do it? or would you not do it because slapping yourself in the face "is not much fun"? yeah, that's right...shut the hell up. and i know how you are by judging your 1st response, so let me clarify... DISCLAIMER:that situation will probably never happen, but it was simply to prove a point. Last 'i heard' it was close to 70%. it jumped after powell's speech. whether that is with or without UN support i don't know. but the thing is that you said 40% were for it. that doesnt mean that 60% are against it. i would guess that 20-30% are against it. Do i know for sure? naw. i stated that... "if the people in our country *really* didn't want want this 'War on Iraq' it wouldn't happen, simple as that." that's exactly what i said. i dont consider 20-40% being against it a *real* opposition...do you? didn't think so. if there were really that many people against it, sao 60-70% something would be done. i think most people just don't care enough about it either way. could i be wrong? i wouldnt doubt it. don't spew this shit, please don't. if you know as much about american history as your confidence implies, you know that the "all men" part really means *all* upper-class protestant white men. they didn't mean anyone else, bottom line. yes, it's great that things have changed, and i hope that they continue to, but this isn't a women vs the world thing, sorry bro.~~ jesus christ james, you should run for president. what a monumental idea...less wars. hell, why don't we just shoot for world peace? wow, why hasn't anyone thought of this before ~~ you know, it's also funny how you cut the quote off there and didn't list the rest of it. it's shit like that that pisses me off. the next few sentances explained it more. it's like guerrilla tactics i tell you!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! you know james, sometimes i wonder why you're here picking apart other people posts, only quoting and responding to the peices and parts that you 'can,' i mean hell, you should be the head of some civil rights shit. i mean really. these ideas you have...wow, pure fucking un-adulterated genius! ~~ especially this one..."perhaps it is time that business and politics started judging people on useful criteria - like business and political skill." i mean wow james...wow. groundbreaking! and you know what else? people should be judged on their personalities alone too, and not their looks! i think we've really got something here. o wait...let's think about this. why are people judged on their looks instead of their personalities? hrmm... well, if you don't know that maybe you should read up on psychology and evolutionary psychology/biology. hell, why you're at it, just read on on physical attractiona and physical appearance and what affect they really have on people's perceptions and responses. maybe you'll actually learn why women try to appear more masculine in the business environment. maybe it'd explain what i said. then maybe you won't make such obvious statements. i mean, what could make you go "no shit" more than what you just said. i mean hell, basically what you said was why can't people just be judged on their ability and talent in doing things. that'd be great wouldnt? well, so would world peace and true communism. there you go again. what happen to the rest of my quote preceding that statement? o, thats right, james cut it off to prove his point. it's funny how you quote everything i wrote that seems against women, yet strangely...everything i typed in full support of women, including when i typed "in my opinion things would be better if all women ruled the world as opposed to all men" was left out. and it's funny because that came RIGHT after the quote above. thank you ladies and gentlemen, and i'd like to send a big "fuck you" out to james r. i don't think ive really read any of your posts, but if they're all like this i don't know how the hell you became a moderator.
now to respond to the other posts... you're right, i'm sorry dreamer, sports are exactly like war. women are less likely to go to war man. it's just the way things are. i'm not saying it's bad, i'm just saying that its true. womens brains are smaller, and more tightly packed. they have many more connections in their brains which allows things to flow...well, differently. i don't know if i'm explaining this right, but overall it makes women more likely to opt for a verbal, non-violent solution...of course, you could always also blame it on the testoserone ~~ you're right. but there are two sides to everything. they may also be less likely to use military force when needed...well, maybe needed is a bad word to use, but lets just say...when it'd be the better choice as opposed to waiting or continuing to negotiate... ooo shit. u named one fucking example...ok, because of that one example let me retract my point...MY BAD ~~ anyway, i don't feel women are totally against war. they are less apt to take military action. no shit. just like it was designed to be a *white man's* world yet we have women and minorities in positions of power and wealth. the design is capable of anything, that doesnt change what it was initially designed for. not stereotypes...maybe generalizations. anyway, our country isnt another country...it's the US. you can't compare like that, we have totally different countures. if you knew how anorexia was tied to women becomming part of the workplace you would understand. it's more based on society and our culture than anything, its the way we as americans are. now as things continue to change, so will our society. if things continue to change, anorexia will dissapear as a problem as fast as it became one...have you noticed that anorexia isn't as much a problem as it was in the 90's? it's because women are not becomming part of the workplace anymore, they are part of it...and things will continue to change, which is awesome. i know this anorexia thing may not make sense, but if you really care i can explain it and how it has to do with...um...this discussion. look closer. it has nothing to do with performance, that is relative and judged subjectively usually...look at the way they perform, men and women do things differently. of course, it's not easy to see since their actions are subjected to the judgements of others...others have to approve...they have motivations...they dont make their own choices. i know i'm not explaining this well, but maybe it's because i'm out of touch with this shit, who knows. like dk said...it's not really them making the choices anyway, it's usually the same shit. he's trying to get reelected...its a democracy, hes trying to satisfy the majority, plus senate/reps influences are represented No, sorry. I may not know much about politics per se, but i do know my shit regarding this, so...well, i better not say it. It's not to tone down their sex appeal. It may do that in effect, but it's something larger. The big thing about it is that it is subconscious. ...And of course they don't want to look like a guy...per se... Just read up on, well a bit on psychology and then read on attraction especially. It'll all make sense. It has to do with, well, uust read up on that stuff, if i say it it won't mean much, but when you read it in a few other places from 'legitumate' resources itll make sense. Also, over the next, well lets say 20-50 years it should top out. It's pretty close to topped out now, but it'll be extremely settled by then. You know how men and women's styles are pretty similar now? Well by then they'll be basically the same. just look at womens styles 100, 50, 20, 10, 5 years ago. they *were* vastly different from males' and now women can wear mens' clothes and be normal...however that's more than we can say for men wearing womnen's clothes Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! i'm just trying to say that it's all for a reason...just how the 'invisible hand' guides people in their economic choices and it seems like it just happened that way. it's all for a reason.
:bugeye: I guess we will have to disagree then. The history of female World leaders throughout history contradicts this. Please show why you believe this. Anorexia is still a problem, and it was never tied to the workplace. It has to do with women who have a distort view of their figure. Out here in California, we have two female senators. I don't see them performing their jobs in a different way from their male counterparts. The same with Hillary Clinton.
Grey Seal: I only quoted the parts of your post that I did not agree with, or which I thought were badly thought out. Most of the time, there's really not much point in quoting large slabs of text followed by "I agree." <i>i have not been to war. but shit dude, please shut the fuck up. who the hell said war is a good thing?</i> You criticised women for being unwilling to go to war. Hence, it follows that you think going to war can sometimes be a good idea, right? I'm just glad that there are people out there who are much less willing to go to war than you appear to be. <i>...if you could save 1 million children by slapping yourself 20 times in the face would you do it?</i> Of course. Perhaps you can explain to me how war saves children. <i>i would guess that 20-30% are against [war with Iraq]. ... i dont consider 20-40% being against it a *real* opposition...do you?</i> Yes I do. 40% means 2 out of every 5 people you ask are against the war. In a group of five people, that's 3 against 2 for war. I'd call that real opposition. <i>i think most people just don't care enough about it either way. could i be wrong?</i> If that is the case, more people should care, because it will affect them one way or another. <i>jesus christ james, you should run for president.</i> Unfortunately, I'm not eligible. <i>what a monumental idea...less wars. hell, why don't we just shoot for world peace?</i> Yes, why don't we? <i>you know james, sometimes i wonder why you're here picking apart other people posts, only quoting and responding to the peices and parts that you 'can,' i mean hell, you should be the head of some civil rights shit.</i> Before or after I run for President? <i>i mean really. these ideas you have...wow, pure fucking un-adulterated genius!</i> Thanks. One tries one's best. <i>...maybe you should read up on psychology and evolutionary psychology/biology. hell, why you're at it, just read on on physical attractiona and physical appearance and what affect they really have on people's perceptions and responses.</i> Been there, done that. <i>maybe you'll actually learn why women try to appear more masculine in the business environment.</i> What makes you think wearing a suit is "more masculine"? <i>it's funny how you quote everything i wrote that seems against women, yet strangely...everything i typed in full support of women, including when i typed "in my opinion things would be better if all women ruled the world as opposed to all men" was left out. and it's funny because that came RIGHT after the quote above.</i> It's also inconsistent with the thrust of the remainder of your post, so I concentrated on your real point. <i>thank you ladies and gentlemen, and i'd like to send a big "fuck you" out to james r.</i> Because I disagree with you? Charming.
To all women in business (Let's ask the women why they wear suits and so on, rather than guessing, ok, Grey Seal?) If you're a woman who works in an office and wears smart clothes, please tell us why you dress the way you do. Thanks.
static. that's not the best example. all you see is what they do on tv...or what you hear they do, but unfortunately so do I. Maybe i'm wrong, hopefully not. truth is i responded to your statement for the sake of responding really, I didn't have a point regarding woman senators since that's not really what i started off talking about. i never said it wasn't a problem anymore. i simply stated it's not as much a problem as it was. though it will continue to be a problem as long as skinny is the attractive thing. anorexia isn't really in itself the problem...girls wanting to be skinny. it's more than that. it's girls wanting to be attractive, beautiful and over doing it. skinny is simply 'the attractive thing' right now. not until the 1900's did skinny become fashionable. it became fashionable because women started working. men are associated with success because men are successful, because men were the only ones that worked and therefore succeeded (per se). that's why women started attepting to appear more like men, shoulderpads, firm handshakes, bold colors, thinner figures, pants/suits etc. to appear more successful. that's why skinny is in. being this is a more masuline quality. women naturally have some 30 odd percent more fat on there bodies, that's why thinness is considered a masculine trait...and since women started working thinness became more attractive. now the reason why i said you cant compare our countries with others is because different countries usally have different ideas of what is attractive (though this is becomming less and less with 'americanization' and really became less when the world started intermingling and uhh...'osmosis' occured) . like in africa where they still have a hunter gatherer society. women still stay at home only, that's all they do...much like they used to in the united states. therefore women in their society are only child bearers/home-makers (is that the right way to say it?). in their society the fatter the women the more attractive they are. the women int that society stuff their clothes to be more attractive. remember in earlier america/europe when women used to wear those puffy clothes? the dresses with the huge asses sticking out, they used to stuff them to make them appear...ermm...fuller. that was attractive then...it represented femininity (is that a word?) i sort of lost my train of thought...was talkign to a friend, but that's how thinness became attractive. as time goes on and success becomes less affiliated with males, the 'attractive' thing will change (probably), but who knows right?
