Is the United States ready for a female president?

I dont see why not.  I have no problems what so ever with that.

Originally posted by arch.buff At present? no. Ever? probably not. Now Im not sexist or have anything at all whatsoever against females but in most crucial situations I would say that men generally handle it better. This is just how the two genders are made. Women generally are more emotional people and act on emotions more just as some men do as well but as a whole I would say men are more analytical. In truth if my decision was on two candidates that both had good sound points and opinions on the way a country should be ran and I was in the middle of the road with the two votes and one of those candidates happened to be female than I woukd more than likely vote for the male ONLY because generally I would believe that the man would handle a significant life-threatening/saving chose especially regarding war, in a more non-emotional way. Notice how Ive used the word "generally" a multitude of times.

I swear I've heard this before ... Oh, yes, in one of the PBS "American experience" documentaries on the history of "Miss America". I don't know which candidate was that but she gave almost the same answer (with the same reasoning) that arch.buff did when she was asked the same question that's asked on this thread.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/missamerica/filmmore/pt.html

"PAGEANT BROADCAST: Parks "This is a presidential election year. If a qualified woman were running for president, how would you feel about voting for her and why?" Contestant: If the men candidates running were qualified, I feet I would vote against her. My reasons being that women are very high strung and emotional people. They aren't reliable enough when it comes to making a decision, a snap decision. I believe that a man in such a predicament would be able to make a more justifiable and better decision. "

As you see, I didn't make this up!!!!! The documentary doesn't indicate which year that was, but from the look of it (it's in Black and White - but you can definitely tell the contestant in question was blonde as everyone else at that time ), it must be in the late 50's or early 60's.

I guess Americans' perception on gender hasn't really changed that much since the 50's ...

 

It is interesting to note that throughout history women in power have an unusual tendency to get their nations into armed conflict. Whenever I hear one of my dear lady friends say how free of war the world would be if it were run by women, I run off names like Catherine the Great, Elizabeth II of Russia, Irene of Byzantium, Elizabeth I of England, Isabel of Castile, Margaret Thatcher,  Zenobia etc. Women actually have some impressive achievements as martial leaders.

Unfortunately most voters haven't heard of half those women and would still have the shortish and scrawny looking Bush (he just isn't intimidating or manly IMHO) in charge rather than a lady who could pack a punch.

Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Originally posted by Constantine XI It is interesting to note that throughout history women in power have an unusual tendency to get their nations into armed conflict. Whenever I hear one of my dear lady friends say how free of war the world would be if it were run by women, I run off names like Catherine the Great, Elizabeth II of Russia, Irene of Byzantium, Elizabeth I of England, Isabel of Castile, Margaret Thatcher,  Zenobia etc. Women actually have some impressive achievements as martial leaders. Unfortunately most voters haven't heard of half those women and would still have the shortish and scrawny looking Bush (he just isn't intimidating or manly IMHO) in charge rather than a lady who could pack a punch. I know, it is stupid that people think that people think that women would stop war. It seems that a larger percentage of women have gone to war in history then men have.

Some:

Elizabeth I

Catherine the Great

Golda Meir

Indira Ghandi

Margaret Thatcher

War acknowledges no gender.  Never has; never will.

 

Originally posted by Constantine XI It is interesting to note that throughout history women in power have an unusual tendency to get their nations into armed conflict. Whenever I hear one of my dear lady friends say how free of war the world would be if it were run by women, I run off names like Catherine the Great, Elizabeth II of Russia, Irene of Byzantium, Elizabeth I of England, Isabel of Castile, Margaret Thatcher,  Zenobia etc. Women actually have some impressive achievements as martial leaders.

I agree. The gender of a leader has nothing to do with whether he or she is willing to involve his or her country in an arumed conflict or not. A war is a war. The desire to protect one's own interests is the same in any country whether the leader is a man or a woman. So I think it's absurd for anyone to argue that if the world is run by women, it would be a better place. The world just hasn't given women enough the chance to show their real colour ...

It might be interesting to see Pancho Villa's opinion on this:

(from a report of the American journalist John Reed)

Once I asked him him if women could vote in the new Republic. He was sprawled out on his bed with his coat unbuttoned. "Why, I don't think so," he staid, startled, suddenly sitting up. "What do you mean, vote? Do you mean elect a government and make laws?" I said I did and that women already were doing it in the United States. "Well," he said, scratching his head, "if they do it up there I don't see they shouldn't do it down here." The idea seemed to amuse him enormously. He rolled it over and over in his mind, looking at me and away again. "It may be as you say," he said, "but I never thought about it. Women seem to me to be things to protect, to love. They have no sternness of mind. They can't consider anything for its right or wrong. They are full of pity and softeness. Why," he said, "a woman would not give an order to execute a traitor."     "I am not so sure of that, mi general," I said. "Women can be crueler and harder than men."     He stared at me, pulling his mustache. And then he began to grin. He looked slowly to where his wife was setting the table for lunch. "Oiga," he said, "come here. Listen. Last night I caught three traitors crossing the river to blow up the railroad. What shall I do with them? Shall I shoot them or not?"     Embarrassed, she seized his hand and kissed it. "Oh, I don't know anything about that," she said. "You know best."     "No," said Villa. "I leave it entirely to you. Those men were going to try to cut our communications between Ju�rez and Chihuahua. They were traitors - Federals. What shall I do? Shall I shoot them or not?"     "Oh, well, shoot them," said Mrs. Villa.     Villa chuckled deghtedly. "There is something in what you say," he remarked, and for days afterward he went around asking the cook and the chaimbermaids whom they would like to have for president of Mexico.

Originally posted by arch.buff What? In Americas short history it has seen more war thru male presidents then virtually all women led wars in history. There just havent been that much volume of women in history that have been in a position of absolute power. Maybe Im not understanding the above posts but are we suggesting that more women(when in a position of power) have gone to war as opposed to men???

No, I am saying that a larger percentage of women that have been in power seem to go to war more than men who have been in power. Of course, there have not been enough women in power. That not at all means that women are more warmongerish, but it proves the point that women do not hesitate to go to war.

Originally posted by eaglecap Opposed restrictions on the 1st Amendment by the gay mafia and other groups. (Australia and Canada)

Sorry, but what do you mean by this one?

Originally posted by Constantine XI Originally posted by eaglecap Opposed restrictions on the 1st Amendment by the gay mafia and other groups. (Australia and Canada) Sorry, but what do you mean by this one?

In Canada you cannot speak out in public, even in a church, or criticize gays at all, it is a hate crime.
In the case of Victoria, Australia you cannot do the same about any religion even if it is the truth. There are some Pastors in jail in both Canada and Australia.
Now with the gay issue there are some extreme gays who wan the same thing and they attempt it every year.
Currently, in the State of Washington, my state, they are trying to push HB 2661 or gay rights initiative, against the will of the majority. It would give them special rights and restrict free speech to criticize them in any way. I am not sure if it will be criminal penalties or not. Most likely any church, synagouge or Mosque which preaches anything negative about homosexuality will have their tax exempt status taken. I believe it will eventually, in defiance of the first Amendment, lead to criminal prosecution. I am not religious but I believe strongly in the 1st Amendment.
Gay issue is more another thread but I wanted to answer your question and no I do not hate gays but the lifestyle is much unhealthier than being straight and I have the right to talk about this.
I have been doing my duty as an American and telling as many Washington residents (mostly friends) that I can about this.


Edited by eaglecap

Mostly all of those laws were made because of the crazy preachers who speak out against gays as sinful fornicating evildoers who deserve death.