Doesn't anyone out there think if women were president we wouldn't have so many wars!
2006-07-14 10:08:05 · 28 answers · asked by Someone 2 good 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
i think there should be we can do everything and anything as good as any man
2006-07-14 10:19:43 · answer #1 · answered by moka29420 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
A woman who's qualified certainly can be president.
But let's not fool ourselves and fall into a fallacy. Just becuase we may have a woman president, that doesn't mean we wouldn't have a conflict. Many people want peaceful solutions to things-- that doesn't mean everybody does. There have been wars and conflict for all time (e.g. Cain and Able) and there will likely be for many generations and centuries to come.
I don't want a president (of any sex) who simply will not fight. Diplomacy is best, but when push comes to shove that person must be able to make the tough decisions.
Looking thru the comments and thinking... Its ironic that we pride ourselves in the US as being progressive thinkers about society, liberty, freedom, civil rights, equality and all that jazz. Yet, there are several OTHER countries who have elected more female leaders way before us.
2006-07-14 17:19:10 · answer #2 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm all for qualified women being elected president. Could a woman have done any worse than the bozo who's in there now? I think a good time to start would be in '08 with our first woman president - Hillary Clinton. What we need is another Clinton running this country. Remember how good everything was when Bill was president? Now that Bush and company have 8 years to screw things up, let's get Hillary in there to straighten things out.
2006-07-14 17:26:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
So many people look at this question and suddenly the sexist nature of old comes out. It's a true shame.
If a person - male or female - runs for presidency and they have the knowledge and capability to do the job - they should be president.
So many people suddenly think that a woman would be "too emotional", as though that stereotype applies to every female member of society. All one has to do is place a stereotype on a man to see the same result. i.e. "A man has too much testosterone and would lead us to war." Both are equally ridiculous responses.
If a woman can do the job and is capable of leading our nation, then she will get my vote. If she has ideas that are contrary to my own and is running against a man that has ideas more in line with mine, he will get my vote.
Sex should have nothing to do with it. It's simply a matter of who can get the job done, who makes promises that are in league with what you want to see happen to the country, and who you feel will keep the US in top shape.
2006-07-14 17:17:20 · answer #4 · answered by Madame Gato 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A president should not be picked because they are a man or a woman. The choice needs to be made on 1. Are they smart enough. 2. Do they have the same goals as majority of the voters and 3. Can they accomplish those goals?
War is not a "male only" problem.
2006-07-14 17:21:18 · answer #5 · answered by Gregory B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
--Actually Female leaders from India and UK have just the same amount of wars as far as an average for leaders. Wars are not started by men. It is usually with political situations unavoidable regardless of gender. Do I think a woman should be President? If it is a good woman. However since women gave up their moral base to start playing men, instead of being ladies, they have become less impressive with time and became bickering harpies of pointless political battles because they feel the need to soothe their egos. But that is just my opinion.
2006-07-14 17:16:29 · answer #6 · answered by raiderking69 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fact that anyone would even ask this question as well as others responding as if it were a normal question tells you something. What it tells me is that 1. we are still living in primitive times. To dismiss one sex or the other of the same specious this way is brute ignorant behavior.
and 2. The USA is till very uptight and ignorant. Around the world throughout Europe and Asia, we have many female heads of state...but the USA has never had one. And further this question still comes up for debate again as if it were a rational question. It is not...Truth is apparent and easy to understand: women are as fully human as men. There! Do you get it America?
2006-07-14 17:33:08 · answer #7 · answered by Greanwitch 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely, there should be a female president.
The only problem I can foresee with that would be whether or not the woman had a family. If she didn't, it would be difficult to gain support, since the opposite party could berate her as 'not being family oriented'. However, if she did, it would be difficult to take care of both a country and her own family affairs at the same time.
2006-07-14 17:17:00 · answer #8 · answered by Pendergast 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have no problems with a capable woman being the President but it has nothing to do with wars.
2006-07-14 17:10:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Prez?
A Hilary, No.
A Condalleezza, Yes.
A Gamble, Yes.
Worth the risk, No.
If a _guarantee_ came with a woman prez, of no wars, then other countries would all walk over us. Its enough that they pull crap when they influence us to vote in a fool.
2006-07-14 17:43:20 · answer #10 · answered by baghmom 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sorry Kemo Sabe, women are'nt my choice for Pres.
I don't think the cause of wars are male presidents fault.
It has nothing to do with gender. Your phrasing in your posted
question furthers my point on female Pres.
2006-07-14 17:42:02 · answer #11 · answered by anitababy.brainwash 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋