Ironically USA is one the countries that spawn human rights practices, but seems to be lagging behind in practicing them. Like having female leaders UK has a Queen and margaret thatcher, Germany now has Chancellor Merkel, Phillipines has Arroyo, Iran had Benazir Bhutto, Indonesia had Megawati, India had Indira Gandhi... the list goes on....( although Gondalezza Rice and Hillary are close but no cigar )
2006-09-11 06:37:23 · 32 answers · asked by Sheena 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
oops... thank you for the correction... I should have read better. Mrs Benazir Bhuto was Pakistani leader. :) Sorry
Also, although Queen E doesnt do much ruling, Margaret Thatcher does... and SHE is one MIGHTY strong girl!
I love most of the answers so far!!
2006-09-12 16:19:08 · update #1
It seems to me as an outsider who spent 2 years in the US under Papabush, that most US american men are too afraid of women to vote for one, and an awful lot of women, especially the "Christian" ones, don't have enough self respect to be able to hold another woman in high esteem.
2006-09-11 06:43:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Americans have not voted for a female leader for one reason or another, could a woman do just as good a job? I am sure she could but we have not had a woman make a strong run for it, by the way the Queen of England does no leading whatsoever she is a figurehead the Parliament does all the law making and leading . Just like the US government the president has limited power he must go through congress and everyone else.
2006-09-11 06:49:40 · answer #2 · answered by martin d 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This country was founded and grew , with only White Male leaders . We only feel comfortable with WM as leaders and Ceo's . They have run ( sometimes pretty poorly too ) this country since the beginning and it's high time to let a lady run it for a while , can't do any worse , then what we have today .
Hey joe b , those aren't even contenders , there is someone out there , that will do the job much better . After all , she will be a women !!!!!!!
2006-09-11 06:48:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Many Americans buy the lie that females are too driven by emotion to make sane decisions. Women have successfully led Fortune 500 Companies, have led nations across the world, and are generally more able and practiced at multi-tasking. Managing a household (paying the bills, coordinating kids schedules, resolving conflicts, etc) is far better experience for the job of President than is running a failed oil exploration company.
2006-09-11 06:42:25 · answer #4 · answered by hgheartland 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Emotional instability...Look at the track record of train wrecks, that would be the likes of Barbra Boxer, Diane Fienstein, Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, Maxine Waters....If women in office weren't so radicalized then maybe they would have a shot. But so long as there are out of control women with massive chips on their shoulders with something to prove, it will NEVER happen.
Vote in some rational non-chest thumpers and I'm sure positions in higher-office will increase. Vote in these nut jobbers? Forget it.
The truth is the truth, and it doesn't always feel good.
PS
Yes there are a lot of wacky men in office no doubt. But since women are such the minority it would be in their best interest to have the best showing possible...In that they have for the most part failed miserably.
2006-09-11 06:49:26 · answer #5 · answered by joe b 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
When they find a woman qualified for the job, I'm sure she has a very good chance of being elected. However, that hasn't happened yet. I for one, REFUSE to vote for Hillary Clinton. She's nothing more than a common criminal. They way she got into any office at all shouldn't have been allowed. Bring on the right candidate and she'll have a good chance of making it.
2006-09-11 06:54:47 · answer #6 · answered by HEartstrinGs 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Horny hillary-or comfy condy should run.....it is about time the us had a female president-long overdue in fact.(lets face it-a female could hardly do any worse than a man-or THE man in charge now..could she!?)Apart from the dreaded "poll-tax"(still around-different name but still around)Margaret thatcher did quite a bit for great Britain,and for women and children in particular...pity about that bit of rock in the south Atlantic called the Falkland islands though..and a certain miners strike!
2006-09-11 07:39:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess when women in this country can agree on how to legislate their own bodies, we could unite. But as long as women call each other 'emotional and vindictive' we won't be represented for awhile....oh yeah, and when we get over the fact that presidents have affairs, and that there are more important things in this world. So there...sex is the problem, and the solution.
2006-09-11 06:42:24 · answer #8 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you really think the Queen of England does any ruling at all? You're out of touch..
If Hillary became president (never happen) i'll move to another country.. that would mark the end of America if that happened.
2006-09-11 06:48:16 · answer #9 · answered by xjujijimex 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Benazir Bhutto was in pakistan....Not Iran.
Anywho...U make a very strong point. US has a male dominant society...Women are treated by their looks...not brain.
2006-09-11 06:47:11 · answer #10 · answered by FORD on FIRE 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋