Why did England have queens hundreds of years ago but the U.S. can't elect a female president?

Question

Do we seriously pretend to be civilized and beyond gender bias? Are we regressing?

Answer 1

It's because queens took power through filial ties. There were times that there were simply no men left, or the woman was just too strong and smart to be overcome.

These days, people are the ones that elect the president. One reasone are there those weho try to rationalize that women can't be a leader because they can't be trusted when they can be so hormonal.

Another reason is that women have yet to nominate a proper candidate. what i'm afraid with Hillary Clinton possibly running is that she might be too liberal to garner enough votes.

The reason that Adlai Stevenson didn't win in 1956 was that the Democratic vote was split, but that's a generalization so forgive that.

What i find funny is that the country that prides itself in progress has yet to elect that female presiden when a country thats so torn and as "third-world" as the Philippines, has Gloria Macapagal Arroyo... The UK has had Thatcher and others have done the same as well.


And CCHANGE45?.... Margaret Thatcher served as Prime Minister the longer than anyone since the the 1800s and did the UK a wonderful job at her leadership position...

Answer 2

England had queens hundreds of yesrs ago because they are of the royal family and won succession to the throne , we in this country elect our presidents based on who is running so far when women have ran for office i dont believe they have stayed in the race to get them to the primaries so they could win .

Answer 3

Because the people in this country are a bunch of chauvinist pigs and say one thing and do another. Other countries have had elected female leaders and they've done an excellent job, but here its always rich white guys that get elected. Isn't that amazing? Isn't that pathetic?

Answer 4

Well, for one thing, the monarchy is hereditary. So far, the presidency is not. Stand by for further developments....

But you have to hand it to the Brits: theirs is one of the few monarchies where women were allowed to inherit the throne in their own right.

In 2008 we could conceivably be looking at a race between a Black and a woman. Or even between a Black woman and a White woman.

Answer 5

I've always wondered about that, so far none of the U.S. presidents have been minorities or women, despite the fact that when polled 92% of the American population said they would vote for a female if she was from their party and qualified.

Answer 6

Because they have a different government system than we do. There kings and queens are picked by family and sucession. Not elected, notice Prince Charles and then William then Harry. They really have no real authority.

Answer 7

We are not regressing at all. We are progressing, and when a candidate of any quality is brought forth who can represent this whole country and not just her sex or race or socialist cause, then I will give that person serious consideration. Until then I will continue to vote for the best qualified. period. What is it about real equality that people don't seem to understand.

Answer 8

Maybe because no woman ever ran for President, ya think? How can a woman ever be Prez if she doesn't run? And yes, if it's the right candidate, she would win.Hillary and Condi are a long ways away from being the right candidate.I don't think people care anymore, as long as it's the right person.

Answer 9

Prime ministers aren't directly elected in England.

Also, Margret Thatcher was the PM, and a woman.

Answer 10

Well, first off, I'd never vote for a non White. Or a Jew. That's just my preferences, racial loyalty. So Condi is automatically out. Clinton is WAY too liberal. I think the US would benefit from a Thatcher like woman. Thing is, our female politicians do not support my beliefs and convictions, so I would not vote for one.