English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

there are more women than men.
The smartest person in the world to this day is a woman--marilyn vos savant

If the US isnt sexist, why havent we had a female as president?

2007-06-13 15:12:57 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

vcx...just a hunch, but you're a republican, right?

2007-06-13 15:21:18 · update #1

Albert, blacks make up 16% of the US population..women make up over 51%
Not a good comparison

2007-06-13 19:08:46 · update #2

dancing, I have a friend who practices family law. Sorry sweets, you are wrong about women getting half. You're a red state republican, arent you?

2007-06-15 01:15:17 · update #3

open, LOL I asked why we havent had a female prez yet, NOT have any females thought of or made attempts at running.
LOL and you say i'm an idiot when you didnt even answer the question

2007-06-15 01:17:03 · update #4

27 answers

I'm a Republican woman, and we haven't had a woman president yet because men are still and always will be sexist, and so will most women. Men are insecure, and women are resentful, that is the way of things. Someday maybe it will even out, but there is a long road ahead.

2007-06-13 15:55:45 · answer #1 · answered by JeN 5 · 1 1

Everybody is sexist, without exception. It would be a very dull world if we weren't. However, the point of the presidency has to do with history. Until relatively recently women in all parts of the world were regarded as less than men and even considered property. They still are in many places. It is taking time for competent women to rise above that dumb stereotype but many have and many more will. For example, there are more women in colleges now than men. That wasn't true a very few years ago. Given time, a woman will be president.

America is ready to accept a woman as president with little trouble. There's nothing wrong with that concept and gender isn't the issue like it was a few years ago. You can see that clearly in the fact that much of congress and the senate are now female. I, for one, would not be at all happy about Hillary as president but an honest and rational woman, an honest and rational anything, would be fine as president. Gender is not what I vote on, it's character, something neither Clinton has.

2007-06-13 22:27:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

Well the U.S. isn't as sexist as it USED to be, that distinction is important. After Geraldine Ferraro, I think many women politicians got cold feet about considering a White House run. I know she was only the VP nominee and there are those who claim they didn't lose because of her, but I think that is probably wishful thinking.

Times are much different now. We have 90 women in Congress and one of them is two heartbeats away from the Presidency. People have become much more used to seeing women in important governmental roles. People also remember Margaret Thatcher from England and how effective she was. All these little things add up and contribute to the growing acceptance of a woman as President. I think it's Hillary's time and there is no doubt that she has an excellent shot at the nomination.

There are still misogynists around and fools who think women still belong in the kitchen but their numbers have shrunk considerably.

2007-06-14 01:07:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

How old are you and do you know that women weren't always allowed to vote ?
The US Constitution was written and signed by men.
Men who are commonly refereed to as "the founding fathers".

In 1984 the Democrats nominated the first woman for the Vice-President with Walter Mondale. Her name is Geraldine Ferraro. See the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Ferraro

They lost to George H.W. Bush. It was the only Presidential election that George the 1st won. He lost the next election to the Clinton/Gore ticket. But he still has the power that no one man should have.

If the Decider-ator permits us to have a presidential election in 2008 the Democrats may nominate a female.

I was raised in New Jersey, my father worked for a corporation and my mother stayed home to raise 4 children. That was back when one income families were common and the United States was not a Debtor Nation. So there weren't many women that were working. World War II changed that and women started working while the men were off at war.

When I met my wife she was attending college in NYC. Both her parents worked. When she graduated and found a job I went back to school. During those days if you went to a City college part time it cost you $35.00 per semester - no matter how many credits you took full time cost me $65.00 per semester. I graduated in 1975. The next semester the NYC schools were charging for each credit taken.

The economy is such that a college degree is required for most office jobs. The colleges are so expensive that students have to borrow to go to college and are in debt when they graduate. My son has a large college loan that he has to repay and his girlfriend has an even larger amount.

That is a very bad sign for the future of the country. Whatever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happyness.

My grandfather became a vice-president of a major bank in NYC with only a high school diploma. He didn't need a college education. Home economics was the major of many young ladies in high school.

So I don't know if I'd call it sexist other than situational and economic circumstances that has kept women out of Politics.

Its changing though the "good ole boy" network is wearing thin and the "good ole girl" network is on its way.

2007-06-13 23:11:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

The world is still a bit sexist, but I don't think this is the main reason behind fewer women at top positions.

I don't think either that you can demonstrate the validity of a particular woman for a particular post by using the example of the gender of the person with the highest IQ. It simply does not work like that: IQ test do not measure how creative is the person, how good is dealing with adversity, how adventurous is or how much of her/his personal life is willing to sacrifice for success.

I have my own answer to your question and I hope my arguments are useful to find yours.

2007-06-15 16:13:58 · answer #5 · answered by El Cuervo 4 · 0 0

Both sexist and racist. The most discriminatory lines spoken and accepted by our society is, "Is America Ready for a Black/Women President". In this day and age a country which is proclaimed the cradle of equality is running behind countries like India and Pakistan which both had women Prime Ministers in the 80s.

And how did your question become about Hillary, I didn't see her name mentioned in your question?
But hey! any publicity is good right?

2007-06-14 00:15:38 · answer #6 · answered by Roy 4 · 1 0

Because we haven't wanted one yet. When the right one comes along we will elect her but until then it will be a mans world. So far there haven't been any women that have ran for president that have been worth a pile of beans. I don't see anyone in the near future either. Just the way it is. Deal with it.

2007-06-13 23:44:33 · answer #7 · answered by bhopefull 3 · 0 1

You are completely right :)
However, in a society obsessed with pick up trucks, wrestling and rap "artists" it's probably quite difficult :)
The above reasons can perhaps explain, why there hasn't been an intelligent president of either gender in last 8 years?

2007-06-14 08:37:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Anyone who is not "sexist" by your definition is an idiot. Men and women are different. I think there is no higher honor for a woman that to become 1st Lady. Haven't you ever heard the old saying, "Behind every great man is a great woman."??

2007-06-13 22:19:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Because they are not many women that enjoy political life. Some chose another more peaceful path... Politics is a very dirty job, and not the faint of hearth will enjoy it... Women are generally more receptive and sensible, which is a disadvantage when you are in politics...

2007-06-13 22:21:37 · answer #10 · answered by Jedi squirrels 5 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers