England, India, New Zealand, Argentina to name a few more, and we keep falling for the lie that we are the most progessive nation in the world
2007-12-28 07:03:17 · 22 answers · asked by mlizaa 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I find it interesting that no women have made a comment so far.
2007-12-28 07:45:59 · update #1
Considering Bhutto was exiled for embezzling while Prime Minister, I wouldn't be so quick to brag about her.
It took the Civil Rights movement of the 60s to leap frog into the Women's Rights movement. Until this time women in America were treated like second class citizens.
Now women are being all that they can be and someday will be president. I just hope it isn't Hillary.
2007-12-28 07:11:00 · answer #1 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
how many have ran? that answers your question.
For starters, there have been less than 20 candidates in history to ever run. Less than 5 were even viable candidates, the rest were pretty much the equivalent of you or I getting on a state ballot.
Secondly, we are a melting pot society of many different cultures. Argentina, India, New Zealand and even England for the most part are largely homogenous cultures. Its easier for say a white woman to get elected by a purely white populace, or a black woman with an entirely black populace.
Thats not how it is here. We are more ethnically/culturally diverse than just about any nation.
Lastly, the best of the best in America don't get into politics.
2007-12-28 07:12:01 · answer #2 · answered by Phil M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it has to do with the fact that the US has more qualified males than females. America's only qualified female, who has extensive REAL experience in international diplomacy, was a leader in education, was the National Security Advisor prior to her appointment as Secretary of State, isn't interested in the job. The one who is interested isn't remotely qualified. The latter has about 20% of the intelligence, experience and understanding of the world situation that the former has. To compare the latter to such female leaders of actual stature, such as Ghandi and Thatcher, or even Merkel, is ludicrous. Aging hippie females simply don't belong in the modern political arena. Talented females do have a place in politics. Unfortunately, they're currently in short supply. The most recent female flash in the pan, Royal, had many of the political views of Clinton, but was soundly trounced by Sarkozy. That sort of thing is what we can expect in November, even if Clinton manages to squeak by the convention with the nomination of her party. I predict, however, that Obama will be the Democratic choice. One could say that he only has "carry-on baggage", while Hillary is burdened by far too many steamer trunks to be allowed on Air Force One.
2007-12-28 07:08:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I guess if you don't like it you can move to Pakistan.
Truthfully, the USA has never had a female President because no female worth her salt as a leader has had the nuts to bother trying to run for President. If they can't grow enough of a spine to run, they're never going to become President, are they?
Hillary isn't a choice. The woman has used a man to get everywhere she is in this world. She did it all off the back of a man, and not even a good one at that. Is that the kind of follower you want as a leader?
2007-12-28 07:08:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Surely the question is which women have run for major office in the US? To answer your question, your average Joe in the US is basically an isolationist and conservative. Take a look at the changes since 1950 - there is a basic immaturity the two parties exploit in order to divide power between themselves.
2007-12-28 07:11:11 · answer #5 · answered by Seán O 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
that's purely a count of time till now we've a woman president. the persons who dislike Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton do no longer dislike them with the aid of fact they're females; they dislike them with the aid of fact of their politics. comparable as adult males. How come different predominantly white countries have not had a black president or best minister?
2016-11-25 23:04:11 · answer #6 · answered by duperne 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How many women have actually run for President?
Victoria Woodhull (Equal Rights Party) 1872 Election
Belva Ann Lockwood (Equal Rights Party) 1884, 1888
Margaret Chase Smith (Republican) 1964
Shirley Chisholm (Democrat) 1972
Patsy Mink (Democrat) 1972
Bella Abzug (Democrat) 1972
Elizabeth Dole (Republican) 2000
Carol Moseley Braun (Democrat) 2004
Hillary Clinton (Democrat) 2008
How many of these women do you know or have even heard of?
2007-12-28 07:14:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Its not that we do not deserve it or are not qualified enough for it. This is a male driven world and will always be one. Men will always be on a higher pedestal than women, just like the white race will always be higher than everyone else. They claim that this is the land of the free, but there is a whole lot of disclosures that are is really fine print.....
Sad, but thats reality.....
2007-12-28 08:58:38 · answer #8 · answered by Janett C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why does it matter what our leader's chromosome make up is? Should we elect Hillary solely based on her plumbing on not on the merits (or lack thereof) of her policies?
Or Pidgow's answerer that makes a lot of sense. That's why you see all those news stories warning the democrats away from putting Hillary on the ticket because they want to avoid the rapture. I can't believe how you made up that scenario and then got all mad about it's outcome.
2007-12-28 07:32:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Have no idea, but I dont think we should simply elect a woman to office just for the sake of having a woman president. If indeed the woman was the best canidate for the position and would improve the country to everyones content, I don't see why she wouldn't be elected.
P.s. girls have kooties LOL
2007-12-28 07:11:06 · answer #10 · answered by Aintitthetruth 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋