Why US never had a woman president..

[swapna]

Most of the South-Asian and South East Asian countries have women who hold premier positions and also women leading the largest political parties and opposition parties.

If women in US had equal rights, why was there never a women president in US?

Srilanka is having women presidents from a long time(it still has one). Pakistan,a muslim nation which is supposed to oppress women had a woman prime minister. Bangladesh and Indonesia where women move around in purdah, are now ruled by women premiers. Myanmar's strongest opposition leader is a woman.

India's strongest opposition leader is a woman, She will be India's next PrimeMinister if she wins the next election. India had a strong woman prime minister during the 80s.
India is considering to give 33% reservation to women representatives in parliament and state assemblies. Many states in India have 33% reservation for women in professional colleges.

At present 20% of states in India have women as chief ministers and as potential chief ministers (as they are the strongest opposition leaders).

All the leaders I mentioned above were elected by the people.

While women in developing countries are encouraged to be doctors,engineers and politicians, women in the US are encouraged to be models and movie actors who parade half naked to satisy male voyeurisms.

Regardless of what the women think, they are the more oppressed than many women in the developing countries. I think women in US are seen as mere sex objects or commodities rather than as women. It is a fact that they are mostly in news for the wrong reasons.

[BuyOurEverything]

Even England, Canada and Israel have had women prime ministers.

edit: although they were all horrible conservatives if I remember correctly.

[katie mccready]

you are cerect thacher was a horribal tory.
swapna i have often thorght women are oprest in america

[Marxist in Nebraska]

It is interesting that the U.S., which has the reputation for being one of the better cultures for women to live in, has so few women in power. Women are a majority of voters here, but a tiny minority of elected representatives.

BOE makes an interesting point... I suppose the difference is that the right-wing (this goes for the Dems, too) in this country makes less of an effort to put token women in high places.

We have a potential candidate for a woman president in Hillary Rodham-Clinton... she is a good politician (not that I care for her politics)... but she is only a prominent politician because she was married to a two-term president...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don't relly understand why either.
It must be the male-dominated bourgeoisie, beacuse I'm sure that in America today, women have almost as good a chance of winning as men. So the parties certainly wouldn't loose representation from making women more prominent, perhaps they would see it as a chalenge to ther power. I don't really know.
Maybe their are more chauvinistic conservatives who think that women are inferior to men than I thought. I dubt it, however. If anything, there are more liberal and leftist types who would run to the polling booth to vote for a women.

[YKTMX]

Stupid white men only please. Any women in the white house should be performing fellatio or making tea.

;)

I'd like to see Hilary Clinton become Prez one day just because the right wing in the States hate her so much :)

[che's long lost daughter]

My country has so far had 2 women presidents and actually, our current president is female...well, I am a woman and I would be the last one to mock the memberes of my own specie but the last time we had a woman for a President, there were Coup D' etat(s) everywhere and now that our president is a woman again, there was almost a Coup d' etat a few months back plus, this president of ours is a slave for Bush...I am not saying that women are inept to be presidents, maybe the right woman fit for the position hasn't come yet

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

where do you live?

[Borincano]

Even in Latin America, where men are suppose to reign surpreme, has had and still does have female leaders. The head of the PRD in México is a woman. The president of Panamá is a woman. The Governor of Puerto Rico is a woman and the first female mayor of an important city in the Western Hemisphere was the mayor of San Juan, PR. Women have ran for the Presidency in Colombia and contain cabinet and legislature positions in Perú, Argentina, and Brasil. I guess the USA is a little behind. :P

[Soul Rebel]

The only way some womyn can make it into power is by "being one of the guys," which often means that they end up being extremely conservative womyn.

Anywho, one of the reasons that i think womyn dont make it into power in the us is for this: there is statistical evidence which shows that womyn tend to be more on the left than men. We live in a country that basically fears leftist ideas, therefore womyn who express leftist thinking will not be elected. But that is just a theory of mine.

Also, the fact that sexist views which determine who will live in the "public sphere" and "private sphere" still exist prevent womyn from entering politics and being elected. Womyn are taught not to enter politics, whereas men are. If womyn do enter politics they start at the lower level- like in their communities- and work their way up, which may take longer than men entering the political field.

Although i am not a big fan of the us i must say that in recent years the situation of womyn in office has gotten better. For example, now womyn make up about 10% of the U.S. senate and 20% of state legislatures, whereas before no womyn were in these positions. Its still not good, but it is better and hopefully will continue to get better.

Also, although we havent been taught these things, womyn in many ways have always had some source of political power through their relationships with powerful men and interest lobbying (settlement house movement, the abolishionist movement, suffragist movement, anti-vivisection movement, etc.)

[bush youth]

the fact that sexist views which determine who will live in the "public sphere" and "private sphere" still exist prevent womyn from entering politics and being elected. Womyn are taught not to enter politics, whereas men are. If womyn do enter politics they start at the lower level- like in their communities- and work their way up, which may take longer than men entering the political field.
I think this is the main reason why we don't see many women in politics.

Maybe i'm just overly idealistic and hopeful, but I think that if a women campaigns for presidency, they will be encouraged by many, possibly even more people than those who would discourage them.

Females aren't a minority population-wise, and there are a lot of men (such as the ones here) who wouldn't be sexist in their voting.. so the odds aren't against us, so possibly, it's time for the women to take a stand and start campaigning, and then U.$. may see a woman president.

[EneME]

I think Hilary has the best chance. She's really popular and also has demonstrated her capabilities as Senator. I really support her cuz she's female and she's extremely smart unlike other first ladies *cough* laura bush *cough* who are fuckin idiots with plastered on smiles. And also I'd like to see the Rep's pisst off buahaha...

[che's long lost daughter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 10:27 PM
where do you live?
I live in the Philippines...

[Soviet power supreme]

Oh come on!
What is ther difference between a female president and male president?Nothing

A good president is a dead president.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 17 2003, 05:55 PM

A good president is a dead president.
Kennedy?

[Soviet power supreme]

Yeah.

That mother fucker was the one who planned bay of bigs.He was the one who started Vietnamese war.I heard he was even bribed by mafia.

[Pete]

Canada's only female Prime Minister was also the only Prime Minister to lose their seat in an election (as in she lost it while still Prime Minister), and was more or less a token candidate to take the fall after Mulroney fucked over the country.

Although I abhore the Liberal Party, I think Shelia Copps would have been a better leader (she makes Martin look like a PC, which he is in all respects except the colour of his flag), but oh well. Alexa McDonough was a horrible NDP leader, but I believe either the CPC or the CPC-ML currently has a female leader.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Good post, SenoraChe.


Originally posted by SenoraChe+Nov 14 2003, 10:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SenoraChe @ Nov 14 2003, 10:09 PM)The only way some womyn can make it into power is by "being one of the guys," which often means that they end up being extremely conservative womyn.[/b]

True. A few weeks ago, I was talking to someone and Ann Coulter came up. A mutual aquaintance had said that Coulter was the most misogynistic person he had read. The woman I was talking to was not surprised. She said that to be in the Republican Party and be a woman, then she must basically be "more misogynistic than Strom Thurmond."


Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 10:09 PM
there is statistical evidence which shows that womyn tend to be more on the left than men. We live in a country that basically fears leftist ideas, therefore womyn who express leftist thinking will not be elected.

That seems to be true. Women do tend to be liberal, while men (particularly Caucasian men) tend to be at least center-right. Of course, I mentioned Ann Coulter and she is hardly the only woman on the right. There are a lot of women voters, though, that are happy to vote between two center-right candidates.


Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 10:09 PM
Womyn are taught not to enter politics, whereas men are. If womyn do enter politics they start at the lower level- like in their communities- and work their way up, which may take longer than men entering the political field.

Where exactly does this happen? Are you talking about the situation today, or the situation historically? In what part of the world?


Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 10:09 PM
now womyn make up about 10% of the U.S. senate and 20% of state legislatures, whereas before no womyn were in these positions.

Of course, women are 51% of the general population, and thus greatly underrepresented.


[email protected] 14 2003, 10:09 PM
Also, although we havent been taught these things, womyn in many ways have always had some source of political power through their relationships with powerful men and interest lobbying (settlement house movement, the abolishionist movement, suffragist movement, anti-vivisection movement, etc.)

Who particularly are you thinking about?

To me, women having power through their husband reminds me of Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Rodham-Clinton.

[Al Creed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 06:41 PM
Although I abhore the Liberal Party, I think Shelia Copps would have been a better leader (she makes Martin look like a PC, which he is in all respects except the colour of his flag), but oh well. Alexa McDonough was a horrible NDP leader, but I believe either the CPC or the CPC-ML currently has a female leader.
I agree, Id rather have SHiela Copps than Paul Martin.

New NDP leader Jack Layton looks like a good guy though.

[Soul Rebel]

Thanks MIN. Now to answer your questions:

1) How womyn are taught not to enter politics- gender roles, stereotypes, the education system (tracking-boys and girls are taught totally differently and have different experiences in their education), the family, etc. All of these things tell us how to act and how to live. But these things are different for females and males. We are expected to meet a certain criteria depending on our gender. Womyn, historically and even today, in the Western world, are expected to be nuturing, to be mothers, and apolitical. Today, however, we are often expected as womyn to work and be mothers, but thats a different topic. Do you get what im saying? The way we are raised, according to our gender, either allows us or prohibits us from doing certain things. For womyn, one of these prohibitions is entering politics. Sure nobody is out there directly saying that womyn shouldnt enter politics, but it is there. Like i said, the ways society is structured to treat the genders does this.

But this does not apply to the whole world, mostly just to the western world. gender roles are not universal so every part of the world looks at the genders differently. so while the west discourages its womyn from entering politics, other parts may encourage their womyn to do it. many countries were mentioned in which womyn are already in office.

2) what womyn have had power through their relationships with men- you already mentioned two. These two womyn did not achieve power because of who their husbands were, but because they took part in the decisions of their husbands. they influenced their husbands to do certain things. this is what i mean by having power through relationships. while womyn may not be allowed to hold power in the public sphere, in their relationships (the private sphere) they demonstrate a great deal of power. their ideas and concepts and opinions all get passed on through a different outlet- through their men. So when a man may have to make a decision, the woman may give imput and he uses her information or opinions to make his decision.

Studies of this have shown that this was fairly common in Native-American Tribes. Although they were more of an egalitarian society, men were still the political figures, they were the face of politics within their communities. It was however the womyn that made the decisions. The men would turn to them for answers.

I hope this was clear and that it answered your questions :)

[Alejandro C]

for those of you who dissguss women being in power through being &#39;one of the guys&#39; or because of their sexual relations- how do you explain connie rice. opportunism? anyway i hate that fucking **** as much as jackie O, oh please don&#39;t die, and elly roosevelt. they&#39;ll all rot in hell

for those of you who &#39;support&#39; hillary clinton- what the fuck? since when does anyone on this forum support someone like that. as a woman she is incredibly weak. as a politician she is incredibly ... evil? you&#39;re supporting her because she is a woman, ignoring her completely. unless i&#39;m wrong... its happened before. you&#39;d have to give me some reasons why you like her.

also i think this topic got off track. a woman has never become president because of our two-party shitstem. neither of the two parties will run a woman because they don&#39;t think women can win. as long as those two parties run this country there will be no woman president. that much is certain. its the same reason why the US won&#39;t have ANYONE as president except a middle aged- to old, white, christian, male,.... who&#39;s a complete fucking idiot.

[Soul Rebel]

Originally posted by Alejandro [email protected] 18 2003, 02:48 AM
for those of you who dissguss women being in power through being &#39;one of the guys&#39; or because of their sexual relations- how do you explain connie rice. opportunism? anyway i hate that fucking **** as much as jackie O, oh please don&#39;t die, and elly roosevelt. they&#39;ll all rot in hell

for those of you who &#39;support&#39; hillary clinton- what the fuck? since when does anyone on this forum support someone like that. as a woman she is incredibly weak. as a politician she is incredibly ... evil? you&#39;re supporting her because she is a woman, ignoring her completely. unless i&#39;m wrong... its happened before. you&#39;d have to give me some reasons why you like her.

also i think this topic got off track. a woman has never become president because of our two-party shitstem. neither of the two parties will run a woman because they don&#39;t think women can win. as long as those two parties run this country there will be no woman president. that much is certain. its the same reason why the US won&#39;t have ANYONE as president except a middle aged- to old, white, christian, male,.... who&#39;s a complete fucking idiot.
C. Rice is obviously being one of the guys. Her political beliefs and actions are very much modeled after those of men. She takes specific actions that many men would take, even at the expense of womyn. You see this even in the Supreme Court. For womyn to get considered they basically have had to act like Scalia and Rehnquist in order to get noticed, which is always at the expense of womyn. Get what im saying?

what is your issue with el. roosevelt?

and please dont use the word **** to insult anyone. that shows a total lack of respect for all the womyn on the board (and everywhere else).

[Le Libérer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 03:01 AM



and please dont use the word **** to insult anyone. that shows a total lack of respect for all the womyn on the board (and everywhere else).
Very insulting indeed.

We Louisianians elected our first Woman Governor this week&#33; And she is a Democrat. (I&#39;m very proud of this) I&#39;m hoping this will be the trend for the rest of the country as well. Bush HAS GOT TO GO&#33;

( I know this somewhat off the topic, but I needed to share&#33;)

[Alejandro C]

by being one of the guys you mean conforming and compromising political beliefs in order to get backed by the party?

if thats true then the disgussion has nothing to do with women, but rather weak politicians who are fools and whores(i&#39;m talking primarily about men) who will be anything in order to achieve some promotion. i think that is my general opinion of all democrats and repulicans. even the ones i like. like kucinich- what the fuck is he doing in a party that completely dissagrees with everything he believes. even he is whoring himself, but his whoring is nobler than those like dean. anyway back to the topic,

Neither political party has ever run a candidate that has been themselves uncompromisingly. they will run followers. but what happens when your leaders are followers?... america

politicians are run through polls which are run by companies which are run by some people. thats the level of democracy that we have. bushit is a natural product of single memeber pluarality and unchecked political parties. the reasons lie in the technical makings of the political environment. we wont have a nonwhite nonman as head until the physical system of election is changed. democracy is the capitalism of politics. it needs severe regulation if is can ever be tolerated.