Attitudes towards a woman President

[MAS117]

I'm not a sexist, but at this day and age, I probably wouldnt vote for a woman for President, no matter what party.

sex·ism
n.

   1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.

Given that you're clearly making a distinction based on gender, I would say that it technically certainly is a sexist thing to say.

Now, whether or not that's a bad thing in this case is in debate.

im not saying they shouldnt beable to, i just wouldnt vote for one right now

[J. J.]

I said that women should also not be preachers/ministers. I never said that any of our Presidents have been Preachers/Ministers. You weren't suppose to see any correlation, because no inference to any relationship between the 2 occupations was made.

Then why mention them? 

BTW:  I woundn't vote for my priest for President.

ARE YOU REALLY PHILIP IN DISGUISE? Cause you sure lack comprehension, like he does. 
I mentioned the Priesthood because in my opinion, women should not be allowed to hold certain positions, the Presidency and the Priesthood are two of those positions that they should not ever be allowed to  hold. There are other occupations they shouldn't hold as well.

No, but thank you for the compliment. 

You first claim that they are not related, then you claim that they make up a class of occupations that women shouldn't hold.

On what grounds do you claim a woman shouldn't hold the position of President?

[Hitchabrut]

Option 2

[Storebought]

Doubtful I would vote for a woman to be commander in chief of the armed forces, but I would if she was the most qualified candidate (likely by virtue of all the other ones sucking).

You're Not an Idiot!Not in this case anyway. I agree with you here.  A woman should never be President of the United States of America. Tradition does count for something. They also shouldn't be preachers/ministers.

Uh, "tradition"? All presidents have also had blue eyes. Does that mean we should never elected a brown-eyed president?

Tradition counts for something, but tradition is not an excuse to never change. Tradition is simply a blockade when it interferes with progress.

Progress is not having a woman President.

Actually, by definition, progress means "going forwards." That would be changing nothing, so it wouldn't be progress.

Why is not electing women a tradition? It just has not happen. By that argument, slavery was a tradition, as was the feeding of Christians to lions.

Behind quoting the Bible to tell someone they are wrong, saying "we shouldn't do that because we have not done it before" is my least favorite argument for anything.

In the beginning of human life (or in the Garden of Eden, if you like), humans did nothing.

By the logic of "tradition is best", we should just sit here, doing absolutely nothing, because anything else would not be adhering to tradition.

Actually, it has, for millenia, been the goal of all mankind, civilized or not, to prevent at all cost any sort of change whatsoever.

Europeans invented the "Great Chain of Being" that linked God Almighty through His angels to the pope, then through Roman Emperor (the German one) and his vassels, then the peasantry; beasts of the field and crops came afterwards; heretics and Jews rounded out the list just before the Chain stopped at the fiery gates of Hell.

The Chinese had the Mandate of Heaven: if the Emperor's rule is favored by the celestial gods, immobility reigns forever; if not, "change," via Mongol hordes, pestilences, political upheavals, afflicts the country.

The Polynesians took it to the greatest extreme: Their kings prized stasis to the point of hardly moving physically at all!

In short, "progress" was an unspeakable abomination, because it threatened the earthly perfection that their ancestors (or gods, of God) spent creating. It was only until Victorian England (1840s or so) that change began to be prized for its own sake.

[WiseGuy]

Option 2.  Gender is not an issue for me.  As long as she is a capable leader and agrees with my views, I'll vote for her.

BTW, I like Elizabeth Dole, too.  Does anyone think she'll run in 2008?  If so, I might consider voting for her!  '08 will be my first presidential election

[angus]

none of the choices really fit, as I often vote for candidates with whom I have little ideological common ground (e.g., Mr. Bush), but I'll choose the second option in the sense that being a woman is not more or less a turn-off than being a white anglo-saxon protestant connecticut yankee.  I'd like to think I'm past gender, racial, and regional biases in such selections.   Or, as wiseguy puts it, "...not an issue..."

this question has come up quite a bit.  the overall sense I get from those who wouldn't is that it has more to do with the perception that women may not be good commanders-in-chief, not from the perception that the CEO aspect of the job is beyond the average woman's capabilities.  Witness Ann Richards, J. Grahnolm, etc.  Women, unfortunately, will probably have to prove themselves, collectively, in combat before that notion is dispelled.  Many will die before even one is elected US president.

[AuH2O]

Based on Israeli army experience, there are researchers that think women in positions of power are either equal or more brutal than men.

[Rob]

Based on Israeli army experience, there are researchers that think women in positions of power are either equal or more brutal than men.

That's interesting. Has the research revealed any reason why that is?

[angus]

Speaking of brutal women, and of Israelis, some of whom are old enough to remember when they were Germans, I've also read that many silesian concentration camp survivors claim that the women guards were far more brutal than the men there too.  Again, this is just what I've read, and I'm not picking on women.  Frankly, they intimidate me, so I'd never pick on them, but I have read many accounts by former concentration camp inmates who've made this claim.

[Lunar]

Speaking of brutal women, and of Israelis, some of whom are old enough to remember when they were Germans, I've also read that many silesian concentration camp survivors claim that the women guards were far more brutal than the men there too.  Again, this is just what I've read, and I'm not picking on women.  Frankly, they intimidate me, so I'd never pick on them, but I have read many accounts by former concentration camp inmates who've made this claim.

I believe it.

The type of woman who would volunteer for that kind of job against all societal pressures to do otherwise would be radically more agressive than the man who was drafted as number 1300251.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

None of the above: I would vote for a woman provided she was the most qualified candidate.

I think that's option 2

[Gabu]

None of the above: I would vote for a woman provided she was the most qualified candidate.

I think that's option 2

I wouldn't vote for her because she was in the same party as me; I'd vote for her because she was the most qualified candidate in my view.  The two quite coincide, but one does not imply the other.

[David S]

Whether the president is a man or a woman would make no difference to me.

[phk]

I wouldn't mind Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer or Maria Cantwell being president.

[angus]

None of the above: I would vote for a woman provided she was the most qualified candidate.

I think that's option 2

I wouldn't vote for her because she was in the same party as me; I'd vote for her because she was the most qualified candidate in my view.  The two quite coincide, but one does not imply the other.

well said.  I tried to point this out in my earlier post.  I don't imagine I'd every let the issue of whether or not a candidate agree with me get in the way of voting.  seems a bit idealistic and foolhardy.