Is the world ready for this?

I may be at risk of sounding chauvinistic in what I am trying to convey.
So I will first point out that I have not a problem in the world of woman being equally capable of the job.
The American Presidency.
It will be particularly difficult to remain unbiased because the most likely candidate is Hillary Rodham Clintion. There are many views that she has that don't follow suite with my own beliefs.
So let's forget about her and try to gauge how the world would react towards a woman president. whether that be Clinton or Paris Hilton for that matter.
Much of the world does not respect woman in such a high profile position. Arguably the most powerful person in the world.
Yes, there are are countries that have woman in high positions, but they are merely figure heads, as other countries know this. The United states president is in large part a figure head too, however no where near that of any other country.
Our country is sooo set on change that they, the people may grasp at anything new. Enough so that it may cloud our judgement
It is at a most precedent of times. What we have are two front runners that have never held a position in the Oval Office.
An African American and a woman.
In the face of racing nations like Iran, North Korea and most obvious Iraq and even Russia positioning for power, will this significant amount of change be so paramount that it will in effect take away our power to negotiate, demand and gain respect from a global aspect?

Sorry -I did not proof read my thoughts as I am multi tasking. :bang:
Busy busy busy

Well, as far as negotiation abilities go, I'm not too worried about it being a woman. People that don't respect the idea of women in power usually have the ass-backwards view that women belong in the kitchen and all that leftover cruft from the past. But a guy going into a negotiation with that image will get his balls served to him on a platter by a strong, confident woman, cause they won't know how to handle a situation they aren't used to acknowledging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Replicon

Well, as far as negotiation abilities go, I'm not too worried about it being a woman. People that don't respect the idea of women in power usually have the ass-backwards view that women belong in the kitchen and all that leftover cruft from the past. But a guy going into a negotiation with that image will get his balls served to him on a platter by a strong, confident woman, cause they won't know how to handle a situation they aren't used to acknowledging.

---

I am not saying that the right woman could NOT do the job.
But we HAVE to deal on a global scale. That is not going to change and that will not change their view of either an African American or a woman. Ass backwards or not, sadly.

I personally don't think having a woman president would be a problem. She would have to set the bar for all future women, so she probably wouldn't screw up much. The only downside is that the first woman president would proabably be inactive, and too afraid to make decisions. This has nothing to do with her being a woman, but that a woman getting a bad image would ruin any chances of another female president.

America's enemies may know this, and would make their moves during this period. Terrorists would absolutely hate seeing a woman in control of their countries, and I have to ask, would the first woman president start a war if she needed to?

Any woman who is ruthless enough in politics to get to that position is going to be just as competent as a male president. The first step of elelcting one is the biggest problem for a woman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

I personally don't think having a woman president would be a problem. She would have to set the bar for all future women, so she probably wouldn't screw up much. The only downside is that the first woman president would proabably be inactive, and too afraid to make decisions. This has nothing to do with her being a woman, but that a woman getting a bad image would ruin any chances of another female president.

America's enemies may know this, and would make their moves during this period. Terrorists would absolutely hate seeing a woman in control of their countries, and I have to ask, would the first woman president start a war if she needed to?

Any woman who is ruthless enough in politics to get to that position is going to be just as competent as a male president. The first step of elelcting one is the biggest problem for a woman.

---

That is a very good perspective and more points to ponder.
me thinks :tomato:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

That is a very good perspective and more points to ponder.
me thinks :tomato:

---

Is that sarcasm? The tomato is throwing me off.

All we hear is people bashing bush all the time, and really. We all know he sucks. So whats the big deal? Countries that get free money from us couldn't care less about who the president is, as long as they keep the money flowing. People who hate, well hate us regardless of who is leading.

Seriously look at your list. I think Iran is far more worried about us bombing them into the dust, than if the president is male or female. Heck they would probably support a female president if she didn't also threaten to wipe their country off the map.

We basicly control iraq and don't care about their opinion anyway, so no big loss there. Really we don't care about most countries opinion, we just do whatever we want anyway. We threaten them with our massive over blown military, not the leadership of our president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

All we hear is people bashing bush all the time, and really. We all know he sucks. So whats the big deal? Countries that get free money from us couldn't care less about who the president is, as long as they keep the money flowing. People who hate, well hate us regardless of who is leading.

Seriously look at your list. I think Iran is far more worried about us bombing them into the dust, than if the president is male or female. Heck they would probably support a female president if she didn't also threaten to wipe their country off the map.

We basicly control iraq and don't care about their opinion anyway, so no big loss there. Really we don't care about most countries opinion, we just do whatever we want anyway. We threaten them with our massive over blown military, not the leadership of our president.

---

Dude, I'm not going to turn this into another terrorist debate, but have you seen how those people treat women? Women in power goes against everything they have ever known. Fighting, and losing, a battle with a woman-led army is going to make them so much more fanatical.

Women are often beat to death under fanatical Islamic law for showing skin. They will probably beef up their hate and killing of Americans just for electing a woman. At least in my opinion.

I don't care. Maybe it will draw more terrorists out of the woodwork so we can kill them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Is that sarcasm? The tomato is throwing me off.

---

No sarcasm.
I was just pondering over the other ideas it brought to mind.

I wish the world was as black and white as Alric paints it. While he may be correct in the fact that what he says does go on, I am confident that
our foreign policies, national security and international affairs are much more complicated.

I - for one - think that a female President would be devastating for the US at the present time. Now, so I don't get reamed by the female members: I think a woman could do the job just fine. But this isn't about "doing the job". This is about how the world will view and relate to the US if a woman were to gain the title of President of the United States of America.

Firstly, and most importantly, the countries we are at greatest odds with (you know, the ones who want us dead) are of a culture that regards woman very lowly. They don't even allow their women to show their faces. They have a social system that encourages the oppression and degradation of women. They have a view that it's OK -advisable even - to beat your wife because you don't like the way she does things. To them, women are to be completely submissive and their opinions and feels are to be ignored and considered un-important. And that's only scratching the surface of the evils of Sharia law.

What we need now is some one who they will at least take seriously enough to give us a chance. Sure, a woman would be a big slap in their face but, that's not the way to go about it: not right here - not right now.

So, how can we ever hope to be taken seriously at all by our enemies when we are headed by some one they have so little respect for? We'd be the laughing stock of the world, and that's not something we need to be encouraging any more these days.

No offense intended to women but, I am seriously against a woman becoming US president for the first time in these days and times. And I damn sure don't want that cowardly, liberal Hillary Clinton. She's got the spine of a jellyfish and the resolve of France. She's bent on giving up and throwing in the towel. She believes that we can appease our enemies that want us dead by "leaving them alone". Sorry, Hilliary, we weren't "bothering them" when they started all this sh!t in the first place. So what makes you think that showing passive weakness is going to change that?

Nope, not good at all.

EDIT: Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CsLHxja43...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSGx2...elated&search=

What happens if she becomes president?

Hillary Clinton is a Democrat and a politically correct fool. As a part of their political platform, they will avoid doing anything that offends anybody, except rich white people. This inhibits their ability to make tough decisions for fear of loosing support.

In my opinion, Hillary, or any other woman, won't be elected next. Americans just aren't ready.

I am from the Netherlands and I would love a female president for the USA, at least if she also has good qualities like honesty, being sincere, strong but open for dialogue and some wisdome to. Its the qualities that makes a good leader.

I dont think that a woman president would harm the Usa in relation to countries that are Islamic. If president bush would be a pink midget i would feel just the same about him! You judge someone on his/her actions and policy not if she is male or female. I think even Islamic countries would look more at the policy the Usa stands for then if the president would be a male or female. Does not India has a female president and that isnt a problem for islamic countries in the region as far as I know.

Well they were female prime-ministers in countries with a large Muslim population, ( Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Indonesia, Israel ) and as far as I know they didn't have so much problems with the Muslims, and they were not figure-heads, but actual leaders.

So I think Muslim countries will not take a female US president very differently then they take a male one.

I think the American people will vote for anyone at this junkier in time. Even a pink midget LucidApple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidApple

If she also has good qualities like honesty, being sincere, strong but open for dialogue and some wisdome to. Its the qualities that makes a good leader

---

:makeitstop:
I am afraid this is not how are system works over here.
It certainly sounds good though.

I tend to agree with Onierenaught.
The countries that do have residing woman are not changing the face of the world so Islam extremist do not care so much. I also believe they are ,for the most part figure heads. I may be wrong.

The females perspective is just pouring in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidApple

...at least if she also has good qualities like honesty, being sincere, strong but open for dialogue and some wisdome to. Its the qualities that makes a good leader.

---

I have news for you, Hillary possesses none of those qualities.

Quote:

---

You judge someone on his/her actions and policy not if she is male or female.

---

Yes, I judge people on their actions and perhaps you do too. But we aren't talking about what makes sense to you and me.

Quote:

---

I think even Islamic countries would look more at the policy the Usa stands for then if the president would be a male or female.

---

\Right, in the land of bubble gum and cotton candy. But have you noticed that - in the real world - the Islamic countries want to kill us because of what we stand for. What we stand for is everything they despise: Freedom. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can tame a wild beast with good intentions; it doesn't work that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

the Islamic countries want to kill us because of what we stand for.

---

Way to completely over generalize. Pakistan wants to kill you for what you stand for? There was me thinking the government was working cloesly with yours to weed out terrorists. When was the last time Indonesia said they wanted to kill you. Yes some Muslims are fanatical, but your just over generalizing comeptlely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imran_p

Way to completely over generalize. Pakistan wants to kill you for what you stand for? There was me thinking the government was working cloesly with yours to weed out terrorists. When was the last time Indonesia said they wanted to kill you. Yes some Muslims are fanatical, but your just over generalizing comeptlely.

---

While he may be over generalizing, you know his point.
This is why it is so hard to discuss anything, all the formalities. Yes, many times it is pertinent to the discussion. Maybe you feel it is in this one.
Generally speaking ● Countries empowered byMuslim Islamic religions do not stand for what they call the West and it's ways.


How will this effect the presidency of the United states?

What Howie said. Obviously I'm referring to our enemies. You know, the one's I've been talking about since my first post in this thread. We are up against militant Islam. It is militant Islam that I speak of. I hope that's clear now. I know full well that most of the Muslim population is peaceful and not considered a threat to peace and freedom.

I don't want to keep inching this closer to yet another thread about terrorism but, it must be made clear that they are the single greatest, most important reason why we are not ready for a woman President. And if anyone thinks otherwise then they are probably kidding themselves.

In my personal opinion I think it is about time that we see an African American as the President of the United States. I for one think that the current candidate would do an outstanding job he has all the right stuff and a very good background to match. As for having Hillary Clinton as a President I don't about that not to say that a Lady could not do a outstanding job as a President I just don't think Hillary should be the first lady to do it.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with a woman as a leader, and to say otherwise is to me, completely sexist.

The title of presidency goes to whoever is most deserving, and their physical body (for that is what it all boils down to) has absolutely no relevance.

The 'oh, but the world would be less intimidated' argument holds no water at all. The world has never been as shit scared of my country since Maggie Thatcher left.

Now, I'm not saying this is my personal view, but the evolutionary perspective must be examined (this is the part where women get offended)

Men have pretty much always been "in charge", from the household setting to power positions at the head of countries. In older days men were the ones who got education.

Could it be that after thousands and thousands of years, homo sapiens evolved to have men in power simply because they were better at the job? If you think about it, men are physically stronger and more emotionally detached, which is an advantage in stressful situations.

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Now, I'm not saying this is my personal view, but the evolutionary perspective must be examined (this is the part where women get offended)

Men have pretty much always been "in charge", from the household setting to power positions at the head of countries. In older days men were the ones who got education.

Could it be that after thousands and thousands of years, homo sapiens evolved to have men in power simply because they were better at the job? If you think about it, men are physically stronger and more emotionally detached, which is an advantage in stressful situations.

Thoughts?

---

I was just about to say it is funny how everyone is covering their ass in regards to sexist.
I feel your evolutionary perspective is accurate. The same would apply to other minorities, such as African Americans.
When woman, black green or orange men are not educated for years, it will have to have an impact on the future.
I do not think that this would have any merit on this particular topic.
At this point in our evolution, there are many many woman and black leaders that are more than capable of holding any seat that a caucasian white male could.

We're resorting to Darwinism now? Jeez, just drop the bias already. In case you hadn't noticed, culture has come a long way since everybody was called 'Ug' and we wore bones in our beards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

We're resorting to Darwinism now? Jeez, just drop the bias already. In case you hadn't noticed, culture has come a long way since everybody was called 'Ug' and we wore bones in our beards.

---

What an oxymoron.
Do you want to talk some facts or hide behind your political correctness?
Maybe you should run for president.
If you read the entire post, you may get something more than bias out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

At this point in our evolution, there are many many woman and black leaders that are more than capable of holding any seat that a caucasian white male could.

---

Exactly. I think human intelligence far outweights physical strenghts and weaknesses of men or women. Again, the exsistence of successful female leaders proves that women are not incapable of leading a nation. Human intelligence is the greatest phenomena of any creature. We have superceded our pysical nature.

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but the emotional fragility of women is a factor. As I stated before, any woman who is ruthless enough to get that far in politics is probably emotionally detached. But, still. Women are more affected by emotions, and it has been proven that women tend to base decision making on how they "feel", rather than "common sense". This bring up a VERY important question.

With a nation like the United States, could a woman be better at decision making? Men are "rational" in the way that they base logic on strict evidence. Women tend to OBSESE about every little detail of a subject (you know what I'm talking about). I wonder if this could actually make a better president.