BellaOnline Forums Money Taxes A Woman for President? Well Yeah! Isn't it time?

I'll answer with another question. Do you think that any women will ever live up to our expectations to be the President? I think that we as women perhaps set impossible standards for a women setting the bar way higher than where we set the bar for a man. If all values were exactly equal between a male and a female candidate would you choose the women or the man to be the President?

Howdy, everyone. I dunno about the rest of you but after she was so arrogant in last night's debate, completely running over the moderator's wishes and completely ignoring the questions given my Mr. Jorge Ramos, if anything, she shows me how not to act as a woman (loud, rude, arrogant and pushy). I have followed Mrs. Clintons' life for awhile, even got a chance to hear her speak here in Houston almost 15 yrs. ago and she was so delightful but hey, who am I. Maybe you're supposed to put up a defense in this type of procedure. Thanks for the invitation on this manner and I totally agree with some of the other women raising their voices on this matter. Senator Clinton is smart, intelligent, on point, knowledgable,caring and concerned with the poor but she is not the one cut out for president....just an opinion.

Again I have a question - if a man pushes forward when speaking to make a point, is he not perceived as a strong speaker with a point to make, while a woman is perceived as pushy and rude? Do we have a double standard for women and men regarding what is acceptable behavior when trying to be in positions of power? If we do, can any woman ever really become the President of this country?

The hypothetical man is a rude POS, too.

I will vote for a woman for president when I see a woman running for president who I feel can do a good job of it without being a jerk, is an honest person who can represent and support her constituents, who cares about "us poor folk" and wants to work hard to make life better and safer for the citizens of her country, while encouraging peace throughout the rest of this little world.

These are the exact same standards I seek in a male leader.

I don't discriminate. If I don't like someone, it's not because of that person's gender, race, religion, etc. I despise them for more personal reasons. If I set a personal standard for someone in a certain position, I don't care what genitalia, genetic background, or holy book they're hauling around, that standard will not change.

If it were any other woman, I might say "Yes", but Billary is not the choice.
I think that in order for a woman to run this country, she is going to have to have many qualities. One is she will have to be a cutthroat to deal with some of the men in this world and especially in politics.
Two, she will have to be honest and follow through with action and not just words.
(LIKE THAT WOULD EVER HAPPEN. LOL)
Three, she would have to have some common sense and know that what is happening in our own country is what should always be at the forefront. This country worries to much about foreign affairs and not its own people.
That's just a few of them. But I have yet in all of history to ever find one single politician who ever had any worthwhile qualities to lead this country.

Right if a guy was pushy I'd find it equally as rude. I understand some people have the "powerful woman = bitchy" mindset but most of my female friends are business owners or in positions of power so I think of them as normal and wonderful But if a woman is rude, that's completely different. I don't take rudeness from men or from women.

When I grew up in Connecticut we had a female governor. She was strong, had great support, and I had no problems supporting her. So again it is completely about this particular candidate. I won't vote for Clinton but I would vote for a woman who matched my interests in a heartbeat, no reservations.

So, it's obvious that we all want our politicians, male or female to be strong, to put this country's interest first, to have common sense, and to look out for all Americans. This is all very logical and sensible. It's also logical that most of us do not believe that many politicians have all of these qualities. So then that leads me to my next question which is if all candidates runing for President were equally lacking in these good qualities would you vote for the man or the woman running for office? If the assumption is that often the only political choice is to choose the lesser of two evils, would you choose to give the woman a chance to be President or would you still opt for the man as the safer choice? Is it our basic instinctive behavior in this country to believe that a man in charge of the country is still better able to keep us safe?

I don't think any candidate is ever equal to any other. You could ask that same question about race, about height, about weight, etc. But it's a biased question. It's like asking if you'd rather kill child 1 or child 2. I'd rather kill neither

There is never going to be a situation for me when I will choose "based on gender". There will always be something logical to choose on. I would equally never choose based on blonde hair or black hair

I too totally agree that votes should never be based solely on gender, hair color, race religion, etc, etc. and that we should always vote based on issues; however, it is a sad but true fact that many people do make their choices based on reasons that have nothing to do with qualifications. I don't agree that candidates cannot be equally qualified or equally bad and when all things are close to equal if you make no choice then you do not vote and that's not a good choice either. And that is when I think that people sometimes default to making choices based on superficial factors.

There are no right or wrong answers to these questions being presented. But I do personally think that people often vote based on superficial reasons. So my question again is hypothetical and is if the qualifications of two candidates for President were equally good or equally bad would you choose the male or female candidate if that hypothetically was the only thing that was different between the two candidates? I think that in this country the majority of people would default to the male choice because a familiar choice usually seems safer. What do you all think?

It's an impossibility. I (like most people, I suspect) cannot answer a hypothetical question in the spirit in which it was intended if it is impossible for the issue to ever come to pass. There will always be a difference between candidates besides gender or race. We will never have to choose between two candidates that differ only in gender. There will always be differences in their educational, career, and life experience. There will always variations in their voting records, stances on major issues,ideas, and plans to implement said ideas. There will always be differences in their character. There will never be two absolutely identical candidates who differ from each other only by gender.

My belief in how the people will vote regarding gender is this: If our first female president is one who does more good than harm for our country, and is well liked, most Americans will no longer let gender have influence in how they vote. But I really don't think most people will let gender be a main issue in the first place because, as listed above, there are so many other, more important reasons to choose one candidate over another.