Are We Ready For a Woman President? Really?

@snood,

My intent was not to be critical of you or your bringing up this topi. In fact, it is in support of your effort to help illuminate the important relevant issues and where these pols stand.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I don't think the claim is baseless, but I do think Obama faced a much worse situation overcoming race than Clinton will face overcoming gender. Clinton will still have to answer questions about what she wears, her hair style, etc. Chat boards will still be filled with comments about her looks (not good comments). Jeb Bush could wear the exact same suit for a year and no one would even notice. Trump being obnoxious and insulting is somehow perceived as leadership. Imagine Clinton doing the same. Clinton being strong and forceful is not perceived the same way and I would argue that sexism is one reason. That's a challenge when running for a job where forceful is a job requirement. You can also look on this board and find threads where women CEO's are considered tokens when they take on the top job, castigated should they fail (or even partially succeed) and even criticized for taking minimal maternity leave. Male CEO's fail all the time (Continental Airlines is the most recent egregious example) and not a peep is heard.

Clinton is not going to get the "other" firestorm that the President got. She is still "one of us" even for those who don't like her. That said, I do think she has a hill to climb that her opponents don't. (Excepting Fiorina of course. If she gets the nod, then we will have a repeat of the Palin/Clinton looks comparison from 2008.)

THANK YOU Engineer, for naming those ways that women get dissed because of their gender. I was too lazy to explain it because it's never as blatant as calling Obama a jungle bunny, but more nuanced - like cracks about her appearance, etc. - as you so well laid out. Not as blatant as racism in its expression, but still reflective of negative feelings some folks have for women in power. THANK YOU.

1 Reply

@engineer,

There are gender stereotypes that favor women. Some of these go back a very long way. This is why it is misleading to compare gender stereotypes with racial prejudice (which are always one sided).

One of the gender stereotypes that favor women is trustworthiness. Study after study show that women are considered to be more trustworthy then men.

The fact that trustworthiness is one of the big problems Hillary Clinton is having in the approval polls right now should tell you something. That she is a Clinton is much more of a problem for her candidacy than that she is a woman.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Some of these go back a very long way. This is why it is misleading to compare gender stereotypes with racial discrimination (which is always one sided).

I'm beginning to think you must be somewhat dim, or else you're being intentionally obtuse. NO ONE HAS BEEN COMPARING THE TWO. You're the ONLY one who keeps saying "don't compare racism with misogyny". NO ONE HAS!!!!!

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I don't disagree that Clinton's issues are of her own making, but we're not talking about the real issues. We're talking about the whispers and you can count on the people talking about them, chatting about them, commenting on them, etc. Of course some gender-norms favor women. Trump had trouble with Fiorina because his ploy of throwing verbal insults instead of debating isn't acceptable with a woman and he doesn't have a B plan. He can't very well emasculate someone who is not masculine. That said, Clinton has been under attack for her lack of femininity since her husband ran for President. When she's forceful, she is shrill. When she is persistent, she is a nag. Her opponents punch these hot buttons and people respond. People still think the President is a Muslim from Kenya. How hard it is to get people to buy into these run of the mill characterizations?

1 Reply

@snood,

Nonsense, Snood!. You are directly comparing racism with the alleged "misogyny" you see in this campaign. Let me quote you...

Snood wrote:

Some folks are pointing out this apparent automatic connection that if they are against Hillary then someone or a lot of someones will assume they are against women. I understand what they are saying - The same thing was done with Obama - people would say, "Just because I don't like Obama that doesn't make me a racist." I would mumble "bullshit" to myself, but had no way to dispute that.

Here's the thing - I think a whole lot of people hate the idea of a Black man in the white house, but can never admit that, so they find things they really hate about his "demeanor" or "attitude", or they exaggerate the significance of him not having his hand over his heart at exactly the right moment before the National Anthem, or not wearing a goddamn flag pin.

They're pretty much straight-up no chaser racists, but they could never ever admit that. I think there will be a lot of that with misogynists and Hillary. I think it's a fair bet that a lot of men (and women too) are just not okay with a woman holding arguably the most powerful office on earth. But they can never, ever admit that - heavens, no. So they will carp about her personality traits, or her stiffness, or her hundred other things that don't amount to ****.

And from your opening post

Quote:

I was listening to the Thom Hartmann Radio Program today, and a woman that had a midwest-ish accent and I guess was in her 50's or 60's called in. she strongly expressed the opinion that the United States may still have its racist problems, but that it suffered far more severely from misogyny

0 Replies

@engineer,

I agree with you on principle Engineer. But practically speaking, I don't think that gender stereotypes are a net disadvantage for Hillary Clinton.

I wish we had a female candidate for president who had a better record, took more courageous stances, and who wasn't named Clinton. I would gladly support such a candidate.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I see your problem. You're just stupid. You can't tell the difference between mentioning two concepts in the same post, and comparing those two concepts with each other. Can't you grasp the concept that women suffering from misogyny and blacks suffering from racism can both occur at the same time?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I think if she is running against a candidate with a relatively good record on women's issues (Sanders), it will be a slight negative. If she is running against a candidate with a poor record on women's issues (Republican) or a candidate with a misogynistic streak (Trump, Huckabee) it could be a plus. The reality is half of the voters are women. The President might have seen a voter edge in minority turnout, but they're called minorities for a reason. All that said, we can expect all sorts of gender based innuendos between now and the election if she is the candidate. I don't know if you followed the "nag" link in my previous post, but basically Fox News had an "expert" on (because he wrote a book titled "Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables") to say that Clinton lost to Obama in Iowa because she has a nagging voice.

Quote:

"When Barack Obama speaks, men hear, 'Take off for the future.' And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, 'Take out the garbage.' "

Expect a lot more of that. That is stuff that men don't have to hear.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Can't you grasp the concept that women suffering from misogyny and blacks suffering from racism can both occur at the same time?

Hillary Clinton is wealthy, educated and well connected. When she gets herself into trouble, congressional leaders run to her defense. She gets big donations from Wall Street and has the ear of foreign leaders. Just a year ago she was demanding tens of thousands of dollars for people to hear her speak.

Now that she is running, her main slogan is "Madame President"... she is running on the fact that she is a woman. There are many people who in polls say that they will vote for her because they want a woman president.

Yes, there are women who are suffering from misogyny and people of color who are suffering of racism.

Hillary Clinton, one of the most privileged and politically connected people in the world, is suffering from neither.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

snood wrote:

Can't you grasp the concept that women suffering from misogyny and blacks suffering from racism can both occur at the same time?

Hillary Clinton is wealthy, educated and well connected. When she gets herself into trouble, congressional leaders run to her defense. She gets big donations from Wall Street and has the ear of foreign leaders. Just a year ago she was demanding tens of thousands of dollars for people to hear her speak.

Now that she is running, her main slogan is "Madame President"... she is running on the fact that she is a woman. There are many people who in polls say that they will vote for her because they want a woman president.

Yes, there are women who are suffering from misogyny and people of color who are suffering of racism.

Hillary Clinton, one of the most privileged and politically connected people in the world, is suffering from neither.

Can you say with certainty that no men going to the ballots will refuse to vote for her because she's a woman?

2 Replies

@snood,

There are also women who will not vote for women for any office because they are women.

1 Reply

@snood,

Quote:

You're just stupid. You can't tell the difference between mentioning two concepts in the same post, and comparing those two concepts with each other.

This made me chuckle.

0 Replies

@snood,

Obviously there are some people who will not vote for her because she is a woman. There are other people who will vote for her because she is a woman. These people cancel each other out if they are equal in numbers. I suspect that with the understandable desire to have the first woman president, this is a net positive for Hillary Clinton (but who knows).

With the number of people who love Sarah Palin and the number of people who support Carly Fiorina (or would vote Republican in any case) added to the number of people who would vote for Hillary Clinton (which includes me if I have to)...

I suspect the number of Americans who would never vote for any woman is pretty low.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

I know ehbeth - isn't that something? Just like there are blacks who are prejudiced against blacks. It gets real weird and complicated. Would it be called racism and misogyny in those cases?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Just to put some facts into this conversation, it looks like Mitt Romney had a bigger hill to climb than Hillary Clinton does.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/6bdstjdogu2cb2zu35rrmw.png

1 Reply

@snood,

Not sure what a pro in the area would say but I'd still call it racism and misogyny.

0 Replies

@snood,

but why should anyone vote for a candidate because they are the same gender, race, religion etc

this whole first this, first that president is ridiculous, the best person for the job is the way to go, you guys even limit yourselves by saying they must be born american, there are no non native american citizens who wouldn't be a good president, i guess you'll never know

by the by, Australia beat you on two of the above points in the last few years, a woman who was not born in Australia was Prime Minister

2 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

but why should anyone vote for a candidate because they are the same gender, race, religion etc

No one is saying that anyone should vote for anyone because of those things. Why are you asking that question? Has someone on this thread suggested that women should only vote for women, blacks for blacks, men for men, etc.....?

0 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

but why should anyone vote for a candidate because they are the same gender, race, religion etc

no one has suggested that

0 Replies

Are We Ready For a Woman President? Really?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know