diverborg 0 #26 September 28, 2005 QuoteCould a woman lead this country? Would she be taken seriously? You think GW's cruel. Better hope some other country's leader doesn't break this woman's heart, we'll have nukes flying everywhere. Nukes + woman with broken heart = bad idea Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #27 September 28, 2005 QuoteI bet there are men that would vote for a woman based on gender alone also. As there are women that would still vote against a female candidate, as they feel that a woman's place is in the home Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #28 September 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteI bet there are men that would vote for a woman based on gender alone also. As there are women that would still vote against a female candidate, as they feel that a woman's place is in the home So now we are back to anyone would vote for anybody else for whatever reason. The point is disproportionate bias as a result of a novelty (or at least new) condition. I hope the percentage of unreasoning nuts is small and the opposing nuts will tend to cancel each other out. But the more I know people the more I find that these polarized groups of activist nuts are a much bigger proportion of the populace than I originally thought. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #29 September 28, 2005 Quote So now we are back to anyone would vote for anybody else for whatever reason. The point is disproportionate bias as a result of a novelty (or at least new) condition. I hope the percentage of unreasoning nuts is small and the opposing nuts will tend to cancel each other out. But the more I know people the more I find that these polarized groups of activist nuts are a much bigger proportion of the populace than I originally thought. The reults are back. It has been determined that in the 2004 elections, a total of 17 people cast their votes based in independent, critical thought. They all had to write in their candidates name, however. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #30 September 28, 2005 QuoteQuote So now we are back to anyone would vote for anybody else for whatever reason. The point is disproportionate bias as a result of a novelty (or at least new) condition. I hope the percentage of unreasoning nuts is small and the opposing nuts will tend to cancel each other out. But the more I know people the more I find that these polarized groups of activist nuts are a much bigger proportion of the populace than I originally thought. The reults are back. It has been determined that in the 2004 elections, a total of 17 people cast their votes based in independent, critical thought. They all had to write in their candidates name, however. this is what I'm saying - and, by the way, the vote was still split 9 to 8. Do you want to join a consortium of skydivers working to start a DZ on Cuervo Island? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #31 September 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote So now we are back to anyone would vote for anybody else for whatever reason. The point is disproportionate bias as a result of a novelty (or at least new) condition. I hope the percentage of unreasoning nuts is small and the opposing nuts will tend to cancel each other out. But the more I know people the more I find that these polarized groups of activist nuts are a much bigger proportion of the populace than I originally thought. The reults are back. It has been determined that in the 2004 elections, a total of 17 people cast their votes based in independent, critical thought. They all had to write in their candidates name, however. this is what I'm saying - and, by the way, the vote was still split 9 to 8. Do you want to join a consortium of skydivers working to start a DZ on Cuervo Island? We may have to change that. I looked at Cuervo Island and it is pretty small. Although, we maybe import dirt to build it bigger. Maybe we jump from seaplanes.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #32 September 28, 2005 QuoteDo you want to join a consortium of skydivers working to start a DZ on Cuervo Island? That depends. Is there a lime tree on Cuervo Island? Or at least a tailgate aircraft? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #33 September 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteCould a woman lead this country? Would she be taken seriously? You think GW's cruel. Better hope some other country's leader doesn't break this woman's heart, we'll have nukes flying everywhere. Nukes + woman with broken heart = bad idea No, Nukes + woman with once a month PMS = bad idea! How can we trust her not to launch those nukes at that time every month??? "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverborg 0 #34 September 28, 2005 QuoteNo, Nukes + woman with once a month PMS = bad idea! How can we trust her not to launch those nukes at that time every month??? I didn't even think of that. Were doomed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #35 September 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteHonestly, I think we're at a time where her abilities would matter more than her gender. I disagree, there was a post in the Women's forum on it. I won't provide a link because I don't want us SC weirdos over their disturbing the atmosphere. Let's just say that there were some strong indications that many would vote based on gender alone. If you're referring to the number of females who would vote for a woman based on gender alone, then I'm willing to bet that those votes would be countered by the number of men who would still vote for the male candidate based on gender alone (assuming it was a male and a female running in the two main parties)... But I wasn't really referring to how many would vote for her anyway. I was responding to the question of would she be taken seriously as a President, which I think would depend more on her actions than on her gender. You left out a HUGE group. The number of women who would vote against her based on gender alone. As a society, we are nowhere near placing competence over gender. I used to think it was just the men holding us back. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windcatcher 0 #36 September 28, 2005 I hope we never have a female president...women are too emotional!!! ( I know I'm gonna get flamed for that one, though I know people agree with me) Mother to the cutest little thing in the world... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #37 September 28, 2005 QuoteI used to think it was just the men holding us back. nuts What we are is a long way from people taking "individuals" seriously until we all decide to stop blaming ("them" whoever 'they' are) demographics for personal failures. Just keep drawing boundaries forever. It's much easier than owning ones personal attitude towards life. It's ultimately easier than taking each person we meet and judging them based on their actions alone and not the cosmetic crap so many are hung up on. It always easier to put yourself into any 'oppressed' group blaming others for our INDIVIDUAL failures. remember the whole 'content of character' quote? Character is about individuals, not groups ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #38 September 28, 2005 QuoteI hope we never have a female president...women are too emotional!!! ( I know I'm gonna get flamed for that one, though I know people agree with me) Not gonna flame you. That is exactly why we don't have woman cops, firefighters, or CEO's. They are far too emotional to take on such volitile and stressful... oh wait. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #39 September 28, 2005 I think the whole show is designed to get viewers used to the idea of a woman in office. If it lasts more than a season, you'll have some people comfortable seeing a woman at the helm and by 2008, it'll be that much easier to vote for Hillary! I'd like to formulate a whole evil-democrat-go-hillary conspiracy theory about it... and probably could... but I just don't care enough. I'll just vote against her and call it a day.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #40 September 28, 2005 QuoteI think we have finally grown up enough as a society that we can put competence before sex. Tell that to Bill Clinton. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 September 28, 2005 QuoteBut I wasn't really referring to how many would vote for her anyway. I was responding to the question of would she be taken seriously as a President, which I think would depend more on her actions than on her gender. Figure the first one will have to be a ball buster, like Thatcher or Taxan Ann Richards. It can't be a whining type like Nancy Pelosi that would reinforce negative opinions of female leadership. Feinstein would probably work as well, but too old at this point. H Clinton, otoh, total disaster. If it happens in the next election, look for the GOP to pick a woman for the Veep slot. Someone like Christine Whitman out of New Jersey? The Democrats won't do it - too desparate for a win to take any chances on voter sexism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #42 September 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteMargaret Thatcher did just fine in the UK. No she didn't. Margaret Thatcher didfine for the South East of England. She and her government fucked the rest of the uk. John So, I'm from Kent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #43 September 28, 2005 QuoteYou left out a HUGE group. The number of women who would vote against her based on gender alone. I think that for alot of women, it is more than gender... Most of the women I have talked to about it quietly admit to not trusting her as far as they could throw her, and see her as a conniving, power-hungry witch willing to do whatever she has to (and overlook whatever she has to) to get what she wants. The almost universal refrain is: "How does standing by her cheating husband who she gained entree into the halls of power through in the first place make her strong and smart"? Quite frankly, if I was a woman, I would be repulsed at the thought of her representing my gender. (FYI, I am a liberal Democrat and have no problem with a woman president who is strong and capable; any more than I do a black one or a naturalized citizen.)"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benforde 0 #44 September 28, 2005 Quote Margaret Thatcher did just fine in the UK. Of course, she's no Geena Davis. She was a bitch, but a respected bitch. I have no problem with a woman President. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #45 September 28, 2005 What ScotishJohn said... Strange how (like B Liar) the foriegn press like our heads of government better than we do. (selective reporting, I guess) Our Tone, might be Bush's poodle but Maggie was Ragan's Pit Bull! She F**cked this country over good an proper and no mistake! - She set in motion a period of such greed that we're still trying to live down. . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 September 28, 2005 QuoteWhat ScotishJohn said... Strange how (like B Liar) the foriegn press like our heads of government better than we do. (selective reporting, I guess) We don't suffer the consequences of bad policy the way that you would. So it's easier for the positives seen to outweight the rest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #47 September 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteI used to think it was just the men holding us back. nuts What we are is a long way from people taking "individuals" seriously until we all decide to stop blaming ("them" whoever 'they' are) demographics for personal failures. Just keep drawing boundaries forever. It's much easier than owning ones personal attitude towards life. It's ultimately easier than taking each person we meet and judging them based on their actions alone and not the cosmetic crap so many are hung up on. It always easier to put yourself into any 'oppressed' group blaming others for our INDIVIDUAL failures. remember the whole 'content of character' quote? Character is about individuals, not groups So, basically, what you are saying is that your experiences as a woman differ from mine? No problem. We all are individuals. Congratulations on coming out!----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #48 September 29, 2005 QuoteFeinstein would probably work as well, *WHAAAARRRRRRRRRFFFFFF* Ahem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #49 September 29, 2005 I don't think that it would have an effect on the volume of wars. Margaret Thatcher (sp?) took her country to the Falklands. Indira Gandhi had a large amount of documented crimes going on including forced sterilization, genocide, and torture. Sex doesn't define a moral compass. How much deceit that someone will ignore to get into/stay in office is a good one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #50 September 29, 2005 QuoteI don't think that it would have an effect on the volume of wars. Margaret Thatcher (sp?) took her country to the Falklands. Indira Gandhi had a large amount of documented crimes going on including forced sterilization, genocide, and torture. Sex doesn't define a moral compass. How much deceit that someone will ignore to get into/stay in office is a good one. The Falklands War was, however, initiated by the Argie generals, all male. Thatcher didn't have to lie to the Brits to justify re-taking the Falklands.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
