NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you rather have a female president or a male president? I think this will be a big issue with the 2008 election. Hillary vs. ________

Vote and then explain your reasoning.

Well I like Hillary's husband and so by association I think I will like her.

Second, if male presidents are this bad(I think Bush is IMO) than a woman President can be a nice change.

Third, woman are just as strong mentally as the rest of us so physical differences don't matter. The President does not need strength so being a male in no way helps.

Fourth, I'd like to see if one female trys to paint White House Pink. (It wasn't always white either)

I'm not so convinced that a woman president would be as mentally capable as a male would be. When we had a classroom debate all of the women saw war as a stupid, childish thing. I personally do not want to be lead by someone who may possibly have this mentality.

I'm not so convinced that a woman president would be as mentally capable as a male would be. When we had a classroom debate all of the women saw war as a stupid, childish thing. I personally do not want to be lead by someone who may possibly have this mentality.
According to that class there would be less wars, no?

I see no reason why women would be any worse or any better than men at being President.

For me, it all depends on the individual. Is it Hillary Clinton running against Jerry Falwell? Well, the answer is I'll take the female. Is it John Edwards against Ann Coulter? Gimme the guy any day. Is it Pat Robertson against Ann Coulter? I'll be flying to the Marquesas Islands and spending the next eight years there, thank you very much.

I agree. Does anatomy really effect politics?

As for the pink White House, you'd do better to check color preferences than gender for that one. Maybe that's an issue candidates should start addressing in debates?

I'm not so convinced that a woman president would be as mentally capable as a male would be. When we had a classroom debate all of the women saw war as a stupid, childish thing. I personally do not want to be lead by someone who may possibly have this mentality.
All i gotta say is get a woman president on a pms day, we wont need all these troops she'll go over there and ring osama by the neck herself! :sniper:

Margaret Thatcher didn't do so bad as PM of the UK.

I'd vote for a woman president, no problem. Actually, I think Jocelyn Elders would do a fine job.

I'm not so convinced that a woman president would be as mentally capable as a male would be. When we had a classroom debate all of the women saw war as a stupid, childish thing. I personally do not want to be lead by someone who may possibly have this mentality.
so you see war as a smart, mature thing?
geez, i sure as hell dont want a warmonger like you in office (dammit, already got one)

For me, it all depends on the individual. Is it Hillary Clinton running against Jerry Falwell? Well, the answer is I'll take the female. Is it John Edwards against Ann Coulter? Gimme the guy any day. Is it Pat Robertson against Ann Coulter? I'll be flying to the Marquesas Islands and spending the next eight years there, thank you very much.
What you said. And double.

I would definitely rather have a female president than Hillary.

All i gotta say is get a woman president on a pms day, we wont need all these troops she'll go over there and ring osama by the neck herself! :sniper:

Men are full of testosterone. If being in PMS makes one personally violent and irrationally insensitive to danger, then being male must be a little like experiencing PMS 24/7.

I don't think there are any important differences between the ways men and women act, except for those caused directly by hormones -- such as testosterone -- and in the event, these can be consciously controlled in both sexes if one has the will to do so. But if one *does* consider this to be an important difference, a woman would likely be more rational, less aggressive, more willing to compromise, and better at diplomacy, simply thanks to lower testosterone levels.

P.S. I think Wolfenstein Castle's quote about the classroom debate and war was meant to be ironic. Or at least I hope so.

Men are full of testosterone. If being in PMS makes one personally violent and irrationally insensitive to danger, then being male must be a little like experiencing PMS 24/7.

I don't think there are any important differences between the ways men and women act, except for those caused directly by hormones -- such as testosterone -- and in the event, these can be consciously controlled in both sexes if one has the will to do so. But if one *does* consider this to be an important difference, a woman would likely be more rational, less aggressive, more willing to compromise, and better at diplomacy, simply thanks to lower testosterone levels.

P.S. I think Wolfenstein Castle's quote about the classroom debate and war was meant to be ironic. Or at least I hope so.

Actually Woman can be known to be just as agreesive, unrational, less willing to compromise, and less good at diplomacy due to more estrogen.

So it swings both ways. So men and woman are equal there.

It doesnt really matter what gender the president as long as it does a good job.

It doesnt really matter what gender the president as long as it does a good job.
I agree. I didn't vote. If it was Hillary Clinton vs a male Republican, I'd vote male. But given the way the poll is asked, I don't have a preference and therfore I won't vote.

yes it all depends on who is running. Granted we havent had a woman president yet so when one does run she'll probably get elected regardless of who the male is.

I'll have to take your word for that, BastardSword. But don't testosterone and estrogen have totally different effects on behaviour? Recall that the female body produces testosterone too, just in far smaller amounts than a male one. If estrogen affected behaviour in all the same ways as testosterone, why would women produce any of the latter at all?

At any rate, I think that with a little self-control, it is perfectly possible for a male to overcome any natural testosterone-induced aggressiveness, etc., just like it is possible for a woman to consciously keep any equivalent effects under control. The whole point of being human is that we are not slaves to our hormones, and when the situation calls for it (which, in politics, would be often,) men can act traditionally "feminine" and women -- traditionally "masculine" (if anyone knows what these words mean at all, 'cause my understanding of them is limited to some scenes from 50s' and 80s' Hollywood flics.)

Since whoever your President is, you probably want them to have self-control, I do think men and women would, on average, be equally capable, with perhaps a small advantage on the female side, unless BastardSword is right about estrogen having the same effects as testosterone.

Frankly, I don't care about race or gender in our President, only on his/her positions and how well the job gets done.

I refuse to use gender as any sort of individual criteria for candidacy or electibility. That said, woman all the way.

Isn't it about time the USA had a president with a brain ?

male or female

So would the Lady Presidents husband be called the first Gentleman?
Don't see why in a place that espouses the value of democracy a none elected person has such influence and is given such kudos.

So would the Lady Presidents husband be called the first Gentleman?
Don't see why in a place that espouses the value of democracy a none elected person has such influence and is given such kudos.

I have wondered about that briefly at times, the same way I have wondered how the wedding vows would be rewritten for gay marriages. The whole "I now pronounce you husband and wife" thing just doesn't work in those situations.

In any case, most First Ladies haven't had a whole lot of influence, but some have. The ones who come to mind are Eleanor Roosevelt, Barbara Bush, and Hillary Clinton. Laura Bush is now quite as influential as her mother-in-law or predecessor, but at least she's somewhat noticed, though the media probably helps a lot in that situation. It all depends on the individual, really, and in large part, it depends on the culture. First Ladies, or First Gentlemen, will have more exposure now because of the media and the fact that there are more opportunities for them to get noticed.

Voters know, or should know, who their First Lady/Gentleman will be when they elect a President. The vote is over a President and a Vice President, but it's not like voters aren't also voting on everything that comes with them.

Doesn't matter to me. The best person for the job, it be a woman or a man is really irrelevant to me.

I have wondered about that briefly at times, the same way I have wondered how the wedding vows would be rewritten for gay marriages. The whole "I now pronounce you husband and wife" thing just doesn't work in those situations.

In any case, most First Ladies haven't had a whole lot of influence, but some have. The ones who come to mind are Eleanor Roosevelt, Barbara Bush, and Hillary Clinton. Laura Bush is now quite as influential as her mother-in-law or predecessor, but at least she's somewhat noticed, though the media probably helps a lot in that situation. It all depends on the individual, really, and in large part, it depends on the culture. First Ladies, or First Gentlemen, will have more exposure now because of the media and the fact that there are more opportunities for them to get noticed.

Voters know, or should know, who their First Lady/Gentleman will be when they elect a President. The vote is over a President and a Vice President, but it's not like voters aren't also voting on everything that comes with them.
Ok I'll give you that, but if the voters there are like most of the voters here, they have no idea what they are voting for, and vote how thier parent voted or their friends do.

I don't care if it's a man or woman, as long as it isn't Hilary Clinton.

I don't care if it's a man or woman, as long as it isn't Hilary Clinton.

I'll second that.

male. having a president would involve enough of a regime shift (i'm a britisher) without shaking things up more with having a woman in charge. besides we tried it and it failed. we got fucking thatcher.

male. having a president would involve enough of a regime shift (i'm a britisher) without shaking things up more with having a woman in charge. besides we tried it and it failed. we got fucking thatcher.

thatcher was a woman?

Living in a country with a female president, I can say that sex matters very little in practice. The people who are accomplished enough to run for that office (on their own) don't conform to most other stereotypes about their background, so why should gender have such an effect?

Interestingly enough, when the current president was running her campaign, I saw variations of the same critical comments that are featured on this thread. Consequently, I can't really take them seriously because they were so severely refuted by experts at the time. :)

thatcher was a woman?


thats what the dna tests said

When we had a classroom debate all of the women saw war as a stupid, childish thing.
The women were right.

Living in a country with a female president, I can say that sex matters very little in practice. The people who are accomplished enough to run for that office (on their own) don't conform to most other stereotypes about their background, so why should gender have such an effect?

Interestingly enough, when the current president was running her campaign, I saw variations of the same critical comments that are featured on this thread. Consequently, I can't really take them seriously because they were so severely refuted by experts at the time. :)

Agreed. It's really a shame that people are moronic enough to debate something as trivial as the gender of the president. This debate practically eats away all of the discussion about what s/he stands for and if s/he is best for the country, and so on. Prime example: the aforementioned, Halonen. Mrs. Halonen is a hardline leftist Social Democrat, and then some populations supporting - get this - the Conservative party vote for her! Now, she goes and supports feel-good treaties like the Ottawa land mine treaty. Social Democrats ALWAYS have money to "save the world". And that money is in your wallet.

Conclusion: You should never, ever ask this question.

(Another note: because English doesn't have a proper gender-neutral pronoun, let's make one up. We take "s/he/it", and abbreviate it to "shit". Brilliant, isn't it?)

edit: P.S. and I voted for a Conservative woman.