Why has the US never had a woman as president?

Avatar image for jackamomo
#1 Posted by Jackamomo (1619 posts) -

Is it because Hillary Clinton was just not made of the right stuff. As in, she didn't want it enough or she was complacent during her campaign?

Or is something about the American psyche, wherein heads of state require an air of machismo to connect with the electorate?

The UK is suffering it's second right wing female prime minister at the moment (nothing wrong with being female, just why did she have to be a smelly tory).

Elizabeth II defeated Spain and Victoria defeated France to put the UK at the center of world affairs for the following millennia.

Perhaps a woman's touch would be what is needed to unite a currently somewhat polarised nation?

Would you rule out there ever being a women in charge of the US?

Avatar image for ad1x2
#2 Posted by ad1x2 (7188 posts) -

We will eventually have a woman president. Clinton could have been the first woman president but she had a lot of baggage that hurt her in key swing states. For all we know, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, or even AOC could become the first woman president.

Either way, voting for or against a candidate because of what is in between their legs isn’t a good way to select our leadership, and Clinton got almost three million more votes than the president but lost the Electoral College.

Avatar image for warmblur
#3 Posted by warmblur (1491 posts) -

I wish Alexandria Ocasio Cortez would run but I would worry for her safety.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#4 Posted by Sevenizz (2794 posts) -

@warmblur: This is a joke, right?

Avatar image for watercrack445
#5 Posted by watercrack445 (1161 posts) -

@Sevenizz said:

@warmblur: This is a joke, right?

The USA started as a joke and it become real. You never know.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#6 Edited by Sevenizz (2794 posts) -

As a conservative, I prefer the best candidate for the job - the gender is irrelevant.

I would have liked to see Sarah Palin win Vice and PotUS thereafter. She’s very conservative, a constitutionalist, and a great American. Things I look for in a candidate.

Hillary was a horrible choice for the Democrats. She also exposed how corrupt the party really is. Elisabeth Warren is a pathological liar, Cortez is a communist, and Palosi isn’t very bright or articulate.

After Trump’s second term maybe the Republican’s best candidate will be a woman? Who knows?

Avatar image for connorgracie
#7 Posted by ConnorGracie (2 posts) -

Why are we told that women are equal, even in temperament, but then also told women have some sort of special touch.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
#8 Posted by Gaming-Planet (19790 posts) -

Don't really care about gender if they aren't corrupt and are competent enough for the job.

Avatar image for mandzilla
#9 Posted by Mandzilla (3243 posts) -

@Sevenizz: Sarah Palin? Lmao.

Avatar image for Ovirew
#10 Posted by Ovirew (8601 posts) -

I feel like I haven't really seen a remarkable president in the three decades I've been alive for. But I'm not even sure what that takes anymore.

Avatar image for Shmiity
#11 Posted by Shmiity (6217 posts) -

Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote by millions of votes. She really should have been our first female president. Why havent we had one, yet? America is kind of conservative compared to Europe and our politics are loaded with rich white guys who have been bought by other rich white guys

Avatar image for Shmiity
#12 Posted by Shmiity (6217 posts) -

@Sevenizz said:

As a conservative, I prefer the best candidate for the job - the gender is irrelevant.

I would have liked to see Sarah Palin win Vice and PotUS thereafter. She’s very conservative, a constitutionalist, and a great American. Things I look for in a candidate.

Hillary was a horrible choice for the Democrats. She also exposed how corrupt the party really is. Elisabeth Warren is a pathological liar, Cortez is a communist, and Palosi isn’t very bright or articulate.

After Trump’s second term maybe the Republican’s best candidate will be a woman? Who knows?

Jesus christ. Sarah Palin would be a horrific president. She is a braindead laughing stock. A great american? How about a total embarrassment. Conservative women are such oxymorons. Anti-women's rights and other bullshit

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#13 Posted by Sevenizz (2794 posts) -

@Shmiity: @mandzilla: I disagree. Sarah would’ve been a great president. You watch too much CNN.

And how are conservative women anti woman’s rights? What rights do they not have in western society and who’s taking them away?

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#16 Posted by Sevenizz (2794 posts) -

@Shmiity: Obama was white?

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#17 Edited by MirkoS77 (13732 posts) -

I’d love to see a woman as president. Women and men think and approach problems differently. I’d love to see the difference in manner of leadership and what leadership qualities manifest themselves more or less predicated upon gender and how that would impact policy and diplomacy.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
#19 Edited by KungfuKitten (26114 posts) -

@jackamomo said:

Perhaps a woman's touch would be what is needed to unite a currently somewhat polarised nation?

Would you rule out there ever being a women in charge of the US?

I would definitely not rule it out. I think it's pretty likely to happen in 2020. But I do think you're making a mistake in thinking that sex would matter much in rule. Nearly every statistic on gender and such, is useless when applied to individuals. There's no way to know what a female ruler will be like unless you know that particular ruler having functioned as a ruler. (Because ruling can also really change people.)

If we pretend to be lovers of statistics, there have been female rulers in the world in history and I do think it's wrong to assume that they have been more peaceful and caring in the sense that, for example, a female ruler in the 15th to 19th century meant a 25% increase in the odds of waging war. Which is a statistic and should not be taken at face value obviously. This is partially because queens tended to attack others more quickly, and also be attacked more quickly. And marital status and their usual desired division of tasks are said to have had a large impact on the individual queen's tendency to wage war.

I do think it's wrong and odd to assume that femininity or a woman as a ruler would automatically mean a softer regime. We all remember the British singing ding dong the witch is dead for Margaret Thatcher, known for ruling with an iron fist and attempting to raise a poll tax that would have crippled the country. She did not care one iota about anyone in poverty: "In 1979, 13.4% of the population lived below 60% of median incomes before housing costs. By 1990, it had gone up to 22.2%, or 12.2m people, with huge rises in the mid-1980s." An amount of poverty that the UK has yet to recover from.

There have been terrible and there have been amazing female rulers, of course. Because they are people. And there are good people and there are bad people. And again, statistics tend to mean little to nothing when talking about individuals. So I have faith that a woman as a president of the US could be a great president, and I don't think that we should let our votes be swayed because of gender.

Avatar image for watercrack445
#20 Posted by watercrack445 (1161 posts) -

@raugutcon: So, I guess that includes me too xd

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#21 Posted by LJS9502_basic (165924 posts) -

@Sevenizz said:

As a conservative, I prefer the best candidate for the job - the gender is irrelevant.

I would have liked to see Sarah Palin win Vice and PotUS thereafter.

I hope that's a joke.........because she sure is.

Avatar image for warmblur
#22 Posted by warmblur (1491 posts) -

@Sevenizz said:

@warmblur: This is a joke, right?

No the joke is Trump supporters thinking they are going to get a tax cut LMAO.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for theone86
#23 Posted by theone86 (22337 posts) -

As far as being unqualified for the presidency goes, Donald Trump takes the cake. There is no way you can convince me that, despite Hillary's flaws, when a country looks at those two candidates and picks Trump over any woman on the face of the earth, there's no sexism involved. He is hugely, hugely unqualified in several different ways, and the fact that a large enough portion of the electorate was willing to overlook his myriad flaws over Hillary's relative few is textbook sexism.

Even disregarding that, the fact that women have had the right to vote for over one hundred years now (also a great example of sexism being deeply embedded in our society) and we still haven't had one female president is evidence enough of sexism. Women make up roughly fifty percent of our society, in a scenario even approaching fair they should make up close to half of our presidents. Even countries that have had female executives, like Great Britain, have a long way to go in achieving representational equality. In fact, most of the developed world has had a female leader for less than ten years since 1964. You want to know the countries which have had a female leader for fifteen or more years out of the past sixty (still less than half, BTW)? India, the Philippines, Ireland and Iceland. I'm pretty comfortable holding the position that the entire world is sexist.

@Sevenizz said:

As a conservative, I prefer the best candidate for the job - the gender is irrelevant.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#24 Posted by Jacanuk (17641 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

I’d love to see a woman as president. Women and men think and approach problems differently. I’d love to see the difference in manner of leadership and what leadership qualities manifest themselves more or less predicated upon gender and how that would impact policy and diplomacy.

Amazing you dare utter those words. :)

But as to the female president, the only reason why The United States of America has not yet had one. Is because there, has yet to be a candidate who could get the majority of states to vote for them. Clinton lost because she couldn´t talk sense with people in the midwest, in states that have normally gone for the Democrats and in 2008 and 12 voted heavily for Obama. And not because they happen to be female.

Most people don´t care if the candidate is male or female, they just want a competent candidate who speaks to them.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#25 Posted by uninspiredcup (30648 posts) -

Elizabeth I, she was proceeded by James VI/I. Spain failed largely due to Spain.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#26 Posted by Jacanuk (17641 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:

Elizabeth I, she was proceeded by James VI/I. Spain failed largely due to Spain.

That was a random thing to post?

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#27 Posted by uninspiredcup (30648 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@uninspiredcup said:

Elizabeth I, she was proceeded by James VI/I. Spain failed largely due to Spain.

That was a random thing to post?

Elizabeth II defeated Spain

Avatar image for n64dd
#28 Posted by N64DD (11379 posts) -

Because one hasn't won yet.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#29 Posted by comp_atkins (35400 posts) -
@Sevenizz said:

As a conservative, I prefer the best candidate for the job - the gender is irrelevant.

I would have liked to see Sarah Palin win Vice and PotUS thereafter. She’s very conservative, a constitutionalist, and a great American. Things I look for in a candidate.

Hillary was a horrible choice for the Democrats. She also exposed how corrupt the party really is. Elisabeth Warren is a pathological liar, Cortez is a communist, and Palosi isn’t very bright or articulate.

After Trump’s second term maybe the Republican’s best candidate will be a woman? Who knows?

this is a joke, right?

Avatar image for jackamomo
#30 Edited by Jackamomo (1619 posts) -

@KungfuKitten: actually we got the poll tax by stealth. They renamed it council tax. So yeah, sad that the one apparent act of defiance against injustice in recent memory was just slipped under the door a bit later and no-one seemed to notice.

Yes. The UK is still suffering from Thatcher's policies and manufacturing gave way to finance as the primary industry, Brills. Vast council estates and tasteless new-build gated communities are modern Britain.

If you watch the film This Is England and the spinoff series you can see what council estates are like. Although filmed in Mansfield, it's set in Nottingham (where I grew up). Mansfield is just one big poor ass city just north of Nottingham. Actually Nottingham is pretty good now, they have trams and the oldest open town square in the country which they did up about 10 years ago.

The UK used to have lidos everywhere. They all closed in the early 90's to raise cash for poor tory politicians.

But how many women have actually ran for presidency in the US? One? It's still a young country though, but the lack of candidates thus far does pique my attention.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#31 Posted by Jacanuk (17641 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:
@Jacanuk said:
@uninspiredcup said:

Elizabeth I, she was proceeded by James VI/I. Spain failed largely due to Spain.

That was a random thing to post?

Elizabeth II defeated Spain

Ohhh I completely missed those arguments from the TS, I just read the first few lines and went with the "why has the US never had a female president"

Also, you can´t quite compare the UK´s royal line with the democratic election process. but you are 100% right, It was during the period of Queen Elizabeth the first, the Spanish Armada was "beaten" sort of by Drake.

Avatar image for jackamomo
#32 Edited by Jackamomo (1619 posts) -

@Jacanuk: yeah well. History is always more complicated than it seems at first. Like which Elizabeth was it that hired the privateer (pirate) Francis Drake? 1 or 2? Doesn't matter, I'm no historian and too lazy to look it up. The fact the Spanish Armada sailed around the north coast and got wrecked didn't help much either.

My point about female monarchs was how much more ruthless/effective they turned out to be than their male counterparts.

Avatar image for vfighter
#33 Posted by VFighter (4308 posts) -

@theone86: Everyone's so sexist, the worlds sexist, lol what a joke.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#34 Posted by mattbbpl (16638 posts) -

@comp_atkins: I couldn't bring myself to ask. Best to let Palin lie in the dustbin of history, never to be brought back into relevance.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#35 Posted by Jacanuk (17641 posts) -

@jackamomo said:

@Jacanuk: yeah well. History is always more complicated than it seems at first. Like which Elizabeth was it that hired the privateer (pirate) Francis Drake? 1 or 2? Doesn't matter, I'm no historian and too lazy to look it up. The fact the Spanish Armada sailed around the north coast and got wrecked didn't help much either.

My point about female monarchs was how much more ruthless/effective they turned out to be than their male counterparts.

Yup, history is sometimes complicated :)

But still your thread main topic was good, it would be interesting to see a female president and see how different it would be or it would be exactly the same.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
#36 Posted by vl4d_l3nin (1679 posts) -

Very few have run.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#37 Edited by comp_atkins (35400 posts) -
@warmblur said:
@Sevenizz said:

@warmblur: This is a joke, right?

No the joke is Trump supporters thinking they are going to get a tax cut LMAO.

Loading Video...

on the tax front I can't speak for these individuals obviously, however a smaller return in april due to less money being deducted throughout the year is not a tax increase. in many cases you'll get less back because you had less automatically withheld throughout the year.

haven't done my return yet this year but my withholdings did go down about 1.4% so it'll be interesting to see if getting fucked on SALT will take that savings away.

Avatar image for horgen
#38 Posted by Horgen (119419 posts) -

US seems very conservative when it comes to wins the election. It is probably more than one reason for it being so.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#39 Posted by MirkoS77 (13732 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:
@MirkoS77 said:

I’d love to see a woman as president. Women and men think and approach problems differently. I’d love to see the difference in manner of leadership and what leadership qualities manifest themselves more or less predicated upon gender and how that would impact policy and diplomacy.

Amazing you dare utter those words. :)

But as to the female president, the only reason why The United States of America has not yet had one. Is because there, has yet to be a candidate who could get the majority of states to vote for them. Clinton lost because she couldn´t talk sense with people in the midwest, in states that have normally gone for the Democrats and in 2008 and 12 voted heavily for Obama. And not because they happen to be female.

Most people don´t care if the candidate is male or female, they just want a competent candidate who speaks to them.

Honestly, I was expecting to wake up this morning to far more push back from that line.

Though I think you're discounting that sexism and racism are still playing significant parts in precluding electing a female to the height of power. Anecdotal I realize, but I can't tell you how often I heard the most disgusting criticisms of Hillary on the lead up to the election, and they weren't at all directed at her qualifications as a person. Misogyny and sexism still run rampant in our society, and it's a huge burden for any woman running to overcome.

Avatar image for theone86
#40 Posted by theone86 (22337 posts) -

@vfighter: Great comeback, dude, how could I ever hope to counter such a sophisticated argument?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#42 Edited by LJS9502_basic (165924 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

Honestly, I was expecting to wake up this morning to far more push back from that line.

Though I think you're discounting that sexism and racism are still playing significant parts in precluding electing a female to the height of power. Anecdotal I realize, but I can't tell you how often I heard the most disgusting criticisms of Hillary on the lead up to the election, and they weren't at all directed at her qualifications as a person. Misogyny and sexism still run rampant in our society, and it's a huge burden for any woman running to overcome.

Indeed they do. Unfortunately. Then again our current president appeals to the base instincts of some individuals.

Avatar image for watercrack445
#43 Edited by watercrack445 (1161 posts) -

I've been thinking recently and found something interesting. There are more woman identifying bi compared to men. I've been seeing through personal experiences on the internet and other places that women are saying their bi then compared to males. I have a source to back it up even.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/why-more-and-more-women-are-identifying-as-bisexual-a7354751.html

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
#44 Edited by KungfuKitten (26114 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@MirkoS77 said:

Honestly, I was expecting to wake up this morning to far more push back from that line.

Though I think you're discounting that sexism and racism are still playing significant parts in precluding electing a female to the height of power. Anecdotal I realize, but I can't tell you how often I heard the most disgusting criticisms of Hillary on the lead up to the election, and they weren't at all directed at her qualifications as a person. Misogyny and sexism still run rampant in our society, and it's a huge burden for any woman running to overcome.

Indeed they do. Unfortunately. Then again our current president appeals to the base instincts of some individuals.

I always feel so weird hearing about that stuff as someone who doesn't live in the USA. But then I'm reading Pikety's Capital in the 21st century and even he is writing a little in his introduction about how slavery and racism have been common in the USA for far longer (I think he says about a 100 years longer) than in Europe, so it's still much more on the surface of everything, a topic of the day? I don't know if that's true but I guess that would explain why these topics are still so sensitive on USA forums.

It's pretty tough for me to imagine masses of people talking about Hillary being a woman and therefore somehow unable to be a good president. I would say: "Aren't we in the 21st century by now?" To me it really sounds like something from the past. But I suppose every culture is ahead or behind in different ways.

What makes it extra weird to me is that there are already female leaders in the USA (and the rest of the world) who show that they can do their job. I happen to know the previous CEO of Dupont (Ellen Kullman) through somebody else, and from what I heard she was doing a pretty damn good job and she is a woman.

Avatar image for vfighter
#45 Edited by VFighter (4308 posts) -

@KungfuKitten: Their arent masses of people thinking that, some people want you to think that but its not true in anyway. She lost because she was an unlikeable person with a shady feel about her.

Also racism isnt nearly as bad as some (mostly the left) want you to think. Is it still alive, yes and no matter what you try to do it will never 100% go away. But the way people throw the word racist and racism around now it a complete joke. Bottom line dont believe everything you hear.

Avatar image for horgen
#46 Posted by Horgen (119419 posts) -

@KungfuKitten said:

I always feel so weird hearing about that stuff as someone who doesn't live in the USA. But then I'm reading Pikety's Capital in the 21st century and even he is writing a little in his introduction about how slavery and racism have been common in the USA for far longer (I think he says about a 100 years longer) than in Europe, so it's still much more on the surface of everything, a topic of the day? I don't know if that's true but I guess that would explain why these topics are still so sensitive on USA forums.

It's pretty tough for me to imagine masses of people talking about Hillary being a woman and therefore somehow unable to be a good president. I would say: "Aren't we in the 21st century by now?" To me it really sounds like something from the past. But I suppose every culture is ahead or behind in different ways.

What makes it extra weird to me is that there are already female leaders in the USA (and the rest of the world) who show that they can do their job. I happen to know the previous CEO of Dupont (Ellen Kullman) through somebody else, and from what I heard she was doing a pretty damn good job and she is a woman.

Women aren't emotionally stable, duh :P

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#47 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10288 posts) -

@vfighter said:

Also racism isnt nearly as bad as some (mostly the left) want you to think.

Yeah, we've just got a president that mocks others by calling them 'Pocahontas', his son jokes about the genocide of native Americans, and they also supported racist birther campaigns against Obama. And that's just our leader at the top.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#48 Posted by Jacanuk (17641 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

Honestly, I was expecting to wake up this morning to far more push back from that line.

Though I think you're discounting that sexism and racism are still playing significant parts in precluding electing a female to the height of power. Anecdotal I realize, but I can't tell you how often I heard the most disgusting criticisms of Hillary on the lead up to the election, and they weren't at all directed at her qualifications as a person. Misogyny and sexism still run rampant in our society, and it's a huge burden for any woman running to overcome.

Ya, I am surprised you got away with that comment :)

But not discounting sexism and racism, because it still exists especially in some groups, but considering we had Obama i just think for a huge majority it does not play a role and what they care about is a charismatic candidate who can speak to them and for them. Clinton only lost because she managed to be so dislikeable that the core swing states who went Obama in 08 and 12, turned away and decided to pick someone else.

But Democrats does not seem to have learned anything from Clinton, the current lineup of democratic female candidates are all people who at the core is uncharismatic and can´t speak to most independents and the unhappy Republicans. Also to be fair with Biden as a candidate, it will be hard to see any Democrat being able to take the spot from him.