Female Presidents?

[Dr. Haight]

If US history consisted of forty-three female presidents in a row, rather than forty-three white dudes, what would the US look like today?
Or for those with less time (or interest), would it be a better place, worse then it is currently, or just different?


My opinion is that it would be far more socialistic, it would have a less aggressive foreign policy, it would not be as economically strong, and would have allot in common with Asian political systems than it does with the West.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Its anybodies guess.

I tend to think there would be more equality in the workplace.

[Lee]

Man would have been enslaved, stripped of their rights and condemned to a life of toil. A police state would be enforce strict laws, all toilet seats shall remain down on pain of death, televised sports will all be cancelled, the pornography industry crippled under strict new regulations. Constant nit-picking will lead to ever more complex legislation, the leaders, never ever satisfied with the results, will forever be proposing new rules and regulations.

Eventually, rising up amongst the endless oppression will be a resistence movement, the females attempts to breed a more docile male backfire, as males learn to cooperate to escape, channeling their aggressive impulses, using their larger brains they fight back.

The war endures over many generations, man against the machines women. On December the 24th 2150 the war is finally won, when the almighty ruler of the female forces breaks a nail and surrenders.

The End

[Nyairj]

If US history consisted of forty-three female presidents in a row, rather than forty-three white dudes, what would the US look like today?

We'd have been overrun by now. Like most other countries, America was forged with blood and iron. Feminine qualities are ill-suited for the aggressive, Machiavellian power politics and ruthless warmongering necessary to build and defend a great nation. There are women who are capable of getting their hands dirty, but it does not come as naturally to them as it does for men. Their unimposing appearance does not inspire the kind of confidence in a leader that a powerful male figure does, and female leaders are perceived as weak by enemy countries -- a potentially deadly liability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Austrian_Succession).

[zhang_bob]

We'd have been overrun by now. Like most other countries, America was forged with blood and iron. Feminine qualities are ill-suited for the aggressive, Machiavellian power politics and ruthless warmongering necessary to build and defend a great nation. There are women who are capable of getting their hands dirty, but it does not come as naturally to them as it does for men. Their unimposing appearance does not inspire the kind of confidence in a leader that a powerful male figure does, and female leaders are perceived as weak by enemy countries -- a potentially deadly liability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Austrian_Succession).

From what I have seen from your post I thought you would like Margaret Thatcher.

You are sexist.

[Superstring]

[B] If US history consisted of forty-three female presidents in a row, rather than forty-three white dudes, what would the US look like today?..

...I think it would have a less aggressive foreign policy

There's an obvious lack of historical consideration in thinking that.

[Snowflake]

WTF does it matter?

You're sexist no matter how you look at the picture, duh.

[KuJo]

i think somewhere along the line we would have gotten one crazy bitch that would nuke someone on her period. that sounds terrible. whatever.

[ShadyShady]

We'd have been overrun by now. Like most other countries, America was forged with blood and iron. Feminine qualities are ill-suited for the aggressive, Machiavellian power politics and ruthless warmongering necessary to build and defend a great nation. There are women who are capable of getting their hands dirty, but it does not come as naturally to them as it does for men. Their unimposing appearance does not inspire the kind of confidence in a leader that a powerful male figure does, and female leaders are perceived as weak by enemy countries -- a potentially deadly liability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Austrian_Succession).

this is vicious but its how some other countries view female leaders:

Condoleezza Rice's anti-Russian stance based on sexual problems (http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/354/16724_Condoleezza.html)

[Sackanaka]

lol http://english.pravda.ru/topic/vampire-79

[Snowflake]

i think somewhere along the line we would have gotten one crazy bitch that would nuke someone on her period. that sounds terrible. whatever.

LOL :rofl:

[Serotonin]

this is vicious but its how some other countries view female leaders:

Condoleezza Rice's anti-Russian stance based on sexual problems (http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/354/16724_Condoleezza.html)

Um, yeah.

It's like an onion, the more layers you peel away, the closer to the, uh, pravda you get.

At least Stalin would approve.

[Pooja]

this is vicious but its how some other countries view female leaders:

Condoleezza Rice's anti-Russian stance based on sexual problems (http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/354/16724_Condoleezza.html)

Shady- where's the hate tonight? I was expecting something more from you here!

[Superstring]

The statement from the high-ranking US official sounded like a reprimand from a strict babysitter that was teaching its baby to behave.

What terrific journalism...no room for opinions on that one.


The civilized world needs to think about a decision when single politicians are not allowed to stay in power. This was a common practice in the Soviet political system.

Interesting.....so that way other countries could be more like the...Soviet...Union..

[ShadyShady]

Shady- where's the hate tonight? I was expecting something more from you here!


I want to be a house husband now. You do all the work and I'll stay home playing videogames with the kids.

[Eileen]

I want to be a house husband now. You do all the work and I'll stay home playing videogames with the kids.

Righto.

[cafe]

I sometimes think that if women had been in power, the civil war would have been avoided, but that's just a sentiment that popped into my head while watching Gods and Generals.

[Nemesis]

I sometimes think that if women had been in power, the civil war would have been avoided, but that's just a sentiment that popped into my head while watching Gods and Generals.
That would have sucked.

[Fade2Black]

We would settle issues by having a bake-off contest.

[Superstring]

I sometimes think that if women had been in power, the civil war would have been avoided, but that's just a sentiment that popped into my head while watching Gods and Generals.

I don't get why so many people here have this impression that women are less likely to enter wars, I believe there is some statistic like 100% of female leaders throughout historical times have initiated wars....to me, a warring female leader is a stereotype.

[cafe]

I don't get why so many people here have this impression that women are less likely to enter wars, I believe there is some statistic like 100% of female leaders throughout historical times have initiated wars....to me, a warring female leader is a stereotype.
I guess I feel that I'd be darned unlikely to send my babies off to be killed without one heck of a good reason. But I'm also not the type of woman that is aggressive enough to become a political leader, so you are right that it's a faulty sentiment.

[Nemesis]

We would settle issues by having a bake-off contest.
Wow. You're stupid. It would totally be by having wet t-shirt contests. Sign me up for this world.

[Fade2Black]

Wow. You're stupid. It would totally be by having wet t-shirt contests. Sign me up for this world.

But I like cookies. happppy

[dubbeltop]

I think the only thing that would change is the lawn of the white house and the interior of the white house. Anyway women like to share the decision making process so that the decision is more like we see at the UN. They prevents Bush like decisions. But women have also better communication skills which are a plus since communication is what we need in this world right now. Anyway I think once a woman becomes president we will see more women issues starting to appear on the world agenda.So...thats my view

[zhang_bob]

WTF does it matter?

You're sexist no matter how you look at the picture, duh.
Snowflake let me correct your poor grammar.
:wtf: Zhang bob sexy no matter how you look at the picture.

[zhang_bob]

I swear George W. Bush has a constant period.

[booyalab]

Anyway I think once a woman becomes president we will see more women issues starting to appear on the world agenda.So...thats my view
'women issues'?

[Dr. Haight]

There's an obvious lack of historical consideration in thinking that.
Before I start, this is counter-factual history and truth is rarely, if ever, found within them. I find it fun and I wanted to see if anyone else shared this sentiment. Obviously, the answer is no, due to the limited response so I will try to refrain in the future.

With that said, allow me to attempt to answer this question, although it's a bit vague, I think I know where you are going with this. You are stating (I hope) that, "All the famous female leaders, such as Thatcher, Queen Elizabeth, Golda Meir, and others have held very aggressive foreign policies. Therefore, if the past is an indication of the future than the same would hold true."

And on the surface, I think you are right. Although, I could point to less famous female leaders in earlier times, such as early Native American cultures and early Japanese history, that is not what I was considering when I wrote the statement you cited. My statement is based on the, "43 female president's in a row," part of the question that I believe would change that inevitable scenario (I love when shit rhymes) that you are alluding too.

This is my thought: The female leaders that we all recognize are leading in a man's world. Furthermore, they lead in a political organization that looks for a leader to maintain the status quo, and they are waiting, no hoping, the female will fail in most cases. Therefore, the "43 in a row" would change that scenario, in my opinion, which would allow a female leader to lead as she and her female constituents see fit thereby leading to a more natural and nurturing type of political philosophy and therefore a less aggressive foreign policy. The only proof that I have of this is that the typical female leader in modern times is viewed by me as being a man in a skirt.

Thanks for reading.

[booyalab]

If US history consisted of forty-three female presidents in a row, rather than forty-three white dudes, what would the US look like today?
Or for those with less time (or interest), would it be a better place, worse then it is currently, or just different?

I think this is like asking- what if everything that was red or yellow and made out of plastic fell up?

[earwax]

I guess I feel that I'd be darned unlikely to send my babies off to be killed without one heck of a good reason. But I'm also not the type of woman that is aggressive enough to become a political leader, so you are right that it's a faulty sentiment.
But if you were a single woman who had no kids and nature had taken away all your reason, like Condoleeza Rice...

(Sorry, but that Pravda article is hilarious... and I don't even like Condoleeza Rice.)

[tinribz]

Anyway women like to share the decision making process so that the decision is more like we see at the UN. They prevents Bush like decisions. But women have also better communication skills which are a plus since communication is what we need in this world right now. Anyway I think once a woman becomes president we will see more women issues starting to appear on the world agenda.So...thats my view

These statements always make me laugh, like as if all women have better communication skills than all men. It's not even true that all men are physically stronger than all women never mind the fractional statistical preference of multitasking or spatial skills between the sexes.

Fact is voters vote for what they want, and get what they vote for.

Sex of a leader is pretty irrelevant because the differences are so slight and it is not random selection procedure.

[Dr. Haight]

Fact is voters get what vote for what they want and get what they vote for.

Sex of a leader is pretty irrelevant because the differences are so slight and it is not random selection procedure.

Good points.
I would say, however, that in the US, getting what you want is not always the case due to the element of the electoral college process. I do agree that in Parliamentary political systems you are correct, especially with the concept of, "First past the post," (I think that's the phrase) which in my opinion is as close to fare as is possible.
On your second point, I would say that a small percentage change in politics can result in a paradigm shift in thinking.