I hit enter too soon.
…thousand.
Europeans have a lot of the same things you describe. They can work in any EU member country they wish, without work permits. They can get into their cars and drive 3000 miles, only in doing so they pass through a half-dozen different countries. Or better yet, they can take the train, and actually see something of the countries they’re travelling through, and meet some people along the way, instead of being tied to the steering wheel.
I know. That is why the boats coming over aren’t so full anymore. I love going to Europe. I just don’t identify with it very much as a potential homeland. Australia would seem to be a much closer match for example even though I have never been there and, from what I hear, most Americans feel the same.
I guess that is the luxury of living in a prosperous First World Nation. The small things seem important and people want roughly what they grew up whichever side of the pond that was. That wasn’t the case for the millions of Europeans that came to the U.S. earlier because anything else had to be better than home. We tend to think of ourselves as a younger sibling to most of Europe when, in many senses, the opposite is true. The U.S. has been stable as an institution since the 1860’s while Europe didn’t get it together until about the 1950’s. Like Japan, pre and post-war aren’t that comparable and the European Union might eventually pull things together even more.
The fact that you regard these small countries as unimportant is completely irrelevant to the point. Pretend I’m, say, Lithuanian. My prime minister/president is the most important political figure in the world to ME. He/she makes decisions that directly impact my life, he/she represents me on the international stage, and as a voter, it’s my decision to vote for a woman over a man. Pretty significant I’d say.
I don’t get the relevance of that remark.
No, you’re confusing the issue: in most countries the head of state is not the head of the executive branch, and is thus considerably more than a “figurehead”: the head of the executive is whoever - generally the leader of the party which has recently garnered the most votes - controls a majority in Parliament. The head of state’s job is to oversee the nation itself; the head of Government’s job is to ensure that she controls enough votes to pass laws which govern a country. Margaret Thatcher was PM, but she was not the head of state; the Queen was: in most republican countries, the President is head of state. As I noted earlier, the American system is a weird - and troubling - historical anomaly in that both offices are vested in the same person.
And your gun laws are definitely backward: part of me would love to own a gun, but it’s the 14 year old part that thinks it’s funny to spit cherry stones at lycra-clad cyclists out of the window of a moving car, and that part of me should not be indulged at the ballot box.
And, to an American, the Governor of his state may mean more that the President does.
As to Lithuania, per Wiki “The post of President is largely ceremonial with functions of overseeing foreign affairs and national security policy”. You might well consider the PM to be more important. Or perhaps you might even think that the decisions of the EU are more important that that of your President as far as International issues go.
As to the relevance of that remark, Cat Jones compared the fact that a few European nations have chosen a Female PM or President. But there, she compares 40 nations, each of which has had several/many Presidents and/or PM’s (quite a few have one of each), of which a few (9 or so?) have had a female once or twice in one or the other of the top jobs. In order to compare 40 nations to America, it’d be fair to compare them to all fifty states- where indeed America has had more female governors that EU nations have had female leaders. Some on those nations change leaders once a year, or even more often (and most have two leaders, as noted). With maybe a hundred times the chances to have a female leader than the USA, it’s hardly suprising that Eu has managed to pick one a handful of times and the USA hasn’t. It doesn’t make Europe any more “progressive” it just shows the power of odds. (If the USA had had 100 presidents in the last 20 years, I have no doubt at all a few would have been female, given that several are in consideration).
In any case, Nancy Pelosi has more real power than just about every leader in Eu, with the possible exception of the PM of the UK, and maybe Germany or France. For many intents and purposes the Speaker of the House is a “Prime Minister” of sorts, anyway.
DrDeth, you miss the point about the Lithuanian President: the head of the executive (the PM in the case of Lithuania) is the genuinely important one. The president or other in most other western countries is a largely ceremonial role; Tony Blair is Britain’s political leader, not the Queen. The US is unusual in western countries in making the head of the executive the same role as head of state.
(Also, please locate me an American who thinks their governor is more important than the POTUS.)
That’s true, which is why my point that the VP or the Speaker of the House in the USA can be fairly compared to either the President or the PM in some nations. And, it’s part of the paoint of why we haven’t had a female president- EU has had about 100 times the chances to select one that the USA has (40+ nations, mostly two executive positions, often selected more than once every 4 years…)
To meaningfully compare the two, somebody needs to figure out the proportion of western European countries which have elected a female PM/President, and the proportion which have not. (Not me, though 
)
Apparently, nine have, in one position or the other. Compare that to 100+ “opportunities” (and it could be more than that, as I am not going to count how many elections and governments each of the 40+ nations have had, but I’d guess it;s whaaay more than one every 4 years) and we have one female per ten chances, or you can say it as 10%. One could say that 10% of the time, Europeans have chosen a female.
During the same 20 years, here we can have said to have only 3 or 4 opportunities. Thus, realisticaly speaking the USA hasn’t had a decent mathematical chance to have a female President, if you are comparing the USA to Europe. To be fair, the USA would have to have had at least 10 "chances’ to select a female in order to have a odds on chance at a 10% selection rate. We have had 5, or 3, depending on how you look at it. Come back in 2024, or when Europe starts selecting females to be President/PM around 50%, instead of something like the current 10% or so.
One could also consider that due to the strange way the USA combines Chief of State with Head of Government, that then several other US offices should be considered as a partial fill in. Thus my contention that Speaker of the House can be argued to be roughly equivilant to PM in several Eu nations.
Thank you for saying it better than I did.
My original point was don’t claim Europe’s attitude to women is backward based in the remarks of an Italian judge - look how many Europeans are willing to be represented by a woman.
About 10% at any given time, according to my rough math. meh.
Quotes and stats are from Wiki
Belarus: Pres (Male and the same since 1994) and PM
Bulgaria: Pres (since 2002) & PM (since 2005) both male
Czech: Pres (2003) & PM (2006), both male
Hungary has a largely ceremonial Pres, and a PM, both male
Moldova- Pres & PM, both selected by the parliment, both male
Poland- Pres & PM, both male
Romania- ditto
Russia- only Pres, male, since 1999
Slovakia- both, but Pres appears mainly to be figurehead, males.
Ukraine- Pres- sits for 5 years, and PM. Men
Denmark- a powerless Queen and a male PM
Estonia- Pres & PM, both men
Finland. Has a female Pres! Whose role is mostly cermonial. "The Prime Minister of Finland is the head of government; executive power is exercised by the government. " She’d have somewhat more power except that Finland is part of the EU, thus many of her roles are ursurped. Male PM
Iceland. Largely cermonial Pres. Male. PM. Male
Ireland: Female Pres- “The president is largely a figurehead…” PM= male
Latvia: A female Pres= “holds a primarily ceremonial role as Head of State”. Male PM.
Lithuania- largly cermonial Pres, PM- all male at this time
Norway- powerless King, and Male PM (Here, the King has some interesting "reserve powers, but that’s besides the point)
Sweden- same
UK- largely powerless Queen, male PM
Albania- well, there is a male Pres, but you can also say they aren’t really a democracy
Andorra- two ceremonial “princes” and a PM- all male
Bosnia & H: THREE Pres, and a PM, all male. Weird.
Croatia- Pres & Pm- male
I am going to skip down to Malta- which now has a male Pres & PM, but did have a female Pres: “The role of the president as head of state is largely ceremonial”.
France does not now or ever had a female Pres, but did have a female PM for about a year.
Germany has four Offices: Pres, PM (President of the Bundestag), Chancellor, and President of the Bundesrat. There has been a female “PM”, and there is now a female Chancellor. One could call the Chancellor the “Speaker of the House”, and the President of the Bundesrat= “President Pro Tem of the Senate”. It’s not exact, but it’s close. In any case, the Chancellor isn’t popularly elected, but is voted in much as the Speaker is. More or less like Nancy Pelosi, but I tell ya, German politics are weird.
So, of this list "(“Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland (twice), Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the UK,” we have 6 nations (Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, ) that did elect a female President, but one who is largely ceremonial*. Big deal. France and Germany had/have their equivilant of Nancy Pelosi. That leaves only one European nation that had a real female leader- UK, with Thatcher. Of some 42+ nations.
A slight correction: The closest equivalent of the Speaker of the House is the President of the Bundestag. (Two women so far: Annemarie Renger 1972-1976, Rita Süssmuth 1988-1998) The Chancellor is the head of the executive. In our parliamentary system she wasn’t popularly elected but she is every bit as real as Thatcher was.
Russia has a Prime Minister though they’ve all been males and are subordinate to the President.
DrDeth, again you’re muddling head of state with the actual leader of the government. You don’t need to mention the president in most cases.
I’m not saying this to make a point (other than about your muddle): if you were to do the list again you’d actually find fewer women in it.
That’s true.
kellner Thanks. Yes, I can see Chancellor as similar to PM, but I can also see Chancellor as Speaker of the House. But you seem to be the expert, and you have to admit, it’s a unique system with few exact pararells.
Something I haven’t seen mentioned yet: window screens.
Seriously, what the hell? Do you like billions of bugs in your house? 
Even with screens, in the summer some bugs get in and fly around the lights. But then I look outside and see about twnety times more flying around my porch light. I couldn’t imagine having that many bugs flying around in side the house. shudder
And it’s not like adding screens to an existing house (even if it’s historical and whatnot) is that hard or that it damages it to any real extent. And for that matter, I understand that even new homes don’t have them, and I can’t see any reason for that.
Most of Europe doesn’t need screens because we don’t get the bugs you seem to have in the US. Here in the UK we get the odd house-fly and wasp and that’s about it.
In parts of Europe, maybe. But when I lived in Northern Europe, everything was plagued with flies for the whole summer. It was sometimes horrible to see. I would have liked a screen or two. It didn’t bother the natives any, but it drove the German guy nuts.
What part of northern Europe? Doesn’t Germany extend into northern Europe? Come to think of it, I’m in northern Europe too. Anyway, as Rayne Man says, we don’t get many bugs. At the height of summer here I had a couple of moths in the house, but that was it really.
Mind you, “UK” is the wrong terminology, as I believe Scotland is plagued with “midgies”, and the midge attack at Lough Nea in Northern Ireland I experienced once was Biblical.
So, yeah, bug screens would be a good idea in places.