One thing that stands out when you look at the US is the level of religiousness compared with most other 1st world countries. Something that also stands out is the dearth of women in positions of power. It’s changing, but slowly.
Are the two related? If there is a relation, why have countries like Pakistan elected women, given the (reported) patriarchal nature of their majority religion?
If not, why no women presidents? I don’t think the outlook is good for 2008, Hillary notwithstanding, so what gives?
IIRC Gallup has repeatedly done a multinational poll on this, and the result is always the same. America has greater opposition to female leadership than most countries, and women are the stronger source of opposition. Men are evenly split, and women have something like 60% opposition. Note this is all from memory and years ago, so take it with a grain of salt.
I think that perceptions differ wildly if you separate pre-menopausal women from post-menopausal. Most of our icons of great female leadership tend toward women well past their reproductive years.
And I do tend to agree (just anecdotally) that there is more opposition to female leadership from other women than from men, especially among younger people.
Maybe it’s because many other democracies have a more parliamentary style of government. Politicians, male and female, join a party and rise through that. Only after they’ve been established as a major figure in the party, are they considered for the top job. In American politics, on the other hand, the Presidency is essentially a lone pinacle. The candidates run mostly as individuals not party members.
Really? (I’m not doubting you; it’s just something I’d never heard before, so I’m surprised.) Did they give any reason for this? Why are women in the U.S. more opposed to a female president than men?
No, religion has little or nothing to do with it. The religious right in the U.S. would gladly back a female candidate who championed their cause.
In fact, many political analysts have been saying for years that the first female president would be a Republican.
Now, Hillary will be a formidable candidate in 2008. She may or may not win (it will be close, that’s for sure), but if she loses, it won’t be because she’s a woman.
I probably would have voted for Mondale/Ferraro in 1984 if I would have been old enough to vote.
But, I do think the presidential office has a lot to do with it. Most Conservatives who voted were NOT voting for Thatcher. They were voting for an MP of the Conservative party. They also knew that the Prime Minister could be replaced at any time.
There will be a woman president in the next 20 or so years. I"m hoping it is Hillary.
Pakistan, India, and Indonesia also have stronger political dynasties than the US. If Indira wasn’t Nehru’s daughter she would never have been Prime Minister.
I read a book a few years ago with a title something like, Preparing for Madame President, about how soon, if ever, there might be a woman elected to the White House. The outlook was kinda grim, when one considers that polling consistently shows a substantial minority of voters (10-15%, IIRC) will never vote for a woman under ANY circumstances - even if the question is worded, “Would you vote for a woman from your own party to be President if she is experienced, capable and agrees with you on all major isses?” When presidential elections are decided by less than 5% of the vote, as they have been of late, ANY female candidate starts out behind the Electoral College eight-ball.
We will have a smart, capable female Democratic president someday, and soon I hope, but I strongly doubt that it’s going to be Hillary.
I’ve been thinking about this question since it was posted, and my current belief would be that the issue is the difference between a Prime Minister versus a President (which seems to be mirrored by the previous posters.)
In general, in the US, we like to have it where the Executive branch and the majority of the Legislative are not of the same party. The American people don’t want to have things leaning too far to one side so will generally vote such that these two branches will be at odds with one another and we’ll get a balanced government.
To the parties, this pretty much means that the person they nominate for the office of the President has to be a “safe” choice. The switch voters generally don’t know who they are voting for beyond the President, so once they’ve decided which of the two nominees there, they will select their congressmen and senators from the other party. Generally. The problem is, a bad nominee can make the whole party look bad and once that happens, the switch voters can come down on one side for both the president and the legislative branch. Neither party wants to be entirely kicked out of the process. And so they have to choose someone who won’t have any major beliefs, traits, or anything else that can lose voters unnecessarilly.
In parliamentary governments, the switch voters are forced to come down on the side of one party. Certainly the Prime Minister nominee (?) for that party will be a deciding factor for which party they decide on–but the overall public opinion towards the entire party becomes more of a consideration. As such, the PM doesn’t have to be as safe a choice.
There may be a few people here and there who like divided government, but they’re few and far between. Most people who voted for Bush also voted for Republican Congressmen and Senators, while most people who voted for Kerry voted for Democrats.
Texas has two Republican Senators, and Massachusetts has two Democrats- that’s not a coincidence. Very few Americans WANT divided government- we just disagree vehemently about which party should unite it!
I would need to find a chart. But in my life at least, it has appeared that anytime a party gets a hold of both it rarely holds it for very long. But it’s off topic and I can’t google very well at work, now.
Do you recall if the respondents were asked why they wouldn’t vote for a woman under any circumstances ? At the very least, it shows a warped sense of priorities ( “He’s gonna raise taxes to 90%, and legalize cannibalism !” “Yeah, but at least he’s not a girl !!” )
No, apparently those who said “No female President, no way, no how” weren’t asked follow-up questions as to why they held that opinion. It’d be a good question, though.
It will come soon. You already have women at cabinet level - Madelaine Albright and Condi Rice - but Hillary Clinton isn’t going to be it. Her reputation and image are too bad.
Since Indira Gandhi’s PM-ship was purely second generation, I can think of a cough quite obvious US-based parallel. (AKA: I wonder how well Georgina W. Bush would have done?)
No. It’s because she’s Hillary. She’s deeply hated. The vitriol from the conservatives around me makes that clear. If she gets the nomination she’ll galvanize people to vote against her who normally don’t vote.
BTW, though I’m not a Republican I would have voted for Elizabeth Dole. Think of where this country would be if the Republicans had had the sense to nominate her instead of George W.
