34 thoughts on “All Women?”

  1. I want to agree with her and I’d love to see it happen myself, but…well…but…I just don’t see it happening. I’m awash with pessimism these days about the future of the country and the people in it. That obviously clouds my outlook on such things. I hope Elizabeth sees something in America I don’t, and something like this does happen. We NEED more women in positions of power in America, but…well..I just don’t see it happening.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  2. Frankly, I have no idea. All I know is that there is a cancer in our body politic that has its roots in the resurgence of evangelicals political dominance of the Republican Party that began in the 1980s. Just say’n.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    • According to Barry Goldwater, it began in 50s. He talked (worried) about it in the 1960s. It seems like the question is being answered with less than optimistic responses, including mine.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      • True, but by the 70’s the mantra “God is dead” was common with American college students and the momentum was to critical thinking and applied logic. The heavy turn to the right came in with Ronald Reagan.

        Liked by 4 people

        Reply

  3. I think the women have the skills to do the job but I think the electorate would baulk at an all female affair. I’d like to think Elizabeth Warren could be the first female President but I think a male VP might be needed even if just for show,
    Hugs

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  4. In my admittedly small sampling, I hear supposedly progressive people of both sexes say that of course, THEY would vote for a woman, but they’re not sure others would. So I think someday there may be a successful all-female ticket, but not in the near future.

    I’m more worried about the Dems’ fielding a ticket that will evoke enthusiasm among the diverse constituencies. With a large turnout, we just may be able to win the Senate too.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  7. I agree with others that the misogynistic attitudes of this country are still firmly in place, preventing an “all women” administration to be voted into the white house. I think the best we can hope for at this time is a female Vice President. What I do think is more realistic is a larger number of women (Democrat, of course) being elected into the house and the senate.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  8. It depends on who those women are. What if DT dumps Pence for Nimrata (Nikki) Haley? The most diverse, well-educated, highly experienced, talented women (or men) can still lose to the incumbent (who has a multitude of advantages).
    That said, I am hopeful seeing the role of women constantly increasing in so many business and political settings on both sides of the isle.
    My question is: if Warren is the Dem nominee, will she pick female running mate?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  9. Looking at this issue from Finland, I find it a bit hard to understand why is the gender of the political leader even an issue in the US. You have a lot of prominent women politicians. Why is it that this would be an issue in one political seat, but not on some other? We have had a socialist woman president, who was generally considered quite good at her job. Of course the president of Finland has a lot less power, than the US president, even if you do not consider the fact, that one of these countries is the foremost nuclear power of the world, and the other is not. In Finland the premier is the true leader of government, while the president holds more of a symbolic and moral leadership role. Finnish people stand quite happy with our current male president, even though he comes from a market liberal conservative party. He is considered to have high enough morale to stand as some sort of a national conscience.

    I guess, the gender is some sort of an issue even here. We just had this ridiculous episode, where the most conservative party in our government (the “Center” party) decided to backstab our middle aged socialist man premier Antti Rinne and voted for no confidence and as a result the Social Democratic party (the party that won the elections) then changed their premier candidate to an even more leftist and younger woman premier Sanna Marin. The backstabbing by the conservatives backfired. They revealed their position as the “fifth colon” they actually are in our otherwise greens & socialist government and in addition the conservatives now look like petty backstabbers. The politics of the government hardly turned into much more leftist, but I am guessing our new premier (the youngest premier in the world at 34) is less likely to give the conservatives any more leeway after what happened. The dark side of the events was that it surely rises the popularity of our bloated right wing extremist nationalist party The Finns (previously The True Finns party), because there are a number of old dudes who find it hard to accept women – especially young women – in leadership positions, even though the second party president in the Finns party is a woman Laura Huhtasaari (a creationist and a total fraud, who plagiarized her academic end work, but still collects a hefty amount of votes) and there are other prominent women in their party apart from her.

    In general I find it ludicurous, that the gender in high political positions is an issue, that affects the way the more conservative people vote, at the same time, that the most conservative and extremist right-wing parties around the western world have more and more turned into being led by women. Already in the previous century UK had their Margaret Thatcher. In France the most nationalist party is today led by Marine le Pen, in the US the Republican party had Sarah Palin as their vice-presidential candidate. I guess, Palin in all her stupidity and ignorance represented the straw-woman right-wing culture presents women as. Or maybe her ignorance only reflected the general ignorance of the majority of the right-wing voters. I think that in general right-wing conservatism and almost exclusively conjoined religiosity (and often racism and ultimately fascism) as a political position represents the sort of stupidity, where the person finds autocratic reasons to justify their fears, prejudices and selfishness instead of intelligently seeking out the truth. I feel justified in calling it stupidity, because it ultimately stems from a false worldview, that considers competition a better method of facing hardship over co-operation. Because it does not work in reality, other than in preset conditions, they often end up working against their own “values”. Like that they value co-operation over competition when they want to actually achieve something. Or that they find especially a woman hard to vote, when a woman represents values like equality, but not at all when the woman represents “hard” values, like selfishness, social segragation based on social classes, religion and race. It is strange, that the fact that a politician is a woman becomes an issue only if they do not agree with the woman. This is just stupid, but it is not surprizing, because it comes from a twisted and false worldview in general.

    I do not understand how the vice president could be someone considered somehow less capable, than the actual president in the US. If the actual president dies, the US law sets the vice-president to lead the country through that crisis. If anything the vice-president should be even more capable, than the actual president, because their leadership is tested only when an actual crisis has arisen.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    • I think in most cases ( at least in this century) when the president becomes incapacitated his wife pretty much takes over the business. Edith Wilson, Eleanor Roosevelt, Mamie Eisehower, Lou Hoover. Not a word about Mr. VP. FDR had four Vice Presidents, and apparently none of them had the cojones to continue, or he just liked to mix it up a bit.
      I suspect most VPs are chosen BECAUSE they are percieved as lesser creatures, not because they’re better ones. There’s a lot of ego involved in being president, and I think in general, if you have the abilities and the charisma to be President, why would you settle for VP?

      I find it sad that so many people refuse to accept a woman as President, Mrs. Wilson became “Mrs. President” when her husband was recovering from a stroke. Maie Eisenhower literally ran the country in place of her husband when he had a heart attack. What really stokes my fire, when Margaret Thatcher became PM, some of the comments were incredibly stupid and ignorant. One man said, “Too bad, if she’s trying to run things when she’s got the rag on…” Mr. First Class Citizen, yep.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  10. I would like to see the REPUBLICANS run two women for Pres, because that would mean Trump has been impeached out of office and the GOP would surely lose the election (unless you can imagine the likes of Nikki Haley and Kelly Anne Conway running the country as Pres & VP).

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  11. It’d be a great idea, but I don’t see it, nor do I see it as a winning idea….yet.
    A lot of misogyny is linked to Christianity and the old “a woman’s place is in the home” mentality. It’s alive and well….

    We are a very backward country in so many areas and we will pay the price, I’m afraid. I’m at the point where I truly feel trump will be re elected and we ain’t seen nothing yet in the damage he will do. I hate to say this, I really do, but I’m pessimistic and feel all this has to play out and it is a long long game..25/50 years maybe and the world simply doesn’t have that kind of time left now… climate change, endless wars, pollution, corporate greed, political corruption…..it seems insurmountable.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Unfortunately, I share your concerns … and your analyses of the prevailing trend.

      However, from things I’ve read and come across, there is considerable discontent with tRumpsky (outside of his base, of course) so maybe … just maybe. Of course it all depends on whether these people will VOTE (!) as to whether things will turn around.

      I realize it’s difficult in the current climate to get our hopes up too high, but at the same time, we simply MUST remain optimistic and put “good thoughts” out into the universe.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

    • sadly we still see ourselves as rootin tootin cowboys where the men are strong and the wimmin keep their mouths shut. Most of the countries out there are hundreds of years old, with a long gracious history (wars notwithstanding) and they’ve had a lot more practice at governing.

      We’ve done well, up to now, but this may just be the trial by fire no one wanted. Nixon had the political savvy to know when to fold, Clinton was as always a gentleman and gracious even in the face of impeachment, and trump embodies none of the above. Frankly I don’t think he would survive another four years in office, nor would we.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  12. I’ll abstain on this one, Nan. I don’t think male Americans are ready for women heads-of-state, although I would like to see it tried. I just see it as a joke to Repuglycan voters, a sign of giving up fighting against Trump. Yet, if you could guarantee a good 40% of women voters would get out and vote Democratic, and at least 20% of the male voters do likewise, you might reverse the Trump upset of 2016. As it is I cannot vote in your elections, so my thoughts don’t really matter. As long as you defeat Trump, I don’t care if you elect Miss Piggy to Madame Potus. Donald Trump is a fatuous ass.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  14. Hello Nan. I disagree with most of the commenters above. I think two women on the ticket is a winner. I think it will depend on the women of course. However history of the 2018 election shows this. The largest new and returning female House of Rep. ever. Look the Democratic party needs women and minorities to win, we are a party filled with minorities and females. As to the argument that Republicans and evangelicals are not ready for and will not vote for a women as president or a two women ticket, they won’t vote for a Democrat anyway. So that idea is not valid. Those are votes that never were going to be for the Democrat. You can not win over the cult, that is why it is a cult. But we need the passion and drive of the younger voters along with the female voters and minority voters. We need to stop worrying what Republicans think. We need to understand the moderate idea of working with Republicans is gone, the Republicans know their base won’t support that. Only by voting Democratic overwhelmingly and getting rid of gerrymandering so Republicans ( and Democrats ) won’t have safe districts where they have to pander to the most extreme in their parties and represent the majority of the voters is the only way to bring bipartisan politics back. Hugs

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  15. Much as I admire Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (to name two strong/qualified/sensible) Democrat women, I highly doubt America is ready for women in the White House. Sadly, it doesn’t matter how capable Democrat women are. The right delights in demeaning women. Sigh.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.