Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Defending Women . . .

There is a theory floating about that women will vote for Hilary Clinton simply because she is a woman and this will ensure her victory.

This is ridiculous and insulting. This implies that women don't think. This implies that women are an oppressed minority which they are not. This implies that women are not capable of being individuals, but rather they are part of a group-think, Borg-like hive waiting to blindly follow their queen. This implies that men and women are so different that they don't share the same values and ideologies.

Fact is: Women are the majority. If the group-think theory was true, Elizabeth Dole would be the most recent of a long line of women presidents. But America hasn't found its Margaret Thatcher yet. America will have a woman president when a viable candidate emerges-not because she's a she.

Something I've noticed: Most of the women I've spoken with actually prefer to have a male president. Now, this is purely anecdotal at this point, but it is an interesting dichotomy. I'd love to see a poll on the issue.

8 comments:

Kay said...

Well, I'm not voting for her, that's for sure.

MondaythroughSunday said...

Ditto....

donna fleisher said...

Me neither. I'd rather vote for Oprah.

Nicole said...

Count me in for the preferring a man as president. When the day comes that a man cannot step up and be the "man", then it'll have to be woman but not until. Condoleeza Rice is one of the few examples of women who could actually do the job, and she's not interested. What does that tell ya?

Janet Rubin said...

Hmmm. I think the right woman could do a fine job as president. I'd like to see that, in fact. Hillary? Not sure about her...

Dayle James Arceneaux said...

As usual, if I think it, it happens. Okay, it doesn't work for everything, but sometimes it's downright freaky.

Not long after I posted this, I saw a poll on Yahoo that says 7 percent of women think only men should be president. This is on par with the entire population where the number is 8 percent.

So, it's not as many as I thought. But I'm still confident that women won't vote for a woman simply because she's a woman.

Just as I wouldn't vote for someone simply because they are Cajun or because they're 5'7" with black hair.

Janet Rubin said...

But don't you think Christians tend to vote for Christians simply because they are Christians? Kind of silly. Christians can make awful leaders, just like they can put out bad writing or acting or brick-work...

Dayle James Arceneaux said...

I don't think so, Janet. At least not on a large enough scale to make a difference.

It is a different though, If you vote for someone because they're a woman, that is totally unrelated to there beliefs and ideologies. But if you vote for someone because they are Christian, then there can be a reasonable assumption that you're B's & I's will be very close to theirs. But that speaks to my point that people are more discerning than the so-called experts give them credit for.

Remember, Pat Robertson ran for president and didn't even come close to getting the nomination. And it's pretty much accepted that a Republican cannot get the nomination or win the presidency without the Christian right. He didn't have the other qualifications.

Women who consistently vote republican are not going to forgo their normal criteria for a candidate and vote for someone diametrically opposed to their beliefs simply because they share the same gender.

Hilary Clinton will win if she gets enough independant voters to vote for her. Woman or not, she will get the standard 45 percent for being democrat vote. In other words, she has to win the same way men win.

Which begs another question. How many male democrats won't vote for her because she's a woman? I'd say if it's 10 percent, she loses.