Printable View
How is there not a thread for this?
The U.S. has a female nominee for a major party.
It really is amazing; both because it finally happened, and because it took so damned long.
I obviously hope she wins, Mr. Trump would be an absolute disaster. It's still a long overdue achievement for women's rights in this country. She didn't win by playing the woman card (and handled it beautifuly when accused of it). She was taken seriously as a candidate (also in 2008) and won on her own merits.
It would be more amazing if she'd made it off her own back and was not riding the coattails of her husband.
Oh Rand, you're so crotchety.
You're quite the little Englander bigot aren't you? Misogyny really fits your philosophy to the tee.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Misogyny has nothing to do with it and I fail to see what nationality has to do with it either, are you trying to be racist or funny?
56 years ago in Ceylon the worlds first female Prime Minister
50 years ago in India was elected the world's second female Prime Minister
47 years ago in Israel their first female Prime Minister was elected.
41 years ago in "little England" we elected a scientist daughter of a grocer as party leader who then became Prime Minister.
28 years ago in Pakistan the world's first Muslim female Prime Minister.
19 years ago in Guyana their first female Prime Minister, born in the USA coincidentally.
16 years ago in Philippines first elected female PM, educated in the USA coincidentally.
11 years ago in Liberia the world's first elected female African PM, and first elected female black PM.
11 years ago in Germany was elected their first female Chancellor. Also coincidentally a scientist by trade.
3 years ago in Norway was elected their fifth female Prime Minister (fourth permanent female PM).
I could keep going but those are just some of the most notable ones, but there have been by my reckoning 84 past or present female heads of government or non-monarch head of state (five in Norway alone). This doesn't include anyone who has become party leader and not head of government. I don't particularly see someone who previously lived in the White House becoming nominee as a meaningful breaking of a glass ceiling. "You too can achieve what women globally have achieved for more than half a century so long as you've already lived in the White House and your husband did the job first".
Sort-of welcome to the mid 20th century America, good going.
Gotta give Rand at least a few points. Mrs. Clinton has been a horrible candidate. Record setting numbers for how much she is disliked. The condescension just oozes off of her. With the political disasters and flubs hanging over her head I can't help but think she rode in on name and an insane amount of financial clout and connections. I mean come on, look how much trouble a candidate like Sanders gave her.
As I commonly hear, "yipee for a woman, to bad its this woman". I think thats why Warren's name immediately started popping up as a possible VP after the last round of primaries.
Exactly, a candidate that flawed would not be President if it wasn't for the surname. She's about as groundbreaking as Dubya Bush.
Clinton may very well not be playing the sex card, and good for her on that. but that doesn't mean its not a contributing factor. I've seen to many bumper stickers already about a "womans place is the white house."
WTF, thats how we are picking now?
She became Senator riding the coattails of her husband. I don't think it's fair to credit Bill for everything she's done since then. Last I checked, Trump wouldn't be where he is today without his daddy's "minor" inheritance either.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Except there's no evidence that women are any more likely to support female candidates than they are male ones. Meanwhile, there's substantial evidence showing that men are more likely to support male candidates over female ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Oh come off it. What was her stellar work that she accomplished as a Senator that has brought on where she is today? Of course her connections etc that she has from being "a Clinton" are major contributors.
As for Trump, I never claimed and never would that he's breaking a glass ceiling or a self-made man. So "yah boo he's the same" doesn't change the fact this is a pretty unremarkable victory.
Hey we also already got 5 female presidents :mad: Not bad considering they were only been able to vote since 5 weeks ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
She became Secretary of State because of her success in the 2008 primary. And by every indication, she did a pretty good job as secretary of state.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And you're holding her to an unfair standard. I think you'll find that most of the people at the upper echelons of power didn't get there through skill alone. Bush's father was president. Romney's father was governor. McCain's father was an admiral. Kerry married into the billionaire Heinz family. So why pick on Clinton?
And a nice selective list of world leaders, Rand. Women have been rulers of their countries (head of state or head of government depending on which position had more power) about 2% of the time in the last 70 years.
Yeah but she's married, so there's no way she's done any of it herself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Gosh, you didn't even have to mention you can't be a misogynist because some of your friends are female ?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Here's how frequently women become leaders of their countries (and yes, those numbers increased somewhat in the last 12 years). Dime a dozen, right?
How many female prime ministers did Britain have since 1945? 1 out of 14. How about France (and presidents)? 0 females. Germany (chancellors): 1 female, 8 males.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...psbxjcer7i.jpg
A powerful modern supposedly equitable western democracy full of competent and v driven women hasn't had a single female president since its birth a couple of hundred years ago. There have been 45 First Ladies of the US, and yet this is the first time a woman has come this close to a presidency. In the entire history of the US only about 45 women have served as senators. I find it unlikely that no competent American woman has ever wanted to be President or that almost no competent American women have ever wanted to be senator. If it were about something so simple as having a prominent husband then we should have had at least a few female presidents and many more female senators. Something about American society and American politics has made it almost impossible for women to rise to the very top so yeah it's pretty amazing that that seems to be changing.
I have no doubt that Clinton has benefitted from her marriage with a former senator and President, if in no other way than by becoming a household name, but that doesn't in any way nullify her own merits such as they are.
To point to Sanders's success as evidence of Clinton's crappiness is a little like pointing to Trump's success as evidence of Rubio's crappiness. People haven't flocked to Sanders simply because Clinton is annoying. Sanders has offered voters something other democrats haven't been willing to offer and delivered a message that some voters seem to be increasingly responsive to. Your reasoning doesn't hold water.
Which of course had nothing to do with her be a Clinton right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yes I hear the FBI have said she did a cracking job there ...Quote:
And by every indication, she did a pretty good job as secretary of state.
I'm not, I wouldn't call Dubya, Romney, McCain or Kerry people who'd broken a glass ceiling either.Quote:
And you're holding her to an unfair standard. I think you'll find that most of the people at the upper echelons of power didn't get there through skill alone. Bush's father was president. Romney's father was governor. McCain's father was an admiral. Kerry married into the billionaire Heinz family. So why pick on Clinton?
If you want to raise someone on a pedestal then there should be a reason to put someone there.
Yes it was a tiny selection of the female leaders, I could name many dozens more.Quote:
And a nice selective list of world leaders, Rand. Women have been rulers of their countries (head of state or head of government depending on which position had more power) about 2% of the time in the last 70 years.
Most nations in Europe, the Americas, Australasia and South East Asia have all already had female heads of government.
I believe you missed the key point in Loki's assertion:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Women have been rulers of their countries (head of state or head of government depending on which position had more power) about 2% of the time in the last 70 years.
Considering the first female ruler was just under 70 years ago that is not exactly shocking though is it?
Yet despite that almost every nation in South America, almost every nation in Asia, most nations in North America, almost every nation in Europe, most nations in South East Asia (not to forget some African nations) have had a female leader despite that.
America is belatedly catching up by having a very priviledged woman tread a well worn global path. Not exactly breaking new ground, are we supposed to be impressed just because its America?
Well-worn? :bulb:
Nearly a hundred previous female leaders across almost every western democracy in the world? Yes well worn. In comparison to my knowledge there have only ever been 3 LGBT heads of government globally all within the last decade. That is not a well worn path.
Head of government frequently doesn't mean ruler. And most of Europe and the Americas (including 0 in North America) definitely have not had a female ruler. Furthermore, having one female ruler doesn't really mean much. In your country's lengthy history, you've had dozens of prime ministers, and only one of those has been female. It doesn't help that less than a third of British MPs are female; that figure falls to 20% for the Tories. Not exactly a mark of progress.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Lastly: 10% of Americans still say they will refuse to vote for a female candidate for president. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...male-president
I'm responding under an assumption I made earlier, that a majority of Sander's supporters don't actually know a majority of Sander's positions in politics. Just like a majority don't know that Clinton's positions would place her often as a moderate republican. I do believe that a large portion of people fell in behind Sanders because he wasn't Clinton. He wasn't condescending, he didn't focus on superficial issues to attack others, didn't give secret 6 figure speeches, he didn't wear $12,000 jackets when giving speeches on wealth inequality, he didn't operate in a manner to avoid transparency (and then lie about it), he didn't go half a year avoiding press conferences, or renege on scheduled debates, Sanders didn't have a 13 minute video of him lying go viral. He didn't act like a groomed politician, something Trump was able to take the distance. A good candidate wouldn't have these issues to deal with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
None in North America?
I suppose Kim Campbell (Canada) 23 years ago has been forgotten? May have not been long-serving as she lost the election but she was PM.
Of the smaller North America nations:
Bahamas had an acting female PM.
Dominica had a female PM for over 14 years.
Haiti has had a female PM and a femle acting PM.
Jamaica has had a female PM over a decade ago.
Trinidad and Tobago is another.
I couldn't care less if a third of MPs are female or if there's only one of the last four PM's nearly 40 years ago. Your logic is inconsistent, it is apparently truly remarkable that Hillary is a candidate because it is unremarkable to have a female leader previously? What!?
Campbell didn't win an election and lasted in office for 4 months...
You said "most" countries in the Americas. Hint: there are a lot more countries in the Americas. 20+ in the Caribbean alone.
Weird how when it's a woman we suddenly apply this vigorous 'did she get there 100% off her own back' standard. Last time I tried, you couldn't swing a cat in DC without hitting half a dozen Kennedy's and a couple of Bush's.
this thread
Twitter Link
I'm guessing it has less to do with her being a woman, and more to do with the very real possibility that 4/5ths of the presidents in the last quarter century will have come from the immediate members of two families. Had Hillary not been a Clinton it is extremely unlikely she would be in the position she is in now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I would wager that for most the push back that is not rooted in politics is likely rooted in a disdain for the appearance of dynastic rule and the coronation of candidates by the party apparatchik before a single vote had been cast, and less to do with the gender of the candidates.
That doesn't change the significance of the first female nominee and the possible first female president, nor does the name Clinton guarantee she'd be in the position she's now in.
After all, there's probably dozens of male establishment candidates from powerful political clans who the party apparatchiks could have crowned before a single vote was cast.
Gender is irrelevant as long as they're Oxbridge or Eton people :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki