Non Americans: What would you think about the United States of America if a woman were president?

I would think “finally” and it would give me hope for America which, according to what I’ve read, seems to be a bit worse for wear at the moment regarding feminism and women’s rights.

Then again, we have a woman prime minister and I’m not very enamoured with her at the moment. But at least we have good healthcare and contraceptives are covered etc, and we are not fighting against having our basic rights over our bodies taken from us.

Just like with any of the country’s Presidents, it would depend on which woman it was.

Who a country chooses as its leader (in country’s where a choice is possible) gives an idea of the country’s make up… but only an idea. It only tells you that more people were in favour of that person than were not. And politics is a dirty game, so it may not always truthfully be telling us that either. And of course, as soon as a President is in power, their country’s opinion of them may change.

If the woman is the right woman for the job, then great, and well done America for recognising that and not allowing yourselves to be blinkered by bad attitudes. But she should be judged by what she can do for the country rather than the fact she is a woman.

While I think it would be wonderful for a woman to reach that position, I would also want the same from her that I would want from a man. I would want her to do a good job. I would want her to think about and to work on not only domestic issues, but to work on the influence the USA has globally as well.

We have our first female Prime Minister in Australia. People jumped up and down about her being a woman. All well and good but if she is a crap PM what does it matter. So far, I am not overly impressed.

I don’t care who the president is providing they are fit for the job. I wouldn’t vote for someone just because they are a woman. I would have been happy to see someone like Hilary Clinton become president but not some like Sarah Palin for example (I am aware that Sarah Palin wouldn’t have been president had her party won but she was the closest example I could think of). A bit closer to home, Margaret Thatcher made a massive impact as PM in the UK. Whilst not everyone supported her, she was as fit for the job as any of the men we have had.

It depends on who she is and what her policies are.

The one time we had a woman prime minister in the UK, she wasn’t exactly popular.

It would be fine as long as it isn’t Margaret Thatcher.

I would think she probably got voted in just because she was a woman and they would talk about nothing but the fact that she was a woman (ignoring the issues) and continue to rattle on about her being a woman until her term was over. Woman woman woman woman woman.

Wife chimes in from the side: “God help us all. Especially if she’s on her rag. Even worse if she’s going through menopause.”

I’d really like it if she was a caring mother with a heart, but it would probably be some scary robot like Sarah Palin

I have to agree with @downtide as a Brit. The US has managed to break one of the oldest taboos of the western world, in Obama. But for a woman to get to the top, it looks as though she would have to be more Palin/Thatcher than say, the lovely but fictional Nyborg from Danish production Borgen. Which party would get her in? She would have as many enemies as Obama, regardless. She’d have to somehow embody a new sentiment for the US, which frankly, could be done as well by a man. It’s the policies that count, not really the gender of the premier.

I hope that nobody votes for her because she’s a woman (though I know they will). I was disappointed at all of the people who voted for Obama for his skin color.

Obviously it depends on the person. If it were Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, I’d think “Crazyland”. If it were Elizabeth Warren (fingers crossed) or Hillary Clinton, I’d thnk “Fantasticland”.

Why are you only interested in the answers of non Americans? Your timing is phenomenal. ;)

@Nullo I’m just curious please don’t take this offensively. My tone is low key. Do you have any quotes from anyone that has stated they voted for Obama because of his dark pigmentation? Because you say “all of the people” so I’m sure you could easily remember some quotes, or cite some sources to your opinion of disappointment. Again, I’m not coming at you, I’d like to learn from you. Thanks.

@auhsojsa First-hand experience, really. I used to hang out in the Office of Multicultural Relations when I was in school (2006–2009) – where ‘multicultural’ mostly worked out to ‘black Americans.’ Exchange students would move through there, but were not the regulars.
I would get into politically-flavored conversations, and around and after the 2008 election, those would often focus on the Presidency. I had the occasion, in the course of discourse, to ask my interlocutor why she voted for Obama (a fact that had been established earlier). Her response was that she wanted ‘one of us’ in office for a change. I rebutted that skin color is hardly something to base any kind of decision on (outside of SPF, perhaps), to which she replied that I (a man of immediate Italian ancestry) couldn’t really appreciate how important that was.
There were similar conversations in other places (some people would field the less-shortsighted, slightly more inflammatory, “it’s good to see Americans putting aside their racism” line), but this is the one that stands out most in memory.

As for quotes, theres Tom Joyner, radio show host who says,
Forget that bin Laden was captured and killed under his watch. Let’s not even deal with the facts right now. Let’s deal with just our blackness and pride – and loyalty. We have the chance to re-elect the first African-American president, and that’s what we ought to be doing. And I’m not afraid or ashamed to say that as black people, we should do it because he’s a black man.

I am not trying to say that everybody who voted for Obama did so for his blackness. I’m referring specifically to all of the ones who did vote for a melanin count. Shame on the lot of them, racist hypocrites that they are.

It depends on the candidate. I am sure a female candidate with the charm and charisma of John F. Kennedy or Barack Obama would have won handily. On the other point, about Obama’s race, I think he won because he is likeable, charismatic and knows how to speak to the people. His race practically guaranteed the black vote, once he had established his creds.

Forget that bin Laden was captured and killed under his watch I hear you, Tom Joyner. It took me a while to wrap my head around the fact, he had ordered the murder of somebody. What it tells me, you have a real, dyed in the wool President, just like John F., the kind of man that they call a mensch. And he did not try to excuse or cover it over with pretty words. That is a man, in every sense of that much used expression.

@Nullo You have what I like to call, excellent reason to “beef” with your opinion :) I can appreciate your point of view. It’s just strange for me because I’m on the west coast in San Diego in a fairly lower to middle class south east region and tons of Navy peoples live here, and you know, all sorts of people join the Navy and I’ve only heard about people voting for Obama because he was black, but I’ve only heard it from other people talking about it from other people. I do think of politics like this however.

For me I believe 80% of the population is really uneducated about the issues and tend to just bubble in the forms on the spot with out really debating the issues fully. It’s the 20% of the educated population that swing the votes and ultimately give way for the electoral votes for the presidential nominee. These statements aren’t fact, but that’s my notion and my experience of when I’ve asked people what they are voting for and etc.

Progress is unstoppable.

@mattbrowne At what point does it stop being progress, though? Are we doomed to a future where only handicapped black Irish Jewish lesbians with bad social skills can be presidents for the sake of Progress?

@bea2345 I don’t think giving the kill order for bin Laden is that earthshaking. There are probably a good 150 million people in this country who would have done the very same thing.

Not including their last president, evidently.

@Nullo – Your conclusion containing the word ‘only’ is illogical. In reality in the very long run we will see diversity that reflects society. There are more white people in the US than black people, which means most likely there will be more white Presidents. There are more heterosexuals than homosexuals, which means most likely there will be more heterosexual Presidents. The same applies to Jews and the descendants of Irish immigrants. Germany has a female chancellor and it’s no big deal anymore. The same will happen in the US at some point.

@mattbrowne It’s plenty logical. It’s just not the response that you think it is. I am saying, in a roundabout fashion, that some of us have other ideas about what’s important.
The text of my text derives from the perception that progress = minority. If we keep emphasizing identity politics, then naturally the person with the smallest space in the resulting Venn diagram is the most minor and therefore the logical choice for the presidency.

@Nullo – I still fail to see the logic in your conclusion that we must only have handicapped black Irish Jewish lesbians with bad social skills to meet the condition of progress. To me it seems an attempt to discredit people who wish for more diversity as a step by step process by making it sound ridiculous. Nobody who wants progress in diversity said anything about having it all at once.

Eh, @Nullo, and I speak for several billion people when I say this…that’s really offensive..

@mattbrowne Well, you got it in the second line, though the “all at once” wasn’t in my original. I’m surprised that you didn’t see the hyperbolic tip-off. Or were you deliberately ignoring it?

My stance is that policies that play favorites with ‘minorities’ is counterproductive, unfair, and annoying.

@Nullo – Well, in that case I must have completely misunderstood your sentence

“Are we doomed to a future where only handicapped black Irish Jewish lesbians with bad social skills can be presidents for the sake of progress?”

Perhaps because of the danger of misunderstanding you might want to consider a different kind of language to make your point.

@mattbrowne As much as I look at it, I cannot see how it could possibly be interpreted any differently than the way that intended it; if not for your own difficulties, I would be none the wiser.
Hyperbole tends to fare better than sarcasm; I’m sad to see that so many people have trouble with it.

@Nullo – One reason people have trouble with it has to do with the missing body language and facial expressions in online discussions. Softening hyperbole a bit might do the trick. I totally agree with you that hyperbole is a valid rhetorical tool. Extra care is needed, though.

@Nullo – I don’t think giving the kill order for bin Laden is that earthshaking. There are probably a good 150 million people in this country who would have done the very same thing.. It was a telling occurrence because it revealed some aspect of his character that I had not appreciated. One presumes that the decision to kill Bin Laden was based on knowledge of the subject, sufficient for the calculation that, as long as he was around there would be small chance of peace in the region. Because he is a President does not mean that Mr. Obama is above common morality: he isn’t. What happens in his secret heart is between him and God. But he made his decision, gave his orders, and did not try to shirk his responsibility for the act. I think that he is somewhat scary, your President. There is a great deal more to him than pretty speeches.

@bea2345 I could lob a rock from my front door and hit the house of someone who would have given the go-ahead.
Lots of Presidents have authorized military action, you know. Most of those were pretty big. And let’s not forget that it was your loathed Dubya that set the kill-bin-laden ball rolling.

@Nullo – thanks for your reply. What your President has done made it abundantly clear that murder is a tool in foreign policy, and not just that of the US. He dragged the concept, in all its nasty glory, out in the open. Do I criticize him? not I. Like I said above, I find him scary.

EDIT: I heard on the news last night that the Pakistan army is demolishing the compound where Bin Laden lived.