Splinter from the Hilary thread...

**Sophist** · 03-10-2007, 08:27 PM

The assertion seems to be repeatedly made in this thread and elsewhere that Hilary Clinton would really better the lot of women in America if she were president, simply because she is a woman.

I have two questions, not based on Hilary per so, but just a female presidential candidate.

1) Do you really trust her to look out for and make headway into women's rights better than any man could just because she has a uterus?

2) Do you really feel like women in America are so oppressed and underprivileged as to need a new, better champion for their rights?

**sparks19** · 03-11-2007, 08:56 PM

I'm surprised no one has answered this thread at all.

**Karen** · 03-11-2007, 09:19 PM

I didn't see this until now.

As I stated in the other thread, no.

Originally Posted by Sophist

1) Do you really trust her to look out for and make headway into women's rights better than any man could just because she has a uterus?

No, I would vote for anyone based simply on her gender. Just as I do not vote for anyone based simply on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.

Originally Posted by Sophist

2) Do you really feel like women in America are so oppressed and underprivileged as to need a new, better champion for their rights?

I think in general women have come a long way. There are still improvements that can be made, though. We must be constantly vigilant about our rights as not only women, but human beings.

**Grace** · 03-11-2007, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by Sophist

The assertion seems to be repeatedly made in this thread and elsewhere that Hilary Clinton would really better the lot of women in America if she were president, simply because she is a woman.

I have two questions, not based on Hilary per so, but just a female presidential candidate.

1) Do you really trust her to look out for and make headway into women's rights better than any man could just because she has a uterus?

2) Do you really feel like women in America are so oppressed and underprivileged as to need a new, better champion for their rights?

My answer would be no to both of these questions. I think we are probably behind the 8 ball, not having elected a women prior to this - look at Britain, Pakistan, Norway - all of these countries have chosen women as Prime Ministers. But I don't think the women of this country have suffered. We have had some wonderful Congress women and female Senators over the years.

**Lady's Human** · 03-11-2007, 10:27 PM

Frankly I don't think that the gender of an elected official means a damned thing.

**lady_zana** · 03-11-2007, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by Karen

I think in general women have come a long way. There are still improvements that can be made, though. We must be constantly vigilant about our rights as not only women, but human beings.

Very elegantly put and very true.

**Marigold2** · 03-11-2007, 11:16 PM

I think it depends on the woman. I think that in general more woman volenteer for woman's and children's charities because those subjects are closer to what we deal with everyday. Betty Ford had breast cancer and spoke out about that John Edwards wife also spoke out for breast cancer. Jean Kennedy Smith I believe started Special Olympics. Laura Bush also worked on childrens issues being a teacher. So yes I would have to say that I feel a woman president might work for woman a bit more then a man would.

**sparks19** · 03-12-2007, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Marigold2

I think it depends on the woman. I think that in general more woman volenteer for woman's and children's charities because those subjects are closer to what we deal with everyday. Betty Ford had breast cancer and spoke out about that John Edwards wife also spoke out for breast cancer. Jean Kennedy Smith I believe started Special Olympics. Laura Bush also worked on childrens issues being a teacher. So yes I would have to say that I feel a woman president might work for woman a bit more then a man would.

But if you really looked you could find just as many men starting charities like this as well and speaking out against such things. You just have to look to find them. LOL you don't see many women starting prostate cancer awareness

**Sophist** · 03-12-2007, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Marigold2

I think it depends on the woman. I think that in general more woman volenteer for woman's and children's charities because those subjects are closer to what we deal with everyday. Betty Ford had breast cancer and spoke out about that John Edwards wife also spoke out for breast cancer. Jean Kennedy Smith I believe started Special Olympics. Laura Bush also worked on childrens issues being a teacher. So yes I would have to say that I feel a woman president might work for woman a bit more then a man would.

I am pretty sure Eunice Kennedy Shriver founded the Special Olympics. I have a little brother who has competed, and I am fairly certain it was her...

Ah, a quick Google agrees with me.

**Lady's Human** · 03-12-2007, 08:02 PM

Just as a supplementary question, if I might, if all of the current front runners washed out of the primaries, and we were left with the following people running for president, who would you vote for?

Elizabeth Dole, Republican, North Carolina (President)
Olympia Snow, Republican, (Vice President)

VS

Zell Miller, Democrat, GA (President)
Joe Baca, Democrat, CA (vice President)

**Grace** · 03-12-2007, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

Just as a supplementary question, if I might, if all of the current front runners washed out of the primaries, and we were left with the following people running for president, who would you vote for?

Elizabeth Dole, Republican, North Carolina (President)
Olympia Snow, Republican, (Vice President)

VS

Zell Miller, Democrat, GA (President)
Joe Baca, Democrat, CA (vice President)

I would probably start looking at 3rd party candidates.
Olympia Snow for President - I could support her.