For all my ladies out here don't ya feel like it's wrong for not having a female president wouldn't u at least want see one time a female run in office to become president and stop letting men think that a president is a mans job only if a female run for president and don't get elected she still stood up for us girls proving to men we have the same rights they have ......Right AGREE OR DISAGREE voice your opinion

shes right we do have rights and women should be treated equaly no ands, ifs, or buts, women have the right to run for president they have a right to say what they feel. Agree or disagree and ,my bestfriend just made her point and i agree we should be who we want to be we should say what we want to say and how we feel about it us girls we have a right to say what we want as for women and for men so i agree and i hope all of you who understand everything diya12 pointed out so if you know whats best agree or disagree.......stylin_Babe

I Agree and I will have to admit since the old day's we have be come more empowered then we were in centuaries like the mid 20's to early 30's and 40's now wemon have a decent role in socity.

I think a good female role model (for you) might allow for better writing skills. I've never seen anyone campaign for women's rights with one massive run-on sentence and an unclear vision. Barring net-speak, it's people like you who influence young women. As wonderful as a powerful woman in the government would be, I still think that to an extent, it's everyday people who prove to society what each deomographic has to offer. Every strong female shows the people around her that women can be a force to reckon with.

Also, there was never a question of "rights." It's a matter of skill. A female President wouldn't prove women's rights. It would prove that women have what it takes to be leaders. You may wish to check what the terms you are using mean.

i agree...and i and just waitin for the a female to really run for president..i hope it will happen in my life time

I was very kindly asked to clarify where I stand on this topic - Do I think a female President is a good way to show men that the title "President" is not synonymous with "Man," and to prove women have the same rights as men?

The boiled down answer: I think a strong, clear headed, intelligent woman would make an excellent President. But my personal criteria for a strong President is complex, extending beyond intelligence and strength, and is difficult for both women and men to meet.

I believe the confusion stemmed from my comment about the use of the term "rights."

In this case, "rights" can mean two things: legal rights and civil rights. I have to discard civil rights. The only aspect of civil rights addressed in this case is equality for all sexes under the law, and there is NO LAW barring women from running for the office of President of the United States. Civil rights is not an issue here.

As for legal rights, a "right" is a legal or moral entitlement to choose your own actions, and the ability to gain possessions or recognition in society. Again, this is not an issue. Women already have the right to run for President, and clearly have the right to own property and gain recognition in society (we have a lot of famous women).

If you think women have not exercised their right to run for the oval office, you're wrong:

Victoria Woodhull put in a bid for Presidency in 1872. Though the movement and candidacy did not stick, nor did it gain momentum, it was a stepping stone for women.

In 1984 the democratic party ran a race for Presidency with Geraldine Ferraro as the candidate for Vice President. She ran on a ticket with Walter Mondale. They lost to President Reagan - his second win for office.

The right to run for President exists, and no one denies it. The reason we don't have a strong female presence on election tickets lies not in a denial of rights, but in an apathetic society. Society on the whole seems unconcerned with the present and the future. Voting is down. Activism seems "tedious" to many. But times are changing.

- The blunders of President Bush have sparked a renewed activist spirit in America.

- Women's applications and admissions to colleges nationwide are steadily up, where men's are down.

- There is a movement stirring for the "8 in '08" campaign, featuring 8 women who have what it takes to become possible Presidential candidates in 2008. Though I wouldn't agree that all 8 women are good ideas, several are very interesting; and two, who I won't name, would have my vote.

Like I said: the right for women to run for President exists. It's not an issue, and it doesn't need to be proven. The issue is whether the public is ready for a woman to take command on a large scale.

I get the point

of course they should

Clearly you didn't.

Women already have the right to run for President. What you're talking about is changing the political system to allow a woman an easier path to presidency. HOWEVER, what you should really focus on is changing society as a whole. The public will not accept a woman running for President of the United States. Most women won't even accept this change. This is a social, not political issue.

And please, stop using a term you don't know the definition of - it makes you look bad, and it makes other people believe something that is false. By making an incorrect assertation on this issue, you're dumbing down yourself and working against what you want to acheive in this thread - the recognition of intelligent and capable women.

And as for your question, whether all women should have the right to run for President, they all have the right, but they all shouldn't be allowed the privilage. Personally I don't think most people should be granted the privilage to vote. The people in America who are educated (and I'm not talking degrees here, I'm talking about being aware of global and local issues and really looking into candidates and campaigns) should vote. Those who are uneducated are useless in a democratic system. But I won't get started on why democracy is a bad idea for a large populus.

I think it's essential that we have a woman president! We need stronger role models for women, especially in government. Perhaps in 2008....

If it was down to a woman vs a man, the woman would win the election by a huge margin. Why? Because she would get all of the female vote, which is more than half, plus a small portion of the male vote.

That seems to make sense, except all of the studies I read showed that women were less inclined to vote for a female President simply because she is a woman. Most women voters polled said they wanted someone competent who also represented women well; and none of them could agree on who it should be.

Isn't Hilary Clinton running in the 08' elections?

I LOL-ed so hard at that. Esp. after r0x0r's plain as day explanation that women do have the right. Since you are soooo adamant that (some? all?) women don't have the right to run for president, please specify which ones?

Other than the rules which apply to men, of course.

Yeah, that's not true. I wouldn't vote for a woman solely because she was a woman. I also wouldn't rule it out for the same reason.

Hypothetically.. say Ann Coulter vs Ralph Nader. Nader has my vote all the way.

I just watched a few minutes of Coulter on C-Span. I completely disagree with her on pretty much everything, yet I admire her for some weird reason. She claims there is no evidence for Darwinism. She called the New York Times the "enemy". She believes Bill Clinton is a raging homo (ok, I can see where she gets that one)

Are your Venus then, is that what you are trying to tell us?

Maybe women just aren't stupid enough to run for president

Okay, jokes aside. I wouldn't vote for a woman just because she's a woman. I think Canada and the US are pretty similar in most respects, as much as we like to make fun of Americans, so if you want to see a female leader, take a look at Kim Campbell. I'm not saying that she was voted in just because she was female, and I'm not saying that the next female leader will have the same results. I'm just saying that women do have the right to run for leadership and have been elected in the past, but that may not make them a good leader.

I suppose I'm a little biased, because I really don't like women supporting women just because they're women. I work in a male-dominated field (engineering), and I wouldn't like to see a woman hired over a man just because she's a woman. Similarly, a man shouldn't be hired over a woman just because he's a man. Equality means EQUAL opportunity, not laying down a red carpet for the "unequal" sex. The best person for the job is the best person for the job, whether that person is male, female, gay, white, black, martian, etc.

/mod parent up