22 October 2005 - 9:53pm
If she ran, would they vote? Many won't vote for any woman for president, no matter which party
That's the gist of the WNBC/Marist Poll released Friday.
Voters divide over whether they would support a woman nominated by one of the two major political parties for president. 26% of registered voters say they are likely to support a woman for president regardless of whether she is a Democrat or a Republican. At the other extreme, 28% would not support a woman for the United States’ top job regardless of which political party nominated her.
You've come a long way, baby! Now put out that cigarette and make dinner!
"But wait!" you say. "What about party breakdown? It must be Republicans who are pushing up the anti-woman numbers!"
Not so fast, liberal pollyanna. While among Republicans, 29% opposed any woman in the White House, Democrats weren't much more egalitarian-minded, with 21% opposed to a female chief executive.
"So this is just male anxiety about women in power, right?" you ask.
Oh, if only it were so. Even though men opposed anyone with a womb in the Oval Office (33% opposed), a full 23% of women also opposed having any woman of either party calling the shots.
Not any woman, for either party.
How far have we come, really? This is the "post-feminist" era? Is Geena Davis the closest we're going to come in our lifetimes? Is this fake blog never going have real-life imitators?
[via Tennessee Guerilla Women]
media girl also blogs at other places.
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
Yeah, it sucks big time, but what can you expect in a country in which only 15% of Congress are women? At a minimum, half of the candidates of all political parties should be women. That's the only way to begin to end the white male quota system.
Thanks for the link.
It's ok. 23% of the population think George talks to god through a burning bush in the rose garden.
Seriously, the issue of how to frame questions to women in political campaigns is a little more delicate than with males. With Condi Rice it gets even stickier. She is a woman who happens to be black. The kid gloves will hamper our ability to know the actual person behind the public persona. I know she likes shoes. I think she's pro-choice, but I don't really know much about her. How are we going to find out?
Sometimes it will involve personal questions. I'm sure many will speculate why she is single in the same manner they've quietly whispered their suspicions of Harriet Miers. Will it be appropriate to ask questions of this nature? Are such questions germane? We ask the same questions of male candidates. Will we treat a female candidate differently?
Do these figures suggest a majority of voters would support a woman's bid to the White House? If so, you have given your readers only the bad news.
Years ago I was in the Jaycees when the organization was forced to admit women. The new membership brought fresh ideas, new energy, and made improved the whole. Yes, I would vote for a woman for the Oval Office, but not Condi. Never.
David
There seems to be an equal portion of unqualified support as their is unconditional opposition. The rest are looking at other factors, like party. Also, age of the voter seemed to affect his/her outlooking (younger voters are more open-minded about it).
Yes, it's probably better than it was even a decade ago. But still, the fact that so many men and women, Republicans and Democrats, oppose any woman I think pulls back the curtain to reveal that the wizard of equality is really a show we like to tell ourselves.
I can't say I find either Condi or Hillary very appealing. But this is politics, where you pretty much have to hold your nose to vote for anyone.
I don't think those figures are all that striking, or alarming, in fact I think they're probably good news for the womens lib movement. You're focusing on the possible anti-woman sentiment behind the idea of someone who wouldn't vote for a woman no matter what, but what about the refusal to change? Sometimes it doesnt have to be about her being a woman, it could just be about her not being a man. Fear of change, you know?
Everyone knows that women and men are fundamentaly different. You can't really fault people for being concearned about how those inherent differences might affect job performance in a position that was tailor fitted for someone with a penis. I'm not suggesting that women arent as competant in every way as men, just that people will usually hold onto the status quo for as long as humanly possibly and I don't consider that evidence of widespread sexism.
I blame Geena Davis for this. That crappy show turned a lo tof people against women as president.
I'd vote for the right candidate, female or not. Actually, I think I would be more inclined to vote for a woman. And how could anybody oppose having a woman after this last clown? It would be hard for anyone, make or female, to f*** things up any worse that GW Dumbass.
Pretty disappointing, really. Try being in my shoes. I am unelectable no matter my policies, simply because I am an atheist. Even less of the survey's respondents were willing to vote for me.
Oops, my bad. I was thinking of a different, but similar poll asking voters if they would be willing to vote for a candidate who was, black, female, gay, Jewish or an atheist. My demographic scored lower than all the others.