Skip to comments.Why do women still struggle to get to the very top in politics?
Posted on 10/16/2011 9:51:29 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Next month marks the 21st anniversary of Margaret Thatcher's enforced resignation as Prime Minister. It is now more than 30 years since she first gained power. She was not, of course, the first woman to lead a major country. That honour fell to Indira Gandhi in India and Golda Meir in Israel. But along with Gandhi, Thatcher's 11 years at the top make her the longest-serving woman prime minister the world has seen.
The strange thing is that despite the advancement of women in business and the professions and the growing numbers of women entering politics in leading Western countries, neither Britain nor America have come remotely near electing another female leader these past 30 years.
True Germany has Angela Merkel and Australia has Julia Gillard. But in the Anglo-Saxon world of the northern hemisphere, women have made surprisingly little headway at the very summit of politics.
As the United States prepares for its presidential election next year, its most charismatic female politicians are losing ground. After much speculation about her intentions, Sarah Palin has announced she will not run- and Michele Bachmann has fallen away badly in the opinion polls.
Quite why this should be true is not entirely clear. Alongside Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, Palin is the only woman in the US to have run for vice-president, attracting much liberal-Left derision in the process Evidently, she decided this time not to subject herself and her family to the intense scrutiny of a presidential bid - and, of course, judged that her chances of victory were slim....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The British Left still grumps about “Thatcherism” 30 years later.
talking with a female in my family tonight who is a small business owner and a republican (of the country club variety)-she didn’t like Bachmann because she feels she is too “right wing religious”. whatever.
Men also struggle to get to the very top in politics. There are very few positions there and lots of people fighting for them.
The moderator’s head would explode if I posted what I was thinking about the “being on top” thing. Maybe the voting machines are rigged or something?
I am so sick of these social science bean counters.
I’m not sure you will want to hear the truth but here go’s.
Women are not natural leaders. They are weak compared to men and this is natures way. This is not to degrade women in any way as they have capabilities not found in men. Leadership is simply not their biological role.
This is backed up by thousands of years of human history.
It is also the reason that it is highly unlikely that Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin or even Hilary Clinton had or have any real chance of being elected President of the United States. Of the three Hilary probably had the best chance and I will elaborate only by saying it’s not presidential to look hot in a bikini!
For years I had always stated that America would elect a black male president before electing the first woman president. I was right.
After how badly this first experiment has gone, I wonder about the typical white man and his intention in the voting booth.
And I wonder if he’d tell his wife that he will never vote for another candidate based upon race, sex or religion... ever again.
I’d vote for Palin in a heartbeat but liberals defeated my last opportunity to put her in office.
I’m not basing that on accomplishments or political ideology in any way whatsoever. I disagree with Hilary on everything as she is a typical evil leftist. Also, my meaning was that of the three she may have had the best chance but still very slim indeed.
Too many women freak out at social conservative female candidates. I heard far too many people say stuff like, “Sarah Palin isn’t what women haven’t been waiting for” because she’s Pro-Life, etc.
Notice how NOW and all of the feminist organizations stood silent while their left-wing compatriots trash Palin and Bachmann in incredibly sexist ways, including the ad nauseum, “How could a President Palin care for her special needs son?”
Yes, let’s talk about the Leadership of men.
They’ve done a real good job for the past 2,000 years.
The answer in my opinion is, that the right woman hasn’t come along.
Palin's day isn't done. She might've tried her hand had she not run with McCain and finished a term or two as governor. 2016 or even 2020 isn't too far off.
There's a certain level of charisma required and that day will come even in the United States. I will say, we'd have been better off with Hillary than Obama and I'm thankful John McCain didn't win.
There are lots of men who run for president who haven't a hope in hell and many more who never run even if they were successful governors. I don't make much of the "glass ceiling" idea in 2011.
Bachmann's problem is she has no record of executive accomplishment. If she were running as governor or former governor of MN, say in Pawlenty's place, it'd have been another ballgame. It's good and healthy that she's running, however.
We may yet see another "historic" presidential ticket in 2012 but I expect Obama to be reelected.
Bachmann had a good chance, but she messed up by 1) hiring Rollins, 2) not immediately firing Rollins, 3) going after Perry on Gardasil in the debates instead of going after Romney on Romneycare.
If Bachmann hadn’t mess up her strategy she would’ve been the frontrunner (given the fact that Palin chose not to run), and would beat both Romney and Obama.
(If Palin ran, she would’ve won in a landslide of Reagan proportions. The moderates who wouldn’t vote for a female candidate because of her pro-life stance wouldn’t vote for a pro-life male candidate either.)
Sarah’s greatest mistake was not seeing that the pubby establishment wanted to get her out of Alaskan power and diminish her while accompanying the McCain express train to oblivion. The establishment pubbies knew McStupid could not hope to beat the racist candidate who pushed Hillary to the side. They knew, the pubby establishment knew, that Barry bassturd was the inevitable winner, so they found a way to get rid of Sarah while watching the old fool from AZ drown in the oblivion he deserves. If you count yourself a Tea Party member, you must realize that makes you the enemy of the democrat criminal enterprise AND the establishment republican scum.
It looked to me in the debates that in time that Bachmann was naturally diminished in debates
I do not think it has been by accident or oppression there have been so few great women leaders in history but im willing to give a conservative one a shot and my support...already did...but she didnt run did she and now we’ll never know how she woulda held up in the debates
Women are much louder today...no question but how much smarter or effective is debatable
My own view is that overall women empowerment since the 60s has been very negative for our sides results wise
However....given the sorry state of modern educated white males...i sure cannot blame women for their stridency
So few men they can count on any longer
Mommies on the soccer field should be a felony....it all started there and t-ball
Ditto to everything you said. I would add that “sexism” still is a factor. Just look at some of the FR posters. I have watched it with my wife. One of the best neurologists in the world. Liberal or republican. It is the same. That would also include many females. Again look at some of the posters here.
Was it not her own decision, not to run?
sadly, no one seems to know how to do what your tagline implores ... and we the people lose the power and intuition of our women because the media is so corrupted to spit on Eve if it empowers the socialist commies the power-broker media whoredom worship.
For the same reason men do, and, BTW, all women do not think alike, as the title implies.
Politics is a struggle (doh!) and there are many more men in politics.
I agree with you completely, and this kind of thinking was common sense all throughout human history until about 50-60 years ago. Now people are afraid to express thoughts like these.
What happened since the 60s is what the leftists call “women empowerment”, but rather it’s the promotion of a godless socialist agenda that disempowers individuals (both men and women) and empowers the state. The leftists don’t care about empowering individual women any more than they care about individual blacks.
IMO the two greatest foundational problems facing America today are 1) a declining Christian population and 2) widespread biblical illiteracy among those who profess to be Christians. If the US experiences a major revival like the ones in America and England in the 18th century (kudos to Whitefield, Edwards, and the Wesleys) no Democrat will ever be elected for president for decades to come.
If there’s no major revival, it’s still true that the more Christians we have, the fewer Democrats we have.
TEA for Three and Three for TEA.
Nature and natural law has many examples of fierce females raising litters on their own. The only contribution of the male being some sperm.
Other situations, like gorillas, clearly show the male in a “leadership role.”
So I don't think it is entirely a ‘natural biological role’ for a man/men to lead. Even within the human family much of the child rearing belongs to the female. From the first words, to getting them ready for school, to who do the kids often call home too from college. Children often understanding in a well run home if Mom says no...it is no.
So where do these observations play into politics? Can a strong woman be President?
It is my opinion when the time is right, we will pick a woman but not for her hardcore politics. It will be for her ability to teach and lead the nation out of its dismal state. She will be like the good wife whispering in the ear of her husband. Telling him to be strong, be kind, be firm, ...you can lead. This kind of woman with leadership skills, skill to raise the nation back up on its feet, is what scares the progressive left. A woman like that will be a fierce protector of her people and the strong woman behind us all...inspiring us back to our independence from government. She won't want us ‘living in our government's parental basement.’
I don't see that woman out there...yet. The old cliche about the woman making the man comes to mind. The question is can a woman transfer those skills into making the nation?
Both those two women are "top" enough for anyone.
It will take time, but the election of a woman to President will happen. It will also remain infrequent.
“Children often understand in a well run home if Mom says no... it is no”
Blessings on the hand of women!
Angels guard its strength and grace.
In the palace, cottage, hovel,
Oh, no matter where the place.
Would that never storms assailed it,
Rainbows ever gently curled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
***One of my favorite poems. Your post reminded me of it!
The Press persecuted Palin because she had more guts and is more ethical than any politician out there. Maybe it wasn’t the press that dissuaded her. but I bet it stops a lot of good women from running,
“Why do women still struggle to get to the very top in politics?”
Maybe because not enough women vote for other women. Do not women make up the majority of voters?
Ask Sarah Palin this question.
She’s the one who quit.
You're the man, Big Reb!
“...too right-wing religious.”
What’s that ‘code’ for, “too heterosexual”?
They are very knowledgeable serious minded women who are wise. You kind of know their thinking is from original thought and is totally unmanufactured.
I always thought that wisdom comes with age. Maybe it never happens for some, but when it does, it shows. Explains Margaret Thatcher.
“I would add that sexism still is a factor...”
If there is any of that it is only borderline and does not come at all close to hate.
People will sometimes leap into assuming the worst possible meaning or intent.
The next time I hear “Don’t hate, participate!” (talking bumper sticker) I think I’ll lose my lunch.
There’s no kitchen in the Oval Office.
'Cause they are tired of the 'missionary position'?
Because women often hate other women.
The most vehement personal dislike I've seen for both Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, and Sarah Palin all came from women, except for Palin's case where it came from effeminate male homos.
I'm not referring to political disagreements or questions in judgment either, but the nasty personal stuff.
Ayn Rand on this topic:
Didn’t a Roman Senator say, “Make women your equal, they will rule you.”
Perhaps because women mistake networking for accomplishment. In business it’s not all networking and in politics it’s not networking, it’s about being able to do your job. Throw in that sometimes women base decisions on personal perspectives, not what is good for the country, and you have a voting bloc that doesn’t want anything unpleasant, just a continuation of the good life. A lot of women voters don’t want what is best for the country, but what is ‘fun’ or ‘social,’ or always pleasant. Sarah Palin turns some women off because she likes to handle a gun, shoot animals, and get her hands dirty, something that a lot of women these days think is ‘icky.’ Obama won a huge vote because he is pleasant and doesn’t want Americans to sacrfice anything but their freedom and self respect. There is no point in denying that and there’s also a snippy cliqueish tendency that if a woman is too much of an ‘outsider,’ then she won’t get voted in. I soemtimes think America has been reduced to becoming one big high school campus. Sarah is the ‘out’ girl and as a result she won’t get into office. She might be widely respected and widely admired aroudn the world, but it’s at home where she has to get voted ‘in.’ No vote, no Presidency.
They have these pesky things called elections. People (for the most part) can’t just be appointed.
I’ll never forget the liberal I heard once explaining that the Supreme Soviet was more representative than the US Congress brcause they had more women.