Is America ready for a female President?

Of course America is ready for a competant female President. We are ready for anyone who can do the job effectively.
 
Cuivienen said:
You were the one that made the statement that on average men had higher IQs than women.

No I didn't, not here at any rate. I said that it was EITHER "about equal" OR "slightly higher" -- because there are scientists who support both positions. Read the wikipedia article I alluded to to educate yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence

Also just mentioning the various positions scientists take doesn't commit one to any of them (besides if it did, I'd be contradicting myself as the scientists themselves contradict each other -- some saying the IQ is more or less the same and others saying men have somewhat higher IQ -- there's none that dispute that important mental differences exist ... a difference other than measured by a raw IQ score can exist ... just read the wikipedia article)

Certainly you also suggested that IQ and grades have little connection, which is true;

That was not something I suggested. That was MY MAIN POINT. If you agree with that, there is no need to pound on a clause within a sentence which clause was not even expressing my view anyway (I do not subscribe to either view at the moment ... I unlike you like to keep an open mind until I learn what the various scientists have to say)
 
ironduck said:
Thanks cuivienen. How great is the range of scores? Just trying to get a rough picture here.. we have nothing like these tests over here.

On the old SAT (pre-2005), the scores ranged from 400 to 1600 (200-800 on each section, Math and Verbal). In general, the vast majority scored from about 700 to 1300. A perfect 1600 was achieved by about 1000 students each year.
 
wit>trope said:
You are wrong unless you are like an old person.

The SATs have at least a couple times readjusting their scoring system so an SAT score of say 1300 from 15 years ago doesn't mean the same thing as 1300 today -- because 1300 today would actually have been something like 1100 or 1200 15 years ago ... a couple times they just chose to inflate veryone's scores. So if your IQ was found to be 156 based ono the conversion table for the old SATS -- then that wouldn't be right -- you'd need to subtract like 40 points from that or something like that making it more like 116. (and if your IQ were REALLY 156, you could have figured all this out on your own ;)

Actually, it was fairly simple to follow a link which gave a current SAT -> IQ conversion chart. I used the SAT results from when I took them in 2004.

;)
 
hey wit>trope,

whats all that stuff in your signature eh?

Whassat all about?
 
Dawgphood001 said:
hey wit>trope,

whats all that stuff in your signature eh?

Whassat all about?

Not sure I understand. I've had the Max Kellerman quote in my signature for like 6 months. It used to be longer but I abbreviated it to include the quote from President Ronald Reagan the Great. I thought the Kellerman quote is insightful and I think the Reagan quote is very compassionate ... makes me want to have been there when Reagan was the President.
 
Probably the real question to ask is: are females ready for a female President?

Take a look at the makeup of Congress right now. Note the percentage of men and women in it. Also note the number of women who run in elections.

From those two stats it should be clear that women are less interested in running for public office than men are.

In order to have a woman President, a woman must first choose to run. I don't suppose we could kidnap Pamela Anderson and force her to run for President.....? :crazyeye:
 
If she would hate the Middle East and liberals, then she would be the logical choice for Bush's successor.
 
Bugfatty300 said:
I think we will have a male black president before we have a female of any race.

Considering the deepfound conservatism in the US, I'd say each of the two things you state is about as likely as me winning the lottery (which I don't play ;) )....
 
A useless discussion, if you ask me......

But anyway:
Howmany female governors, senators and MoCs does the US have?

On a side note:
Very few European nations have (or have had) female leaders. Funny detail: the exceptions are usually from conservative parties.
 
With the known conservatism of the USA, where even presidents dye their hair grey to gain more prestige, I doubt that female presidents will be seen in a long while...
 
I counted 8 female governors, looking at the list here:

http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/...ff00VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=curgov

I might be wrong since I'm tired now.

And from http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts/Officeholders/cawpfs.html

In 2005, 81 women serve in the U.S. Congress. Fourteen women serve in the Senate, and 66 women serve in the House. The number of women in statewide elective executive posts is 81, while the proportion of women in state legislatures is at 22.6 percent.

Congress: women hold 81, or 15.1%, of the 535 seats in the 109th US Congress — 14, or 14.0%, of the 100 seats in the Senate and 67, or 15.4%, of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives. In addition, three women serve as Delegates to the House from Guam, the Virgin Islands and Washington, DC.

Statewide Elective Executive: In 2005, 81 women hold statewide elective executive offices across the country; women hold 25.7% of the 315 available positions. Among these women, 35 are Democrats, 43 are Republicans, and 3 were elected in nonpartisan races.

State Legislature: In 2005, 1,674, or 22.7%, of the 7,382 state legislators in the United States are women. Women hold 408, or 20.7%, of the 1,984 state senate seats and 1,266, or 23.43%, of the 5,411 state house seats. Since 1971, the number of women serving in state legislatures has increased more than four-fold.
 
Both Merkel and Thatcher were elected as leaders of their party, and in the general elections, it was made pretty clear that they would become Chancellor/ PM if they won. So it's the same difference really.
Bachelet ( the Chilean Mrs. President) was elected directly, as was Ellen Sirleaf Johnson of Liberia.
 
jameson said:
Both Merkel and Thatcher were elected as leaders of their party, and in the general elections, it was made pretty clear that they would become Chancellor/ PM if they won. So it's the same difference really.
Bachelet ( the Chilean Mrs. President) was elected directly, as was Ellen Sirleaf Johnson of Liberia.


Not really...
In the US you vote for a person (presidential candidate), and in other countries you vote for a political party (which means you can also vote for someone else of that party, like the number two of that list)
 
I'm aware of that, the point is that the people who voted for those parties in those elections apparently had no qualms whatsoever about ending up with a female PM/Chancellor.
 
jameson said:
I'm aware of that, the point is that the people who voted for those parties in those elections apparently had no qualms whatsoever about ending up with a female PM/Chancellor.

There is a pretty big difference between "having no qualms about ending up with a female PM" and actively voting for a female president, IMHO.
 
Darkness said:
Not really...
In the US you vote for a person (presidential candidate), and in other countries you vote for a political party (which means you can also vote for someone else of that party, like the number two of that list)


That doesn't change that Michelle Bachelet and Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf were elected directly in two countries considered less progressive than the US.
 
Top Bottom