With a misogynist in the top spot, women have every reason for their doubt. Trump's female supporters have been trained to accept their second-class status, so they are of no use at the polls.
I’m disappointed, but not surprised, by the poll results. This has been a nation run primarily by white men for a loooooong time. Look at how hard it was for women and African-Americans to even get the right to vote, much less run for office.
This is changing, slowly. America is a victim of its racist and misogynist elements, of which there are still too many. It is changing though, and that’s encouraging.
2
They are right to doubt. The amount of animus that DJT and his cabinet express towards women and female candidates is one of the stunning facts of this presidency. Heaven forbid that woman should be non-white or older. It's open season on women in the WH. Shame on the whole Republican party for tolerating this misogyny.
They should be doubtful. Being a women is not a clear pathway to getting a job... even in the #MeToo era.
2
These days it seems that 80 percent of the stories in he NYT have a woman narrative.
I love women. I’m marred to one
But maybe bring it down a few editorial notches
"the woman with all of the qualifications lost."
A critical part of being a winner is to understand why you have lost.
Clinging to the idea that Hillary lost to the worst possible GOP candidate because she is a woman is a dangerous delusion.
Hillary lost because she was a terrible candidate. Her favorable ratings were terrible, only surpassed by Trump's ratings.
Hillary ran a terrible campaign geared only towards the people who had always supported her, while Trump ran a terrific campaign that converted many people from the Democratic party to Trump supporters.
Trump is still managing to drive the political conversation through lies and hogging the news. Where is the Democratic party?
I just saw reporting of an event at the White House, primarily young black people, convinced that Trump is the greatest. Where is the Democratic party?
The GOP is now running on a platform of saving pre-existing conditions. Where was the Democratic party when the GOP was trying to kill pre-existing conditions coverage?
Where was the Democratic party when the GOP leadership was saying that they needed to address entitlements next because the deficit was too high?
The Democratic party needs to be shouting these things from the rooftops _all_ the time. Use the Trump strategy.
Finally, I grew up in South America, a machista society. Women have been elected president several times in Chile and Argentina. It could happen here with the right candidate.
Why are so many more Dem men like me than GOP women accepting of women candidates? What is wrong with these women? What are they afraid of? Is it that they have been brainwashed by religious mumbo jumbo? They deserve considerable blame for the mess we are in
1
It's not just any woman. It's got to be the right woman.
The (apparently) UNSHAKABLE commitment/allegiance of white women to the GOP is what explains ALL of the uncertainty around female candidates for office.
Those voters will find a way to support white MALE GOPers no matter WHAT they say or do! It's some kind of dissertation worthy psychological phenomena!!
2
"I think women are probably still stinging from what happened in 2016,” she said. “Whichever candidate was your candidate, the woman with all of the qualifications lost'
Seriously? 53% of WHITE women voted for Trump despite everything we knew about him against one of the most qualified candidates we've ever had. This sentence should read "Women of COLOR are still stinging..." about the betrayal from the white counterparts...Clinton lost because a majority of white women voted against her. I don't see this as a 'women' problem.
1
@Sipa111 Simple fact5: Hillary was the wrong woman. Although she may have been the lesser of two evils, she brought along too much heavy baggage to carry the day. Let's face it, her arrogance, entitlement, greed, corruption and bold-face lies held her back, as did the "electoral college." And I voted for her.
1
This article is splitting hairs this close to the elections. I’ve seen nothing but qualified women candidates on both sides of the aisles. They exude confidence and none seem to me to be too worried about who will vote for them or not. They are offering change. So get out there and vote for who you think will best represent your interests. Vote.
4
There may be, based on sound statisical protocols, generalizations about women and men, including how they differ on account of factors that may or may not be influenced by biology. Of course, everyone ought to appreciate that such assessments yield group information, not information about any particular individual of the group. That when a woman is not elected and a man is, in an election, it’s a stretch to conclude that the reason for that was bias against women. Individuals of a group, after all, are unique. (And so some who never smoked get lung cancer too.) As re Clinton’s “loss” to the disgraceful what’s-his-name: Actually, she had more votes! Her loss was due to the “electoral college” convention that we, for questionable reasons, still use ... but which has nothing to do with gender bias. Finally, why a woman, based on biology per se, ought ever to be elected as some sort just entitlement, has not really been systematically addressed, ie, why’s particularly is that true?
Disagreeing with the statement that says there are too few women in leadership is not at all the same as being opposed to voting for or having women in leadership. And believing Hillary Clinton lost, though more qualified, because she was a woman is delusional. I will vote for whoever I believe to be the best candidate based on a combination of that person's experience and position on the issues. But I will be negatively influenced if gender is presented as a reason to vote for a candidate. Best candidate, period.
3
Sorry, but I don't understand why "Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential bid overshadows all that." She had to shoulder her own negatives, as well as those she inherited from her spouse, the former President. What woman in all of American history ever had to do that? I'd bet the percentage of voters willing to elect any former First Lady as President would have been incredibly small. To start the debate, just name one who would have had any measurable level of support, much less have had any chance of winning! Mrs. Truman? Mrs. Eisenhower? Mrs. Kennedy? Mrs. Johnson? Mrs. Nixon? Mrs. Ford? Mrs. Carter? Mrs. Reagan? Either Mrs. Bush? Really, would you have voted for even one of them? No, Mrs. Clinton was a longshot, at best, despite coming pretty darn close. Instead, without the burden of Bill's negatives, she could have won from all the dues she paid along the way. Just not from being the spouse of a President... that's too much weight to carry.
2
I am very dsappointed to see the results of the Pew polls presented under this misleading, negative headline. Why are these data points framed in this way? Near the end of the article the author notes that most respondents saw "no difference between men and women on key leadership skills. When they did see a difference, they said women had more traits of good leaders than men, like compassion, empathy and the ability to work out compromises." Wouldn't that have been a better focus/starting point for her analysis?
My own experience in the greater DC area is that women are more energized than ever politically--the election victories of Ocasio-Cortez, Stacey Abrams, Ayanna Pressley, and others demonstrate the viability of women candidates and give that headline assertion a hollow ring indeed. Do not underestimate women's confidence or determination to do what many male senators and congressmen have long shown themselves incapable of doing. The women who will soon assume office will do what those men can't: take care of the People's business and ensure liberty and justice FOR ALL.
3
I would agree, most of are not ready to vote for them.....
1
Ignore the polls and naysayers and keep running, ladies. 100% of women who don’t run won’t win. We are a majority and have power in numbers. Let’s recognize and use that advantage. Don’t just stay the course; design and run the course!
8
The poll in question asked for people’s emotions, not for any assessment of actual facts. Basically, all it is doing is reporting on how people parrot beliefs they’ve been socialised to have by their families, peers, and, above all else, by the imagined community of their political affiliation.
What specific discrimination do women face when running for office? Not what insults do they endure (and there are loads of female-specific insults which range from silly to disgusting/infuriating); not what percentage of women are elected (no mention of how many actually run, something anyone can do).....specific instances of direct discrimination. There aren’t any.
I’m pretty far to the left, but come from a Republican family and grew up around mostly Republicans. I have never once in my life heard any of them ever suggest that a woman cannot or should not be a political leader. Not even once. I’ve heard loads of racist comments (unsurprisingly), but virtually no sexist ones. The females in this community are raised as equals and told to go out into the world and achieve everything they can on their own terms....they are raised with as feminist a message as one could possibly hope for. I have to assume that the children of left-wing parents are told the same.
So, where is this discrimination? This isn’t really about hiring (where there is discrimination), since anyone can choose to run. Women may face specific hurdles, but hurdles are not discrimination.
Where is it?
2
Women need to run for office -- and the the title of this column is not very helpful! Please rename it while we still have a democracy!
4
We need more women in congress. Women who are opened minded not party puppets.
1
@Bill So sad to read this right after a NY Times article excoriating Susan Collins, the perfect example of a woman in congress who is clearly not a party puppet.
So women think women are underrepresented in public office and that there should be more female candidates. But their fear is that voters are not ready to vote for them.
I'd be more sympathetic to their plight were it not for the fact that it was women - more particularly white women - who turned down one of their own for president. They didn't turn her down because there was a male candidate on offer who somehow embodied all the things they might ever want in a president. No, they turned her down for a crass, illiterate, incoherent, misogynistic lout who is quite probably the most anti-woman president ever.
Did Clinton have flaws? Of course. Such is the contrived, cash-driven, special interest controlled election system that truly honest, objective, altruistic types need not apply. But in the inherently swampy world of politics, Clinton was a veritable Sister Theresa alongside the foul, narcissistic, money-grubbing orange thing that swayed so many women.
And now THEIR man in the White House is shoving a neanderthal onto the Supreme Court to placate a base that want's to send women's rights back to the dark ages. Are women their own worst enemies? You really have to wonder!
45
@thegreatfulauk
When people vote, they do not enter their race and sex on the ballot on which they vote. Nobody really knows, and most of the polls do not have particularly large or diverse samples. I am skeptical of the numbers concerning the number of women, white or otherwise, who allegedly voted for Trump, particularly since the polls also predicted a landslide victory for Clinton.
3
I hope these polls are as wrong as the polls which said Trump could not win!Women are lighting up the election landscape this fall and are injecting hope and change.They deserve a chance to be taken seriously.They are used to hard work and are willing to add public service to their list of accomplishments.Let’s support them!
17
The Kavanaugh debacle will cure us of any hesitation. These misogynists are already saying they will vote for him no matter what she says.
I am done - how about you?
65
This article is ridiculous , did anyone see what happens in Virginia.
Instead of saying people are concerned to vote for woman why not showcase the tremendous success of the woman running and winning.
Stop doubting women, we are by far the smarter species, just take a look at what these STUPID men have done.
Let’s talk more about how horrible these men have been in leadership roles. Our country needs lots more woman in every level of government.
Promote women, empower woman, we will be the people to change what is happening.
25
I would like to see more women in elected office and in other leadership positions. One can't fault the article, however, for failing to promote women or for failing to take men to task.
The article merely reported the outcome of a survey, a pretty large one at that. It linked to the survey, and as my one can review the survey. Anyone knowledgeable in statistics and social surveying methods can take issue with the survey method, but you missed the point of the article if you think it's failure to address another topic is a shortcoming.
12
The late Charlotte Whitton was mayor of Ottawa, Canada, when I was a little girl there. She used to say that a woman had to be twice as good as a man to get elected...but fortunately this wasn't difficult.
Whether or not I agree with her, the memory of her existence as mayor of the nation's capital outweighed comments I heard about women not being electable.
Yes, there's resistance to women in power...but voters can change things. Make sure you vote in the midterms.
22
I am represented by a woman in the House and another in the Senate, and I am ready to give each another term. And after the less-than-spectacular performance of the current president, I would happily vote for his wife if she were able to run.
15
We have a very interesting experiment happening here where I live; in the province of Alberta, Canada. Surprising to most of us, in 2015 we elected a government from the New Democratic Party (NDP), a left-leaning party. The Premier (equivalent to a state governor), Rachel Notley, leads our province. 10 of 22 cabinet positions are held by women. Although I don't agree with all of the government's policy positions I am constantly amazed at the lack of scandal in this government.
Rachel Notley, in my opinion, is a very good leader. She seems to have the right balance of brainy smarts and emotional intelligence. And she is certainly not afraid to take risks! I think more people in North America should pay attention to this experiment.
26
Male, female, other, rainbow colored, whatever,, I WILL NOT VOTE for ANYONE that wants to rip the Bill of Rights, or even a couple parts of it, like the 1st 16 words if the 1st Amendment or any part of the 2nd Amendment, up and throw it away.
So lady's here is how to get elected. Use the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as they were understood by the Framers as your campaign platform. You might be surprised how easily you will win the election.
But, as long as you are embracing Hillary's scream, "Religion must be forced to change it's beliefs." or Feinstein's demand that Americans be completely disarmed, you probably won't get elected except in the most Marxist parts of the nation and then only when the woman that already holds the office dies.
5
If they were to blindly follow the original framers of the constitution they wouldn’t be allowed to vote. The world has evolved over the last two hundred and forty years and this country needs to recognize that.
3
"Or any part of the 2nd Amendment"
These are Republican scare tactics, like the kind the NRA has used for years to trick gullible people into thinking Democrats will take away your guns. There’s something called the 2nd Amendment, which prevents that. But making sure there are proper background checks? Nothing wrong with that.
And no one wants to “rip up” the Bill of Rights, if that were even possible. Where do we even start here?Hillary never said religion must be “forced” to change (blame fake news), and no one, including Diane Feinstein, has ever advocated “abortion on demand.”
Study the facts. Please.
2
Israel, India, Germany, Iceland, Pakistan and the UK all have had female heads of state. But the US is still agonizing over whether a woman can be a leader? When Hillary (for whom I voted) lost, I tried to puzzle out what elements of American culture are responsible for this weird situation. It is hard to argue that the US is more misogynistic than Pakistan or that American women face more structural obstacles than women in India! My conclusion is that American culture provides no template for female leadership. In all the countries above, there are historical or mythological figures that embody female power: queens, saints, warriors, or goddesses. From the Virgin Queen to the Iron Lady, British culture has created archetypes with which women can subconsciously identify and which men can recognize as images of power. Who can an American woman seeking leadership identify with? One of the Little Women? And the unfortunate tendency of American feminists to foster the culture of aggrieved victimhood does not help. I never heard as much whining and complaining from Thitd World women as I do from their pampered American sisters. Who wants to vote for a whiner and a scold? People seek strength and power in their leaders, not empathy and fragility.
10
@Mor It goes back at least to the leaders of the women's suffrage movement. Elizabeth Cady Stanton precipitated a crisis by presenting herself to vote. Rosa Parks chose a day to resist segregation and became the public face of the Montgomery bus boycott. Meg Whitman was CEO of eBay and HP, and has a residential college named for her at Princeton. Senator Elizabeth Warren is a tremendous advocate for fair treatment of consumers and the public by the financial industry.
1
@Mor: Donald Trump is a whiner and a scold. People voted for him, but then again, he’s not a woman
7
I am too angry to respond rationally to this article.
12
Portraying women as broadly too timorous to report a sexual assault collides directly with the notion that women are suitable to lead. The torrent of whiny portrayals over the last few days must have hugely set back the cause of women.
Put the victim card back in the deck.
11
This premise is not correct. Nothing collides here. Women are strong enough to lead, but what no one needs is talk of “whiny” victims. The fact is, women are never taken seriously where claims of sexual assault are concerned. In this particular case, you’ve got whiny old white men, like Donald Trump, all but saying Dr. Ford is lying. And I have lost any respect I may have had for Kavanaugh in the way he has dismissed the whole episode, even going to absurd lengths to pull his old high school calendar out of thin air, like it was just lying around. If nothing happened way back when, he would be acting more adult-like and respectful.
3
The DNC thesis that more women should be in politics because more women should be in politics is hardly reason enough.
Passion for what one believes in, for being part of the public debate, and for a vision, and idea of what the future polis should look like is what drives any successful candidate. Without them, just being a woman isn’t enough, or a man for that matter.
It’s ideas and the passion to articulate them that matters the most in the end. It's what voters are looking for, always have.
5
What Americans are "skeptical"? Every thinking woman and man I know are voting only for Socially Conscious Women if they are on the ballot.
More and more republican operative males are being outed as sexist, racist, predatory, anti-human-rights or all of the above. They seem to think they are "entitled" to use their supposed penis power to try to control the bodies and lives of women and others they deem as "inferior".
Boy, do we have news for them. Their power is an illusion.
I just heard on MSNBC that another woman has lodged charges against Kavanaugh for sexual misconduct towards her. The cowardly, unethical, supposed "christian" eleven old white men on OUR U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee are trying to shove him at us and put him on OUR U.S. Supreme Court.
Over my dead body, boys.
29
@njglea I'm not voting for them unless they are the best candidates. The ones that vote for men or women as a bloc are dumber than carpet tile.
7
Men *are* better at taking risks (if you define better as taking more). This really isn't in dispute, by anyone.
It's what explains the vast majority of the "wage gap".
3
@neal. Actually, research shows that when women ask for raises, seek recognition for their work, that they are condemned for being too aggressive. I can speak from personal experience - women are trapped in a double bind: "speak up and take credit for what's yours" gets followed by "whoa, be a little more ladlylike, honey".
All the more reason the Democratic Party needs to nominate a white male in 2020. It’s the only way to end the trump/right wing/Russian nightmare. A white male would be infinitely harder for him to campaign against, or for the base to viscerally hate. Democrats must put off their symbolic “wins” for a while, otherwise it’s trump 2020, pence 2024, pence 2028, Supreme Court 9-0. They may eventually get their female president, but it may not be a democrat.
6
For a particular woman who has already decided to run, a lot of these criteria don't apply. She's running. What matters is whether voters go to the polls.
A woman who stands for what the electorate needs will be supported by the electorate. The typical woman saying "let's fix this" appeals to both men and women who want this fixed. Men will vote for a woman because they want to vote. Women will vote for a woman because they are relieved to have someone to vote for.
There will be resistance from those who do not want the candidate's positions represented. Part of winning is convincing the electorate to vote in their own interest and not be fooled by the misleading claims of a threatened opposition.
I don't want to upset you, but I need to vote in this election for someone who is going to do the right thing for the public. If I wanted more of the wrong thing, I wouldn't have to vote.
7
I don't know how much credence to put into any poll. They failed us in the 2016 presidential election. One thing is sure, news organizations are always seeking to predict the future, but, let's face it, it can't be done. We know because of statistics and demographics that show record numbers of women are running for office. But there is not one sure way to apply the facts of gender inequality and female psychology to the upcoming election. The best that any news media can do is report trends, but trends are not facts. So my advice to any woman seeking office or wanting to vote is to ignore this piece of journalism because a poll is not a reflection of truth.
7
If women are doubtful a woman can be elected president because of Hillary's upset loss, fear not, wrong candidate at the wrong time. I voted for Hillary because I'm a Democrat and there was not other choice; however, if any good can be had by Hillary not winning, it's that she will not be the first. I'd much rather the "right" woman win that honor, not the flawed woman. Many thought a black person wouldn't be elected president anytime soon, but along came the "right" black man who made it happen. The same will happen with women.
13
@David He wasn't "black". He was half white.
1
Does "conservative men" now mean "willfully ignorant"?
10
@rbyteme
Just as much as "democratic women" believing women do a better job in politics means they are sexist.
4
So this confirmed what we already knew: women, who know what is like to be a woman in this society, are more likely to see systemic reasons for the lack of women in positions of power. Democrats are more likely to think the same. Male republicans just blame the women. Nothing new.
31
"It's simple -- the men don't want us there."
Was the concise answer to the question -- 'Why aren't there more women in at the executive suite? -- I asked of one of the pioneers in executive coaching who had worked with hundreds of senior executives in major corporations.
Research on 'masculinity' and 'what it means to be a man' in our culture, finds that men's sense of self-worth is inextricably tied to their being strong/tougher/better than women. Boys are told "Don't be like a girl." That's why men won't ask for directions -- they would appear weak ("like a girl"). There are enough men whose sense of self is threatened by a woman in an equal position to keep our country's leadership 80% men.
I witnessed this first hand as an executive search professional when recruiting at senior levels, and I saw it as the mechanic on our 60' powerboat when cruising full time for five years with my husband. Some men turned openly hostile at the 'threat' of women 'invading' their 'No-women-allowed, Only-men-can-do-this' territory. Think about it, not only are some men threatened and go ballistic if a woman is a candidate for a peer position in senior management, but even if she is a mechanic!!!!
In the words of the new Bonobos campaign whose goal is to redefine how we think of masculinity -- we must #EvolveTheDefinition to one that focuses on what it means to be human. Until we do, men will continue to be THE obstacle to women to have positions of power in business and politics.
35
I am an old (over 70) white hetero guy, married to the same lady for over 50 years.
I hope that women will "just do it" and quit agonizing over "will they vote for women" or not.
Get your friends and relatives to register and vote.
JUST. GO. VOTE.
62
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
I’m not sure if this “conventional wisdom” on women candidates is ridicule or aggression; however women are not going away, and we ARE going to win.
21
Republican women seem to be doing OK at winning elections. Perhaps that's because they campaign almost entirely on their policy positions?
9
@Jonathan 90 percent of women in Congress are Democrat.
22
Reminds me of all the articles about the lack of female CEOs, but very few about the lack of female roofers, construction workers, linemen, truck drivers, etc. In my opinion, would we have been much better off with Hillary as President? Absolutely. But I chafe at the constant grousing about discrimination and lack of equality in targeting only positions of power instead of what makes the world run (teachers and nurses notwithstanding). Those women who do achieve top positions yet not make it about power when they get there definitely have my support.
15
We, as women, can't stop pushing the limits (and then some) when it comes to issues such as this.
Any gender-biased comments from males about women are going to be video taped by me, and immediately sent to #MeToo.
Deal with it. We're not going away.
10
I vote based on the ideas of the candidate. Gender has nothing to do with it. I'm sure the conservatives feel the same which is why they voted for Sarah Palin, Michell Bachman, and a host of other bad-idea conservative women.
Hillary lost not because she was a woman but because she was a dismal politician and an even worst campaigner with a tin ear to what the country was wanting. Sanders was filling coliseums and stadiums with enthusiastic crowds and won 23 states despite the Hillary campaign having a working agreement with the DNC that funneled money into her campaign coffers at the expense of down-ballot races. And her response? Ignore the Progressives and court Republicans. That's why she lost. It had nothing to do with her gender. Pandering to identity politics will only get you so far. If you really want to win, put forth strong popular ideas and represent the people, not your large-donor corporate or oligarchic backers.
24
I have no problem with women being leaders, as long as they don't completely strip our country of masculinity. China is on the verge of establishing a digital dictatorship and Russia has likely already hacked our most important institutions. Nothing is the future is certain. The last thing we need are "empathetic" candidates that will portray the military as toxic masculinity. Diplomacy is a great thing, but having muscle to back it up is also important.
4
@Johnny
There you go again, equating success with masculinity. How short-sighted of you -- don't you remember Golda Meir, for one example?
39
We can always hire football players and other young men to go kill, just like we do now.
12
The Russians hacked the election in favor of Putin’s lapdog. They were afraid of Hillary.
9
The qualified candidate lost, after winning the popular vote.
Clinton had 3 MILLION more votes than trump.
She lost due to a technicality: The Electoral College.
She wan't the first.
She won't be the last.
The United States is sexist and racist.
Still.
European standards of health and welfare, education and their refusal to let their military budgets eat their countries, are choices that Americans have flung aside with both hands.
That our president is a self-admitted groper and our VP refuses to "dine alone" with a woman, any woman of any age, race or education because she may accuse him of rape, says that we are simply a mentally ill country, and, sadly, that was cut out of the budget long ago.
This week the Institution to Destroy is the Supreme Court.
No FBI investigation.
The Grand Old Patriarchs like Grassley and Orrin Hatch are pulling every sting they can find to shut that little missy up.
If Kavanaugh is passed, it will be the death of the Supreme Court. All credibility will be gone.
I find this one of those "reassuring articles", an article to reassure us all that, oh, yes, it's all fine.
I used to believe that of PEW Reports.
But lately I'm wondering if they are living in a very different world than the average American and have chosen to ask only reassuring questions that provide reassuring answers.
Yes, I find myself wondering what questions they will be asking in 20 years.... long after I am dead of old age.
Good luck on that.
49
Let's just say that there is a reason that I don't live, work and raise my children in a state with many Republican men.
67
@Cousy It's not just children.....living in a state with Republican Congressional representatives is hazardous for ANYONE's health. Recently, I was learning about Rep. Burgess - not my Congressional rep but he who heads the House Health Committee. This is an MD who BRAGS about voting against the Affordable Care Act 50 times.
The city in which I live has high female representation in the corporate, civic, non-profit, religious and education sectors.
Fewer than 4% of the votes in state-wide and federal elections are cast for Republicans. Fewer than 2% of the households have guns.
Coincidence? I think not.
33
The questions chosen by the polling,
Not to mention that many kinds of people
Will not answer polling, are self
Selecting the responses
The question might be who is the person,
What beliefs do they have and WHY
They have them
Yes woman are more involved in children
- but what if children did not affect the
Women’s career? Would one want that
Person in high office?
Hillary could not explain her core
Beliefs, she had the Nixonian attitude
Of distrust to outsiders, n her campaign
Had infighting all the time. She had
Radical unjudicated political stances
Such as no limit abortion, gay adoption,
Euthanasia, in vitro child birth, .
Her foreign policy was mindless n she
Followed the system- was a pretty good
Follower,,,,,
She was smart but in a way lots of lawyers are
They know the law but lack judgement on
It’s purpose n its limits- e.g. when is law
Unjust thus unlawful
Life believers, the bottom 1/3, saw her as
Same old...... also white men did not trust
Her, the vote was a not Hillary vote
Not a yes trump one in general
4
@Michael Burke
Those positions are hardly radical.
Although, I cannot imagine what you
Think "in vitro child birth" is.
And your framing your
Comment as a poem
Is rather annoying.
20
Another way to look at these results is that women feel entitled to the top spots but don’t appreciate or care for the work it takes to get there.
Top executives sacrifice friends, family and personal time to get there. Politicians have to be willing to put themselves out there and often sacrifice any vestige of integrity.
The argument that it’s “systematic” bias against women is really a justification for changing the rules so that competence and competition are irrelevant to the gods of equality of outcome.
Our Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau did exactly that when he made his cabinet 50% women even though women represented 20% of his talent pool. His rationale? “It’s 2015”. So now we have a woman heading our equivalent of the IRS whose only expencience is social work. Gaffs followed rapidly.
If women want the top spots, they should earn them.
18
@Matt Why should anyone have to sacrifice friends, family, personal time, and any vestige of integrity to get ahead? Why not change that line of thinking? Here in the US we certainly have millions of women who are well-qualified to be leaders.
3
@Matt
Your mother was a women. How much work goes into that? Are you sure you appreciate how much work women do?
1
@Matt
Gaffs? You mean the tool for bringing large fish aboard a boat? Or the pole that the top of a sail is fastened to?
14
The biggest handicap for women this election cycle will be the budding backlash to the abuses of the metoo movement. Women and men are seeing the long term harm the kangaroo courts of social media and parts of the press are causing the country.
11
Reminds me of an adage "be careful what you hope for"... Nonetheless, I'm hoping for a female pope, at least a bishop or two. How could they do worse... most likely better.
6
Nothing new to see here folks, move on. If you'd prefer to live in a country with an enlightened electorate, you'll have to move the the UK, Germany, Norway, Peru, New Zealand, etc.
"I think it also confirms what a lot of women have experienced, when they’ve been the most qualified for something and seen it go to a man who is less qualified.”
15
I agree. I don't think America is ever going to elect a female President. People are always going to have some reason why they aren't going to vote for "this" one.
9
@Madeline Conant
I have been "recommending" comments that take the opposite view as I have read through them. I'm a Republican woman. But I was more than ready to nominate and vote for Carly Fiorina in the last election. You are wrong, my sister.
3
Not true!
It is interesting to view this through the identity politics lens. Note that Republican men view accountability high and therefore "blame" individual traits rather than structural issues to be the cause of less women in leadership positions. Democrats view society in general and governmental as driving forces.
The top reason many Republicans vote the way they do is this feeling of personal responsibility and accountability. The push against social welfare and entitlements isn't so much about greed or being mean; it's about encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves. The survey results I think bear this thinking out. Republican men want women to take personal responsibility - stop blaming everyone else except yourself.
That's easy to say of course when they've never had to push against a tilted playing field. They just haven't experienced the discrimination and therefore can't see it. Policies won't change it - only attitudes will. Per this survey, attitudes are slow to change.
5
@deedubs
Oh, I see. That must be why Republicans are in favor of putting small children in cages -- it's personal responsibility-taking.
15
It seems to me that promotions early in career are related to socializing with those in power. Women can do that if they are already coupled up and socialize as a couple. But if the women are single, they don't have that many opportunities as young single men for platonic socializing with the bosses. A married boss will take a single man golfing, handball, ride together to the conference, etc., but will not a single woman along. Upwardly mobile young men can date or marry someone who is funny, sweet, relaxing or interesting but management is less receptive to and more suspicious of female execs who couple up with someone who is sweet or helpful. And it's hard for two powerhouses to stay married and socialize as a couple because there isn't enough time. It's hard for a woman to compete with a man who is getting lots of help from his spouse so that all he has to do is show up at work, not get his clothes together, deal with the plumber, drive the kids, etc. Men who think they have a chance at being super successful don't want the burden of a woman committed to her own career, so women who think they have a chance of being super successful have a difficult time finding "suitable" spouses. It's awkward if they end up with a man who makes 10% of their salary and it's awkward if they stay single.
We want to elect a female president who is married to a doctor. But male doctors don't seek out hard driving lawyers to marry.
22
What a archaic perspective. This sounds like the world of mad men circa 1962. We have evolved far beyond this corporate blue suit white shirts blue ties only world. Anyone can start a business or work for a small company where they don’t live by such a primitive and cloistered culture. Men and woman don’t have to conform to such a restrictive mindset and be successful and marry or not whomever they want along the way. Not everyone needs to be a Darren Stevens to be a success in businesses in the 21st century
1
I hate polls when I can't read the questions and the way it was conducted. While I appreciate that they are done to help get data, they are far from perfect. So when I looked at the site they said-"In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls." This panel was done in June and July, a lot has happened since then. I question why we even are looking at it?
5
BINGO!
4
We should never vote against someone because of gender, but we should never vote for someone because of their gender.
When I vote, I vote based upon my evaluation of the candidate's judgement- not their CV or campaign promises. 2020 should be interesting as we should have a bumper crop of women competing for the Democratic Presidential nomination and the people I expect will be running are all highly accomplished and highly qualified.
As to the claim that women as politicians are somehow better than men, let us see if the women of the Senate vote to confirm Mr Kavanaugh.
32
@David Gregory Sir,2020 would be the centenary year of 19th Amendment to USA's Constitution. One hopes that the next President would be a Woman.
3
@David Gregory
"When I vote, I vote based upon my evaluation of the candidate's judgement- not their CV or campaign promises."
Yep. And the "most qualified" candidate for potus in 2016 (that happened to be female) had godawful judgement.
5
@rtj
You would really say that Clinton's judgment was inferior to Trump's? We cannot be living in the same universe.
8