Female Presidents

[darkrebelchild]

Few countries have experienced female presidents. Are they any better than male presidents or do they both rule the country in the same way without gender being an issue?

 

[Corzhens]

The Philippines had 2 female presidents. The first is Cory Aquino in 1986 and Gloria Arroyo in 2001 when Erap Estrada was ousted via coup d' etat. Even though I am female, I'd say that there is not much difference whether the president is a man or a woman. Maybe it would depend on the kind of person that president is and also the kind of people around him.

 

[explorerx7]

I don't see any differences whether the president or prime minister is a man or woman. The decisions made are driven by the individuals perception of what is feasible or not, just as it is in the corporate world. In these cut and thrust situations, there is no room for gender consideration, because this would diminish the incumbent's credibility.

 

[SCSullivan]

I don't believe gender is an issue regarding how good or bad a president might be. The UK had probably one of the most hated politicians in the world in Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister. Currently, Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister has the highest popularity rating of any politician in the country. Her entire reason for entering politics was because she hated everything Margaret Thatcher stood for. Personality and integrity are far more important than whatever sex anyone happens to be born.

 

[fcuco]

Almost all western nations have had female presidents by now (or prime ministers), including the more powerful ones like Germany and maybe the United States will join that club soon if Clinton wins. Latin America has had a lot of female presidents too.

 

[xTinx]

The position of a president isn't constrained or limited by petty things like gender affiliation or race. What matters more are the following: experience, educational background, ethics, decision-making skills and political will.

Two female presidents served my country. The first one reluctantly assumed her position as soon as three decades of dictatorship ended. Her reign was marked by massacres, mass protests, widespread confusion and a rushed constitution. Understandably, it was a period of transition from martial law but her term ended without any remarkable contribution.

The second president paved the way for economic progress and glocalization but political traitors pinned her down for her husband's shady activities, locking her up in her home without due process. She contributed so much to my country but the people were too blinded by media hype.

Between the two, the latter president had more experience and political will. They became presidents under different political conditions so I think there's no basis for comparison. And their respective situations were no different from the situations of many male presidents across the world.

 

[Zepplin]

We had Thatcher, strong willed and as strong as any man.
In that role, gender doesn't matter.

I didn't like her, but respected that she was good as any man in that role

 

[T-123456]

I don't believe gender is an issue regarding how good or bad a president might be. The UK had probably one of the most hated politicians in the world in Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister. Currently, Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister has the highest popularity rating of any politician in the country. Her entire reason for entering politics was because she hated everything Margaret Thatcher stood for. Personality and integrity are far more important than whatever sex anyone happens to be born.

They may hate Margaret Thatcher as much as they want but she was the one who made sure that Britain came out the economic crisis.

 

[djordjem87]

I don't think that difference is in gender. Not only for presidency but also in general terms of speaking. In life, you are a good and decent person or you are a politician and you can see that from my analogy it really doesn't matter whether we have male or female first person to present us in the world.

 

[remnant]

I will approach the issue with reference to women leaders even in lower cadres. True, they are good managers and are sticklers for detail. But when it comes to moral probity, they are as guilty as men. Moral probity and integrity are the twin issues which I use to gauge any leader especially when it comes to the issue of corruption. Without wanting to sound judgemental, I have also found that women leaders usually are given to unnecessarily assert the powers that they already have with nobody challenging them. On the other hand, there are colourful women leaders who lead gloriously and leave a legacy. It all depends on the individual, whether make or female.

 

[Diane Lane]

I think it depends on the person. I personally wouldn't want to be hired for any position simply because I had a specific set of sex organs. I prefer the contest to be about qualifications, background, training, experience and abilities. I have no issue with a female president, but I don't want Hillary Clinton as my president. I would be proud to have someone else, such as Condoleeza Rice or someone else like her, but I would never vote for someone simply because of his or her gender, race, religion, etc.

 

[pwarbi]

When talking about female leaders, me being from the UK I'll automatically think about Margaret Thatcher, and while I didn't agree with her policies at times, I did think and still do, that she was as strong willed and determined as any man, so her gender wasn't an issue.

People might have hated her and her government, but ask them why and they'll give you a long list of reasons, but her gender won't be on it, and that's how it should be in my opinion.