title

I think it's wrong, but I also believe it might happen. Now, I don't live in the states, but I know a lot about those people who won't vote or support a woman, in high positions, because they believe she's 'not good enough'. Everyone should be judged solely by their performance and qualifications, not gender. The thing with gender too is that it's natural, I mean you're born with it. And unless you're gonna have a surgery, you don't cause it and you can't change it, but it seems that some people see being a woman is some kind of default or a mistake that they brought on themselves lol. Makes you wonder how much we really evolved.

One of our local attorneys is the son of the leader of a major white supremacy group. He’s a really talented lawyer and I’ve never even heard anything negative said about him. Still, I don’t think I would vote for him just because of that affiliation. He’s not running for anything so it doesn’t matter, but I was just thinking of what kinds of things other than incompetence and lack of confidence I would hold against someone in an election. In a lot of these local elections people give their political affiliation, but it doesn’t amount to anything or effect their function in certain positions.

It's sad but true there are still people out there that will not vote for someone due to their color of their skin, their gender, ethnicity, etc.
While we as people have come a long way, we still have a ways to go.

Yes to some degree it is wrong. But let me just add this that might expand your understanding of democracy. A large part of how people vote is by identity. Who does one identify with is a probably the biggest factor with whom you cast your vote. Is it a surprise that candidates who grow up in blue collar families make a big deal of their roots? Even though they now have gone to college and become attornies. They want blue collar voters to think he's one of them. Is it a surprise that Jewish voters vote for Jewish candidates or Italian voters vote for Italian candidates or evangelical (sp?) voters vote for evangelical candidates or hispanic voters for hispanic candidates? Does anyone doubt that over 90%, if not over 95%, of black voters will vote for Obama? It's very understandable. Most people are not ideological. So how do they decide how to vote? They will vote for someone who they think can relate to them and their experience. Now this shouldn't really apply to gender. But it does seem to be harder for a female candidate to win an executive position. The problem there is that voters think that a woman is not tough enough for the fights she will have to endure. But strong women can and do get elected. Margret Thatcher is a prime example.

Yes, some people will refuse to vote for someone because of race or gender. It's unfortunate but true.

Yes Anti, everyone says the same thing you just did, but yet that's still how people vote. The thing is that both sides have plans that will supposedly make things better and both sides attack each other's plan undermining their claims. How is a voter to decide, if one is not ideologicaly driven (like me )? In the end one trusts the person you can identify with.

I’m talking about district judge- not president of the US. Scale down a bit and consider how gender might effect one’s ability to judge a case. You know, there was a time that a black person would not have been considered fit to pass judgment on a white person. Do you think it could be the same kind of thing only she women lack the ability to judge in this case? What qualities about a woman would lessen that ability and what qualities about a man would make this his strong suit? Again, small town local politicks- a county of less than 35,000. Do men look at women and think they are less able to perform in positions of authority- ON A SMALL TOWN SCALE? We all identify with each other. You’d be hard pressed to find a local person that’s much different from any other local person. In fact, there is really no diversity to speak of in this area.

Perhaps, M-H, your father-in-law's comment may pertain to some of the older voters in the crowd. I mean no offence by my statement, but I find that the way of thinking of people, say my own father's age, is so rigid and fixed. And that no amount of arguing/debating/whatever makes a difference. So this old business of not voting for someone based on gender/colour/sexual preference (we had a gay mayor in the city closest to me just a few years ago -- and he was danm good -- spelled wrong on purpose, btw). My point is that the newer voters may have a more objective way of voting ... Hope I make sense!

You’d be hard pressed to find a local person that’s much different from any other local person. In fact, there is really no diversity to speak of in this area.

When people are given a choice they will choose what they feel comfortable with. I don't blame them for that. I don't believe that it's necessarily inherent racism or sexism. What makes the woman you're voting for better than the other person? Sounds like you're voting for her because she's a woman. Sounds like you're identifying with her.

Yes, some people will refuse based on gender. Unfortunately, this is largely due to the traditional role of women in society and how that manifests itself these days. In the past women were considered inferior to men, and thus were discouraged from making use of their intelligence and education (was it Woolf who said if Shakespeare had a sister she would have committed suicide?) In any case, in current society women are still encouraged by the media, celebrities, etc to make beauty/attractiveness paramount to other qualities. Men / society and even other women reward this choice by apotheosizing the "most beautiful", "most sexy", etc. Women learn that beauty grants them a better husband, more wealth, etc. Women who choose otherwise - intelligence - may manage to rise to positions of power, but are often castigated as being "mannish", "unfeminine", etc.
In other words: our society has really made no advancements in this area. "Sit there, look pretty and giggle" remains charming. Another thing to consider: if our society sees women as whimsical, capricious, stupid little creatures, how on earth can we expect them to vote for one? I wouldn't vote for a woman like that - would you? Thus, it is almost requisite for a woman to become a man in order to even run for office, etc, and then it is a turn-off for men and vituperated by women.

Let me post this as a separate comment. I don't vote based on identity. I'm an ideological voter. I have very distinct views on what's best for society. I will vote for the person who best fits my views, whether it be man, woman, black, white, or hispanic. I'm actually defending below the average voter, the supposed independent. Like I've said it's natural to vote for what you can identify with. Pakistan recently had an election and both canidates were Islamic. Is that a surprise? Would you expect the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Pakistan to vote for a Christian? Of course not. In Iraq,when they had their election a few years ago, voters broke down along Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish lines. Is that a surprise? Identity rules politics. And like I've said, it's natural.

Yes, Kiz, I think you are right about that. I think more young men may be much the same here in the south, though. I just wonder about the logic behind their thinking. I don’t know about Virgil’s theory in this instance, although I can see how it is relevant on a national level (even though I wish everyone would look a little more closely at candidates, but that’s another discussion all together.) I am in no way talking about my husband here, but I have been told by men both young and old things like not to worry my pretty little head, when I’m married my husband will take care of those things for me, a sweet thing shouldn’t have any trouble… Let me tell you, sometimes I like to just bop someone on the head!

Virgil, I voted for her because I worked for her some time back and I know how good at her job she is. Actually she is someone I know quiet well, she grew up in a house on my road- four houses down so about two and a half miles away but out here that makes us close neighbors. Now I have to admit that I’m a bit of a sexist here. I think women should stay home with their young children, men should head the house and wives should be in subjection to their husbands. I know that’s not always possible, but it is ideal. I also know it’s not a very popular view, but I don’t think these things make women less competent. I also think that it’s fine for women to have careers, but learning to stage things is important. I’m not saying we can’t be good mothers or wives if we work, but it is harder because time is divided. I’m speaking as a woman who has worn many hats and played many mommy parts. When small children spend nine hours a day in childcare, and sleep 11-18 hours a day depending on age, it doesn’t leave much time for child rearing and involvement. It makes being the mother very hard. Don’t hang me ladies, I sympathize with all mothers. Sometimes there is no way to win and if you stay home you deprive then of social interaction … and if you take them to daycare you deprive them of something else. All any of us can do is our best and I believe that we do. Working just makes mothering more difficult.

But in the states there isn't always someone you identify with.

I've been really surprised and pleased in this past year. I never thought a woman could get as far as she has in 2008, I was always saying it wouldn't happen until 2012.

And secondly during the last governors election in LA one guy was running on the "Bubba" platform, most of his commercials touted the fact that "he was one of us" the guy he as running against is the son of Indian immigrants.

There will always be those that vote along racial lines but I think that number is dwindling, I'm not saying that all is perfect but I think as a whole we are heading in the right direction.

I don't agree with the fact, but it does happen. I don't really think it's reasonable, but I'm slightly feminist in my views.

Mom-H, I completely share your views in that last comment. I hope you don't think I'm arguing with you. I'm just trying to explain. Identity s a powerful factor in whom people vote for. I probably see it more than most given that NYC has so many ethnic groups, and ethnic politics here is taken to the nth degree. I live on Staten Island, which as a county happens to have the highest number of Italian-Americans in the whole US. My congressman's name is Vito Fossella. Is it a coincident that he's Italian-American? It also doesn't hurt that he's half Irish-American on his mother's side because the Irish are probably the second largest ethnic group here. Now he's just gotten into a personal scandal (drunk driving which led people finding out that he had a girlfriend in Washington with a love child in addition to his wife and three children back home ) that has caused him not to seek a another term. Do you think it's a surprise that the likely Republican who will run is named Sal Lanza and the likely Democrats are named Steve Recchia and Rose Levino? Both parties know that they need to identfy with the voters. But like Papaya points out this isn't everything. Didn't we take a woman carpet bagger from Arkansas and elect her our Senator in NY State?

Virgil, I couldn’t help laughing when I read your response. I doubt we have a single Vito or Sal in my county. They sound like names out of books to me. A lot of people here have two first names- Jim Bob, Bobby Joe, Billy Jack, and Jimmy Sue but everyone answers to cousin. I agree that there are those who vote for who they identify with. Vito would likely sound like a gangster to the people in my area so I doubt he would do well here. I think that what my father-in-law was saying sounds like something different. It just sounded like he was saying that there are people who would refuse to vote for her because she is a woman. Not that they identify with the man or even know anything about him. Just that a woman can’t or shouldn’t do the job. Do you see what I mean? It’s not a matter of identifying with or even voting for the other person; it’s a matter of voting against the woman.

Do you see what I mean? It’s not a matter of identifying with or even voting for the other person; it’s a matter of voting against the woman.

Yes. I guess there are some. It also depends on the job. I said earlier that it's tougher for a woman in an executive job. They don't seem to have the problems in a legislative position. An executive requires a certain toughness and people, rightly or wrongly associate men with toughness. A legislative role involves voting on values, and women have certain qulaities (nurturing for instance) that could give them an advantage to some. Now a judge is somewhere in between. Some might think that a woman judge might be softer on criminals. Perhaps not. I don't vote based on identity or gender. I would want a tough as nails judge who's going to put criminals in jail for the longest time. If a woman will do that, she's got my vote. I do think that a tough woman can win any position, even president.

Hi, MH. I'm a little late to the conversation, but here's my two cents' worth anyways.

I certainly do think that a lot of people in the U.S. and everywhere else in the world, perhaps even the majority of people in the world, would vote against someone ONLY because of their sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, colour, or because they like or don't like cucumbers on their salad. It distresses me how few people vote on the issues, but the issues are so complex these days. It takes a great deal of determination to wade through the platforms of political candidates, to try to make sense of the legal gibberish and get to the brass nails and tacks of what a candidate stands for. Becoming politically aware takes a great deal of time and effort, whereas many people are just trying to get through the day, make enough money to live on, take care of their children, clean their houses, get the shopping done, pay the bills, and get home in time to watch CSI or Desperate Housewives or Big Brother. For many many people, in the continuing cycle of their busy busy lives, not to mention the millions living in poverty, political awareness has become a luxury rather than a necessity.

So, as Virgil has said, people tend to vote for the familiar, the comfortable. They'll discard those that don't fall into what they consider to be appropriate categories (regardless of the qualities, ideas, and work ethic they may bring to the table), and choose from the rest. I recently read that it's not about voting for the right person for the job. It's about voting for the one who's the most like you, and politicians and their script-writers go to great lengths to make sure that they are perceived as the guy or the gal next door.

A lot of people say they vote for who they think is the best canidate butdoes that apply to all levels? On the lower levels like judges or school boards, who does the research to find out the canidates platforms? I don't. I'll admit it when it comes to stuff like school board, trusties, etc.. I pick by name. I will vote for the woman then if there isn't a woman I pick the most ethnic sounding name.