Dr. Michael J. Bisconti #sexist

Dr. Michael J. Bisconti #sexist lfnexus.com

There are many reasons why a woman president would ruin America:

REASON #1

God has commanded that women shall NOT lead nations. This commandment of God is found in the Holy Scriptures, the Bible, the Word of God.

REASON #2

God has commanded that women shall NOT lead men. In leading nations, women would be leading men. Therefore, women cannot lead nations. The commandment of God that women shall NOT lead men is found in the Holy Scriptures, the Bible, the Word of God.

REASON #3

History teaches us that EVERY great nation experienced a decline in power and reputation once a woman was given the leadership of each of these nations.

REASON #4

Women are more likely to make wrong decisions than men. This truth is stated in the Bible and proven by history.

REASON #5

Women generally do NOT have the mental and physical stamina required by the position of the President of the United States of America.

REASON #6

Currently, all those women interested in becoming president are women of only average character and intelligence.

REASON #7

Women do not have the political pull of men, which is required to be effective in the position of the President of the United States.

REASON #8

Women do not have the political will of men. They are more likely to waver in their views and decisions than men.

REASON #9

A woman would not have the support of the American people. The latest poll reveals that 90% of men and 95% OF WOMEN are against having a woman as president.

REASON #10

A woman would be incapacitated more than 3% of the time because of natural, physiological events. What if this happened during a time of national crisis such as the “9/11 Attack”?

REASON #11

Women generally score a minimum of 20 points lower on IQ tests than men. We need the smartest person in the presidency.

89 comments

old comment by Osiris

1: Chapter and verse or it doesn't say that.

2: Same reason as before only with less sense.

3: Name one. Elizabeth the First greatly expanded England's power. Joan of Arc lead France to victory against England. Both Nefratitti and Cleopatra were strong leaders. History has shown us no such thing.

4: No.

5: Says you.

6: Currently there is only ONE woman with a shot of being president and she's just as much a slime-ball as every other politician, meaning she has more character then you.

7: Did I mention Joan of Arc already?

8: Same thing as number seven only worded differently.

9: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

10: Is that any different then Bush who spends 30% of his year on vacation?

11: Absolute bullshit. I hope you know lying's a sin. And explain our current president.

old comment by Rhys

History teaches us that EVERY great nation experienced a decline in power and reputation once a woman was given the leadership of each of these nations.

Hatshepsut disagrees fucker

Currently, all those women interested in becoming president are women of only average character and intelligence.

As opposed to the current president who is completely lacking in both

Women do not have the political will of men. They are more likely to waver in their views and decisions than men.

Not true. The women I know, once they have made up their mind about something, it is virtually impossible to change it.

A woman would be incapacitated more than 3% of the time because of natural, physiological events. What if this happened during a time of national crisis such as the “9/11 Attack”?

What? You mean like sitting there continuing to read children's stories while the towers fell?

old comment by Fanatic-Templar

REASON #3

History teaches us that EVERY great nation experienced a decline in power and reputation once a woman was given the leadership of each of these nations.

Like Elizabeth I and Victoria I of England (Or was it the United Kingdom at that time? I get confused.), Isabel I of Spain, Catherine II or Russia... a bunch of others, I would guess.

REASON #9

A woman would not have the support of the American people. The latest poll reveals that 90% of men and 95% OF WOMEN are against having a woman as president.

This sounds like scatostatistics, but should it some day become true, then on that day I shall revoke Statesfolk's rights to call themselves civilised. Yes, I can do that.

REASON #10

A woman would be incapacitated more than 3% of the time because of natural, physiological events. What if this happened during a time of national crisis such as the “9/11 Attack”?

... Incapacitated?

REASON #11

Women generally score a minimum of 20 points lower on IQ tests than men. We need the smartest person in the presidency."

Scatostatistics.

old comment by Viva

God has commanded that women shall NOT lead nations. This commandment of God is found in the Holy Scriptures, the Bible, the Word of God.

We do not choose leaders besed on the bible.

This argument is the same as nr 1

History teaches us that EVERY great nation experienced a decline in power and reputation once a woman was given the leadership of each of these nations.

No. It dosn't.

Women are more likely to make wrong decisions than men. This truth is stated in the Bible and proven by history

Just because the bible says so, dosn't mean that it is so

Women generally do NOT have the mental and physical stamina required by the position of the President of the United States of America.

This is just a variation of nr 4

Currently, all those women interested in becoming president are women of only average character and intelligence

Compared to whom? George bush? Fred thompson?

Hillary is the only (one!) female candidate trying to become nominated.
Who are all those other women you mention.
Besides, hillary isn't exactly stupid

Women do not have the political pull of men, which is required to be effective in the position of the President of the United States

This is just a variation of nr 5

Women do not have the political will of men. They are more likely to waver in their views and decisions than men

This is just a variation of nr 7. STOP REPEATING YOURSELF, MORON!

A woman would not have the support of the American people. The latest poll reveals that 90% of men and 95% OF WOMEN are against having a woman as president.

Sigh. If she's elected by the people,she obviously have their support.

A woman would be incapacitated more than 3% of the time because of natural, physiological events. What if this happened during a time of national crisis such as the “9/11 Attack”?

As compared to the current "vacation president"

Women generally score a minimum of 20 points lower on IQ tests than men. We need the smartest person in the presidency

Replacing bush with hillary (or just about any women)would raise the iq in the white house with about 50%

old comment by As a woman

REASON #1 - pics or it didn't happen
REASON #2 - pics or it didn't happen
REASON #3 - Like the way the UK flourished under Margaret Thatcher? Or when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto became the first Pakistani prime ministered and improved the economy and equal rights? Does he realize that the US is one of the few countries that hasn't had a female head of state yet?
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rulers20th/a/women_heads.htm
REASON #4 - Sadly this is true, as is proven by Dr. Michael J. Bisconti's mother who made the wrong decision in not aborting him while she still could.
REASON #5 - Unlike Bush, who only needs a vacation of a month or more every two months and so became history's laziest US president.
REASON #6 -
George W. Bush
IQ Score 125
Hillary Clinton
IQ Score 140
http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous-people.html
REASON #7 - Again, Margaret Thatcher.
REASON #8 - Obviously not married.
REASON #9 - Only if she rigged the elections like Bush did, otherwise any president elected by it's people would automatically also have the support of those who voted for him/her. If people don't vote for a female president merely because she's a woman then they're sexist dumbasses, not unlike you. Also, 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
REASON #10 - I know that I for one am terribly cranky when I'm in my period. Why if I was president and I was menstruating when I heard something about a terrorist attack I'd want to send thousands of my countrymen to countries which may or may not have been responsible to kill thousands of innocents. That'd be a terribly undesirable situation and the American people would never stand for that, right?
REASON #11 - I agree! Let's get the smartest person in the world! Former child prodigy Kim Ung Yong from Korea! He has an IQ Score of 210.

old comment by Anonymous

The latest poll reveals that 90% of men and 95% OF WOMEN are against having a woman as president.

Pulled that one right out of your ass, didn't you? Real polls (you know, the ones in which pollsters ask real people instead of making things up) say otherwise.

A woman would be incapacitated more than 3% of the time because of natural, physiological events.

You do realize that once a women gets to the age where running for president is a possibility she isn't subject to such "incapacitiation," right?

Naw, who am I kidding?

We need the smartest person in the presidency.

This guy probably thinks Bush is smart.

The US electorate seems to consider intelligence to be a handicap in a leader.

old comment by jsonitsac

Reason 1: There are plenty of examples of strong female leaders in the Bible, see Deborah and Queen Atalyia!

Reason 2: See Above

Reason 3: Ask Queen Hapsestsut of Egpyt, Joan D'Arc of France, Isabel I of Spain, Elizabeth I of England, Catherine the Great of Russia, Ida Wilson of the US (she pulled Woodrow Wilson's strings in the last year of his term), Golda Mair of Israel, or Margaret Thatcher of the UK.

Reason 4: Simply not true. We are all human and equally capable of mistakes.

Reason 5: Go talk to Franklin D. Roosevelt who was president in a wheelchair and lasted for 12 years!

Reason 6: Because only people with "average intelligence" hold law degrees from Yale. As opposed to the super smart who hold fake Ph.D.s

Reason 7: Go ask Nancy Pelosi, she's speaker of the House, so she has to have a ton of political pull.

Reason 8: Because we all know how well Bush's "stay the course" doctrine has turned out. What are we up to, 3500?

Reason 9: Explain all those polls that show Hillary in the lead of not just the Democrats, but also over Rudy?

Reason 10: Periods are not incapacitating, and if they were, there are medicines that take care of that. Besides, Hillary is 60 beyond childbearing age.

Reason 11: Look what we have now!

old comment by Count Spatula

1) Except they already do, Bangladesh for example. Or is that not a country to you?

2) Rewrite of #1...

3) Catherine the Great would like a word with you...

4) Complete bullshit. I would ask for proof, but none exists.

5) Again, complete bullshit. Catherine would still like a word with you, and shes getting pissed now...

6) As compared to the stunning intellect of Bush?

7) How the hell do you figure? I would vote for a woman if she could help the country

8)Sheesh, you are just spouting bullshit like a fountain, or like the Bush administration?

9) Source? Because Hillary would get at least 25% of the vote if they ran right now.

10) Menstration does not 'incapacitate' you, it just makes women moody and crampy. If nothing else, that is why presidents have a cabinet.

11) Source? And ha ha ha ha ha, bush ruins that argument.

old comment by cool cats

"There are many reasons why a woman president would ruin America:

And Bush hasn't?

Now onto the reasons.

REASON #1

Chapter and verse!

REASON #2

The very same misogyny that encouraged my atheism. Thank you for pushing me in that direction, it's nice to have a working brain!

REASON #3

Oh? What nations are these?

REASON #4

What events in history prove this?

REASON #5

And what is your evidence for this?

REASON #6

A woman of only average character and intelligence is light years ahead of our current president.

REASON #7

Does Hillary Clinton ring a bell?

REASON #8

And the evidence for this is...?

REASON #9

I don't know but Hillary seems to have a good shot at it. What poll was this?

REASON #10

Since when is menstruation incapacitating?
And not applicable.

REASON #11

No its more like fundies generally score a minimum of 20 points lower on IQ tests than non-fundies.

"We need the smartest person in the presidency."

Well that would exclude you.

old comment by rita

1. real reason?
2. see ^
3. ever heard of Deborah?
4. uh, no, it's not.
5. unsupported statement.
6. granted, but the same applies to the men. I think that's largely because being the president is not really that rewarding for an intelligent person and they tend to have the good sense to stay out of politics, though some do go into it out of a sense of duty or belief that they could really do good in the world. (or desperation at the current state of affairs)
7. what?
8.stubborn inability to examine a problem and react appropriately rather than according to unwavering prior judgement is not a virtue, and it's not a characteristic of all men either. it is a characteristic of some women, many of whom frustrate me beyond belief.
9. that means she wouldn't get voted in now (though part of that is the female candidates)if opinions change however... (also I'm pretty sure your stats are off)
10.what moronic whining are you spouting now? I suspect you're talking about her period, in which case, you don't know any females do you? maybe 0.001% could really be said to be 'incapacitated' during their period, and that's more to do with debilitating cramps than a the sudden bout of stupidity you seem to be trying to convince yourself accompanies a woman's period.
11. females and males score about the same on IQ tests, though men have greater variation; higher percentages of very smart and very stupid people. (IQ tests are not that reliable anyway, they do their best but are dependent on culture and education, and if you happen to fall outside their parameters or if you're smarter than the person who made up the test it completely skews the results. sorry for the rant.)

I think the real reason for not having a female president is that you're not sure what you would say instead of "POTUS and FLOTUS'

old comment by JD

1) Leaders are supposed to be serving the people. Maybe having a few women in office instead of defense-industry and big oil/haliburton heads would fix the bloody infrastructure up a little better, according to your own little biblical claim.

2) All you did was repeat yourself. that's not a second reason.

3) first, because of 2 up there, your count is now off. This is your second reason. Furthermore, what few women rulers there are have shown themselves most capable, yet no major countries have suffered anywhere near as much from a female leader as they have from Dubya bush.

4) Women do not rule better, nor do they rule worse by default. Differently, perhaps, sometimes, but neither better nor worse.

5) Clinton sure did and look where that got him. Besides, your current mysoginist president with his little stepford wife has spent more time on vacation than in office (where he's done little but screw americans over for his buddies in industry). Anyone WITH the mental capacity to do the job gets demonised by fox and all but taken off the ballots by diebold (you know, the ones in charge of COUNTING the votes in every precinct where severe errors all favoring the republicans occured).

6) PROVE it. we've plenty of evidence that shows otherwise though, so you're gonna flail helplessly through books for a fair bit.

7) Oh really now. Hey, I know, maybe its because all those republican senators have little interest in women, wanting to be "lobbied" in the airport bathrooms only by the finest young male pages and policemen?

8) No evidence for this, though plenty of evidence for your own beloved leaders having no spine whatsoever when faced by the threat of "losing the christian vote" even if that means fucking everyone over yet again...

9) you can make numbers mean whatever the fuck you want them to. more importantly you'll have to show where you got those and prove it wasn't skewed or misinterpreted by yourself to begin with. VERY easy to just "not count the votes you disagree with" when the poller was biased...

10) Maybe she'd be more likely to launch the nukes at saudi-arabia instead of staring slack-jawed at that ever-so-challenging book starring a pet goat, then claiming iraq did it?

11) Explain the one you appointed (not elected) then? also, the score claim is bull.

old comment by Brian X

1. Religious argument. Many of us don't care.
2. Ditto. In fact you're more or less repeating yourself.
3. Hm. Let's see. Germany's doing about as well under Merkel as it did under Schroeder, which is to say not great, but it's hardly in decline. And Boudicca, the original badass queen, was operating from a position of desperation. You've got nothing.
4. Unfalsifiable bigoted garbage.
5. I've heard some people believe that women would actually be better fighter pilots than men because of their biological differences.
6. And this is different from the men in the field how? Frankly I find practically everyone in the field underwhelming at best on the "character" point.
7. That's like arguing that you can't allow gays to serve openly in the military because they could be blackmailed based on their "secret".
8. This presumes sticking to your guns no matter what is actually a virtue. Hint: in the rationalist/humanist world, it's not. A good leader would go wherever the evidence takes him. Or her.
9. It is true that women are pretty harsh on other women. However, this sounds like argumentum ex culo.
10. And that, my friend, is what we call utter lying woman-hating bullshit.
11a. This too.
11b. Women and men score within the statistical noise. No meaningful generalizations can be made.
11c. The highest IQ ever measured belongs to a woman. You might read her column in Parade every week. She seems to be pretty cool actually.
11d. IQ is not the last word on intelligence, and only bigots trying to justify their hatred still believe it is.

Anything else?

old comment by Anonymous

There are many reasons why a woman president would ruin America:

There are many reasons why a fundie president would ruin America.

REASON #1

God has commanded that women shall NOT lead nations. This commandment of God is found in the Holy Scriptures, the Bible, the Word of God.

Judith? Deborah, anyone?

REASON #2

You've just repeated yourself over and over again. Saying something more than once does not make it true.

REASON #3

History teaches us that EVERY great nation experienced a decline in power and reputation once a woman was given the leadership of each of these nations.

The many female rulers in world history would disagree. Also, some of the male rulers in history who were weak and incompetent would also disagree.

REASON #4

Women are more likely to make wrong decisions than men. This truth is stated in the Bible and proven by history.

Please, the Bible is full of stories about male leaders who made bad decisions. So is history.

REASON #5

Women generally do NOT have the mental and physical stamina required by the position of the President of the United States of America.

Really? There have been plenty of foreign female prime ministers and presidents who would disagree. What's so special about our system of government that would make it especially difficult for women to rule? The fact that they'd have to contend with misogynistic halfwits like you?

REASON #6

Currently, all those women interested in becoming president are women of only average character and intelligence.

Whatever you think about her political views, Hillary Clinton is not stupid. I think we can all agree on that one.

REASON #7

Women do not have the political pull of men, which is required to be effective in the position of the President of the United States.

*Snort* Does he realize how many cutthroat queens there were in history? Elizabeth I? Eleanor of Aquitaine? Cleopatra? Catherine the Great? Anne Boleyn? Isabella of Spain? Margaret of Anjou? All of those women were highly ambitious.

REASON #8

Women do not have the political will of men. They are more likely to waver in their views and decisions than men.

Yes, Margaret Thatcher was called the Iron Lady of Britain because iron is just so soft and flexible.

REASON #9

A woman would not have the support of the American people. The latest poll reveals that 90% of men and 95% OF WOMEN are against having a woman as president.

Considering that most men aren't stupid male chauvinists like you and most women are feminists, I don't think it's likely.

REASON #10

A woman would be incapacitated more than 3% of the time because of natural, physiological events. What if this happened during a time of national crisis such as the “9/11 Attack”?

Others have already said what Bush's reaction was, so I won't repeat it.

REASON #11

Women generally score a minimum of 20 points lower on IQ tests than men. We need the smartest person in the presidency.

Correct, we do need a smart president, male or female. Although it must be a sheer miracle that more women attend college than men, since they have such lower IQs, according to you.

You're a misogynistic moron.

old comment by Rufus

#1 Completely irrelevant.

#2 Ditto

#3 So the defeat of the Spanish Armada and the creation of the empire on which the sun never sets are made up then?

#4 Where?

#5 Just plain wrong.

#6 Possibly true, but also possibly true for the men running.

#7 Margaret Thatcher?

#8 Spitting Image sketch from years back, the Thatcher cabinet in a resteraunt:
Waitress: "And what would you like Mrs Thatcher?"
MT 'I'll have a steak'
"and how would you like it"
'raw'
"and the vegetables?"
'they'll have the same.'

#9 unlikely

#10 it would make no difference, unless the president is actually doing everything (unlikely). How many presidents have had surgery while in office? Where does this mythical 3% come from?

#11 Since when does having a room temperature IQ disqualify a potential candidate? It certainly hasn't in the last few years.

old comment by Dread Pirate Crotchbeard

Reason 1 - irrelevant
Reason 2 - irrelevant
Reason 3 - a lie, see this thread for counterexamples
Reason 4 - also a lie
Reason 5 - Because obviously Taft and FDR were pictures of rugged athleticism. Ha ha, no.
Reason 6 - then they fit in perfectly with the male candidates. Incidentally, can you spot the contradiction with Reason 11? I can.
Reason 7 - now you're randomly making shit up. No need, we already know you're a misogynistic assmunch. Also a lie.
Reason 8 - Margaret Thatcher, fuck you very much. Have you ever actually met a real woman in your life?
Reason 9 - 92% of statistics are made up on the spot. Also a lie. Source or it never happened. A poll of your church's elderss isn't acceptable, either.
Reason 10 - Midol: Let me show you it. Apparently, you really HAVEN'T actually met a woman in your life.
Reason 11 - There's lies, damned lies, and statistics. And then there's the random bullshit you yanked out of your ass. See Reason 6.

Die in a fire which is extinguished with herpes and AIDS.

old comment by dg

#1 and #4 aren't in the Bible at all, #2 is misinterpreted, #3, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, and #11 are blatant lies.

"Women generally do NOT have the mental and physical stamina required by the position of the President of the United States of America."

a) On the average, women have somewhat MORE mental (and maybe physical) stamina than men. '

b)what does physical stamina matter? Last I heard, the President didn't have to wrestle bears or run marathons.

"A woman would be incapacitated more than 3% of the time because of natural, physiological events. What if this happened during a time of national crisis such as the “9/11 Attack”?"

a) it doesn't work that way
b) even if it did,the President generally signs things and makes speeches, he or she doesn't need to be physically in top condition
c) FDR was in a wheelchair. What does incapacitated have to do with anything?

"Women generally score a minimum of 20 points lower on IQ tests than men."

a) this is a blatant lie
b) the person with the highest IQ score ever was a woman (Marilyn vos Savant)

old comment by GigaGuess

God has commanded that women shall NOT lead nations. This commandment of God is found in the Holy Scriptures, the Bible, the Word of God.
Great. So no Fundamentalist Christian women should run for presidency. Sorry Sarah.

God has commanded that women shall NOT lead men. In leading nations, women would be leading men. Therefore, women cannot lead nations. The commandment of God that women shall NOT lead men is found in the Holy Scriptures, the Bible, the Word of God.
Repeating a point twice to flesh out a list does not look good for your argument, you realize this, right?

History teaches us that EVERY great nation experienced a decline in power and reputation once a woman was given the leadership of each of these nations.
I beg to differ. Queen Elizabeth oversaw great things. As did Margaret Thatcher, lest I'm mistaken. Joan of Arc probably could have been a great leader had she not been burned as a witch...

Women are more likely to make wrong decisions than men. This truth is stated in the Bible and proven by history.
First, define "wrong" decision. Second, Eve may have offered Adam the apple, but he ate it. And then tried to pin it all ON Eve. Cain killed Abel in a hissy fit over God's affection. Lot offered his daughters to a bloodthirsty mob. Sorry, but men screw up a fair bit in the Bible, too.

Women generally do NOT have the mental and physical stamina required by the position of the President of the United States of America.
Citation. You be needin' it now.

Currently, all those women interested in becoming president are women of only average character and intelligence.
Again, citation needed. And I'll add "That you're aware of." I would imagine, with less schmucks like you walking around, there'd be many, many more women willing to step up to the plate.

Women do not have the political pull of men, which is required to be effective in the position of the President of the United States.
Because people like you insist that because they're women, all they'll do is menstruate all over the Oval Office. When you dismiss them before they even open their mouths, yeah, women will lack political pull because you tank them right out of the gate. Let them have a shot, and I bet even you'd be surprised.

Women do not have the political will of men. They are more likely to waver in their views and decisions than men.
Yes, and stomping through Iraq even after the WMD intel turned out to be false, as opposed to "wavering" and stepping back, or...here's an idea...LISTENING TO THE U.-FREAKIN'-N. IN THE FIRST PLACE, is such a good thing. Sometimes being willing to step back, and reevaluating things is a good thing.

A woman would not have the support of the American people. The latest poll reveals that 90% of men and 95% OF WOMEN are against having a woman as president.
I demand to see this poll. Ten bucks says it's an internet poll on a Fundie site.

A woman would be incapacitated more than 3% of the time because of natural, physiological events. What if this happened during a time of national crisis such as the “9/11 Attack”?
Yeah, uhmmm...most women I know are not paralyzed by menstruation, made physically and mentally incapable of doing more that wandering around bleeding. Get kinda grumpy? Sometimes, sure. Still competent and capable? Definitely.

Women generally score a minimum of 20 points lower on IQ tests than men. We need the smartest person in the presidency.
Proof. Now. Because everything I hear, women tend to score HIGHER than men on virtually anything IQ test grade on. (Patterns, logic, etc.)

old comment by Swedish Pagan

REASON #1 God has commanded that women shall NOT lead nations. This commandment of God is found in the Holy Scriptures, the Bible, the Word of God.

But as America is not a Christian Nation, this has no bearing on the government of America.

REASON #2 God has commanded that women shall NOT lead men. In leading nations, women would be leading men. Therefore, women cannot lead nations. The commandment of God that women shall NOT lead men is found in the Holy Scriptures, the Bible, the Word of God.

See comment to no 1

REASON #3 History teaches us that EVERY great nation experienced a decline in power and reputation once a woman was given the leadership of each of these nations.

You skipped History 101, didn't you?
Catherine the Great: Under her direct auspices the Russian Empire expanded, improved its administration, and continued to modernize along Western European lines. Catherine's rule re-vitalized Russia, which grew ever stronger and became recognized as one of the great powers of Europe.
Queen Victoria: Her reign as the Queen lasted 63 years and 7 months, longer than that of any other British monarch before or since. The period centered on her reign is known as the Victorian era, a time of industrial, political, scientific and military progress within the United Kingdom.
Elizabeth I: she was being celebrated as the ruler of a golden age, an image that retains its hold on the English people.

REASON #4 Women are more likely to make wrong decisions than men. This truth is stated in the Bible and proven by history.

Women have not been allowed to make that many decisions throughout history. The men managed to make a complete mess of things time after time without them.

REASON #5 Women generally do NOT have the mental and physical stamina required by the position of the President of the United States of America.

See info on Queen Victoria above. Women have the mental and pshyical stamina to suffer through hours and hours of child labour, again and again.

REASON #6 Currently, all those women interested in becoming president are women of only average character and intelligence.

If Hillary Clinton is of only average intelligence among Americans, then how come America is considered a rather dim-witted nation?

Does it never end?

REASON #7 Women do not have the political pull of men, which is required to be effective in the position of the President of the United States.

Women politicians in the past had way MORE political pull than the men, otherwise they hadn't the slimest chance to get anywhere at all.

REASON #8 Women do not have the political will of men. They are more likely to waver in their views and decisions than men.

Realizing you can be wrong is a strength, not a weakness. Plus I don't see the big difference between "will" and "pull".

REASON #9 A woman would not have the support of the American people. The latest poll reveals that 90% of men and 95% OF WOMEN are against having a woman as president.

You can prove just about anything you want with statistics.

REASON #10 A woman would be incapacitated more than 3% of the time because of natural, physiological events. What if this happened during a time of national crisis such as the “9/11 Attack”?

Incapacitated? How? And isn't that what the vice president is for? Any president could have a case of food poisoning at the wrong time.

REASON #11 Women generally score a minimum of 20 points lower on IQ tests than men. We need the smartest person in the presidency.

Quotation seriosly fucking needed. I thought it was the other way around, that women did better at tests in schools, etc. It's also a case of what kind of tests are performed. People today score higher than people did in the beginning of the 20th century, but we are not smarter now, we are just more used to the testings.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

So why did you fundies & neocons worship Caribou Barbie during the previous campaign as if she was God(dess) herself?! As is always the case, the vice-president is but a heartbeat away from the Top Job. And McCain wasn't nicknamed 'The Corpse' for nothing. That notion, coupled with the fact she believes in the Rapture, and is a rabid member of the NRA, are probably prime reasons why the Repubicans' campaign failed. Two Words: 'The Football'.

"We need the smartest person in the presidency"

Which is why the vast majority of the US electorate did the smart thing. And not just because Barack Obama is a man. And even though he appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, that's done his standing no harm.

But I have to admit that Maggie Thatcher (*spit*) has put womens rights in the UK (certainly politically) back 50 years. Because of her policies that did more damage to this country industrially, commercially, financially & socially than Hitler's Luftwaffe ever did, she's ensured we won't be voting for another female Prime Minister for a LONG time.

Dr. Michael J. Bisconti #sexist lfnexus.com

89 comments

Confused?