Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    I like Pat Schroder's motto, "She wins; we win."
    
    cal

    Just a few thoughts ... I agree with Pat's motto too!  I'd  also like 
    to know where Newsweek did its research on women in politics in the
    80's.  It sounds like the writer concentrated on only one sector of
    women politicians (party line people?).  Perhaps the "gender neutral" 
    approach is an alternative vehicle to direct confrontation on issues 
    such as the ERA and abortion (I sincerely hope so anyway!).  I REALLY 
    hope women aren't just adopting traditional male political
    perspectives and topics as superior or " more correct" than "women's" 
    issues.  UGH!!!! What a thought.
    
    - Mary

    I agree with the comment in .0 that a successful woman (in politics)
    should be gender neutral.
    
    There are two religious candidates who I would not vote for because
    of the religion issue.  I fear that if either one gets into the
    White House, those Americans who do not hold the same religion might
    be discriminated against.  Both of these candidates are trying (in
    my view) to downplay their religious affiliation for this very reason.
    
    One of the above candidates is black.  Besides the obvious racism
    against this person there is also the non racist fear that whites
    will be discriminated against.  This sounds highly unlikely, but
    I remember well a speach given at my Junior High School in Maryland
    by this person.  There were racial conflicts (above the usuall)
    by blacks against whites, his speach had created such anger.  Seeing
    this on a small and limited scale I would fear that this person
    would create more anger in the blacks against whites conflict. 
    He is trying to dispell this feeling by stressing that he is for all
    people, not just blacks.
    
    I certainly can understand how some men might feel uneasy if a woman
    were president.  There is the fear that there would be reverse
    discrimination, that the pendulum might swing the other way.
    
    The successful presidential candidates so far have been white male
    church goers but not preachers.  But they do support, or try to
    support, a large cross section of America including blacks, women 
    and bible belters.  They do this by showing themselves as a candidate
    *for* the issues, not an example *of* the issues.  Once a candidate
    becomes an issue (as in Gary Hart et all) he/she can no longer run
    *for* the issues as the American public will no longer be listening
    to them.
    
    For a woman to be a successful presidential candidate, at least
    in this age, she must stress her issues without gender or she will
    become the issue and lose her chance.  This doesn't mean that every
    female candidate must give up her interest in women related issues,
    but rather that they should not be the key part in her platform.
    By trying to be genderless, the fear that she is only for the female
    American population might dissipate.
      
    

RE: .3

	I'm not sure what you mean by trying to be genderless.  Should
	she wear genderless clothes?  Should she not express any
	opinions on "feminist" issues?  The latter seems impossible
	considering that that's the first thing the press will ask about.
	What does your opinion of two (nameless, but obviously identifiable)
	candidates have to do with why the woman should be genderless?
	I'm confused.

	...Karen

    I thought I had made this painfully obvious, but I guess not.
    
    Should she wear genderless clothing?  No, that would be silly to
    say a woman can't wear a dress when running for president.
    
    Should she not express any opinions on "feminist" issues?  No, she
    should just not make them a key part of her platform, for then she
    is driving home the fact that she is a woman and might further the
    misconception that she will only be representing the female part
    of America.  Yes, the press will ask about it and she should answer
    truthfully.  But having the press ask and her answer is different
    than her constantly repeating that she is a feminist in every speach.
    
    What does my opinion of these candidates have to do with this issue?
    Absolutely nothing.  The only reason I mentioned them was to follow
    my English teacher's drills of comparing something I felt with
    something someone else might feel.  By introducing why I felt the
    way I (and others) did about certain candidates, I gave more
    credibility to the way I (and others) might feel about a female
    candidate.
    
    Now you're not going to make all my English teacher's lessons obsolete
    are you? :-)
    

    Oh, to clarify one in case you might be confused:
    
    >> Should she not express any opinions on "feminist" issues?  No,
    
    no = not not express = express
    
    She should express her opinions, just not make them a key part of
    her platform.
    
    
    

    Re: last few
    
    For a female candidate to win, she will have to the same thing that
    either Pat Robertson or Jesse Jackson (there, I said the names!) will
    have to do to win.
    
    They will have to avoid making an issue of some of their personal
    beliefs.
    
    They may feel strongly about them, but if they want to win, they
    cannot build their campaign around them.
    
    For example, Jesse Jackson will not win the Democratic primary by  
    preaching only religion and equality issues.  He may believe
    in those issues, but they should not be his main concern.
    
    By the same token, a woman candidate may be very concerned about
    the role of women today, but she will never win if she stresses
    that in her campaign.
    
    The American people want leaders who know how to run a country,
    not leaders whose main concern (and experience) is social issues.
    
    Dave