Of Presidents, policy and gender
A US TV network has commissioned a poll on attitudes to a prospective female president, and has come up with some rather odd findings. (The survey is at PR Newswire, which requires registration, so no click through alas). Neither PR Newswire nor oxygen.com gives any detail as to methodology, beyond their having quizzed 200 men and 200 women.
And the headline findings:
"85% of women polled and 66% of men polled said they would vote for a woman president. In addition, both women AND men think that a female president can do as good of a job as a male president -- 92% and 73% respectively". I suspect that the results are heavily coloured by attitudes to La Clinton, but I really cannot imagine that anything more than a tiny minority of Britons would think that one's X chromosome tally made a blind bit of difference to the ability of someone to take on the job or whether it would colour one's voting intentions.
However, it gets stranger still:
"92% of women and 74% of men think a female would be more effective at handling education
-- 92% of women and 73% of men think a female would be more effective at
handling healthcare
-- 87% of women and 72% of men think a female would be more effective at
balancing the budget
-- 80% of women and 58% of men think a female would be more effective at
handling social security.
--36% of women and 14% of men think a female would be more effective at
handling military decisions and priorities
I do not think that I am absolutely the last word in New Manliness, but I'm puzzled that there is not a huge majority in each case for something along the lines of 'what a daft question - a president's gender would not make a blind bit of difference'.
And the headline findings:
"85% of women polled and 66% of men polled said they would vote for a woman president. In addition, both women AND men think that a female president can do as good of a job as a male president -- 92% and 73% respectively". I suspect that the results are heavily coloured by attitudes to La Clinton, but I really cannot imagine that anything more than a tiny minority of Britons would think that one's X chromosome tally made a blind bit of difference to the ability of someone to take on the job or whether it would colour one's voting intentions.
However, it gets stranger still:
"92% of women and 74% of men think a female would be more effective at handling education
-- 92% of women and 73% of men think a female would be more effective at
handling healthcare
-- 87% of women and 72% of men think a female would be more effective at
balancing the budget
-- 80% of women and 58% of men think a female would be more effective at
handling social security.
--36% of women and 14% of men think a female would be more effective at
handling military decisions and priorities
I do not think that I am absolutely the last word in New Manliness, but I'm puzzled that there is not a huge majority in each case for something along the lines of 'what a daft question - a president's gender would not make a blind bit of difference'.
Labels: Battle of the sexes, United States
This entry was posted
on Monday, February 19, 2007 at 11:21 am.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Along traditional lines isn`t it . I really don`t know how seriously to take that. I wouldnt mind Verity handling my defence if she promised not to hurt people needlessly that is .Well not much any way
Hillary's not going to win anyway, so it's moot.
I must say, prominent Democrat women have a feral, greedy look about them. Nancy Pelosi - ugh! And no matter how they buff up Hillary Clinton, she is simply awful looking. Some very cruel, heartless women who remember her from college, say she had one long thick eyebrow. She has probably had the middle bit surgically removed by now because tweezing it out every day for all those years is unthinkable.
» Post a Comment