It would just be instant validation of the power women hold.
This is the most gendered/ sexist view I have: women, across all age groups, are more responsible then men.
It might be because culture, it might be because whatever. But generally speaking, women of all ages hold their shit together (make payments on time, go to the doctor, finish the paper work, register to vote, etc…) at a higher rate then men. Young men in the age group of 14-24 are particularly terrible in this regard.
If women have a woman as an option, and the premise that women can take this seat of power, they’ll break hard in that direction. Might be a conservative piece of shit like Thatcher, but it will be a very long time for men to catch up once this dam breaks. I expect both sides to double down on this strategy if it works.
I think you overestimate how many women will simply prefer a woman leader by default. Several countries have had women as their PMs/leaders before and they don’t automatically win every woman’s vote each election cycle.
What’s going on here in the US is just pretty cut and dry: If you value women having bodily autonomy and equal rights, then the choice is pretty damn clear on who you should vote for. Unfortunately, it feels like so much attention is on the presidency, this obvious connection isn’t being evenly applied to other political offices as well (i.e. last I’d read, all projections have the GOP winning the Senate).
I don’t think a Thatcher type could win in the US (thankfully) - there are a ton of evangelicals who don’t believe in women having authority on the Republican side, even if that woman is a hateful cow who believes the same things they do.
They do, but there are enough conservatives who really hate women that I don’t think we’ll see a female Republican nominee for a long time. VP again, sure, but look at how a lot of people talked about Nikki Haley. She’s plenty authoritarian and a ton of them hated her.
It would just be instant validation of the power women hold.
This is the most gendered/ sexist view I have: women, across all age groups, are more responsible then men.
It might be because culture, it might be because whatever. But generally speaking, women of all ages hold their shit together (make payments on time, go to the doctor, finish the paper work, register to vote, etc…) at a higher rate then men. Young men in the age group of 14-24 are particularly terrible in this regard.
If women have a woman as an option, and the premise that women can take this seat of power, they’ll break hard in that direction. Might be a conservative piece of shit like Thatcher, but it will be a very long time for men to catch up once this dam breaks. I expect both sides to double down on this strategy if it works.
I think you overestimate how many women will simply prefer a woman leader by default. Several countries have had women as their PMs/leaders before and they don’t automatically win every woman’s vote each election cycle.
What’s going on here in the US is just pretty cut and dry: If you value women having bodily autonomy and equal rights, then the choice is pretty damn clear on who you should vote for. Unfortunately, it feels like so much attention is on the presidency, this obvious connection isn’t being evenly applied to other political offices as well (i.e. last I’d read, all projections have the GOP winning the Senate).
I don’t think a Thatcher type could win in the US (thankfully) - there are a ton of evangelicals who don’t believe in women having authority on the Republican side, even if that woman is a hateful cow who believes the same things they do.
I think Republicans want authoritarianism any way they can get it, and ideological consistency is not a priority for them.
They do, but there are enough conservatives who really hate women that I don’t think we’ll see a female Republican nominee for a long time. VP again, sure, but look at how a lot of people talked about Nikki Haley. She’s plenty authoritarian and a ton of them hated her.