[mikegerwitz]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'd like to ask for clarification:

It sounds as though you are saying that women should not have a chance to lead the country because they are as X as men. But I'm not sure how it follows that, all things equal, men with X should be given favor over women with the same X.

[coldtea]

From what I understand it, parent hoped women would be better than men in government (e.g. alluding to matriarchy vs patriarchy in societies), but the women that do make it in politics in our era are the same (or even more) cutthroat and ruthless politicians as the men are.

So, what you read as

"all things equal, men with X should be given favor over women with the same X"

is not really saying "favor men over women" but more like "don't bother voting a woman candidate if you think it will be better just because she's a woman, it will be just the same shit".

Or, maybe "those women that get to play at the top of politics, are even more ruthless than men, because they have to be so to match and surpass their male competitors in a male dominating field" -- so instead of a matriarchical viewpoint, you'd get patriarchy x 2.

[SolaceQuantum]

Forgive me, but I don't see where "let's give a woman a go, maybe, see if it works out" is equivalent to implying women will be better Leanders than men. It seemed to be merely recognizing that there has never been a woman president and maybe, a woman can be president and not be a garbage fire.

[coldtea]

>Forgive me, but I don't see where "let's give a woman a go, maybe, see if it works out" is equivalent to implying women will be better Leanders than men.

Well, that they could be as bad as men is probably a given, and no reason to give a woman a go just because she is one ("see if it works out").

Only if one had some stronger expectations from women in power compared to men would it make sense to just say "let's give a woman a go" just because of her sex.

>It seemed to be merely recognizing that there has never been a woman president and maybe, a woman can be president and not be a garbage fire.

"It won't be a garbage fire" or even stronger, "it will totally be business as usual", is hardly something to excite one to vote though, is it?

[erikpukinskis]

> no reason to give a woman a go just because she is one

It's a bit like going to a different restaurant just to mix things up. It's not because you have some belief it will be better, it's because you think the possible unseen benefit is worth something.