You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.</p>

Much has been made of Hillary Clinton's historic run for the Presidency. And it is indeed historic. Clinton is the first women candidate to really have a shot at winning the White House. While other women like Angela Merkel in Germany, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, and Pratibha Patil in India have busted through the famed "glass ceiling" in their respective countries, America's remains intact.
In fact, a glass ceiling seems to exist throughout American politics. In federal and state positions, women hold between 16% - 24% of positions, despite making up half the population. Most Americans chalk up this difference to the sexism ingrained in American society. The real picture is far more subtle.
There is no question that America has a history of gender discrimination. American women at points in our history couldn't own property, vote, or hold a corporate job. The attitude of the domesticated, servile wife - as portrayed by the "good wife's guide" from 1955 - was widely held by the general population. Even today, a woman make only 75.5 cents for every dollar a man makes.
Still, these facts do not completely explain why more women don't hold public office. Countries like Chile - with its culture of machismo - have been able to break through some of these glass ceilings. Indeed, some countries - like Rwanda, Cuba, and Mexico [pdf] - with the highest percentages of women in elected office are hardly known for their feminist-friendly stances.
The real reason more women don't hold elected office is both more simple and more complex: They don't run for office as often.

Despite the fact that women perform as well as men in terms of campaign fundraising and vote totals, they remain severely under-represented in U.S. political institutions. Gender disparities are apparent at the national, state and local levels: Men account for 86 percent of the members of Congress, 86 percent of state governors, 88 percent of big-city mayors, and 78 percent of state legislators.
…
The impact of self-perceived qualifications on a woman’s decision to run was nearly double that of men. Surprisingly, although many of those surveyed had attained success in male-dominated professions, women were twice as likely as men to rate themselves “not at all qualified� to run for office. Men were about two-thirds more likely than women to consider themselves “qualified� or “very qualified� to run for office.
Women were also significantly less likely than men to think they would win their first race. Only 25 percent of female potential candidates, compared to 37 percent of males, thought that an electoral victory would be “likely� or “very likely.�
Not only did they not think themselves qualified, women received less encouragement to run than men. Thirty-two percent of women, compared to 43 percent of men, received the suggestion to run for office from either someone involved in the political arena or within their personal life. Such encouragement often more than doubled the likelihood of considering a candidacy.

Does this point to a deeper cultural bias against women running for office? Perhaps. If women receive less of the social cues needed to take the plunge - be it encouragement, support, or self-perceived qualification - they are less likely to run. But these issues seem less of a barrier than the proverbial glass ceiling. Women can run, and they can win, they just choose not to.
It seems to me, then, that the hubbub over Hillary Clinton is somewhat misplaced. Asking whether a women is ready to be President, speculating about the "historic" nature of her run, and generally bringing gender politics into the race at this state of the game is counter-intuitive. The story isn't that Hillary Clinton might win the Presidency, it's that she ran for it in the first place.
As primary challenges become more popular, and as incumbents begin to lose their seats, more opportunities will open up for women to enter the political arena. They are clearly qualified and electable. The only question is, will they take the challenge?
I hope they do.
</img> </img> </img>


(Source Link)

"Woman is the spontaneous priestess of Humanity. . . All classes must be brought under women’s influence, for all require to be reminded constantly of the great truth that reason and activity are subordinate to feeling." System of Positive Polity (SPP), Vol. I, P.183.


SOCIAL SCIENCE FOR A NON-FREE SOCIETY

__________________
In times of universal deceit the love of truth becomes the most radical of all ideologies.

Still a Caveman? - Your Mind is Controlled - The Brainwashing of the West - Your thoughts are not your own

Veritax Vox Liberabit

PS: Women are unreasonable creatures guided by feelings instat of reason and therefore not suited for leading positions.

__________________
In times of universal deceit the love of truth becomes the most radical of all ideologies.

Still a Caveman? - Your Mind is Controlled - The Brainwashing of the West - Your thoughts are not your own

Veritax Vox Liberabit