5 ms·

> while the US just nominated its first (viable) female candidate for president. And as someone who isn't from the US, I find it incredibly bizarre that you ha

> while the US just nominated its first (viable) female candidate for president. And as someone who isn't from the US, I find it incredibly bizarre that you haven't had a female leader yet. The UK has had 2 female Prime Ministers (1979-1990, 2016-), Canada has had 1 (1993), and Germany (2005-) to name a few. > I find it bizarre that Japan is having an contentious debate about if it's appropriate for a woman to ascend to a completely powerless role Considering your country is just getting to the point where it's socially acceptable for a woman to run for the position of President, maybe you will consider that your country also looks comical from an outside perspective, instead of just taking a negative tone toward Japan for not already having gender equality in their monarchy.

wtbob 10y ago
> And as someone who isn't from the US, I find it incredibly bizarre that you haven't had a female leader yet. Why? For that matter, we don't have a 'leader'; we have a President.
- moogly 10y ago
  Or as some would call it: a "Decider". :)
SyneRyder 10y ago
You can also add Australia (Julia Gillard, 2010 - 2013) and New Zealand (Helen Clark, 1999 - 2008) into that mix as well.
jboynyc 10y ago
Add to that that the current U.S. Senate has only 20 women members (i.e., 20 percent), which is the highest proportion in the history of the Senate. In the House of Representatives the proportion of women members is below 20 percent (19.4, to be exact), and that, too, is the highest proportion ever.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  That doesn't seem bad at all. That may be roughly the same as the relative percentage of women that are interested in going into politics.
  - jboynyc 10y ago
    Nope, it's terrible. Just look at the international comparison: http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm Unless you think "At least the U.S. is doing better than Kyrgyzstan" is the appropriate response. In that case there's really no convincing you.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > That doesn't seem bad at all. Its low by international standards. > That may be roughly the same as the relative percentage of women that are interested in going into politics. I'm not sure why US culture having a much stronger effect of socializing men and women into different roles vis-à-vis government than every other developed nation and many developing nations would be a positive explanation for that statistic.
Houshalter 10y ago
> The UK has had 2 female Prime Ministers (1979-1990, 2016-), Canada has had 1 (1993), and Germany (2005-) to name a few. > your country also looks comical from an outside perspective, That difference is not statistically significant. If both the US and other_country have the same probability of electing a female leader, the results could easily be exactly the same. 1 female leader or 0 over 30 years, that's purely chance. Especially given that there are many other countries to chose from to cherrypick positive results. To do it properly you need to average all countries as a comparison. Lastly some countries don't elect leaders directly, but indirectly through votes by elected representatives. Which could maybe produce different outcomes than if the general population voted.
abandonliberty 10y ago
In fairness, Canada's female PM wasn't democratically elected, was only in power for 2.5 months, and came to power after the current PM stepped down due to unpopularity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney#Retirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney#Retirement This has parallels to the current UK situation. I understand the response to perceived American ethnocentrism, but I wouldn't minimize the significance of Hillary/Trump.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > In fairness, Canada's female PM wasn't democratically elected Like US Presidents, Canadian PMs are elected by others who are directly elected; unlike US Presidents and many Canadian PMs, Kim Campbell was not chosen immediately after the election of the body by whom she was chosen. Characterizing this as not being "democratically elected" but the usual election of US Presidents being one that is "democratically elected", however, requires a non-obvious interpretation of what "democratic" means when applied to an election.
  - abandonliberty 10y ago
    You could have clarified my point, yet chose to go in the other direction. Interesting. I'm curious why you interact with the world in this way.

wtbob 10y ago

> And as someone who isn't from the US, I find it incredibly bizarre that you haven't had a female leader yet. Why? For that matter, we don't have a 'leader'; we have a President.

moogly 10y ago
Or as some would call it: a "Decider". :)

SyneRyder 10y ago

You can also add Australia (Julia Gillard, 2010 - 2013) and New Zealand (Helen Clark, 1999 - 2008) into that mix as well.

jboynyc 10y ago

Add to that that the current U.S. Senate has only 20 women members (i.e., 20 percent), which is the highest proportion in the history of the Senate. In the House of Representatives the proportion of women members is below 20 percent (19.4, to be exact), and that, too, is the highest proportion ever.

Houshalter 10y ago
That doesn't seem bad at all. That may be roughly the same as the relative percentage of women that are interested in going into politics.
- jboynyc 10y ago
  Nope, it's terrible. Just look at the international comparison: http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm Unless you think "At least the U.S. is doing better than Kyrgyzstan" is the appropriate response. In that case there's really no convincing you.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > That doesn't seem bad at all. Its low by international standards. > That may be roughly the same as the relative percentage of women that are interested in going into politics. I'm not sure why US culture having a much stronger effect of socializing men and women into different roles vis-à-vis government than every other developed nation and many developing nations would be a positive explanation for that statistic.

Houshalter 10y ago

> The UK has had 2 female Prime Ministers (1979-1990, 2016-), Canada has had 1 (1993), and Germany (2005-) to name a few. > your country also looks comical from an outside perspective, That difference is not statistically significant. If both the US and other_country have the same probability of electing a female leader, the results could easily be exactly the same. 1 female leader or 0 over 30 years, that's purely chance. Especially given that there are many other countries to chose from to cherrypick positive results. To do it properly you need to average all countries as a comparison. Lastly some countries don't elect leaders directly, but indirectly through votes by elected representatives. Which could maybe produce different outcomes than if the general population voted.

abandonliberty 10y ago

In fairness, Canada's female PM wasn't democratically elected, was only in power for 2.5 months, and came to power after the current PM stepped down due to unpopularity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney#Retirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney#Retirement This has parallels to the current UK situation. I understand the response to perceived American ethnocentrism, but I wouldn't minimize the significance of Hillary/Trump.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> In fairness, Canada's female PM wasn't democratically elected Like US Presidents, Canadian PMs are elected by others who are directly elected; unlike US Presidents and many Canadian PMs, Kim Campbell was not chosen immediately after the election of the body by whom she was chosen. Characterizing this as not being "democratically elected" but the usual election of US Presidents being one that is "democratically elected", however, requires a non-obvious interpretation of what "democratic" means when applied to an election.
- abandonliberty 10y ago
  You could have clarified my point, yet chose to go in the other direction. Interesting. I'm curious why you interact with the world in this way.