No Madam President?

From the CA Policy Inbox:

The Field Poll asks Californians if the U.S. is ready for a woman president. Amazingly, 24 percent say no. The surprising thing here is not that 24 percent believe that, but that so many would say so openly. This suggests there are probably even more closeted sexists who would say the right thing to a pollster, but then hesitate to pull the lever for a woman. Nor are most of the “no” answers coming from liberals who wish the country was ready, but just don’t think it is. Only 13 percent of self-described liberals say no to a Madam President, while a whopping 36 percent of self-described conservatives balk at heels in the Oval Office. (We’re ignoring past visits by J. Edgar Hoover.)

It's mind-boggling for me to read that, here in the 21st century, 24% of those polled still don't believe the country is ready for a woman president. Maybe they all had Hillary in mind when they answered (as her own Field Poll numbers show people's opinions are quite polarized along party lines), though the question was about any female, not just her.

Comments

[Anthony]

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but just because it's the 21st century doesn't mean we're any more enlightened than before...
Hey, it's the 21st C and huge amounts of Americans still believe in Adam and Eve more than they believe in Darwin.
It's the 21st C and women in third-world countries are surgically mutilated at birth in order to "curb" their sexual appetites when they reach puberty (decency forbids me from explicitly describing the operation).
It's the 21st C and there are still countries who stone adulterers and cut the hands off of thieves. On television at that...
It's the 21st C and, reputedly, there are STILL African states who practice slavery.
It's the 21st C and there are plenty of places in the world where one can still be killed for the color of one's skin, one's religion, one's sexual orientation or even one's shoes.
So if 24% of Californians surveyed don't feel comfortable with a woman president, remember there places in the world where 100% of the people surveyed don't feel comfortable having women vote, own property or have equal rights before the law. And that's merely Canada. Imagine what it's like in Pakistan or Syria....

[Reverend H.L. Spork]

Given that California has two female senators, I doubt the cranky 24% really have a lot of pull in the political realm. (Hell, how many of them even vote?) Arizona is no paragon of feminism, but their last three governors have been women. (Whether or not they wear heels could not be confirmed =-) I think our lack of a female president is partly sexism, but also partly the lack of a strong female contender (Hillary Clinton, sadly, is the first). Then again, we had no female senators 30 years ago and only two 20 years ago. Now we have 14; not great, but certainly an improvement, and a number which will certainly continue to go up.

Believe me, there will be a female President within twenty years, quite possibly in 2008.

[Dan]

"...We had no female senators 30 years ago ..."

Um, Rev, that would have been news to Margaret Chase Smith (senator from '49-'73);. And she wasn't the first woman elected to that august body.

Point taken, though.

This reminds me of the Tom Bradley vs. George Deukmejian race in whatever year that was -- '82? Bradley was ahead in the polls and lost decisively. One explanation offered was that many people who were uncomfortable with Bradley, a moderate black Democrat, were uncomfortable saying so to pollsters. Thus the polls failed to pick up on where the electorate was going.