The American Tradition through to the 1960's was always similar to the 17th century European view of women as an extension of their fathers, brothers, or husbands. While in the Americas, women had a bit more control over their own money if they made or inherited it than their European sisters, they were still considered the lesser, that their reproductive organs and menstrual cycle would naturally affect their emotions to such a degree that they were unable to consistently make the "hard decisions" required to succeed, or that they would be more nurturing - thus weaker - than men would be in a life or death situation.
So basically, until the 1990's, there were very few women in the US that were viewed to have an overall "leadership potential". While there were women in leadership roles, those were typically relegated to woman's issues, and would only be trotted out when politics wanted to show how far women have come. But women in the US were still linked to their husbands, family name, or male mentors in both business and politics. From the 1960's through the 1990's, women politicians, with very few exceptions, still required a strong approving male mentor to justify the parties punching their tickets. I remember growing up hearing interviews of women leaders - and inevitably, one of the first questions would be "How does your husband feel about what you are doing?", "What does your family think about your work?", or "Doesn't this job/role/work affect your ability to have a family of your own?" and the worst "Did you really expect to make as much of a sacrifice as you did to get to where you are now?" - suggesting that it is somehow unusually unnatural for a women to take charge in "A Man's World" - that she's sacrificing her ability to fulfill her responsibility to be a wife and mother to take on this role.
Honestly, war and the significant loss of "able bodied men" had a lot to do with women breaking through traditional gender roles. It was different in other countries, where women had to take over traditionally male roles during war and were able to keep them because there were very few returning. However, when WWII was over in our country, women who had made significant strides in business and politics were "encouraged" to stand aside and let the men who went off to war to take back their old jobs - and as the war machine production cycled down, the existing factory jobs in support of the war effort were starting to disappear. Women returned to the home, to support jobs, to second class status.
In the 1990's, internet technology started becoming the great equalizer in the US. Women were able to access the business world on their own merits, get their ideas out in public and more importantly, publish, create and widely disseminate their own products without having to go through the American Establishment acceptance process in their respective fields that had previously kept them out. This has allowed the efforts of women to be highlighted and considered being leaders and experts in their own right in the 2000's.
As to the women who have used family and mentors to gain power, unlike in business or other political office (especially representative offices), the office of the U.S. President has never really been a position that could be "back door'd" into - that one couldn't be sponsored into that position because of the legacy of spouse or supposedly family, even though there have been at least two presidents (Bush 43 and Harrison) that have used family connections to augment their potential competency to be President. That hasn't (yet) occurred for the Presidency when gender is also involved.
So as to why there have been no women presidents or vice presidents in the U.S., it's because traditionally, being president has been a man's job for no real reason other than the group of men who have been in charge for the past 240 years have wanted to keep it a boys club, because of Wars and cut-throat business practices, and all that Manly-Man sort of thinking and have used being a man as part of the major criteria required to be considered President by the various parties.
While gender is no longer a major criteria for the viable party machines, it may still be a major consideration for older voters, who still have problems considering women equal to men when it comes to leadership qualities. And that's the real answer as to why no woman has become president - yet.
May be next year, may be in 12 or 16 years, but there should be viable woman candidate winning the presidency of the United States within your daughter's lifetime. And the most critical reason for her to win should be her personal qualifications, record and talents, not because she's hooked herself up to a powerful political machine in her immediate circle. There's been enough man candidates (Bush) who have used a familial political machine to propel them to power and look how they've screwed things up...
Haele
= new reply since forum marked as read
