The Instigator
kasmic
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
phantom
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

The United States is Ready for a Female President

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,542 times Debate No: 63035
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (3)

 

kasmic

Con

Resolve: The United States is Ready for a Female President

Clarification: I would not have any personal issue with having a female president. Please do not misunderstand my argument. However, I am looking for a spirited debate.

Burden of proof shared, simply convince voters of your position.

Pro must argue that the United States is ready for a Female President
Con must argue that the United States is not ready for a Female President

Definitions

Ready is defined as "completely prepared or in fit condition for immediate action or use." (1)

Round 1 is acceptance
Round 2 opening arguments
Round 3 rebuttals and closing statements, no new arguments.

Should be impossible to accept, please comment if you are interested.


(1)http://dictionary.reference.com...

phantom

Pro

I accept and look forward to the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Con

Thank you for accepting the debate and good luck!

Extra clarification: On a personal note I am a self declared feminist, and as I stated in the first round would have no personal issue with having a Female President. This debate is of interest to me as I formally studied Political science in college and gender studies are incredibly relevant to political science and most especially International Relations.


Opening argument:

I understand "Completely Prepared" to mean prepared in every way. I will show that the U.S. while it may be in many specific ways "ready" for a female President, it is not "completely prepared" or in other words not ready in every way for a female president.

What Problems would a Female President pose for the U.S.?

Of the many duties that a President has, the first one listed in the U.S. Constitution is that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." (1) This leads into my first contention

A: Is the U.S Military ready for a female commander and chief?

"On Jan. 24, the Pentagon announced that the ban on women in combat arms Military Occupational Specialties, such as infantry and artillery personnel, scouts, tankers, cavalry and more, will be lifted. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta claims that now all "talented and qualified people [will] be able to serve this country in uniform."(2)

How was this received?

"The reaction from the right wing, like former U.S. Army officer and Arkansas Congressman Tom Cotton, is that women are "biologically unfit for combat;" that they are incapable of performing to the standard of their male counterparts; that it "goes against their nature."(2)

The U.S. Military, whether right or wrong, has shown great resistance to equal treatment of women within their ranks. If the U.S. Military has shown it is less than "ready" to treat women equally, what would make anyone think the U.S. Military would be "ready" for a female commander and chief.

The mistreatment of women in the military

"According to the Department of Defense (DOD), an estimated 19,300 sexual assaults occurred in the military in 2010, and yet only 13.5% of total survivors reported assault. Military sexual violence impacts service men and women in the Active Duty, Reserves and Guard forces, as well as cadets and midshipmen at the U.S. military academies. Victim-blaming, lack of accountability, and misogynistic climates are pervasive throughout the U.S. Armed Forces, preventing survivors from reporting incidents and perpetrators from being properly disciplined."(3)

How can a female commander and chief effectively lead the military when Women by and large are abused, mistreated, not respected, and not equal within this community? Simply put the U.S. Military is not ready for a female commander and chief.

B: Would being female make the President less effective in foreign affairs?

In the field of International Relations, gender is a significant field of study as is evident in this current textbook starting on page 108.(4)

The President of the United States meets with leaders all over the world. Many countries in the world not only would not be receptive to council from a female president, but keep women in general inferior in their countries.(4) How would a female President be able to work effectively with the middle East where many of the leaders of those nations view women as inferior? This would make the President’s ability to lead on a global stage and interact with other nations considerably more difficult. It would make the President less effective in fields that the U.S. is already struggling globally. This is another way in which the United States is not ready for a female President.

The idea that the U.S. is "ready" for a female President is optimistic. It could be argued that the U.S. "should" be ready, however from a practical standpoint the United States is not ready for a female President.


(1)http://www.archives.gov...
(2)http://www.defendwomensrights.org...

(3)http://servicewomen.org...
(4)http://www.ablongman.com...
(5)http://www.onlineuniversities.com...

phantom

Pro

I'm very pleased to be having this debate. Thanks to Con and good luck as well.

As per the debate format, I will be making a case but not responding to Con’s this round.


Pro has defined ready as "completely prepared or in fit condition for immediate action or use." I will obviously be using the latter for my case. So I will contend that the US is in fit condition for a women president. Moreover, this is immediate. I can’t argue that by next elections we’ll be fit. I have to argue that we’re fit right now, even if it can’t come to pass until 2016 or later. Moreover, I don’t believe it’s necessary to be completely prepared in order to be in fit condition. In 2008 we were in fit condition to have an African American president even though not everyone or every aspect of American society was prepared.


Representation; more women needed in politics


In any democracy it’s important that the different demographics receive representation. In America, half our population is female, yet only 18.5% of Congress is female. 20% of senators are female. 18.2% of the house are women.[1] Obviously, we’ve also never had a female president. This means women are not adequately represented in politics. A woman president would be both an important milestone for women as well as increasing representation for that demographic. To increase the role of women in politics it’s necessary for a societal shift to take place. Electing a woman for president would help to stimulate this shift, moreover it would help correct this unfortunate representative gap in politics. Women and men are both equally capable of holding government positions but since there’s such a displacement of gender in government positions, more women need to be elected. It’s not just that we’re ready for a woman president. We need more women in office in general.



Attitude towards having a female president


It was not always the case, but today American citizens are certainly ready to elect a woman president. Gallup reported that in a 1958 poll, only 54% said they would vote for a generally well-qualified women for president. In 2012, that number was 95%.[2]


Americans are quite open to a female president. In april 2014, a poll was conducted to assess how warm or cold Americans felt towards certain candidates. The top two candidates were Elizabeth Warren then Hillary Clinton. That means, according to this poll the two candidates that Americans feel most warm to are both women. [3]



Democrats are extremely open to electing a woman president. In a poll conducted in October this year, 65% of democrats said they would vote for Hillary Clinton if the primary was held today. 10% said Elizabeth Warren. That’s 75% of democrats who want either Clinton or Warren for president. The republican poll did not feature any women which is why I don’t mention it. [4]


A national survey this conducted year revealed that for the 2016 elections the fact that a candidate was a women would not matter for 71%, it would make 19% more likely to vote for that candidate, and 9% would be less likely to vote for the candidate. Republican conservatives were the most reluctant towards supporting a woman. 19% would be less likely, however 10 % would be more likely to vote for the candidate and for 70% it would not matter. [5] Those who oppose a woman president are very much the minority even within those groups who are least in favor of having a woman president.



A cultural shift is needed


We need to redefine gender roles and do our best to abolish gender stereotypes in America. "The gender stereotype of women as warm, nurturing, and caring and the corresponding stereotype of men as cold, competitive, and authoritarian may have contributed to a popular perception that women are less effective than men in leadership positions, though in fact they are equally effective. Eagly, Karau, and Makhijani (1995) conducted a meta analytic review of gender and leader effectiveness and concluded that men and women are equally effective leaders, unless the leadership role is gendered (people expect the leader to be male or female)”. [6]


A woman president would help show both women and men that women are capable of being leaders. The status quo needs to be changed and electing a competent female would help alter it. Either we wait until the status quo changes to elect a woman president or we help change the status quo by electing a woman. Why should we not go with the latter if the opportunity arises, which, as shown, it very well might? America is in fit condition for a woman president precisely because of prevailing stereotypes that deter women from pursuing political careers. These notions and attitudes do not make America unprepared for a women. Rather, a woman president would help dispel them, not just for our current society, but for future generations.


The important point to keep in mind, however, is that we (should) elect presidents based on their capabilities, not gender. Moreover, electing a president just because she’s female even though not able might harm women’s rights if she performs poorly and thus becomes a demonstration for those against women’s rights that women can’t lead.


Thanks for reading. Back to Con.


Sources


[1] http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu...

[2]http://www.gallup.com...

[3]http://www.quinnipiac.edu...

[4]http://www.washingtonpost.com...

[5]http://www.people-press.org...

[6]http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu...

Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Con

Rebuttals:

Pro says “I will contend that the US is in fit condition for a women president.”

C1: “Representation; more women needed in politics”

I agree with pro that women are not adequately represented in politics. The numbers he presented are empirical evidence that despite 95% being willing to vote for female president the U.S. is reluctant to elect women. This implies that the U.S. may not be ready for a female president.

Pro says “A woman president would be both an important milestone for women as well as increasing representation for that demographic.”

Agreed, however nice the sentiment and big the milestone, this is an entirely normative argument. As I stated in my opening round the United States should be ready, however the country is not.

Pro says “To increase the role of women in politics it’s necessary for a societal shift to take place.”

Agreed, and until that shift takes place the U.S. will not be ready for a female president.

Pro says “Electing a woman for president would help to stimulate this shift, moreover it would help correct this unfortunate representative gap in politics.”

Pro has this progression backwards, when there is something that needs to happen, you prepare for it, then when ready, you do it. What pro is suggesting is the opposite, merely stating that if we elect a woman as president it would make us ready.

I Agree woman and men are equally capable, however the people in the United States have shown they are not ready for this as presented in my argument and empirically evident by the stats pro provided.

This argument that more women are needed in politics is true, however it does not constitute being ready. A child may need to be more responsible, that in no way makes him ready or fit condition to be responsible. A need does not constitute being fit or ready. This argument is negated.

C2: "Attitude towards having a female president"


Pro says “Gallup reported that in a 1958 poll, only 54% said they would vote for a generally well-qualified women for president. In 2012, that number was 95%

As addressed earlier, despite the above stat, pro also shared that “only 18.5% of Congress is female. 20% of senators are female. 18.2% of the house are women.” Regardless of people saying they “would” vote for a woman, it is empirically evident that the United States is hesitant to vote for women in general.

The Attitude that pro attempted to show via the gallup poll is negated by his own stats previously provided. This shows that the U.S. voters are not ready to vote for a women president. It seems the “attitude” is not reflected empirically. This argument is negated.

C3: "A cultural shift is needed
"


Pro says “We need to redefine gender roles and do our best to abolish gender stereotypes in America.”


Agreed, and until we do so the U.S. will not be ready for a female president. Again a “need” may be present. That in no way indicates the fit condition to achieve said need. People all around the world “need” food, that does not indicate a fit condition to provide it.

This argument is negated.

Concluding rebuttal:

C1: “more women needed in politics” A need does not imply ready.
C2: “Attitude towards having a female president” This Attitude is empirically false.
C3: “A cultural shift is needed” A need does not imply ready.

Resolve: "The United States is Ready for a Female President."
As all contention are negated, so is the resolution.


Pros entire presentation is negated.

Closing remarks:


Thank you to pro for accepting this debate. I agree with the sentiments you have presented, however as I have shown, a need does not mean ready. The idea that the U.S. is "ready" for a female President is optimistic. It could be argued that the U.S. "should" be ready, as my opponent’s argument does, however from a practical standpoint and empirically evident from pros statistics, the United States is not ready for a female President.

Thank you for reading!
Vote Con!
phantom

Pro

Thanks for the debate Con, and thanks to all the future voters for taking the time to read and evaluate it!

Con has clarified to me that I may address both R2 and R3 this round.


A: Is the U.S Military ready for a female commander and chief?


Con’s connection between women serving in combat roles and a woman president is not entirely cogent. The main argument against women in combat roles is that women are not as physically capable of fighting as men are as Con's own source reveals:“The reaction from the right wing, like former U.S. Army officer and Arkansas Congressman Tom Cotton, is that women are “biologically unfit for combat;” that they are incapable of performing to the standard of their male counterparts; that it “goes against their nature. Physical fitness has little to do with the presidency and no sane person would be against a women president due to the physical limitations of women. The argument fails on this fact alone.


Moreover, if women serving in combat is controversial, I have to ask Con if he disagrees that America was ready for women being in combat roles. His case rests on the false premise that being ready for change entails everyone’s accepting of it. To accept this notion, we’d have to denounce every discriminatory change taken place. Women’s suffrage was not entirely agreed upon but that doesn’t mean we weren’t ready for it. We were passed ready because we needed it. Gay marriage faces strong opposition from certain groups but that is precisely one reason why America is ready for it. Removing discriminatory laws helps remove bigotry and misguided inequality. A woman president is already fully within the bounds of the law. Waiting until all factions of society are accepting of it, is waiting too long.


B: Foreign affairs


It’s ironic that Con mentions this since the current most talked about potential woman candidate is Hilary Clinton who served as Secretary of State--a position primarily concerned with foreign relations. Because of her experience in foreign relations, the argument could even be made that Hillary is better prepared in this regard than other candidates who don’t have the experience. So, I believe, there’s no reason to not be confident in her effectiveness in foreign affairs. Of course, Hillary is just one women and other possible candidates won’t have that same experience, but this debate is about all women and Hillary seems a very possible, if not probably, next president, so the sole fact that Hillary would be more than capable in foreign affairs completely debunks Con’s argument.


Even if this is an issue, the fact that some females are perpared to surmount it refutes it in itself since then it would only be that some but not all females are not ready to be president.





Pro’s case


Women in politics


Con misinterprets the statistic. It’s not that people are not willing to vote for women (I’ve already shown they are). It’s that not enough women are willing to pursue political careers.


Con says the U.S. will not be ready for a female president until a societal shift takes place. Con misunderstands my argument. Americans are perfectly willing to elect a woman--the popularity of Hillary and Warren strongly attest to that. It’s women who need to be willing to run for public office. We’re in fit condition for a woman president because America needs more women in politics and the presidency is one way to fulfill this need, and having a woman president would do more good than harm. I don’t see how my argument does not apply. We’re in fit condition because it would be beneficial. That’s entirely within the bounds of the definition. Just like a broken down car is ready for/needs new parts, we’re ready for/in need of more women in politics. If Con could show some harm it would cause, he'd have a case, but he has not made a sound argument to that effect. More representation of woman is a need. We can answer this need without causing other harms. Therefore, we're in fit condition to fulfill this need and thus, in fit condition for a woman preident.


Attitude towards having a female president


Again, Con misinterprets the statistic. The figure of 95% clearly shows Americans are willing, and thus ready, to vote for women. This is a democracy so that percentage doesn’t need to be nearly so high. Even the group least likely to--republican conservatives--have 80% who don’t factor in gender or who would be more likely to vote for her because of her gender. And the 19% who would be less likely may still be willing to vote for a woman, they’d just be less likely.


So there is absolutely no question that Americans are willing to vote for a woman president. Con’s only argument is that the fact that there are so few women in politics means Americans are not actually ready. However, the lack of women in politics does not imply that Americans are not willing to vote for woman, rather women are less likely to go into politics. Moreover, providing multiples polls is superior evidence to Con’s interpretation of the statistic--which is wrong anyway.


Societal shift


Con reverts back to his argument that I’m putting the cart before the horse. I’ll rebutt him again with the fact that a female president would be beneficial to the U.S., which is why we’re ready for one. If Con could make an argument that it’s too soon and that a female president would do harm since America is not ready, than he’d have a case against me. But he doesn’t. Our political system has a gap that needs to be filled and filling the gap would not bring about any significant unwanted results. Does this not mean we’re in fit condition to have this gap filled? As stated, we can either help change the status quo or wait for the status quo to be changed before electing a female president. Electing a woman president would have a more positive impact in 2016 than 20 or 40 years later, so we are actually more ready to help change stereotypes and get more women running for office.


All my arguments stand. The resolution is affirmed.








Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
Thanks for the vote wrichcirw.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
RFD:

This was a short and interesting debate on a topic that is going to become exceptionally relevant quite soon.

IMHO PRO won the key semantics point, focusing on "fitness" as opposed to "preparedness" when it comes to being "ready". What I saw was PRO offering evidence that the US can indeed accept the concept of a female president, and this "fits" the definition of "fitness" to me, regardless of whether or not such "fitness" actually leads to a female president. Similarly, one can be "fit" to do a marathon and yet never do one in one's lifetime.

A second point is that CON seems to insist that an indicator of readiness is precedence, but if that was the case we would never be ready. I found this logic to be compelling against CON's case even absent the semantics case, as it is self-defeating and does not lead to any actionable advocacy. I did not read PRO's closing.

All in all well-argued. I think PRO won, but given that conduct was good (which is all I score debates by now), I will abstain from voting.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
"no sane person would be against a women president due to the physical limitations of women."

lol, I've actually argued for this, that women should not be allowed to become pregnant while in the Oval Office.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
Bladerunner, thanks for the vote and the time and thought you put into it.

Kasmic, thanks to you too. We should do another debate some time... Something philosophical, such as on Mill.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
Thanks Bladerunner for the thorough feedback. Thanks again Phantom for a good debate.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 1/4:

R1 is framework, definitions, and acceptance. R2 starts the debate proper. It's worth noting that the way these arguments are constructed lends them to being easily summarized--this is a good thing, I think.

Con argues that the US is not "prepared in every way" for a female president. Pro later objects to this, but we'll get to it when we get to it. Con argues the military is uprepared for a female CIC, and that foreign affairs would likely be problematic for a female president. He argues that it can be said we "should" be ready, but that we are not, as a country, ready.

Pro's R2 is his constructive. He argues that we do not need to be prepared in every way to be "ready", using the latter half of the definition (where Con had used the former half). He brings up the fact that not EVERY way was prepared for an African-American president, but that we were "Ready" nonetheless, a reason to prefer his use of the definition under consideration.

Pro argues that more women are needed in politics. He argues that it's "not just that we're ready for a female president. We need more women in office in general." This is a normative claim that honestly doesn't seem to support the motion--Con agrees, or at least seems to, that we SHOULD be ready, and we SHOULD have a woman president, but is arguing that as a country we aren't actually ready yet. This argument, though a good support for having one as a concept, doesn't seem to support the motion. As simply part of Pro's framework, though, it works well enough.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 2/4:

Pro argues that 95% of the population is prepared to elect a woman president. That's a pretty strong argument for how "ready" we are to elect one. Con's objections were more on the side of "ready for them after they're elected"; I think Pro's noting that the country is ready to elect them in the first place is a pretty good point.

Pro gives us some more statistics showing that across the spectrum, people are by-and-large okay with voting for a woman president, and that those for whom it would be a problem are very much in the minority.

He then turns the floor to Con. I know that the round was for constructive and not rebuttals, still, I wish that Pro had focused on more than JUST the election process, as good an argument as it was.

But anyway, it's a short debate and we get to the last round.

Con notes but doesn't seem to object to Pro's version of the definition, which means I'm definitely going to prefer it.

Con notes that Pro's first argument doesn't really address whether the country is actually ready for a woman president. I'm inclined to agree, even though I agree with Pro that we SHOULD as a country be fine with a woman president.

Con argues that, despite the poll data, the fact that women AREN'T more represented means that the country is not actually prepared to vote for them. I don't find this a super strong argument--there may be more reasons than mere gender at the polls for the lack of women in elected positions. The poll asked about "qualified women"--if one side doesn't offer a woman, and the voters don't think the other side is qualified, they won't elect the woman, it seems.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 3/4:

That Con leaps to the argument that the actual representation belies the readiness of the electorate to elect a woman seems like it needs more support to stand. I don't see the argument as "negated", nor as (what Con claims) "empirically false". In order for that to be the case, he'd have to show that women who were seen to be "well-qualified" were not elected on the basis of their gender, and he never does that.

Pro gets his final in R3.

He says that Con clarified he's able to respond to both R2 and R3 in this final round.

Pro argues that the justifications given for women not being ready for combat would not apply to the president, given that "Physical fitness has little to do with the presidency".

Pro argues that "[Con's] case rests on the false premise that being ready for change entails everyone"s accepting of it. To accept this notion, we"d have to denounce every discriminatory change taken place. Women"s suffrage was not entirely agreed upon but that doesn"t mean we weren"t ready for it. We were passed ready because we needed it. Gay marriage faces strong opposition from certain groups but that is precisely one reason why America is ready for it. Removing discriminatory laws helps remove bigotry and misguided inequality. A woman president is already fully within the bounds of the law. Waiting until all factions of society are accepting of it, is waiting too long."

This seems to support his interpretation of the motion. And it makes his argument regarding the statistics of the election seem stronger. If most people could elect a female president, then that some might not be accepting isn't cause to say we aren't "ready", is what Pro's arguing. And that seems pretty compelling.

For foreign affairs, Pro notes that a woman (Hilary Clinton) served as Secretary of State, showing that foreign affairs could be handled by a woman. Given that Con didn't anticipate this objection in his argument, it's a pretty compelling rebuttal.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 4/4:

Pro argues that "Americans are perfectly willing to elect a woman--the popularity of Hillary and Warren strongly attest to that. It"s women who need to be willing to run for public office. We"re in fit condition for a woman president because America needs more women in politics and the presidency is one way to fulfill this need, and having a woman president would do more good than harm."

Pro closes with Societal Shift, arguing that "Con reverts back to his argument that I"m putting the cart before the horse. I"ll rebutt him again with the fact that a female president would be beneficial to the U.S., which is why we"re ready for one. If Con could make an argument that it"s too soon and that a female president would do harm since America is not ready, than he"d have a case against me. But he doesn"t. Our political system has a gap that needs to be filled and filling the gap would not bring about any significant unwanted results. Does this not mean we"re in fit condition to have this gap filled? As stated, we can either help change the status quo or wait for the status quo to be changed before electing a female president. Electing a woman president would have a more positive impact in 2016 than 20 or 40 years later, so we are actually more ready to help change stereotypes and get more women running for office." Given that Con's objections were rebutted, leaving no objections left, and given that Pro has given us benefits and shown that the population at least appears ready to elect a woman president, Pro seems to have carried the argument. The "beneficial" argument is putting the cart before the horse, it's true, in the sense that it being good doesn't mean we're ready for it. But that it's good, that the electorate is ready, and that Con couldn't give us any reasons against, seems to give the win pretty clearly to Pro.

Arguments to Pro. Conduct was equal, sourcing was fine, S&G was fine.

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
COMIC SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANS nac
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
kasmicphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments - nice, short debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
kasmicphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
kasmicphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con constantly proved that USA doesn't have enough women in politics but never once proves the resolution wrong in the case that a woman ends up as president with men working below her. Phantom points this out as he says 'he proves not enough women in politics but not that voters are not there' also the need poitn was stupid for pro to raise but kasmic didn't destroy the other contentions I am sorry to say.