Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ginger From: ginger@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ginger Grover) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: voting results Message-ID: <361@ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 2-Aug-83 14:56:13 EDT Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.361 Posted: Tue Aug 2 14:56:13 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Aug-83 04:57:46 EDT Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle Lines: 39 The votes have been counted and comments evaluated. To reiterate, the question was "Would YOU vote for a woman for U. S. President?". Yes - 25 No - 2 *#&?! - 1 Assuming the contributors are representive of general public attitudes, I am pleased to announce that the Acquarian Age has truly dawned. The respondees included the very liberal, the politically disenchanted, and one sorehead who can ex- pect to be arc-welded to his terminal sometime soon. 1 Margaret Thatcher's track-record as Prime Minister was offered as evidence for arguments both pro and con; very strong opinions are held about the lady. 2 Regrets were expressed about the dearth of *qualified* female candidates for high office, and hope that the liberation movement may change that. 3 Some doubts still remain about how a woman's monthly cycle might affect her ability to deal with a crisis. Testosterone poisoning was mentioned as a corollary. 4 Over all, the consensus is that candidates should be judged on their abilities and their political records, regardless of sexual persuasion. Well, I think we've beaten *that* do death. Let's find something new to discuss. How about "The effect of Princess Diana's hats on the British economy"? Ginger Grover ssc-vax!ginger PS - No, I do not intend to run for President. Unless, of course, I win the state lottery. Besides, I wouldn't have a *thing* to wear ........ :-)