When Carly Fiorina gets up in front of the stage to speak or debate other candidates, she exhibits confidence, can-do prowess, and a strong will. She’s a former senior vice president of a company and, more recently, CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Inc. She has quite a resume as well as the ability to communicate with an aura of confidence, but what is she missing?

    Being the most visible woman running for the Republican Party, she is missing the full-feminism ideal set.

  All right, I made up a word here: one is either a feminist, or they are not. Treading any ground between the two can make a person sound a little confusing.

   While I am no expert on women’s studies, I do think it is a little confusing to act like a feminist but not outright call yourself that; most especially and specifically she describes herself as pro-life. She spoke about these views in July with the PBS broadcasting channel. She also supports overturning the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion procedures.

  So, Carly describes herself as a feminist. A feminist does not believe that people should have the ability to tell her what to do with her body. But, according the PBS reference I cited, is it not pretty contradictory to be a feminist candidate and not support the idea that a woman’s body is her own to make decisions?

   While she has seen a large rise in her following, how will female voters respond to this? I think this has some interesting ramifications. If they are registered Republicans, they probably will not even think of voting for the other major woman running for president, Hillary Clinton. They probably dislike Clinton because she’s a Democrat.

  I think this will be interesting to see how female voters who are supportive of women’s rights will turn out: will they vote for Carly, or will they run to a third party? Maybe this could end up supporting the third party idea I discussed prior.

“While she has seen a large rise in her following, how will female voters respond to this?”