Magenta flame;517306 wrote: Bullsit Bullshit Bullshit...Oh god I have to wait till tomorrow ... but you are about to get A history of the world for female dominence of the Planet. It's a load of crap we would fare no better.
I've got a first hand test group study of my own with a sample group of over 500 women in a competitive work situation to back me up. Bring it on.
Women in Politics
Women in Politics
Lulu2;517140 wrote: Well....in the first place, any woman likely to be elected President would probably be past the hormonal surges, assuming they really exist. 
But, seriously, your view is that physically and emotionally, men are more capable of making important decisions than women?
I don't believe physicality comes into the game at all, that's what the military is for. Emotionally? The way I've seen women, in all walks of life and at any age, react to situations makes me pretty sure that a woman in a position of THIS power, being Prez., would be a fatal mistake for this already screwed up country. I don't mean politics in a broad sense, I mean being President specifically.
But, seriously, your view is that physically and emotionally, men are more capable of making important decisions than women?I don't believe physicality comes into the game at all, that's what the military is for. Emotionally? The way I've seen women, in all walks of life and at any age, react to situations makes me pretty sure that a woman in a position of THIS power, being Prez., would be a fatal mistake for this already screwed up country. I don't mean politics in a broad sense, I mean being President specifically.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
Women in Politics
Diuretic;517186 wrote: I don't think you need to cite a source Mystery because it's a valid point and one I think we can all accept. Well I do anyway. My only problem with this is how many female presidents of the US did they interview to come up with that conclusion?
That's no a question for you, it's my reflection on the study.
You know if that ever happened, this is how it would play out. The (male) president sacrifices his and his wife's child, the world calls him courageous, brave, a man of honour, etc. His wife calls him all the names under the sun and divorces him. He loses a wife, a child but is given a reputation as a wonderful humanitarian because he made such a sacrifice.
A woman is president, she makes the same decision, she is then branded "the bitch who sacrificed her own child for politics."
I agree with you that that would more than likely happen, but that very reaction would be part of the problem as well, don't ya think?
That's no a question for you, it's my reflection on the study.
You know if that ever happened, this is how it would play out. The (male) president sacrifices his and his wife's child, the world calls him courageous, brave, a man of honour, etc. His wife calls him all the names under the sun and divorces him. He loses a wife, a child but is given a reputation as a wonderful humanitarian because he made such a sacrifice.
A woman is president, she makes the same decision, she is then branded "the bitch who sacrificed her own child for politics."
I agree with you that that would more than likely happen, but that very reaction would be part of the problem as well, don't ya think?
Women in Politics
"The reason the US hasn't yet had a female president is because the US political system is made by men, for men and run by men and women are mere tokens. It reflects the deep but largely hidden paternalism of US society."
++++++++++++ AHmen!
++++++++++++ AHmen!
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Women in Politics
Diuretic;518124 wrote: It would be. But once people got used to the idea of Madam President then it wouldn't matter any longer. I mean, the UK - and I keep using Thatcher as an example but there have been plenty of other female leaders - Indira Gandhi, Mrs Bandrainake (sp??) in Sri Lanka, Benazir Butto in Pakistan - who have shown that they have steely determination in making tough political decisions.
The reason the US hasn't yet had a female president is because the US political system is made by men, for men and run by men and women are mere tokens. It reflects the deep but largely hidden paternalism of US society.
There, that should spark things up a bit. Btw that's not flame bait, I'll argue that point until I fall over (given it's morning and I've had two coffees I should be okay for a while on that point).
That is a key point.
And I think I am in agreement with most of what you said.
Women can make it in male dominated professions but, like the men in politics, they do not make it there intact. Their feminine wiles are tools not endearing qualities. What is being proposed as the female "nature" is so far gone by the time a women has sight of running for president that to think she will act differently is, imo, absurd. To see the difference between a male led society and a female led society you have to compare a Western system to one that was built by women. You can't just take one and implant it into another. And I stand by my statement that no one should reasonably think the world be a better place if either sex is dominant.
A female president? Sure, there have been other female heads of state love 'em or leave 'em. But, for those that scream about female superiority, drop any notions of a female controlled government being "better".
Thatcher and Indira Gandhi are not shining examples of compassionate women.
The reason the US hasn't yet had a female president is because the US political system is made by men, for men and run by men and women are mere tokens. It reflects the deep but largely hidden paternalism of US society.
There, that should spark things up a bit. Btw that's not flame bait, I'll argue that point until I fall over (given it's morning and I've had two coffees I should be okay for a while on that point).
That is a key point.
And I think I am in agreement with most of what you said.
Women can make it in male dominated professions but, like the men in politics, they do not make it there intact. Their feminine wiles are tools not endearing qualities. What is being proposed as the female "nature" is so far gone by the time a women has sight of running for president that to think she will act differently is, imo, absurd. To see the difference between a male led society and a female led society you have to compare a Western system to one that was built by women. You can't just take one and implant it into another. And I stand by my statement that no one should reasonably think the world be a better place if either sex is dominant.
A female president? Sure, there have been other female heads of state love 'em or leave 'em. But, for those that scream about female superiority, drop any notions of a female controlled government being "better".
Thatcher and Indira Gandhi are not shining examples of compassionate women.
Women in Politics
OUR shared "chimp" nature seems to rule most of the time, that's certain. BUT..you never know what will happen in future!
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Women in Politics
Magenta flame;517306 wrote: Bullsit Bullshit Bullshit...Oh god I have to wait till tomorrow ... but you are about to get A history of the world for female dominence of the Planet. It's a load of crap we would fare no better.
Magenta flame;518368 wrote: Oh dear I actually don't remember writing that. Ok just let me get my act together.
Please don't follow through on your challenge unless you truly believe in your argument. I've been looking forward to a good debate with you. If the "history lesson" ends up being for you to remember not to be overconfident when you've been drinking then we will both be content to leave it that way. If you legitimately have a dispute with my reasoning by all means go ahead. If you are going to whip together a poorly reasoned rant because you feel you have to then please don't.
I don't enjoy that sort of argument. It causes me pain.
Magenta flame;518368 wrote: Oh dear I actually don't remember writing that. Ok just let me get my act together.
Please don't follow through on your challenge unless you truly believe in your argument. I've been looking forward to a good debate with you. If the "history lesson" ends up being for you to remember not to be overconfident when you've been drinking then we will both be content to leave it that way. If you legitimately have a dispute with my reasoning by all means go ahead. If you are going to whip together a poorly reasoned rant because you feel you have to then please don't.
I don't enjoy that sort of argument. It causes me pain.