Female leaders make a real difference

Is this in support or counter to what I said?

 

No. It is just as much men feeling the need to rush to the defence of women (and not men) as it is women doing so. It may even moreso be men.

 

Does anyone think Kamala Harris would make a good President? Why not? She had political and Government experience and more that what Donald Trump has.

 

Political and Government experience is the problem. Another "wokadile in the swamp!"

 

Having more experience than Trump is an awfully low bar.

 

I don't think the shape of someone's crotch has any bearing on their ability to lead.

 

They are all Scandinavian countries. With fewer immigrants than the only other Scandinavian country, Sweden - a particular country that also took an unusual approach of not doing much and hoping the phenomena of heard immunity would eventually lead to an end to the pandemic.

What does this possibly have to do with female leaders?
Very little in reality, most probably.
Trying to make that connection is an extremely tenuous one, and I would say disingenuous.

 

.

Female leaders are an abomination... and government draconian covid abomination is proof.

.

 

Because women will stop to ask for directions.

 

.....and then get lost anyways.....

 

I think raging hormones and bleeding from the crotch for a week every month might.

Not that there can't be good strong women leaders.

 

Well I'm sure that's issue for some women but not for all of them.

 

And yet with all that opportunity women prefer gender stereotypical careers in Sweden.

https://theculturetrip.com/europe/s...s-based-on-gender-roles-according-to-science/

 

Which is actually irrelevant. It's the opportunity that matters more than what is chosen. Gender roles are actually determined by what that gender chooses them to be as a group. If more and more men start becoming the home makers and more and more women the breadwinners, then soon enough those will be the expected gender roles.

Granted, those roles and opportunities can be limited and controlled by oppressive and dictatorial governments, but when opportunity is present as society shifts, so do those roles.

 

That's not how I read it. Given a choice, women pick traditional gender roles. Women don't want to be breadwinners. They want to marry bread winners.

Women's liberation has caused women to be unhappier as they are persuaded to do things that are not natural for them.

 

Maybe your mother is like that but the modern woman coming along has the same work-preferences as any man does. And the same talents that she has both learned in schooling and on-the-job.

The more important signal-of-change is the fact that they are accessing to higher-level jobs.

Times, they are achangin' ...

 

The modern woman has yet to appear in Sweden, apparently.

 

This may describe a majority of women, but it is by far not all of them. Plenty do want to be breadwinners and independent and non-traditional. Not to mention that women have in the past held many different roles from what is considered "traditional" today. There is no one natural thing for them, anymore than there is for men. Across time you can see where trends occur, but there is no one things across all times.

 

Women are pressured to take non-traditional roles and end up failing. Women wash out of STEM programs at a greater rate than men and wash out of STEM careers at a greater rate than men. Would have been better off getting married and raising a family.

 

I have not denied that there are woman who go against what they want and can do, with bad results. But with that STEM failure rate there is still a success rate as well. There are many women who enjoy their jobs in STEM careers, and are good at it. There are successful happy women CEO's and other executives. They would not have been better off trying to raise families, not in the way you are thinking. You are engaging in stereotyping and broad brushing. Yes we can bell curve certain behaviors, but even those will change from era to era and even social class to social class. Women of the high social classes in the past were not nurturing and childrearing and such. They had servants who did that. Today more of the upper social classes will take more of a hand in child rearing, but there are still some who leave it to servants and tutors and such.

 

Let's see the proof of what you say above. The numbers please and their source!

Otherwise, it is just so much BS as passes through this forum ...

 

Here's a tip. Go to Google. Search for "women wash out in stem." You will get many pages of links telling you all you want to know.

 

You made the claim. It's up to you to back it up. Welcome to debate 101.

 

No, it is up to you to rebut the claim. That's what I do when somebody makes a claim I doubt. If you did that you would discover I am correct. Your ideas are not the default truth, you need to back them up, too. Welcome to debate 201.

You know, it would have been easier to take my advice and do the search rather than making up excuses. It is well known and widely discussed that women wash out of STEM. I don't waste my time arguing with ignorant people who don't know the first thing about the topic under discussion.