From the BBC: Barack Obama: Women are indisputably better than men OK, but howzat? Here's how according to BO: That message outlined in red is going to be greatly difficult for many of "us guys" to understand and accept. It will gradually seep into the national-mentality - but women will have to show the way. The law can neither forbid them nor protect them when trying any physical work. The mental work is currently in the process of indicating that both intelligence and knowhow are not uniquely male-attributes and far from it. Whoever is better than someone else deserves to show not by either forethought or word-of-mouth but by observable action. In that manner it will be seen why women should not be doing some jobs and men not doing other jobs - if there is any difference at all. But that suitability is to be seen not by law but by actual practice and its judgement is individual by nature ...
Well.........there are differences I thought it would be fun to list the differences Why women make the better leaders On average women are/have: better verbal skills more empathetic less likely to take risks better long term memory retrieval less egocentric less aggressive works cooperatively more nurturing Now it's your turn to list why men make better leaders
Frankly, I don't think they do. But, until there have been a sufficient number of women in leadership position no clear assessment can be made. And that will only happen when women decide overwhelmingly that, "yes, we want to make a difference". Then again, "leadership" is different for different situations - business, politics (local and national), etc. I've seen no real study of the matter as regards this question. And any study would be difficult to accomplish due to the different criteria associated to "success" in any given line of work. (Success in America is primarily measured a monetary variable.) The matter thus comes down to this: Let's elect a woman PotUS and see how she does! Let's elect a LOT OF WOMEN TO OFFICE and see how they do. But, that is a matter for women to decide. More women politicians may make things look considerably differently. Besides, ultimately, such is going to happen - it is just a matter of time. Look - Hillary won the the last election in terms of the popular-vote. She lost it because Uncle Sam has not had the courage for over two centuries to see and understand that it made a colossal historical error in Amendment 12, which has allowed far too much voting mischief to occur in a presidential elections. (Namely the totally unfair and indecent "winner takes all rule", which defeats any intelligent understanding of the words "fair electoral process". Gerrymandering, employed at the same time allowed states to "rig" state-elections. And, to this day, they still do so.) But, in time, these issues will be addressed. Uncle Sam's problem is that not enough of Americans are taught the first principles of Civics. And were they taught that the presidential elections rules are warped and voting manipulated in various wars, then maybe the US would have better political leadership. Ditto at the state level with gerrymandering. Only time will tell, because fair and equitable elections will not be happening any time soon. To correct a fundamental miscarriage of electoral-justice a nation must come to the conclusion that what exists is wrong and must be altered. And we, as a nation, are not even at the point in the process ...
So when O'man suggests that women are the way, isn't he simply forgetting that for the rest of his islamic world that they are treated in the most abjectly horrible ways? So, who do we suppose the audience for his musing might be?
I would not even dare. Because I think that a blend of both is most appropriate for any truly "Fair Democracy" ...
If women are so much better than men then why aren't there any countries founded by all women? How about not jumping to conclusions here? I see all this bellyaching about women not being equal....well who's fault is that?
Well, they are most certainly better than men at procreating the human race by having babies! But that is not the point. It is insufficient to say that women are better than men unless that statement is "qualified". So, for that qualification, see here: Research - Women score higher than men in most leadership skills. So, yes, they have some qualifications in which they ARE more adept than men. And it so happens that "leadership" is one of the more important in business. What does that mean however? Frankly, I think it is too early to tell. There are simply not enough women in executive positions to make a determined judgement. What is left is personal opinion: In my work-experience - I am now retired - I find that in many cases women have been more "thorough" than men when undertaking complex tasks requiring intellectual ability. That was always good-enough for me when assigning tasks managerially ...
Let's face facts here: inequality is a sham. What really happened is that women sat back and waited on men to take the world and advance civilization. Once life became easier they started claiming they had been "oppressed" in order to shame society in allowing them to pick and choose their place in society. I can't believe many folks buy into the "oppression" myth.
How about sticking with reality. Just because the US has never had a female PotUS does not mean that such cannot happen. And when it happens, a great many people (men and women) will be shouting, "It's about time!" Plenty of countries have had them - with mixed results. What (I think) the US needs is to break apart the "dual-party" system that decides the Executive Head of the nation - and most other voting outcomes as well. People need a real choice and not just two ... !
BIG-MONEY IN POLITICS Nope, it is real and vigorous. Were you a woman, you'd have felt it. And if indeed you are female, you should ask yourself why you have not. Obviously because you never lived the myth and therefor have little or no understanding whatsoever of its awesome power upon the female-individual. ("Have a baby and stop effing around with the idea of going to university!") Yes, it is oppressive - because we-the-people have made it one in our society. Oppression was the word before WW2, but post-war more women felt they also had a voting-presence that mattered. It has taken a great long while since then for American females to have recognized that they are treated like second-class citizens in many ways - and particularly in terms of vocation. But as regards voting, they have most certainly awakened. My Point: The overall problem with politics in America is money-money-money. Whyzzat? Because BigMoney buys prime-time commercials that swing elections*. As stoopid as that seems, it works! (We Americans spend more hours watching TV than any other nation.) Moreover, we are fascinated by the accumulation of money into Wealth. So, we think wrongly it is the be-all and end-all to living-existence on earth. It aint. (And how do most rich women obtain their wealth? Having inherited it.) Why a rich-jerk like Donald Dork got so much of a popular-vote indicates the overwhelming flavor that riches give to political-voting in the US. DD has since amply proven that he thought the presidency was a "lark" and sought it because he had nothing better to do*. And like simpletons, we swallowed his bait hook-line-and-sinker. Over time, more and more women are getting educated and, as such, they will not sit back and content themselves to an existence as a "second class political-power". As bread-winners they will want their "say" heard in the corridors of political-power at both the state and national level. Simply put, they will want their fair-share (50%) of all elected positions of governance. Which clearly is their due ... ! *Would you care to know how many European countries forbid TV-channels to contain electoral-messaging before an election? Any such message gets out on TV only in "debates" among candidates are televised. (Which is a lot cheaper than the US version of a "election campaign" because the debates are paid by the national government - in order to minimize the importance of BigMoney in politics.)
I am a for female leaders if they have qualifications....fyi, simply being female is not a qualification.
I do not need to live the myth. I know poppycock when I see it. The notion that women have been "oppressed" since the beginning of time is poppycock. No one was stopping any female or group of females from setting out to explore and found nations. Why didn't females form great armies when battles were fought with swords? Because women CHOSE to stay safe and sound. So let's dispense with this nonsense. I am for women participating more in the workplace and in government. Not because of some fantasy of oppression and unfairness but because it is about time women did some stuff and stopped free loading.
It being oppression. Yes, it happens to men. Male offenders get 63% longer prison terms for the same offense. Male victims of Domestic Violence are generally arrested rather then helped. Men accused of Sexual Misconduct are presumed guilty. Misandry is common in MSM. Anyone who mentions these issues offline is likely to be fired and blacklisted.
Where you live. Not where I live (in the EU) due to subtle-yet-important differences regarding the matter that are in play ...
The human-animal is a live mechanism that has evolved for millions of years into two varieties of the species - male and female. Women bear children and are expected to take care of them up to adolescence. Men are the purveyors of the means to sustain a family until the newborn are sufficiently vigorous to live on their own*. Where we humans have simply repeated the basic cycle of mankind's existence on earth. The real difference being that our breed distinguishes itself from other animals (from which we have evolved). And thus are called "homo sapiens", meaning "intelligent humans". (Which, time has shown, the level of which we have in various degrees amongst us.) Admittedly, that expression above is changing over time and most drastically nowadays since women are attaining higher levels of intellectual capacity and thus enter the workforce of a nation where they generate their own income. And by spending their own income they invariably alter profoundly the cornerstone Supply&Demand mechanism of any economy ... NB: Which also affects ipso-facto the definition of male-female relationships. Whereas previously men were competing only amongst themselves economically (as regards labor), they are now competing directly also with women.
Are you saying that if a man transitioned to being a woman, he/she would not have or be: better verbal skills more empathetic less likely to take risks better long term memory retrieval less egocentric less aggressive works cooperatively more nurturing on par with a person who was born a female?
I am grateful to truly humane women who support male victims of abuse and discrimination. Unfortunately most women will be offended even by mention of such victims. Most people do share Society's prejudices. A century ago, most people in USA shared both Racism and anti-Semitism.
