The Real Problem--Women in Leadership

No, it is different, white male discrimination is a federal government policy it is unconstitutional.

 

White male discrimination violates Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

When you look at the full photo of who's in the White House situation room during "Operation Neptune Spear" there are only two individuals in the room who look like they know what is really going on, Sec. of Def. Robert Gates and the Air Force Brig. General Webb who's sitting in the Commander in Chief chair.

Admiral Mike Mullen looks like he's thinking..."I should have joined the Marine Corps."

 

If the truth offends you you'll just have to get over it. Ain't gonna change.

 

It would be fun to put thought bubbles over the heads in this pic.......I can see that the little girl in the back is thinking, "Gosh, Tony is SO CUTE......I wonder if he's single?"

 

Uh, my girlfriend would mop the floor with you on anything but a contest of strength/athleticism (and she might do well there depending on who you are!)

She is tough, she is brutal, she steps on throats when she needs to and I love her.

I think what you are describing is that of being FEMININE, not just being a woman.

Being FEMININE has it's place and is important for so many factors, but you hit the nail on the head that often times overly feminine energy can be too slow to make hard decisions.

Yes, a larger percentage of women are FEMININE, but not all. There are plenty of weak men out there that are as well.

We all balance feminine and masculine energy, while more women have feminine and more men have masculine, it is a spectrum on all sides.

Anyone claiming women are one bloc who is amazing, or weak ..... are both incredibly wrong and trying to paint a very simple picture.

FAKE NEWS

 

You say, "except for some like me."

I agree. There are always exceptions, but as a general rule, women are less able to deal effectively with killing people than men.

 

But then the flipside would also be true: as a general rule, women are less likely to resort to unjustified violence. Women would be, on average, less likely to use violence when it is necessary and men would, on average, be more likely to use it when it is unnecessary. Rationally, that would be an argument for having plenty of representation from both genders in leadership.

 

So, calling women inhenrently weak is wrong, but calling men inherently violent is ok?

lol, this is the type of double speak that has made feminism lose so much support to the point that they are becoming irrelevant as less than 20% of American women actually want to call themselves feminist.

The craziest thing is, since Feminism has become insanely aggressive in attacking people who disagree with them, they have actually LOST FEMALE VOTES TO DEMOCRATS

I keep posting because it even surprised me.

But women have voted for Democrats less and less each time for President over the last 14 years.

Feminism is absolutely horrible

 

Boom!

A rational, reasonable answer.

Thank you

 

Definitely, some women are warriors, and some men are not.

All Humans are Created Equal.

All Humans have Equal innate Value.

 

Failing to use violence immediately when it's required is far more likely and far more dangerous.

It's a mean and nasty world and we need mean and nasty leaders to survive it......this fact is proven over and over in recent history.

 

When I was 1/3 of my current age I would have agreed.

Now I believe more in Equality and Innate Value of all Humans.

 

And........nobody has claimed that.......we have allowed that there are exceptions from the very first response.

So.......you're the fake news.

 

In a fight that will get you killed.

 

Using violence when it is unjustified is, by definition, dangerous. Being concerned with one and not the other is immoral and irrational. Paranoia is no excuse.

 

Some of you seem to think the world is a safe and wonderful place........or at least that world must be coming soon if we all just try to love each other.

Woody Allen said it.......

"The lion will lie down with the lamb........the lamb won't get any sleep."

 

Yeah, I've never said we should not be concerned about both.

We have to be concerned about everything.

 

Then we agree that women in leadership isn't a problem, but a necessity.

 

And some of you seem to think that the world is a dangerous and antagonistic place . . . or at least that world must be coming soon if we aren't constantly risk-averse. There's actually some research into this, about social conservatives having, on average, larger amygdalas than the rest of the population, prompting them to resort more quickly to fight-or-flight fear reactions.

 

Maybe you have evidence that the world is not now a dangerous and antagonistic place?

Maybe your wee amygdala is your problem?

(Wink)

 

Maybe you have evidence that the world is not now a save place?

The problem with both sides here that try to categorize the world entirely one way or the other is that they rely on nothing more than anecdotes, which is irrational. It is true, however, that for most of us here in the US, violence is the exception and not the rule. Most of us encounter violence only very rarely.

Why should this fear-based way of thinking be central to all leadership? Contrary to what you just claimed, being able to keep a cool head during times of stress instead of resorting the the reptile brain's fight-or-flight panic has been a boon for me in leadership decisions, not a hindrance.

 

When it involves things like 9/11 (which millions would like to repeat if they could).............the rarity is really not the issue.

But the world at this time has more warring factions than ever before and I see no sign of improvement.

Man is increasingly oppressive and cruel to his fellow man.

Pacifists do not thrive.......they are subjugated.

 

Except there is no evidence of that. In fact, evidence points to the contrary. The world is increasingly less, not more, violent. And things like 9/11 are a rarity; they can't be used as the measuring stick for all leadership. Someone who always acts as if the next 9/11 is right around the corner is going to be a mentally unbalanced leader . . . and frankly one who needs to seek psychiatric care.

As for pacifists, they are a straw man.

 

Take it up with the USSC then.
But since it is nothing more than policy for those wanting to do business with the federal gov't, there is nothing wrong with it.
And since it is policy, it isn't a law.