|
No... I'm not speaking about physical strength. Women actually SHOULD be strong in order to lead
healthy lives and have healthy children if they so choose. I'm talking about this:
In order to be equal to men women had to do several things: Women in books and songs are portrayed
as sweet and loving and pure and kind . This is ,of course, in comparison to men who are tough and
strong and coarse. Opposites attract right? Yes until the 20th century. Women decided that they no
longer need to be kind and gentle in order to attract males. They decided that they are "Just as
good " as men .So they ditched their husbands and kids and joined parades for suffrage. I know that
the last was slightly extreme ...But woman "stepping down" from the pedestal at which men held her
to be BEAUTIFUL and SOFT set off a revolution way more effective than just gaining rights. Women are
just as strong as men so they work in factories instead of gardens ...does that even make sense to
you?
Women will never be "equal " to men. They have their specific duties and responsibilities ... And
men have theirs. Its not exactly a question of who's better or not ,its just a difference that is
both perfect and good. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree! I have wished for some long time for sense to prevail and women be accepted as totally
equal partners in every aspect of life other than running a country or being in Parliament or any
Political Party!!! As an example one only has to look at the present Nu Labour bunch who are
Nannylike - obsessive, power hungry without knowing how to control it, and riddled with PC madness!
There are very few women equal to the task of running a country without falling prey to the same
male traits of 'power corrupts' etc. Please take a look at the mad eyed Hilary Clinton! I recognise
and appreciate a woman's strengths, after all I am a woman! But I do not wish to be ruled by one! |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I have a problem with the explanation to the debate.
1800's midwest: Ok, nice example. Typical family; man, woman, children.
FASTFORWARD: Mom, children.
There's no mention of a father there. I agree with that. Nowadays, a typical family consists of a
mom and children (no father). The mom has to work to support her family, and so yes, daycare is one
of the options.
So, If women nowadays are responsible and capable of caring and providing for her family (without a
man) then who's to say that a woman would be a less than ideal president?? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Women are just as capable as men. Some women have made mistakes ruling a country (Marie Antoinette)
doesn't mean all women will |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It shouldn't matter if there male of female as long as there fit to do the job it shouldn't matter. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Since history proves only one real exceptional woman ruler:
Queen Elizabeth 1,
I have to say no.
(I think Ron Paul is capable of running things very nicely.
Based on merit? Ron Paul, in modern politics, that is.).
I think Robert E. Lee would have made an excellent president in the past. He was noble, wise, smart,
cunning but honorable.
A General makes for one used to duty and responsibility. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Comparing the human species as divided into two groups is ineffectual and pointless. There are many
many variations and contributing factors that go into making a person besides male or female. And
the skills and capabilities that go into making a good leader are influenced by the same number of
variables. I think that the only real reason that historically there are fewer examples of capable
female leaders is because almost every culture has discouraged women as political leaders. I noticed
someone here talking about what Elizabeth I had to sacrifice to be a good leader without pointing
out that many of the sacrifices she had to make were because she was living in a male dominated
society. If she had been accepted from the get go she would not have had to make many of those
sacrifices and the ones that she did have to make would have been of the same order that all
effective rulers have to make. A good leader comes from a combination of capability, inclination,
and opportunity. Any blanket statement in this regard as to the suitability of any single group is
pointless and self serving. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SO we can see you don't like Hilary but that doesn’t mean she can't do a better job then those two
edits that are running and who is in charge. I agree you don't need fiscal to be president and
usually women are stronger in mental ways so there. You men are so ignorant and stupid she would be
so much better then obama and McCain. You’re an edit she would be awesome. Woman go through more
things witch make them stronger mentally and she would be right for the job she would be awesome are
you racism against woman? What your problem with woman running I would like to know what grudge you
have against Hillary? Your like saying that obamas black so he would do a horrible job it is exactly
the same argument but switched out with obama and Hillary. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yea, 'cause the men have been doing a BANG UP job thus far right?
Not the one who's running now - no. I don't think she will be a good president, but she doesn't
represent every woman.
And - I don't want to be "MAN STRONG". I'm perfectly happy with my own strength, thank you. My
husband or any man for that matter could not mentally handle what I do in a day - so is it possible
that your idea of strength is about physical strength? Well, when does a president need to be
physically strong? When he's the last man standing perhaps? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Look at all of the great women rulers like Eleanor of aquataine and Elizabeth the first. Women are
just as capable as men |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whoever is the best candidate for the job, regardless of anything other than leadership skills. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Man strong?!
Are you talking in physical terms because women are just as equal in every other way...I can think
of. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Women are equal to men, period. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That's sexist. |
| |
 Mark  24 May 2008 20:54
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It does not matter what gender, race, or color you are you either have what it takes or you don't. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think that you are very wrong on this. I am not going to pretend that men and women are the same,
because they aren't. However that does not mean that they cannot be a good leader or be strong,
"man strong". Queen Elizabeth was one of the strongest and most astute leaders England ever had.
Golda Meir wasn't exactly a shrinking violet, Margaret Thatcher certainly could not be described as
weak.
I am not advocating Hillary, however her gender is irrelevant when i look at the problems facing us.
In some ways it may be an asset.
I think that your thoughts on this reveal more about your own fears than it does rational thought. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ideals and leaderships skills have nothing to do with whether a person is genetically stronger, or
anything like that
to think women cant handle a job outside the household just shows your a sexist
women were forced into the household because they were under the oppression of men in history
even the law on rape saw women as material
so was it even their choice to stay in the household in the first place? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
