Should women run the world? (1 Viewer)

[Chiisora]

There are 191 members of the United Nations and a few independent states outside. 19 have got female leaders at the moment.

Ruling Queens: Denmark, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom - and the latter is represented by female Governor Generals in Canada and Saint Lucia, who function as their countries' de-facto Heads of State.


The 6 female Presidents:Chile, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Liberia and The Philippines.


The 6 female Prime Ministers in Germany, Jamaica, New Zealand, Mozambique, South Korea and The Netherlands





Let me show you why you are arguing that it shouldn't:


-You feel the need to display your feminity by writing in pink. This is a sign of weakness or insecurity.
-You feel the need to upload pictures of semi-nude men to an educational forum, showing that you have no self control, which produces a negative opinion of women.
-Your inability to use simply technology such as HTML (e.g. uploaded document instead of using the HTML tag) shows that you wouldn't be able to cope with the demands of leading a country.
-This should be posted in NCAP rather than in Love and Relationships. This demonstrates an inability to understand simple textual context.
-Your username is "psycho^biatch" which is negative towards women.


As for whether women should be allowed to hold a position of power: My answer is yes they should be allowed, only if they are the best person for the job or elected by the majority of the people. This is the same conditions that most men in power (in democratic countries) must meet to hold office. I do not think that women should be helped into power just because they are women, they should earn it.

*applause* And um, why is this in the Love & Relationships section ANYWAY??

 

[Forbidden.]

You're sexist psycho^biatch, full stop.

 

[goony]

Here's a thought. If women want leadership, how about they get up and go fight, backstab and sacrifice like everybody else instead of complaining about how it's not being handed to them on a silver platter...because that's the reality of the situation.

That's what it took for both Thatcher and Clark, both of whom were extremely motivated and educated.

If you have equal rights in a democracy, that also means equal reponsibility; so if you're not prepared to put in the hard yards, and all you want to do is complain about how bad men are then clearly you are in no way capable of running a country IMHO.

Prove otherwise, and be voted to the job.

 

[lengy]

Troll.

 

[wuddie]

yea look, i think the majority of the responses from this thread, both male and female, have made a clear indication that women are simply NOT good enough for the job. you're right, women are way too sensitive, politics are about sacrifices and tough, mean laws which are not meant to keep everyone happy. we'd be absolutely screwed up if women use their sensitivity to run the world.

 

[BlackDragon]

lol. er, not quite. most people were saying that it is stupid to promote stereotypes like this and that gender makes no difference at all.

 

[banco55]

There should be a BALANCE, like everything else in life. The male has more logic, initiative and calmness and the female, well, has more feelings, understanding and feminine care. Despite the really cliched tone, it's true, it's biological, it's evolutionary. I suggest, PM as male and dep-PM as female. The male might be too logical and not be as, well, they might not have much human touch.

Yeah but the women who get to the top tend to display masculine qualities. Look at Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir both enjoyed the company of men more than women. In fact they didn't really like other women. They were both mocked as being men in drag. As far as non-violence, feelings and understanding etc. goes Thatcher could be ruthless and seemed to get off on violence. Golda Meir was the one who ordered the mossad to assasinate the munich terrorists.

 

[Cykologi_gal]

Too true, thus women SHOULD BE in politics, but not at the very front of it, or she'd really get into the role - most of the PM's are male, and you'd see her 'male characteristics' skyrocket. She'd have to learn to fit in and be like the rest of them, even though her rules, regulations etc, may be different. One's status makes one behave according to the status' schema, like gender doesn't make a difference here, 'cos people would expect a woman ruler to shed her emotional side and be strong like her male counterparts anyway.

Women might 'get off' on violence as they might think that it's a way to impress the society, that women can do men's jobs, even though the expectation is much higher - thus she may be proud of herself.

...and men lose love for women when they stand above their heads.

 

[ur_inner_child]

This isn't non-school.

I'm going to close this thread for now, reopen after thought.