I despise these types of generalizations

[Nerwen Carnesîr]

Now, I log onto AOL, and I see an article being advertised discussing rather or not a female president would be possible. And seeing as I had nothing else to do, I decided to read it. Now typically I would expect something like this to contain stupid generalizations, but one in particular caught my eye:

A female president may look good on TV, but I am not a supporter of [a real one]...men tend to handle various situations better...We women tend to emotional, soft hearted and too trusting.

Now, I could go on and on debunking this by posting examples of several people I alone know, but I won't. I'm of the female variety, I'm not emotional, I'm not soft hearted, and I'm certainly not to trusting. Just goes to show how small minded some people can be.

[Comrade Alexeo]

I'd vote a woman into office... so long as she was a Democrat

[bigfootedfred]

meh

just give a link to margret thatcher.

a little dose of the iron lady will change her mind in a hurry...

[Guderian]

HAHAHA! I feel sorry for the guy who said that. I'd like to see what he says after he meets a real women. I pity the poor fellow.

As for women in politics, they can be as tough, cunning and vicious and lead a country to its demise like any man can. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrika_Kumaratunga

[Nerwen Carnesîr]

I believe the person that said this is a women. Probably one of those ye olde homemaker women that belong more in the 1920's than in modern society.

[nahirean]

I believe the person that said this is a women. Probably one of those ye olde homemaker women that belong more in the 1920's than in modern society.

You see, if you have an article ultimately debunking the idea of a female-president, the only possible way it can be credible is that if the author is also female.

Hence, the article.

[imb39]

You see, if you have an article ultimately debunking the idea of a female-president, the only possible way it can be credible is that if the author is also female.

Hence, the article.

It's still written out of ignorance.

[Bwaho]

However, I feel it's stupid to vote a woman into office just because she is a woman. It's the agenda and plans that should win an election.

[Kanaric]

I believe the person that said this is a women. Probably one of those ye olde homemaker women that belong more in the 1920's than in modern society.

You would be surprised on who thinks of that. They asked that in a history class of mine last year and even the hardcore ultra-left punk rock peta members say that thing sometimes.

[Rowan11088]

Well it's stupid to act as if there are NO differences between the sexes. Sure there are a few women who could be effective politicians, but I'd say there are far fewer than there are men. So your chances of electing a good president are higher if you're voting for the male. They're pretty dismal either way though...

[Nerwen Carnesîr]

Well it's stupid to act as if there are NO differences between the sexes. Sure there are a few women who could be effective politicians, but I'd say there are far fewer than there are men. So your chances of electing a good president are higher if you're voting for the male. They're pretty dismal either way though...

Women have proven several times through out history they can be just as potent politicians as men can. I'd name a few off the top of my head if I wasn't so tired right now.

[Lord Rahl]

I'm sure there are plenty of women who would be good in office but it my is my experience that women tend to be less interested in politics. Whether this be their fault or not that is what I have seen.

There are many women who you may see on TV who have no problem telling people their opinion and making a stand without getting emotional. Whoever wrote that article is just, well, stupid.

[imb39]

Hmmm.... Lets think...

Boudicca - 'Nuff said.
Elizabeth I - pretty ruthless when she needed to be, also one of the best at playing international politics - Spain didn't have a chance!
Catherine the Great - Amzaing Russian ruler - in every sense of the word...
Indira Gandhi - Great Indian Prime Minister.
Margaret Thatcher - 'Nuff said!

A woman can be as ruthless as any man. Social conditioning makes it less likey, though, as women don't get as many opportunities in these 'high offices.' I, for one, have absolutely no problems with a woman as a leader. That writer spoke from ignorance.

[Odovacar]

Hmmm.... Lets think...

Boudicca - 'Nuff said.
Elizabeth I - pretty ruthless when she needed to be, also one of the best at playing international politics - Spain didn't have a chance!
Catherine the Great - Amzaing Russian ruler - in every sense of the word...
Indira Gandhi - Great Indian Prime Minister.
Margaret Thatcher - 'Nuff said!

Boudicca: she failed to realize the true potential of roman forces. Thus caused her downfall. She was driven by emotions. She is not a successfull leader anyway.
Elisabeth: She was the best female leader, but she was not alone also. The Spanish empire had defintely a chance, not in naval warfare though. The idea that an english army on field could defeat the spanish empire would be laughable. If the Armada could set foot on english land....

Woman in general are softer and more emotional than men. But woman can handle emotions better and they can be very cold. Also woman are not even slightly soft-hearted and benevolent than man. You may decide that I praise woman with this, or not. In general, I agree a woman could be an effective leader. But this judgement should be not based on past examples of thought to be wise female leaders, many odf them was not so bright at all. This is true of males too.

[imb39]

That is indeed true, Bwaho, but the sentence basically said that women were not as capable as men as 'men tend to handle various situations better...We women tend to emotional, soft hearted and too trusting.' That isn't necessarily true and has been debunked by the past.

[Erik]

I think she didn't look past her own country and time, hence her ignorance.
She just had to open her eyes and look at Europe or Asia, or she had to know some history and she would know there were/are many successfull female leaders.

I too don't think they should vote for a woman because she is a woman, but neither should they vote for a man because he is a man.
In practice this would mean most president wil be male because most candidates are male, but this should not be an issue IMO.

[Ummon]

Now, I log onto AOL, and I see an article being advertised discussing rather or not a female president would be possible. And seeing as I had nothing else to do, I decided to read it. Now typically I would expect something like this to contain stupid generalizations, but one in particular caught my eye:



Now, I could go on and on debunking this by posting examples of several people I alone know, but I won't. I'm of the female variety, I'm not emotional, I'm not soft hearted, and I'm certainly not to trusting. Just goes to show how small minded some people can be.

Females are terrible at governing the world. They miss the spiritual aspects of life so often. :wink:

[Major König]

The real question is whether a woman president would be affected by emotions, p.m.s, etc, and stay cool under these conditions? Women tend to take things into consideration like feelings, etc. Im saying most women would be like that. Thats why many woulnd't be successful as president. Not saying they can't, but they would be less effective than a male at times, unless they were refines, like a certain Margaret Thatcher. But of course shes a rare breed of woman, not many like that found. We just have to ask ourselves would the first woman president be as good or better than her?

[Lord Tomyris]

The real question is whether a woman president would be affected by emotions, p.m.s, etc, and stay cool under these conditions?

Very valid point there, Achilles. Although women certainly are capable of the job at times, can this be said for as large a number of them as can be said for males?

[Ummon]

Women can be colder than men, especially today.