desperate housewives and Al Queda

[Cynthia]

Well, yes, Professor, there have been women leaders who have failed...but how many women leaders in general compared tomen?
Not enough to do a complete and thorough comparison.

I do believe that a woman can lead. I happen to think that Condi Rice is more than capable if in the right position at the right time...not gunna happen...but she has a hell of a lot more skill and knowledge than many male presidents of the past. imo.

She's an example of a bright, and very strong-willed female. She has NO DESIRE to run for prez...of course.

Hillary has had that desire for a long, long time.
Perhaps she will make a good leader....perhaps not.

What makes a perfect president is the question I would love to ask this board.

Cindy

[The_Professor]

Actually, I do not believe either Golda Meir or Indira Gandhi were failures, quite the opposite really.

In my view, I fail to see any justifiable reason why women cannot be as good (or poor) leaders as men. A problem is that our political system makes it more difficult for them to get into those positions. It seems, as a culture, we tend to subject girls to negative conditioning early on as is evidenced by poor self-confidence in girls even at an early age. As a father of a daughter, this concerns me greatly.

[Cynthia]

YEs, Professor...as it should concern you greatly.

Look at history.

Why is it that a man has had more successes than a woman?

It boils down to how the young child was encouraged and taught by family members, especially the father.

Keep up your interaction in that positive and encouraging manner with your daughter, and you have tackled part of the battle.

[yellow_crane]

YEs, Professor...as it should concern you greatly.

Look at history.

Why is it that a man has had more successes than a woman?

It boils down to how the young child was encouraged and taught by family members, especially the father.

Keep up your interaction in that positive and encouraging manner with your daughter, and you have tackled part of the battle.

I posted earler about Hillary and her emotional moment, stating that she struck a chord which resonated with almost all women.

I watched her today on Tim with Two Faces, and she clearly came across strong, stronger than Tim might have wanted, in spite of the fact that he was there to demote Barack by promoting a fierce and coherent, if not a soundly choreographed,  Hillary.

The skirmishs she had with Tim today at times were energetic, but it always seemed to end up with Hillary easily leading in the dance, and Tim stone-faced and compliant, all too willing to cave to Hillary's gilded interruptions.  It all seemed predicated to have Hillary as tough and then caring and now tough and caring. 

You have to hand it to her.

Watching it this morning, I spoke thus, but was quickly attacked by all females in the room, who now seem to be almost fervent in their adoration of Hillary.  I can tell you they were completely unable to listen to the slightest iota of negativity regarding Hillary. 

I think we may have all miscalculated on the single "woman" factor, and the women in America now see poised to vent the sum total of all ''woman" resentment against the Great White Authoritarian image.  Hillary has, whether through the front or the side door, commandeered a direct tap into that ocean.

Those Clintons are superb tacticians, and Hillary is flawless in their implementation.

I still read her emotional piphany as congruently expressed.  But now I think she tapped into herself with an admirably cold and nerveless acumen, paying perfect attention to the timeliness of it all.  Amazing.   I hope it is attributable to a skillful multi-tasking and not a serpentine sociopathic suspension.

[Cynthia]

  "But now I think she tapped into herself with an admirably cold and nerveless acumen, paying perfect attention to the timeliness of it all.  Amazing.   I hope it is attributable to a skillful multi-tasking and not a serpentine sociopathic suspension."


Yellow, although I find Clinton to be more of the latter, she is skilled in political 'timeliness' indeed, as are many male counterpart politicians.

I find Hillary to be more male than most men, but in my mind she is still a "first"...and if she's going to be our first president, we will just have to give her her due, and her day in the higher court.

Wow, what a statement! Good post. 

[Amianthus]

Well, yes, Professor, there have been women leaders who have failed...but how many women leaders in general compared tomen?

Actually, prior to the 19th & 20th centuries, female leaders were common.

[Cynthia]

......and look at the state of the world today?


Polution, crime, war after war......

[Amianthus]

......and look at the state of the world today?

Are you trying to imply the middle ages were some sort of pastoral paradise?

[Michael Tee]

<<You seem very sure [about the real reasons for the war and whose benefit it was staged for] are you a qualified prophet?>>

God forbid!  I'm just a guy who tries to keep track of the facts, knows a little bit about how the world really runs, and tries to formulate a theory that explains those facts in the light of that knowledge.  I post my theory and listen carefully to its detractors.  So far nobody's been able to provide any logical argument against the theory, and most competing theories, especially those based on the supposed innate goodness and beneficence of the United States of America are rather easily shown up as horseshit.  Yeah, I'm pretty sure about my theory here, and the more we debate it, the less reason I have to doubt it.  Nobody's laid a glove on it to date.

[Cynthia]

......and look at the state of the world today?

Are you trying to imply the middle ages were some sort of pastoral paradise?

Actually, prior to the 19th & 20th centuries, female leaders were common.

 

..... compared to the past two centuries which according to you were "male ruled" sort of speak, it has taken man no time at all to mess this world up in terms of pollution alone....and it has only taken 200 years. 

[Plane]

<<You seem very sure [about the real reasons for the war and whose benefit it was staged for] are you a qualified prophet?>>

God forbid!  I'm just a guy who tries to keep track of the facts, knows a little bit about how the world really runs, and tries to formulate a theory that explains those facts in the light of that knowledge.  I post my theory and listen carefully to its detractors.  So far nobody's been able to provide any logical argument against the theory, and most competing theories, especially those based on the supposed innate goodness and beneficence of the United States of America are rather easily shown up as horseshit.  Yeah, I'm pretty sure about my theory here, and the more we debate it, the less reason I have to doubt it.  Nobody's laid a glove on it to date.

So where is the evidence that the US is entirely driven by aggrandisment?

[BT]

Not sure why gender needs to be an issue. Either she is right for the job, and if enough people believe she is,  then she will be president.

Saying she should be elected because she is female lends credence to those who say she shouldn't be elected because she is female.

Identity politics is a two edged sword.

[Michael Tee]

<<So where is the evidence that the US is entirely driven by aggrandisment?>>

Who ever said it was driven entirely by aggrandizement?

[Plane]

<<So where is the evidence that the US is entirely driven by aggrandisment?>>

Who ever said it was driven entirely by aggrandizement?

More than 50%?

[Michael Tee]

More than 50% is a given.  The interesting question is, more than 66 2/3 %?