Just a question: Would you feel we would have all this trouble if we had a woman in power, as President? I'm trying not to be sexist, but just wondering.
Thanks
Full Version: IF WE HAD A WOMAN PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW?
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Archive
I look at it as an individual thing, it depends on the person. If we had our real president, President Gore, we would not be in such a mess right now. What if Ann Coulter was president?
That said, I really think this country needs to cross that threshold. We're behind many other countries and it is high time for a woman president.
That said, I really think this country needs to cross that threshold. We're behind many other countries and it is high time for a woman president.
You would have to specify trouble, what trouble are you referring to, the fraud? the iraq war? the abortion issue? the GLBT issue? or all of the above?
There is absolutely no evidence that a woman president would change things. Other countries have had women leaders with no apparent differences.
Can you think of any examples that fly in the face of this?
Can you think of any examples that fly in the face of this?
Based on Dubya's mess, anyone as President would have a long haul to fix the
trouble we are in. I just hope before I die, a female, minority or someone other
than a white male has an opportunity to try their hand as President of the United
States. At least once!
Reminds me of the Robert Frost poem: We have many miles to go.....
trouble we are in. I just hope before I die, a female, minority or someone other
than a white male has an opportunity to try their hand as President of the United
States. At least once!
Reminds me of the Robert Frost poem: We have many miles to go.....
QUOTE(Mac2 @ Dec 2 2004, 12:31 PM)
There is absolutely no evidence that a woman president would change things. Other countries have had women leaders with no apparent differences.
Can you think of any examples that fly in the face of this?
Can you think of any examples that fly in the face of this?
Mac2,
How can we have any evidence for THIS country, since it has never happened here? IMO, comparing our country to others is like comparing apples and oranges.
Of course there would be no difference! Why would there be? Women are people, some smarter than others, some are more agressive than others, some are more logical than others but how are women different than men other than muscle strenth and the ability to link both sides of the left right hemisphere of their brains better?
The president could be Condi Rice, or it could be Madeline Albright. It could be Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Benezira Bhutu, or Margaret Thatcher. The only thing that seems true is that women who GET elected tend to be tougher than the men that get elected.
The president could be Condi Rice, or it could be Madeline Albright. It could be Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Benezira Bhutu, or Margaret Thatcher. The only thing that seems true is that women who GET elected tend to be tougher than the men that get elected.
Oh and some spell better than others too:)
QUOTE(tnwycked @ Dec 2 2004, 01:27 PM)
You would have to specify trouble, what trouble are you referring to, the fraud? the iraq war? the abortion issue? the GLBT issue? or all of the above?
Yes, all of the above.
I think it all depends on the woman, much like it all depends on the man. Margaret Thatcher was one tough nut who didn't turn her nose up at war. Seeing as the US isn't too willing to elect a female we won't find out...but I do think that women are less likely to go to war...I call it the mother factor. 
Depends on the woman. If it was me, no, we wouldn't be in this mess.
If it was my Aunt, yes, we would!
If it was my Aunt, yes, we would!
Depends on the woman,as has been said above if the woman was Coulter or Schlafly,or Babe Buchanan it would be considerably worse than any man I can think of except Ralph Reed, Phelps,Falwell,or Swaggart.
Now if she were African American lesbian, that'd change things in a hurry! :D
Now if she were African American lesbian, that'd change things in a hurry! :D
Margaret Thatcher fired up a war when her popularity was sagging. It kept her in office far beyond when she should have lasted. Sound familiar?
QUOTE(mtnmagic @ Dec 2 2004, 02:37 PM)
Mac2,
How can we have any evidence for THIS country, since it has never happened here? IMO, comparing our country to others is like comparing apples and oranges.
How can we have any evidence for THIS country, since it has never happened here? IMO, comparing our country to others is like comparing apples and oranges.
You got me there. I agree with you, but have been sniped at so many times for that very position that I go there only softly.
Ok Ok I'll run
QUOTE(alyce @ Dec 2 2004, 02:32 PM)
Yes, all of the above.
Then no I dont think anything would of been any different, I think the majority of things would be worse. The only place i see it might of helped was with the moral issues, woman in my opinion adjust to change in moral values better then men. But as for the Iraq and the terrorist situation it would be worse
First: a large amount of overseas countries still see woman as the lower class, and would not respect a woman in office in the US let alone think twice about attacking us with a woman in power. You think Bin laden was bad....stick a woman in office and see what happens.
Second: I personally do not think the majority of woman are emotionally equipped to handle war, or a threat of terrorism or combat either for that matter. They care to much to look at it with a clear mind and without the emotional baggage that goes along with it.
Its my personal opinion and im sure it will make some mad if what ive said hasnt already but...
personally there is no way on earth i would ever want a woman president regardless of party affiliation. A vice president yes, but never a president.
QUOTE(Mac2 @ Dec 2 2004, 04:29 PM)
You got me there. I agree with you, but have been sniped at so many times for that very position that I go there only softly.
Well, as woman, that was the first thing I asked myself....how can we know if things would be different...we have to get in there first...
QUOTE(tnwycked @ Dec 2 2004, 06:33 PM)
Then no I dont think anything would of been any different, I think the majority of things would be worse. The only place i see it might of helped was with the moral issues, woman in my opinion adjust to change in moral values better then men. But as for the Iraq and the terrorist situation it would be worse
First: a large amount of overseas countries still see woman as the lower class, and would not respect a woman in office in the US let alone think twice about attacking us with a woman in power. You think Bin laden was bad....stick a woman in office and see what happens.
Second: I personally do not think the majority of woman are emotionally equipped to handle war, or a threat of terrorism or combat either for that matter. They care to much to look at it with a clear mind and without the emotional baggage that goes along with it.
Its my personal opinion and im sure it will make some mad if what ive said hasnt already but...
personally there is no way on earth i would ever want a woman president regardless of party affiliation. A vice president yes, but never a president.
First: a large amount of overseas countries still see woman as the lower class, and would not respect a woman in office in the US let alone think twice about attacking us with a woman in power. You think Bin laden was bad....stick a woman in office and see what happens.
Second: I personally do not think the majority of woman are emotionally equipped to handle war, or a threat of terrorism or combat either for that matter. They care to much to look at it with a clear mind and without the emotional baggage that goes along with it.
Its my personal opinion and im sure it will make some mad if what ive said hasnt already but...
personally there is no way on earth i would ever want a woman president regardless of party affiliation. A vice president yes, but never a president.
Well you got what you deserve in the white house.
Your bigotry against women grosses me out.
QUOTE(Cloudy @ Dec 2 2004, 05:37 PM)
Well you got what you deserve in the white house.
Your bigotry against women grosses me out.
Your bigotry against women grosses me out.
Bigotry against woman... now thats real funny...
thats the first time ive ever been accused of that ...
I am a woman! so bigotry doesnt even come into it.
Im just not pretending our sex is something its not.
QUOTE(tnwycked @ Dec 2 2004, 06:33 PM)
Then no I dont think anything would of been any different, I think the majority of things would be worse. The only place i see it might of helped was with the moral issues, woman in my opinion adjust to change in moral values better then men. But as for the Iraq and the terrorist situation it would be worse
First: a large amount of overseas countries still see woman as the lower class, and would not respect a woman in office in the US let alone think twice about attacking us with a woman in power. You think Bin laden was bad....stick a woman in office and see what happens.
Second: I personally do not think the majority of woman are emotionally equipped to handle war, or a threat of terrorism or combat either for that matter. They care to much to look at it with a clear mind and without the emotional baggage that goes along with it.
Its my personal opinion and im sure it will make some mad if what ive said hasnt already but...
personally there is no way on earth i would ever want a woman president regardless of party affiliation. A vice president yes, but never a president.
First: a large amount of overseas countries still see woman as the lower class, and would not respect a woman in office in the US let alone think twice about attacking us with a woman in power. You think Bin laden was bad....stick a woman in office and see what happens.
Second: I personally do not think the majority of woman are emotionally equipped to handle war, or a threat of terrorism or combat either for that matter. They care to much to look at it with a clear mind and without the emotional baggage that goes along with it.
Its my personal opinion and im sure it will make some mad if what ive said hasnt already but...
personally there is no way on earth i would ever want a woman president regardless of party affiliation. A vice president yes, but never a president.
Let me try to point out fallacies of your position. You state:
"personally do not think the majority of woman are emotionally equipped to handle war, or a threat of terrorism or combat either for that matter. They care to much to look at it with a clear mind and without the emotional baggage that goes along with it."
Women can handle war or terrorism every bit as well as men. Take that from someone who has been there, women are every bit as strong in courage, mental fortitude, and resolve as men. There can be no doubt of that. If you doubt that research the "Gold Star Mothers", "Rosie the Riveters", or Army nurses in the Pacific at the start of of World War II. They never gave up they just "went to War."
You are probably right about the combat, but that is certainly not all or even the largest piece of warfare.
Thanks Mac nice post.
QUOTE(Mac2 @ Dec 2 2004, 05:50 PM)
Let me try to point out fallacies of your position. You state:
"personally do not think the majority of woman are emotionally equipped to handle war, or a threat of terrorism or combat either for that matter. They care to much to look at it with a clear mind and without the emotional baggage that goes along with it."
Women can handle war or terrorism every bit as well as men. Take that from someone who has been there, women are every bit as strong in courage, mental fortitude, and resolve as men. There can be no doubt of that. If you doubt that research the "Gold Star Mothers", "Rosie the Riveters", or Army nurses in the Pacific at the start of of World War II. They never gave up they just "went to War."
You are probably right about the combat, but that is certainly not all or even the largest piece of warfare.
"personally do not think the majority of woman are emotionally equipped to handle war, or a threat of terrorism or combat either for that matter. They care to much to look at it with a clear mind and without the emotional baggage that goes along with it."
Women can handle war or terrorism every bit as well as men. Take that from someone who has been there, women are every bit as strong in courage, mental fortitude, and resolve as men. There can be no doubt of that. If you doubt that research the "Gold Star Mothers", "Rosie the Riveters", or Army nurses in the Pacific at the start of of World War II. They never gave up they just "went to War."
You are probably right about the combat, but that is certainly not all or even the largest piece of warfare.
Im not saying woman dont have the courage or the valor, I know they do, I just believe that if a woman knew that 100's of children, woman and civilians were going to be killed she would think longer and harder about it then a man, which in some cases may cause us all to get killed. Womans instict is to mentally question a threat first then act, men are more likely to act first when threatened and question later. I personally prefer someone who acts when were threatened instead of waiting. Also combat affects woman more then men, men are more able to move on with thier lives and hold the anguish of what they have dealt with inside, womans emotions are much closer to the surface.
There may be some woman who could handle a war as well as a man, but they are far and few between and im not willing to take the risk.
QUOTE(tnwycked @ Dec 2 2004, 07:01 PM)
Im not saying woman dont have the courage or the valor, I know they do, I just believe that if a woman knew that 100's of children, woman and civilians were going to be killed she would think longer and harder about it then a man, which in some cases may cause us all to get killed. Womans instict is to mentally question a threat first then act, men are more likely to act first when threatened and question later. I personally prefer someone who acts when were threatened instead of waiting. Also combat affects woman more then men, men are more able to move on with thier lives and hold the anguish of what they have dealt with inside, womans emotions are much closer to the surface.
There may be some woman who could handle a war as well as a man, but they are far and few between and im not willing to take the risk.
There may be some woman who could handle a war as well as a man, but they are far and few between and im not willing to take the risk.
Once again please take this from one who sadly has been there, if you threaten a woman and children; you had better be prepared to defend yourself because a furious attack of surprising ferocity will come down upon you. Directly if that is what it takes or indirectly if that serves better.
Also, in many instances acting first without thinking is better known as "panic." Veterans of war will strive mightily to avoid that mistake.
QUOTE
First: a large amount of overseas countries still see woman as the lower class, and would not respect a woman in office in the US let alone think twice about attacking us with a woman in power. You think Bin laden was bad....stick a woman in office and see what happens.
Second: I personally do not think the majority of woman are emotionally equipped to handle war, or a threat of terrorism or combat either for that matter. They care to much to look at it with a clear mind and without the emotional baggage that goes along with it.
Second: I personally do not think the majority of woman are emotionally equipped to handle war, or a threat of terrorism or combat either for that matter. They care to much to look at it with a clear mind and without the emotional baggage that goes along with it.
Those are fighting words my friend.
1. So the answer is to keep women in the US a second class citizen because that's how Saudi Arabia does or any other country that sees fit to keep women below the status of me? Do you seriously believe Bin Laden gives a hoot who's in office, or any other terrorist organization out to get the US? Bin laden also made it quite clear it was the US political policy towards the mideast that has led us down this road, in particular, the policies of Reagan and the Bush family.
2. Your argument here is laughable. Women have proven themselves quite capable of handling themselves in the face of war and terror. You certainly discredit the women who have served with honor in this war and past wars, and who also gave their lives on 9/11; Captain Kathy Mazza, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department, Moira Smith, Police Officer, New York City Police Department and Yamel Merino, EMT. Other's lived to tell their stories. Women have proven themselves time and time again, only be reminded that they are somehow inferior to men. It's pathetic male chauvinism at its highest form.I think the state of our nation is a classic example of how poorly men can run a nation, and quite frankly, yes, I think a woman could do a MUCH better job than Bush...a liberal woman that is. Face it, men are afraid women can show them up...i've seen in my workplace many a time.
Two Stories about a Female POW in Desert Storm [Rhonda Cornum]
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/war/5.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/heroes/cornum.htm
QUOTE(Mac2 @ Dec 2 2004, 06:09 PM)
Once again please take this from one who sadly has been there, if you threaten a woman and children; you had better be prepared to defend yourself because a furious attack of surprising ferocity will come down upon you. Directly if that is what it takes or indirectly if that serves better.
Also, in many instances acting first without thinking is better known as "panic." Veterans of war will strive mightily to avoid that mistake.
Also, in many instances acting first without thinking is better known as "panic." Veterans of war will strive mightily to avoid that mistake.
I trust you know from experience how someone might act, but all woman are not the same, and its to risky to put a woman in the position of president and then her fail if we were attacked or threatened.
I know woman will defend thier children, I would kill for mine in a heartbeat if they were threatened, but consider this...
A woman president with adult boys still at home, say around the ages of 18-23 do you believe she could with a completely clear mind send those boys to war with a clear mind and not think about how she is sending her own children and every mothers children to thier possible deaths? That in itself might make her hesitate long enough for our enemies to hurt us more then if she would of acted right away?
I know most men would hesitate some, but i believe a womans hesitation would be much more and cost us dearly.
QUOTE
men are more able to move on with thier lives and hold the anguish of what they have dealt with inside
Such as Timothy McVeigh? Yes, he handled it well. Oh, did I forget to mention the men out of Fort Bragg who murdered their wives upon returning from Iraq?? Its because men internalize that they tend to be more violent, and resort to violence as a means to deal with their emotions. Oh, yes, the vietnam vets with PTSD...to think that men stoically move on is absurd...war on the psyche is as damaging to a man as it is a woman...but women I think are probably better able to deal with it in the long run since they are very good about letting the emotion out.....I haven't heard of a female back from Iraq murdering her husband yet....
QUOTE(PrdAmerican @ Dec 2 2004, 06:24 PM)
Those are fighting words my friend.
1. So the answer is to keep women in the US a second class citizen because that's how Saudi Arabia does or any other country that sees fit to keep women below the status of me? Do you seriously believe Bin Laden gives a hoot who's in office, or any other terrorist organization out to get the US? Bin laden also made it quite clear it was the US political policy towards the mideast that has led us down this road, in particular, the policies of Reagan and the Bush family.
2. Your argument here is laughable. Women have proven themselves quite capable of handling themselves in the face of war and terror. You certainly discredit the women who have served with honor in this war and past wars, and who also gave their lives on 9/11; Captain Kathy Mazza, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department, Moira Smith, Police Officer, New York City Police Department and Yamel Merino, EMT. Other's lived to tell their stories. Women have proven themselves time and time again, only be reminded that they are somehow inferior to men. It's pathetic male chauvinism at its highest form.I think the state of our nation is a classic example of how poorly men can run a nation, and quite frankly, yes, I think a woman could do a MUCH better job than Bush...a liberal woman that is. Face it, men are afraid women can show them up...i've seen in my workplace many a time.
Two Stories about a Female POW in Desert Storm [Rhonda Cornum]
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/war/5.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/heroes/cornum.htm
1. So the answer is to keep women in the US a second class citizen because that's how Saudi Arabia does or any other country that sees fit to keep women below the status of me? Do you seriously believe Bin Laden gives a hoot who's in office, or any other terrorist organization out to get the US? Bin laden also made it quite clear it was the US political policy towards the mideast that has led us down this road, in particular, the policies of Reagan and the Bush family.
2. Your argument here is laughable. Women have proven themselves quite capable of handling themselves in the face of war and terror. You certainly discredit the women who have served with honor in this war and past wars, and who also gave their lives on 9/11; Captain Kathy Mazza, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department, Moira Smith, Police Officer, New York City Police Department and Yamel Merino, EMT. Other's lived to tell their stories. Women have proven themselves time and time again, only be reminded that they are somehow inferior to men. It's pathetic male chauvinism at its highest form.I think the state of our nation is a classic example of how poorly men can run a nation, and quite frankly, yes, I think a woman could do a MUCH better job than Bush...a liberal woman that is. Face it, men are afraid women can show them up...i've seen in my workplace many a time.
Two Stories about a Female POW in Desert Storm [Rhonda Cornum]
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/war/5.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/heroes/cornum.htm
1. Its not male chauvinism, im a woman
2. It does not matter what we think of woman, the perception of mainly the middle east is woman are weak, and in turn they will think our country is weak. Its not about what we do here, its about what they would think.
3. Some woman are capable, the majority are not, and Im not willing to risk every americans life on a chance they may be.
4. Any man could do a better job then Bush
5. The only way I would support a woman president after thinking about what mac2 said is....
If she had already been in combat and proved she was capable, like one of the woman you listed. And even then it would still depend on if she had children and how that would affect her judgement if they had to go to war.
There are woman capable, I just dont believe any of them are in politics right now. And probably will never be because good-ol boys like Bush dont want anyone that strong from the opposite sex getting into thier turf.
If all woman were as valiant as you say then why do you never hear of them commanding troops in a time of war. Or leading soldiers into battle. True you hear about them flying missions but thats alot different then on the ground hand to hand combat. Ask the majority of soldiers or vets you know who they would rather have watching thier backs in ground combat a woman or a man. I know what the ones I know say, do you?
tw, as you said women are not all the same. maybe you feel unable to handle such a position but many other women would excell at it.
Maybe you undermisestimate yourself
Anyway, give all other women the benefit of reaching to their own potential rather than labeling them all incapable.
The heart and mind of every child in this world should be free to reach for any dream and be all they aspire to be.
And no hard feelings, please. Just think it over.
Maybe you undermisestimate yourself
Anyway, give all other women the benefit of reaching to their own potential rather than labeling them all incapable.
The heart and mind of every child in this world should be free to reach for any dream and be all they aspire to be.
And no hard feelings, please. Just think it over.
QUOTE(PrdAmerican @ Dec 2 2004, 06:29 PM)
Such as Timothy McVeigh? Yes, he handled it well. Oh, did I forget to mention the men out of Fort Bragg who murdered their wives upon returning from Iraq?? Its because men internalize that they tend to be more violent, and resort to violence as a means to deal with their emotions. Oh, yes, the vietnam vets with PTSD...to think that men stoically move on is absurd...war on the psyche is as damaging to a man as it is a woman...but women I think are probably better able to deal with it in the long run since they are very good about letting the emotion out.....I haven't heard of a female back from Iraq murdering her husband yet....
oh please.... you cant equate timothy mcveigh with any of this, if that was the case there would be more timothys and less vets like the ones that need your sympathy.
And as for Fort Bragg,
3 of the men who murdered thier wives had been in combat, the 4th had not been so whats his excuse? Also 1 of the men involved was brought home early specifically for family problems so it could of happened anyway. Not to mention all fo these men were in special forces which intails things the ordinary civilian cannot even begin to understand. Also out of the 1000's of troops sent to Afghanistan only 3 maybe only 2 came back as lose cannons.
I havent heard of a man out of iraq thats killed his family either.
But regardless, I only stated my opinion and trying to convince me otherwise is a waste of your time. My opinion wasnt up for debate here, it was the question of wether things would be different if thier was a woman president, so why do people like you take someones personal opinion and make it the topic instead? Afterall you have your opinion and i respect that even though I dont agree with it, and you should respect that i have a right to mine. Or is that beyond your ability?
QUOTE(Cloudy @ Dec 2 2004, 06:50 PM)
tw, as you said women are not all the same. maybe you feel unable to handle such a position but many other women would excell at it.
Maybe you undermisestimate yourself
Anyway, give all other women the benefit of reaching to their own potential rather than labeling them all incapable.
The heart and mind of every child in this world should be free to reach for any dream and be all they aspire to be.
And no hard feelings, please. Just think it over.
Maybe you undermisestimate yourself
Anyway, give all other women the benefit of reaching to their own potential rather than labeling them all incapable.
The heart and mind of every child in this world should be free to reach for any dream and be all they aspire to be.
And no hard feelings, please. Just think it over.
I have no ideal how I would handle it, I would have to be there to know, but I do know i would think first of my children then of my country and that isnt what i want in a president.
I dont have any hard feelings, you stated your opinion and i respect that. Ive heard other opinions I dont agree with and I know some of mine really bother people but that is the great thing about this group for the most part people respect your opinion even if they dont agree with it. And I know most people are as passionate about thier beliefs as I am mine so I dont hold anger toward anyone for expressing it. I actually think its good to get into a good healthy argument every so often.
QUOTE
If all woman were as valiant as you say then why do you never hear of them commanding troops in a time of war. Or leading soldiers into battle. True you hear about them flying missions but thats alot different then on the ground hand to hand combat. Ask the majority of soldiers or vets you know who they would rather have watching thier backs in ground combat a woman or a man. I know what the ones I know say, do you?
Women have proven themselves as valiant in supposed "non-combat" roles, but oddly enough found themselves in the middle of a war zone. But, the sad truth remains that women are barred from serving/commanding the front lines....why? Because they are women. I presently know many vets and persons who are presently serving and can say for a fact that they think women are perfectly capable of serving on the front lines, and in command roles.
Each commander and chief and soldier take the same oath...""support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic..." I can't understand why you would think a woman would be less capable of honoring this oath than a man. To say that a woman wouldn't make the command decision to go to war because she has children is completely under-estimating women and their ability to rule. Queens, throughout history, have sent men into war...including their sons. Margaret Thatcher created a war in the Balkans. Mothers, in WWII, sent their sons off to war, sometimes....war is not a choice, it's a must, it's a duty, one that I think each and every American would be willing to do if our nation were TRULY in mortal danger.
Also, both Parties are just as guilty as keeping women under wraps. It's a male dominated world. However, that doesn't make it right. To think that the rest of the world (especially the middle east) would think us weak for electing a woman...sorry, but the treatment of women in the mid-east is barbaric, and we should never aspire to keep up with their value of women, that would make us equally wrong and weak in our moral charachter.
Also, I add for your consideration a website dedicated to noting the historical and contemporary role women have played in world politics as leaders.
http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/
I agree with a previous post. It dependsd on the woman. I think we'd be better off with Hillary Clinton in the White House or Nancy Pelosi. On the other hand we'd still be in a mess if we had Condeleeza Rice in the Oval Office.
I don't know if there are many women who subscribe to the neocon theory so in that respect, maybe we would be better off.
I don't know if there are many women who subscribe to the neocon theory so in that respect, maybe we would be better off.
QUOTE(tnwycked @ Dec 2 2004, 06:26 PM)
I trust you know from experience how someone might act, but all woman are not the same, and its to risky to put a woman in the position of president and then her fail if we were attacked or threatened.
I know woman will defend thier children, I would kill for mine in a heartbeat if they were threatened, but consider this...
A woman president with adult boys still at home, say around the ages of 18-23 do you believe she could with a completely clear mind send those boys to war with a clear mind and not think about how she is sending her own children and every mothers children to thier possible deaths? That in itself might make her hesitate long enough for our enemies to hurt us more then if she would of acted right away?
I know most men would hesitate some, but i believe a womans hesitation would be much more and cost us dearly.
I know woman will defend thier children, I would kill for mine in a heartbeat if they were threatened, but consider this...
A woman president with adult boys still at home, say around the ages of 18-23 do you believe she could with a completely clear mind send those boys to war with a clear mind and not think about how she is sending her own children and every mothers children to thier possible deaths? That in itself might make her hesitate long enough for our enemies to hurt us more then if she would of acted right away?
I know most men would hesitate some, but i believe a womans hesitation would be much more and cost us dearly.
Hesitation??? We should meet:).
I've been a soldier so I really can't relate to your statement, and I've defended myself from attack when THAT was necessary and I did not hesitate.
I suppose if you knew me, you would understand that there are warriors and peacemakers in all of us, and not all women get squishy about war, blood or sacrifice. I have to add, that many men DO, and they might hesitate a lot longer than I would...on this you can rest assured.
I have sons and they will fight in this war if it is still going on. I will not hesitate to send my son because he is a soldier by nature. The younger one isn't, and he will only go if his country needs him.
Do you really think Joan of Arc hesitated? Do you think that Golda Meir EVER hesitated? "The Iron Lady" No way!
You say that women might be more likely to hesitate and give our enemies a chance to hurt us more, then look at some of the male candidates that have run for office and I will show you many of them that simply would talk it to death first for the same reasons you list for women. It really does depend on the person not their sex. Ask yourself if Jerry Brown would hesitate? I think so, even though I like him. Ask yourself if Denis Kucinnich would hesitate? I certainly think so, and no one voted for him either. So, the process of weeding out those who are not capable of showing their strength should not rest on their gender, but rather their character.
QUOTE(heart @ Dec 2 2004, 11:32 PM)
Hesitation??? We should meet:).
I've been a soldier so I really can't relate to your statement, and I've defended myself from attack when THAT was necessary and I did not hesitate.
I suppose if you knew me, you would understand that there are warriors and peacemakers in all of us, and not all women get squishy about war, blood or sacrifice. I have to add, that many men DO, and they might hesitate a lot longer than I would...on this you can rest assured.
I have sons and they will fight in this war if it is still going on. I will not hesitate to send my son because he is a soldier by nature. The younger one isn't, and he will only go if his country needs him.
Do you really think Joan of Arc hesitated? Do you think that Golda Meir EVER hesitated? "The Iron Lady" No way!
You say that women might be more likely to hesitate and give our enemies a chance to hurt us more, then look at some of the male candidates that have run for office and I will show you many of them that simply would talk it to death first for the same reasons you list for women. It really does depend on the person not their sex. Ask yourself if Jerry Brown would hesitate? I think so, even though I like him. Ask yourself if Denis Kucinnich would hesitate? I certainly think so, and no one voted for him either. So, the process of weeding out those who are not capable of showing their strength should not rest on their gender, but rather their character.
I've been a soldier so I really can't relate to your statement, and I've defended myself from attack when THAT was necessary and I did not hesitate.
I suppose if you knew me, you would understand that there are warriors and peacemakers in all of us, and not all women get squishy about war, blood or sacrifice. I have to add, that many men DO, and they might hesitate a lot longer than I would...on this you can rest assured.
I have sons and they will fight in this war if it is still going on. I will not hesitate to send my son because he is a soldier by nature. The younger one isn't, and he will only go if his country needs him.
Do you really think Joan of Arc hesitated? Do you think that Golda Meir EVER hesitated? "The Iron Lady" No way!
You say that women might be more likely to hesitate and give our enemies a chance to hurt us more, then look at some of the male candidates that have run for office and I will show you many of them that simply would talk it to death first for the same reasons you list for women. It really does depend on the person not their sex. Ask yourself if Jerry Brown would hesitate? I think so, even though I like him. Ask yourself if Denis Kucinnich would hesitate? I certainly think so, and no one voted for him either. So, the process of weeding out those who are not capable of showing their strength should not rest on their gender, but rather their character.
Excellent Post Heart. I'm afraid I was furious then rendered speechless to reply to
tynwcked's position (even though I kept reminding myself she certainly was entitled to it.). You expressed my feelings perfectly. I too have two son's, one of each just as you described yours. Thank you for putting your thoughts down so objectively.
Ive taken into consideration what each of you have said... and I do respect each and everyone of your opinions, but I guess the only way this debate would end is if a woman became president and were faced with war or a threat.
I believe there are very brave woman, Ive just never met one that I believe is capable of handling being a president in a time of war so my opinions are based only on what I know and have experienced myself.
But arguing over this topic is useless since a woman is not president now, and someone we all believe should be was possibly denied by fraud.
I can promise one thing though, if a woman ever runs for presidency I will take all you have said in consideration and then decide if i will vote for her or not. You have accomplished at least that much even though personally im still skeptical.
But I firmly believe Hillary Clinton is not one of those woman you describe even though I admire her for what she has accomplished in her life.
I believe there are very brave woman, Ive just never met one that I believe is capable of handling being a president in a time of war so my opinions are based only on what I know and have experienced myself.
But arguing over this topic is useless since a woman is not president now, and someone we all believe should be was possibly denied by fraud.
I can promise one thing though, if a woman ever runs for presidency I will take all you have said in consideration and then decide if i will vote for her or not. You have accomplished at least that much even though personally im still skeptical.
But I firmly believe Hillary Clinton is not one of those woman you describe even though I admire her for what she has accomplished in her life.
QUOTE(PrdAmerican @ Dec 2 2004, 06:24 PM)
Those are fighting words my friend.
1. So the answer is to keep women in the US a second class citizen because that's how Saudi Arabia does or any other country that sees fit to keep women below the status of me? Do you seriously believe Bin Laden gives a hoot who's in office, or any other terrorist organization out to get the US? Bin laden also made it quite clear it was the US political policy towards the mideast that has led us down this road, in particular, the policies of Reagan and the Bush family.
2. Your argument here is laughable. Women have proven themselves quite capable of handling themselves in the face of war and terror. You certainly discredit the women who have served with honor in this war and past wars, and who also gave their lives on 9/11; Captain Kathy Mazza, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department, Moira Smith, Police Officer, New York City Police Department and Yamel Merino, EMT. Other's lived to tell their stories. Women have proven themselves time and time again, only be reminded that they are somehow inferior to men. It's pathetic male chauvinism at its highest form.I think the state of our nation is a classic example of how poorly men can run a nation, and quite frankly, yes, I think a woman could do a MUCH better job than Bush...a liberal woman that is. Face it, men are afraid women can show them up...i've seen in my workplace many a time.
Two Stories about a Female POW in Desert Storm [Rhonda Cornum]
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/war/5.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/heroes/cornum.htm
1. So the answer is to keep women in the US a second class citizen because that's how Saudi Arabia does or any other country that sees fit to keep women below the status of me? Do you seriously believe Bin Laden gives a hoot who's in office, or any other terrorist organization out to get the US? Bin laden also made it quite clear it was the US political policy towards the mideast that has led us down this road, in particular, the policies of Reagan and the Bush family.
2. Your argument here is laughable. Women have proven themselves quite capable of handling themselves in the face of war and terror. You certainly discredit the women who have served with honor in this war and past wars, and who also gave their lives on 9/11; Captain Kathy Mazza, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department, Moira Smith, Police Officer, New York City Police Department and Yamel Merino, EMT. Other's lived to tell their stories. Women have proven themselves time and time again, only be reminded that they are somehow inferior to men. It's pathetic male chauvinism at its highest form.I think the state of our nation is a classic example of how poorly men can run a nation, and quite frankly, yes, I think a woman could do a MUCH better job than Bush...a liberal woman that is. Face it, men are afraid women can show them up...i've seen in my workplace many a time.
Two Stories about a Female POW in Desert Storm [Rhonda Cornum]
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/war/5.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/heroes/cornum.htm
Great post, it's amazing the opinions I received on this topic, but your opinion comes pretty close to my own opinion. As much as I would like to see a woman President, this country is definitely not ready for one, plus it seems now women will be put back in the class of second class citizens thanks to Mr. Bush.
QUOTE(heart @ Dec 2 2004, 11:32 PM)
Hesitation??? We should meet:).
I've been a soldier so I really can't relate to your statement, and I've defended myself from attack when THAT was necessary and I did not hesitate.
I suppose if you knew me, you would understand that there are warriors and peacemakers in all of us, and not all women get squishy about war, blood or sacrifice. I have to add, that many men DO, and they might hesitate a lot longer than I would...on this you can rest assured.
I have sons and they will fight in this war if it is still going on. I will not hesitate to send my son because he is a soldier by nature. The younger one isn't, and he will only go if his country needs him.
Do you really think Joan of Arc hesitated? Do you think that Golda Meir EVER hesitated? "The Iron Lady" No way!
You say that women might be more likely to hesitate and give our enemies a chance to hurt us more, then look at some of the male candidates that have run for office and I will show you many of them that simply would talk it to death first for the same reasons you list for women. It really does depend on the person not their sex. Ask yourself if Jerry Brown would hesitate? I think so, even though I like him. Ask yourself if Denis Kucinnich would hesitate? I certainly think so, and no one voted for him either. So, the process of weeding out those who are not capable of showing their strength should not rest on their gender, but rather their character.
I've been a soldier so I really can't relate to your statement, and I've defended myself from attack when THAT was necessary and I did not hesitate.
I suppose if you knew me, you would understand that there are warriors and peacemakers in all of us, and not all women get squishy about war, blood or sacrifice. I have to add, that many men DO, and they might hesitate a lot longer than I would...on this you can rest assured.
I have sons and they will fight in this war if it is still going on. I will not hesitate to send my son because he is a soldier by nature. The younger one isn't, and he will only go if his country needs him.
Do you really think Joan of Arc hesitated? Do you think that Golda Meir EVER hesitated? "The Iron Lady" No way!
You say that women might be more likely to hesitate and give our enemies a chance to hurt us more, then look at some of the male candidates that have run for office and I will show you many of them that simply would talk it to death first for the same reasons you list for women. It really does depend on the person not their sex. Ask yourself if Jerry Brown would hesitate? I think so, even though I like him. Ask yourself if Denis Kucinnich would hesitate? I certainly think so, and no one voted for him either. So, the process of weeding out those who are not capable of showing their strength should not rest on their gender, but rather their character.
Golda Meir is definately one of my heros, and an excellent example of a woman who knows the definition of national defense and personal sacrafice.
You make excellent point, Dennis Kucinich would probably have to wait for the first Nuke to hit before he might consider a response.....probably a proposal for peace talks. Where as I could think of quite a few women who wouldn't hesitate to order war.
tnwycked: Thank you for having an open mind. You are right that it will depend on the woman.
If you would, take a look at these pages and you will be very surprised. Women leaders and warriors tales often go unsung, but when you see that it is worldwide, it kind of makes you think
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women.html
http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/femvets.html
http://home.psouth.net/~debbyp/women2.html
Also, look up women rulers and women in politics in 20th century. It's amazing really, when you consider it all. The Queen of England under Empire, and under WWII. Consider as well, that for about 8 months the US DID have a de facto female president. Edith Wilson was the one in charge when Woodrow Wilson had his stroke. It was so evident that a member of congress got up on a desk and shouted "We have a petticoat government"!
I think that Iceland was the first country that elected a female president, and they also have the oldest constitutional government voted on by the people.
When the British occupied Iraq earlier in the 20th century, it was a women that coordinated the resistance and pushed them out. Weird huh?
Looking at all of the women presidents and rulers in the world really gives a person perspective on how little we honor the female role in leadership in our own country. I guess it's a peculiarity of our culture....but it's sad that more people are not exposed to the roles that women have played in leadership positions.
If you would, take a look at these pages and you will be very surprised. Women leaders and warriors tales often go unsung, but when you see that it is worldwide, it kind of makes you think
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women.html
http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/femvets.html
http://home.psouth.net/~debbyp/women2.html
Also, look up women rulers and women in politics in 20th century. It's amazing really, when you consider it all. The Queen of England under Empire, and under WWII. Consider as well, that for about 8 months the US DID have a de facto female president. Edith Wilson was the one in charge when Woodrow Wilson had his stroke. It was so evident that a member of congress got up on a desk and shouted "We have a petticoat government"!
I think that Iceland was the first country that elected a female president, and they also have the oldest constitutional government voted on by the people.
When the British occupied Iraq earlier in the 20th century, it was a women that coordinated the resistance and pushed them out. Weird huh?
Looking at all of the women presidents and rulers in the world really gives a person perspective on how little we honor the female role in leadership in our own country. I guess it's a peculiarity of our culture....but it's sad that more people are not exposed to the roles that women have played in leadership positions.
I agree it would depend on the person, I have an aunt who would be worse than Dubya (most families have someone like that). I'm not convinced Hillary would be better, avoiding one pitfall often leads to another. I personally think too much effort is spent looking for a leader from this or that group and wondering if they could win and how they would do, it's better to just wait for leaders to rise to the top and support whoever is best.
QUOTE(alyce @ Dec 2 2004, 01:22 PM)
Just a question: Would you feel we would have all this trouble if we had a woman in power, as President? I'm trying not to be sexist, but just wondering.
Thanks
Thanks
It's a fair question. Compared to Bush.... a rock would do better in office at this point, but lets say if a woman got into office in 2001, I feel that she would not have pushed for an invasion on Iraq like BushCo has. If the 9/11 event took place with a woman at the helm, I believe that she would have followed up with increased and better security measures. Even in Bush's case, he only acts on what his advisors tells him. He makes the final 'word' to all decisions made in DC. So if a woman was in office, she would have the normal amount of advisors.
Ppl tend to think that the President and VP somehow runs the country single handedly. Nope... if they both were killed at once, we have many in place to carry out orders and proceedures... of which much of the Pentagon and Congress now does. Our prez is basically a show piece... the idol that we hang our hats on. They report the ideas of which others creates for them to report.... but with the authority to say nea or yea.
A woman could operate the prez office, but I myself want a 'person' who is experienced and aware of all things around them. During a legal war, I would feel better with men of war experience in those offices... but I also believe that women have much more awarenss for all things humanitarian both at home and abroad.
I'd myself like to see a 3 part prez position.... of men and women (1 prez 2 assist prez) to democratically vote in their final decisions. The VP can be elliminated, they are dead weight anyways.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.