• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why would a person to choose a women to be their leader?

Why would a person to choose a women to be their leader?

Why not?
 
The people who won't even consider a qualified woman as a leader are misogynists.

A lot of them will be mighty unhappy after Clinton hands Trump his butt in November.
 
Last edited:
The people who won't even consider a qualified woman as a leader are misogynists.

A lot of them will be mighty unhappy after Clinton hands Trump his butt in November.

Agreed.

And misogynists disgust me.
 
Imagine you’re taking a journey across the arctic north pole.
On that journey you can take ‘guide’ animal with you. The guide animal is well trained, (like a hunting/companion dog) to fetch food for you , travel with you, and protect you until you reach your destination.
Would you choose a polar bear, or a north American grizzly bear?
Why?

similar situation, except this time you are taking a journey through the amazon rain-forest.
What guide-animal would you take? A jaguar or a Siberian snow leopard?
Why?

Hopefully you would choose the polar bear and the jaguar, because they are specially adapted to those environments, they know and understand and have an inherent natural understanding of those environments, and because of that, choosing them would give you the greatest chance of having the safest and most successful journey.
==

According to the Census Bureau’s 2009 American Community Survey, women comprise 48 percent of the U.S. workforce but just 24 percent of workers in STEM fields.
The workforce numbers widen even further when you look at the fields that require physical muscular strength and endurance like building and construction.
From these points you can logically deduce that generally speaking this world is designed, engineered, built, constructed and created by men.
==

This is a physical world.
Men are physically superior to women. Generally by 10%-20% in physical stamina (running) and 50%-100% in physical strength (power lifting).
This world is governed by rules and laws that are based on principles of reason and logic. (rule of law, laws of gravity and motion, etc). Men are generally more logical , reasonable and rational thinkers, whereas women generally operate more from emotion.
==
Why would a person to choose a women to be their leader?

This is a physical world that operates on rules and laws that are governed by reason and logic.
If men lead women in all these categories, as statistical data indicates, wouldn’t it be a wiser, more intelligent choice to choose a man to lead and guide?

this is not intended to demean, belittle, reduce the importance of women or the incredible value they have. Certainly they have gifts and abilities that equal or outweigh all of the mans gifts and abilities.

‘A village of 10 men and 10 women can conquer a nation of 100,000 men, given time’ -unknown

constructive thoughts, opinions, feedback appreciated! :D

Holy ****...are you clueless on this - no offense.

Men are far more competitive, violent, aggressive, territorial, sexually driven and are far more easily corrupted...NONE of these are good things for a POTUS to possess. And all of these can override rationality and logic.

genderinc.jpg


A good POTUS must possess intellect, emotional strength, compassion, rationality, common sense, practicality and honor (among other things). And none of these strike me as something men have in greater abundance than woman.

I think the average woman would make a FAR better POTUS than the average man (with exceptions...Hillary Clinton for one - though Trump strikes me as a buffoon...so America is politically screwed for the next 4 years, imo).
 
Last edited:
There is more to leadership than physical stamina and strength. As long as a woman is well through menopause, I'm a possible supporter for POTUS. It occurs to me that we live in a violent world run by men. Perhaps it's PAST time to try something else.

You seem to be assuming that a female leader, by being less willing to use violence to solve national problems, would make things safer. But there are times when a demonstrated willingness and ability to use superior force is the very thing that makes using it unnecessary. Too strong a desire for peace can produce horrifically immoral results. Just look at what the sincere desire for peace shown by Britain and France during the mid-to-late 1930's led to--fifty million people slaughtered.
 
The people who won't even consider a qualified woman as a leader are misogynists.

A lot of them will be mighty unhappy after Clinton hands Trump his butt in November.

Sex is the least important qualification necessary to be a good leader. Anyone who says, "But, women can't lead," has serious issues.
 
Margaret Thatcher persuaded me that women can be strong leaders.
 
There is more to leadership than physical stamina and strength. As long as a woman is well through menopause, I'm a possible supporter for POTUS. It occurs to me that we live in a violent world run by men. Perhaps it's PAST time to try something else.

I would argue that strength is among the least important leadership qualities. Stamina? There's little to suggest that stamina is an exclusive male trait.

It's not what's between your legs or in your arms that matters. It's your ability to convince others to do the heavy lifting.
 
Right now the world would likely be a better place, a more peaceful place, a healthier place if most of the heads of state were women. I mean that sincerely. Yes, of course there would be a few we may not like, but all in all I believe the world would be a better place just now with women as recognized and accepted heads of state.
 
There is more to leadership than physical stamina and strength. .

I fully agree, my post clearly mentions non-physical aspects.

.[/QUOTE]As long as a woman is well through menopause, I'm a possible supporter for POTUS. It occurs to me that we live in a violent world run by men. Perhaps it's PAST time to try something else.[/QUOTE]

have you considered that the 'violence' may be a result of the wise/knowledgeable protecting the innocent from the destructive ways of the selfish and ignorant?

i.e. .... if you're cutting down trees and polluting the water, (destroying the ecosystem and its hurting and harming its inhabitants) because you want to make a buck ... you should stop .... or you will be made to stop, before the ecosystem becomes completely unviable for all
 
There is more to leadership than physical strength, my friend. Intelligence is a huge factor when it comes to being a good leader.

That said, it would be wickedly awesome to have a presidential ticket with a Polar Bear and Jaguar.
 
I would argue that strength is among the least important leadership qualities. Stamina? There's little to suggest that stamina is an exclusive male trait.

It's not what's between your legs or in your arms that matters. It's your ability to convince others to do the heavy lifting.

great points I agree with.
if I understand correctly, you're saying that leadership is essentially being a good manipulator of people...'do this or that because of this or that reason'
the best leaders are the best manipulators/can convince the most people..

re: stamina. yes everyone has stamina. if you look at marathon records, and any running records in general, you will see that men generally lead woman by 10-20% in all events/categories....
why is this a factor?
because when a leader start's telling people 'do this', or 'do that' ..... having actual knowledge and understanding of abilities and capabilities is important...
I read it in a book or my advisor told me so, are not bad necessarily, but may not necessarily be the best
 
Last edited:
There is more to leadership than physical strength, my friend. Intelligence is a huge factor when it comes to being a good leader.

I know this and I referenced this is my post, when I mentioned stem fields, and men generally being more reasonable and rational thinkers.
 
You don't appear to be acquainted with either reason or logic, so I find it rather amusing that you'd attempt to reference them.

you don't appear to have any good points or arguments to bring to the discussion. thanks for your reply though.
 
you don't appear to have any good points or arguments to bring to the discussion. thanks for your reply though.

Why would I bring good points or any argument to bull**** like the OP? Seriously, it is utter absurdity not based in reality.
 
Physical strength is necessarily a hallmark of intelligence.

Research studies suggest that men get most of their intelligence from their mother.


Heredity Theory Says in Males, Intelligence Comes From Mom - WSJ

I agree. I don't believe I insinuated that it was, or even that it was related...however, a person with strength certainly has knowledge and understanding of that strength and how to use it, that someone without that strength would not have...making them more intelligent in that aspect.

I didn't read your study, but since the children watch and observe and learn from the mothers for most of their childhood, it makes sense to me and I wouldn't disagree or argue your point.
 
The people who won't even consider a qualified woman as a leader are misogynists.

A lot of them will be mighty unhappy after Clinton hands Trump his butt in November.

good point. so what qualifies someone as a leader?
 
Holy ****...are you clueless on this - no offense.

Men are far more competitive, violent, aggressive, territorial, sexually driven and are far more easily corrupted...NONE of these are good things for a POTUS to possess. And all of these can override rationality and logic.

genderinc.jpg


A good POTUS must possess intellect, emotional strength, compassion, rationality, common sense, practicality and honor (among other things). And none of these strike me as something men have in greater abundance than woman.

I think the average woman would make a FAR better POTUS than the average man (with exceptions...Hillary Clinton for one - though Trump strikes me as a buffoon...so America is politically screwed for the next 4 years, imo).

great points. yes any emotion can over ride rationality and logic. I did touch on that in the OP, when I mentioned woman generally being more emotional
I may disagree with your stance about being territorial and competitive not being good qualities.... maybe just misunderstand your phrasing, but if that's how you feel, just let us know where you live and we'll move into your front yard, and your drive way and your house....and you can just move out cause you don't believe in violence

or.... you see that good piece of land over there, we'll take that...you can have the old covered up landfill, next to the crumbling nuclear reactor.
thanks for not being competitive :D
 
Last edited:
great points I agree with.
if I understand correctly, you're saying that leadership is essentially being a good manipulator of people...'do this or that because of this or that reason'
the best leaders are the best manipulators/can convince the most people..

re: stamina. yes everyone has stamina. if you look at marathon records, and any running records in general, you will see that men generally lead woman by 10-20% in all events/categories....
why is this a factor?
because when a leader start's telling people 'do this', or 'do that' ..... having actual knowledge and understanding of abilities and capabilities is important...
I read it in a book or my advisor told me so, are not bad necessarily, but may not necessarily be the best

You read correctly.

Regarding stamina, physical stamina, i.e. the ability to outlast someone in a marathon is not a factor. It's mental stamina. The ability to stick with a job until the job is done.
 
good point. so what qualifies someone as a leader?

The same qualifications that makes anyone, male or female, a good leader....intelligence and charisma.

You'd do better if you focused on the positive qualities that we all share in society, rather than focusing on the negative zero sum game of what separates and divides us.
 
Imagine you’re taking a journey across the arctic north pole.
On that journey you can take ‘guide’ animal with you. The guide animal is well trained, (like a hunting/companion dog) to fetch food for you , travel with you, and protect you until you reach your destination.
Would you choose a polar bear, or a north American grizzly bear?
Why?

similar situation, except this time you are taking a journey through the amazon rain-forest.
What guide-animal would you take? A jaguar or a Siberian snow leopard?
Why?

Hopefully you would choose the polar bear and the jaguar, because they are specially adapted to those environments, they know and understand and have an inherent natural understanding of those environments, and because of that, choosing them would give you the greatest chance of having the safest and most successful journey.
==

According to the Census Bureau’s 2009 American Community Survey, women comprise 48 percent of the U.S. workforce but just 24 percent of workers in STEM fields.
The workforce numbers widen even further when you look at the fields that require physical muscular strength and endurance like building and construction.
From these points you can logically deduce that generally speaking this world is designed, engineered, built, constructed and created by men.
==

This is a physical world.
Men are physically superior to women. Generally by 10%-20% in physical stamina (running) and 50%-100% in physical strength (power lifting).
This world is governed by rules and laws that are based on principles of reason and logic. (rule of law, laws of gravity and motion, etc). Men are generally more logical , reasonable and rational thinkers, whereas women generally operate more from emotion.
==
Why would a person to choose a women to be their leader?

This is a physical world that operates on rules and laws that are governed by reason and logic.
If men lead women in all these categories, as statistical data indicates, wouldn’t it be a wiser, more intelligent choice to choose a man to lead and guide?

this is not intended to demean, belittle, reduce the importance of women or the incredible value they have. Certainly they have gifts and abilities that equal or outweigh all of the mans gifts and abilities.

‘A village of 10 men and 10 women can conquer a nation of 100,000 men, given time’ -unknown

constructive thoughts, opinions, feedback appreciated! :D

Why would someone choose a female leader ?

Perhaps because they are not sexist. Broad groups like male or female contain a great spectrum of different individuals, and the individual variations are far more important to predicting individual contributions than the group variations are.
 
There are plenty of women that would make a fantastic Madame President:

- Elizabeth Warren
- Nina Turner
- Tulsi Gabbard
- Zephyr Teachout
- Sigourney Weaver

You name it.
 
Bull****, and you know it. I'm still waiting for a literal muscle head to run for President.

You do not have to wait any longer. The most muscle head I have ever seen is now running. I have yet to see his brain.

Remember the scrambled egg commercial. This is your brain on drugs?
 
There are plenty of women that would make a fantastic Madame President:

- Elizabeth Warren
- Nina Turner
- Tulsi Gabbard
- Zephyr Teachout
- Sigourney Weaver

You name it.

Not Nina Turner. She could not even win her election in a Democratic District.
 
Back
Top Bottom