• 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?

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.

[...]

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).

It's unfortunate that people draw these kinds of conclusions from the data.

The same systems that oppress women also oppress men and teach them how to behave, which is why men act violently and are more often recipients of violent crime. In other words, the beliefs you state are the very product of patriarchal systems and not counter to them. You saying that men are one way only is exactly what social structures are teaching men!

One sex is not better than the other. We rise or fall together. When women were 100% oppressed and men were totally in control, the discourse of the day was that men were better off. But we now know that when women get better, men get better, and vice versa; and men getting better looks like giving up violence, control and domination.

If we're not careful we can end up with women in power who embody all the old patriarchal ideals because they were still raised in the presence of the same oppressive systems. I have seen female leaders go nutso when given power. It's not a male thing it's a human thing.

So rather than a man or woman in power, I want to see leaders who have a great deal of self-awareness, compassion, and empathy alongside valued skills like economics, public policy, and international policy. I don't care what's between their legs. I just want to prevent neo-cons and excessive neo-liberals from steering the ship.
 
I know this and I referenced this is my post, when I mentioned stem fields, and men generally being more reasonable and rational thinkers.

I'm not even sure I would agree with that....that men are more readonable and rational thinkers.

What percentage of physical confrontations take place between two guys because they are playing macho games? Quite a few, if not the majority of them. Reasonable and rational having little to do with it.
 
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?

We had a muscle head as Governor of California... It did not work out well.

Not enough muscle. Not even close.
 
We had a muscle head as Governor of California... It did not work out well.

It doesn't count. He was from Austria. I can't recall any great leaders coming from Austria?
 
One leader...

Whether he was great or not is open to debate.

He was a great actor once they took away most of his lines. I'll be back. With Arnold less is more. Keep it simple.
 
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.

Care to make a wager on that, that involves your own personal honor in keeping your word and meaning what you say?
 
It doesn't count. He was from Austria. I can't recall any great leaders coming from Austria?

Hitler? he was an Austrian.

Time Magazine's Man of the Year.

Of course, that does not count if you also consider "great" to also be "good".

King Herod is also called Herod the Great, because of the huge port city he built, and other stuff not involving the New testament..
 
Hitler? he was an Austrian.

Time Magazine's Man of the Year.

True but you left out that was in a negative view. People tend to forget that Time featured people who were influential but in a negative manor.

Of course, that does not count if you also consider "great" to also be "good".

I do tend to think of great as good but I guess you could be great in a negative way as well.

King Herod is also called Herod the Great, because of the huge port city he built, and other stuff not involving the New testament..

I thought King Herod ruled Palestine under Rome.
 
Hitler? he was an Austrian.

Time Magazine's Man of the Year.

Of course, that does not count if you also consider "great" to also be "good".

King Herod is also called Herod the Great, because of the huge port city he built, and other stuff not involving the New testament..

Hitler was a good leader, until syphilis began eating holes in his brain and he began making among the most idiotic strategic decisions in the history of warfare.
 
Hitler? he was an Austrian.

Time Magazine's Man of the Year.

Of course, that does not count if you also consider "great" to also be "good".

King Herod is also called Herod the Great, because of the huge port city he built, and other stuff not involving the New testament..

That is who I (sarcastically) was referring to.
 
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


Is this HIGH LOGICS or HIGH WISDOMS?
 
True but you left out that was in a negative view. People tend to forget that Time featured people who were influential but in a negative manor.



I do tend to think of great as good but I guess you could be great in a negative way as well.



I thought King Herod ruled Palestine under Rome.

Yup, sure did.
 
Hitler was a good leader, until syphilis began eating holes in his brain and he began making among the most idiotic strategic decisions in the history of warfare.

Yup, don't you just hate it when that happens.

You might know this....wasn't there a plot to assassinate Hitler late in the war but they called it off because he was making so many bad decisions and micromanaging the whole effort so terribly?

I heard that once on The Top Ten Infantry rifles show. They were going to use a 98K Mauser.
 
Back
Top Bottom