Does anyone see a woman getting elected to the US presidency within the next 25 years? Women make up the majority of our population, yet are severely underepresented in Congress, and state public offices. It looks like Hilary Clinton is the only viable female canidate out there, but I think people have tired of her.

What would it take for a woman to have a realistic shot of being elected president? Is it even plausible?

An even greater improvement would be a benevolent AI.

25 years is a fair amount of time, so maybe.

In the present climate though, I think election of any of the following is unlikely:

* a female President
* a black President
* an atheist President
* a President from a northern state

Women are still in a bad position in society to run for president. If they act the way 'women are supposed to' they will be seen as weak. Otherwise they seem too masculine.

i think a women would be able to do the job of the president just fine and i think it will happen in the near future. just please dont let it be hilary.

Aren't women less likey to take military action though? I know that women are 'generally' usually against wars. I think that the only two people in the senate or house or whatever voting against our involvement in WW2 were women. Some say that Bush is a war monger, but shit needs to be done, I'd rather have someone more apt to war than someone totally against war. Besides, if the people in our country *really* didn't want want this 'War on Iraq' it wouldn't happen, simple as that. Since Powell's speech support for the war jumped from 50-somthin' odd percent to 70-something' percent. This isn't just about military action though, the government was designed basically with men in mind, women were never even thought of as becoming presidents then. I wouldn't doubt if in the future a woman or a black/mexican/chinese/whatever man/woman will be come president. It'll eventually happen I guess...
I just think that it'd be a terrible idea if a woman were president. Not because she'd make a bad president, just because of human nature. She'd be less apt to take military action, and we have enough protection against bad decisions as it is, no it's not *really* an issue. It's not like there is this huge number of wars we've been in that the country opposed and our war mongering president started, it's not really a big deal. --Another thing is that a female president can't represent a country like a man can, bottom line. If you need proof look up any of the hundreds of studies they've done on it. It's why women in business or positions of power wear business suits and not dress, it's why they wear stronger and bolder colors and not pink, it's why they try to appear slimmer (thinness is considered instictually a masculine trait...think of women and their 30% or so extra body fat), it's why they wear shoulder pads...they're trying to appear more masculine. Only 7% of communication is verbal, and a man conveys a stronger message than a women does, it's not bad or anything, it's just biologically how things are. Women are more *sensible* in most cases, more emotion and think thigns through more, but often times you need a snap judgement and some balls to make those decisions.
A woman would make a great president though if all of the leaders in the world were women. In my opinion at least. But i doubt that'd ever happen. As things are now, men just do it better...though in my opinion things would be better if all women ruled the world as opposed to all men...thered be a conflist though, especially if the house/senate was made up of men and the lead positions were made for women....i don't know..I'm rambling...time to go to work ;)

Grey Seal:

<i>Some say that Bush is a war monger, but shit needs to be done, I'd rather have someone more apt to war than someone totally against war.</i>

I imagine you have no personal experience of war - correct? (No, I don't either, but I get the impression that war is not much fun.)

<i>Besides, if the people in our country *really* didn't want want this 'War on Iraq' it wouldn't happen, simple as that.</i>

Last I heard, only about 40% of Americans would back a war against Iraq without UN support. That doesn't mean the US won't go to war, though.

<i>This isn't just about military action though, the government was designed basically with men in mind, women were never even thought of as becoming presidents then.</i>

Yes, all <b>men</b> are created equal, according to your Constitution. Women are still struggling for equality.

<i>I just think that it'd be a terrible idea if a woman were president. Not because she'd make a bad president, just because of human nature. She'd be less apt to take military action...</i>

From my point of view, that would be a welcome change. There should be more of it.

<i>Another thing is that a female president can't represent a country like a man can, bottom line. If you need proof look up any of the hundreds of studies they've done on it. It's why women in business or positions of power wear business suits and not dress, it's why they wear stronger and bolder colors and not pink, it's why they try to appear slimmer (thinness is considered instictually a masculine trait...think of women and their 30% or so extra body fat), it's why they wear shoulder pads...they're trying to appear more masculine. Only 7% of communication is verbal, and a man conveys a stronger message than a women does, it's not bad or anything, it's just biologically how things are. Women are more *sensible* in most cases, more emotion and think thigns through more, but often times you need a snap judgement and some balls to make those decisions.</i>

Oh dear, you have been sucked in by the patriarchy, haven't you? If having strength and "balls" is what is needed to succeed in business or politics, perhaps it is time that business and politics started judging people on useful criteria - like business and political skill.

<i>As things are now, men just do it better...</i>

How do you know, if a woman has never been given a chance to try the job?

if you think women are less liable to go to war then you obviously have never competed with and against them in a sport. i have played alot of league tennis with and against women. men can play and never have any problems or complaints about the opponents, but women never fail to argue, protest and fight until long after the match is over. often times never speaking to the other people for weeks on end. its just like cats never fight.

Bravado is a predominantly male trait. Viciousness is available in everyone.

More stereotyping...

Where's Xev when you need her?

Originally posted by Grey Seal
Aren't women less likey to take military action though? I know that women are 'generally' usually against wars.
Is that neccessarily a bad thing? I think a women would be willing to use military force when needed.
Bush is a war monger, but shit needs to be done, I'd rather have someone more apt to war than someone totally against war.
Why do you feel women are totally against war? If Margaret Thatcher was the president, do you think she would shy away from war?
This isn't just about military action though, the government was designed basically with men in mind, women were never even thought of as becoming presidents then.
Times change, I believe the govenment's design is more than capable of allowing a female president.
I just think that it'd be a terrible idea if a woman were president. Not because she'd make a bad president, just because of human nature. She'd be less apt to take military action, and we have enough protection against bad decisions as it is, no it's not *really* an issue. It's not like there is this huge number of wars we've been in that the country opposed and our war mongering president started, it's not really a big deal.
I think your playing into the stereotypes of women. Look at other female World leaders, theses issues weren't a problem with them, why would it be with American women?
Another thing is that a female president can't represent a country like a man can, bottom line. If you need proof look up any of the hundreds of studies they've done on it.
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I see no difference in the performance of female senators, governors, congresswomen, mayors, etc.., as compared to their male counterparts.
It's why women in business or positions of power wear business suits and not dress, it's why they wear stronger and bolder colors and not pink, it's why they try to appear slimmer (thinness is considered instictually a masculine trait...think of women and their 30% or so extra body fat), it's why they wear shoulder pads...they're trying to appear more masculine.
Women wear this stuff to tone down their sex appeal, so they can be taken seriously. Their motives are not to look like a guy.

The United States will not even exist in 25 years.

Black, Female, Gay, Tall, Short, Martian...

What possible difference would it make? Does the President really run the US? I really see no difference in presidents. The agenda needs to change. It doesn't matter who the President is. Look at the idiot in office now. The agenda is still the same.

jesus christ you guys. i was in a hurry this morning and i know i didn't do a very good job in explaining my point of view, but hell, i didn't explain it that bad. many of the parts you've quoted aren't even worth responding too since i never had that opinion in the first place; it was a part of a whole, taken alone it has a whole different meaning. that is unless you had to cut out part of what i wrote to amke your point...i guess it's okay in that case... anyway...

Originally posted by James R
I imagine you have no personal experience of war - correct? (No, I don't either, but I get the impression that war is not much fun.)

i have not been to war. but shit dude, please shut the fuck up. who the hell said war is a good thing? me? no, you? no...anyone on this forum? no... i simply implied that sometimes things have to be done. think of it this way, if you could save 1 million children by slapping yourself 20 times in the face would you do it? or would you not do it because slapping yourself in the face "is not much fun"? yeah, that's right...shut the hell up. and i know how you are by judging your 1st response, so let me clarify...
DISCLAIMER:that situation will probably never happen, but it was simply to prove a point.

Originally posted by James R
Last I heard, only about 40% of Americans would back a war against Iraq without UN support. That doesn't mean the US won't go to war, though.

Last 'i heard' it was close to 70%. it jumped after powell's speech. whether that is with or without UN support i don't know. but the thing is that you said 40% were for it. that doesnt mean that 60% are against it. i would guess that 20-30% are against it. Do i know for sure? naw. i stated that... "if the people in our country *really* didn't want want this 'War on Iraq' it wouldn't happen, simple as that." that's exactly what i said. i dont consider 20-40% being against it a *real* opposition...do you? didn't think so. if there were really that many people against it, sao 60-70% something would be done. i think most people just don't care enough about it either way. could i be wrong? i wouldnt doubt it.

Originally posted by James R
Yes, all <b>men</b> are created equal, according to your Constitution. Women are still struggling for equality.

don't spew this shit, please don't. if you know as much about american history as your confidence implies, you know that the "all men" part really means *all* upper-class protestant white men. they didn't mean anyone else, bottom line. yes, it's great that things have changed, and i hope that they continue to, but this isn't a women vs the world thing, sorry bro.~~

Originally posted by James R
From my point of view, that would be a welcome change. There should be more of it.

jesus christ james, you should run for president. what a monumental idea...less wars. hell, why don't we just shoot for world peace? wow, why hasn't anyone thought of this before ~~
you know, it's also funny how you cut the quote off there and didn't list the rest of it. it's shit like that that pisses me off. the next few sentances explained it more. it's like guerrilla tactics i tell you!! :p

Originally posted by James R
Oh dear, you have been sucked in by the patriarchy, haven't you? If having strength and "balls" is what is needed to succeed in business or politics, perhaps it is time that business and politics started judging people on useful criteria - like business and political skill.

you know james, sometimes i wonder why you're here picking apart other people posts, only quoting and responding to the peices and parts that you 'can,' i mean hell, you should be the head of some civil rights shit. i mean really. these ideas you have...wow, pure fucking un-adulterated genius!
~~
especially this one..."perhaps it is time that business and politics started judging people on useful criteria - like business and political skill." i mean wow james...wow. groundbreaking!
and you know what else? people should be judged on their personalities alone too, and not their looks! i think we've really got something here. o wait...let's think about this. why are people judged on their looks instead of their personalities? hrmm... well, if you don't know that maybe you should read up on psychology and evolutionary psychology/biology. hell, why you're at it, just read on on physical attractiona and physical appearance and what affect they really have on people's perceptions and responses. maybe you'll actually learn why women try to appear more masculine in the business environment. maybe it'd explain what i said. then maybe you won't make such obvious statements. i mean, what could make you go "no shit" more than what you just said. i mean hell, basically what you said was why can't people just be judged on their ability and talent in doing things. that'd be great wouldnt? well, so would world peace and true communism.

Originally posted by James R
How do you know, if a woman has never been given a chance to try the job?

there you go again. what happen to the rest of my quote preceding that statement? o, thats right, james cut it off to prove his point.

it's funny how you quote everything i wrote that seems against women, yet strangely...everything i typed in full support of women, including when i typed "in my opinion things would be better if all women ruled the world as opposed to all men" was left out. and it's funny because that came RIGHT after the quote above. thank you ladies and gentlemen, and i'd like to send a big "fuck you" out to james r. i don't think ive really read any of your posts, but if they're all like this i don't know how the hell you became a moderator.

now to respond to the other posts...

Originally posted by ibadreamer
if you think women are less liable to go to war then you obviously have never competed with and against them in a sport. i have played alot of league tennis with and against women. men can play and never have any problems or complaints about the opponents, but women never fail to argue, protest and fight until long after the match is over. often times never speaking to the other people for weeks on end. its just like cats never fight.

you're right, i'm sorry dreamer, sports are exactly like war. women are less likely to go to war man. it's just the way things are. i'm not saying it's bad, i'm just saying that its true. womens brains are smaller, and more tightly packed. they have many more connections in their brains which allows things to flow...well, differently. i don't know if i'm explaining this right, but overall it makes women more likely to opt for a verbal, non-violent solution...of course, you could always also blame it on the testoserone ~~

Originally posted by static76
Is that neccessarily a bad thing? I think a women would be willing to use military force when needed.

you're right. but there are two sides to everything. they may also be less likely to use military force when needed...well, maybe needed is a bad word to use, but lets just say...when it'd be the better choice as opposed to waiting or continuing to negotiate...

Originally posted by static76
Why do you feel women are totally against war? If Margaret Thatcher was the president, do you think she would shy away from war?

ooo shit. u named one fucking example...ok, because of that one example let me retract my point...MY BAD ~~ anyway, i don't feel women are totally against war. they are less apt to take military action.

Originally posted by static76
Times change, I believe the govenment's design is more than capable of allowing a female president.

no shit. just like it was designed to be a *white man's* world yet we have women and minorities in positions of power and wealth. the design is capable of anything, that doesnt change what it was initially designed for.

Originally posted by static76
I think your playing into the stereotypes of women. Look at other female World leaders, theses issues weren't a problem with them, why would it be with American women?
not stereotypes...maybe generalizations. anyway, our country isnt another country...it's the US. you can't compare like that, we have totally different countures. if you knew how anorexia was tied to women becomming part of the workplace you would understand. it's more based on society and our culture than anything, its the way we as americans are. now as things continue to change, so will our society. if things continue to change, anorexia will dissapear as a problem as fast as it became one...have you noticed that anorexia isn't as much a problem as it was in the 90's? it's because women are not becomming part of the workplace anymore, they are part of it...and things will continue to change, which is awesome. i know this anorexia thing may not make sense, but if you really care i can explain it and how it has to do with...um...this discussion.

Originally posted by static76
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I see no difference in the performance of female senators, governors, congresswomen, mayors, etc.., as compared to their male counterparts.

look closer. it has nothing to do with performance, that is relative and judged subjectively usually...look at the way they perform, men and women do things differently. of course, it's not easy to see since their actions are subjected to the judgements of others...others have to approve...they have motivations...they dont make their own choices. i know i'm not explaining this well, but maybe it's because i'm out of touch with this shit, who knows.

like dk said...it's not really them making the choices anyway, it's usually the same shit. he's trying to get reelected...its a democracy, hes trying to satisfy the majority, plus senate/reps influences are represented

Originally posted by static76
Women wear this stuff to tone down their sex appeal, so they can be taken seriously. Their motives are not to look like a guy.
No, sorry. I may not know much about politics per se, but i do know my shit regarding this, so...well, i better not say it. It's not to tone down their sex appeal. It may do that in effect, but it's something larger. The big thing about it is that it is subconscious. ...And of course they don't want to look like a guy...per se... Just read up on, well a bit on psychology and then read on attraction especially. It'll all make sense. It has to do with, well, uust read up on that stuff, if i say it it won't mean much, but when you read it in a few other places from 'legitumate' resources itll make sense. Also, over the next, well lets say 20-50 years it should top out. It's pretty close to topped out now, but it'll be extremely settled by then. You know how men and women's styles are pretty similar now? Well by then they'll be basically the same. just look at womens styles 100, 50, 20, 10, 5 years ago. they *were* vastly different from males' and now women can wear mens' clothes and be normal...however that's more than we can say for men wearing womnen's clothes ;) i'm just trying to say that it's all for a reason...just how the 'invisible hand' guides people in their economic choices and it seems like it just happened that way. it's all for a reason.

goddamn, i don't think i've ever typed that much in responses in my life.

Originally posted by Grey Seal
you're right. but there are two sides to everything. they may also be less likely to use military force when needed...well, maybe needed is a bad word to use, but lets just say...when it'd be the better choice as opposed to waiting or continuing to negotiate...

:bugeye:
ooo shit. u named one fucking example...ok, because of that one example let me retract my point...MY BAD ~~ anyway, i don't feel women are totally against war. they are less apt to take military action.
I guess we will have to disagree then.
you're right. but there are two sides to everything. they may also be less likely to use military force when needed...well, maybe needed is a bad word to use, but lets just say...when it'd be the better choice as opposed to waiting or continuing to negotiate...
The history of female World leaders throughout history contradicts this. Please show why you believe this.
not stereotypes...maybe generalizations. anyway, our country isnt another country...it's the US. you can't compare like that, we have totally different countures. if you knew how anorexia was tied to women becomming part of the workplace you would understand. it's more based on society and our culture than anything, its the way we as americans are. now as things continue to change, so will our society. if things continue to change, anorexia will dissapear as a problem as fast as it became one...have you noticed that anorexia isn't as much a problem as it was in the 90's? it's because women are not becomming part of the workplace anymore, they are part of it...and things will continue to change, which is awesome. i know this anorexia thing may not make sense, but if you really care i can explain it and how it has to do with...um...this discussion.
Anorexia is still a problem, and it was never tied to the workplace. It has to do with women who have a distort view of their figure.
look closer. it has nothing to do with performance, that is relative and judged subjectively usually...look at the way they perform, men and women do things differently. of course, it's not easy to see since their actions are subjected to the judgements of others...others have to approve...they have motivations...they dont make their own choices. i know i'm not explaining this well, but maybe it's because i'm out of touch with this shit, who knows.
Out here in California, we have two female senators. I don't see them performing their jobs in a different way from their male counterparts. The same with Hillary Clinton.

Grey Seal:

I only quoted the parts of your post that I did not agree with, or which I thought were badly thought out. Most of the time, there's really not much point in quoting large slabs of text followed by "I agree."

<i>i have not been to war. but shit dude, please shut the fuck up. who the hell said war is a good thing?</i>

You criticised women for being unwilling to go to war. Hence, it follows that you think going to war can sometimes be a good idea, right? I'm just glad that there are people out there who are much less willing to go to war than you appear to be.

<i>...if you could save 1 million children by slapping yourself 20 times in the face would you do it?</i>

Of course. Perhaps you can explain to me how war saves children.

<i>i would guess that 20-30% are against [war with Iraq]. ... i dont consider 20-40% being against it a *real* opposition...do you?</i>

Yes I do. 40% means 2 out of every 5 people you ask are against the war. In a group of five people, that's 3 against 2 for war. I'd call that real opposition.

<i>i think most people just don't care enough about it either way. could i be wrong?</i>

If that is the case, more people should care, because it will affect them one way or another.

<i>jesus christ james, you should run for president.</i>

Unfortunately, I'm not eligible.

<i>what a monumental idea...less wars. hell, why don't we just shoot for world peace?</i>

Yes, why don't we?

<i>you know james, sometimes i wonder why you're here picking apart other people posts, only quoting and responding to the peices and parts that you 'can,' i mean hell, you should be the head of some civil rights shit.</i>

Before or after I run for President?

<i>i mean really. these ideas you have...wow, pure fucking un-adulterated genius!</i>

Thanks. One tries one's best.

<i>...maybe you should read up on psychology and evolutionary psychology/biology. hell, why you're at it, just read on on physical attractiona and physical appearance and what affect they really have on people's perceptions and responses.</i>

Been there, done that.

<i>maybe you'll actually learn why women try to appear more masculine in the business environment.</i>

What makes you think wearing a suit is "more masculine"?

<i>it's funny how you quote everything i wrote that seems against women, yet strangely...everything i typed in full support of women, including when i typed "in my opinion things would be better if all women ruled the world as opposed to all men" was left out. and it's funny because that came RIGHT after the quote above.</i>

It's also inconsistent with the thrust of the remainder of your post, so I concentrated on your real point.

<i>thank you ladies and gentlemen, and i'd like to send a big "fuck you" out to james r.</i>

Because I disagree with you? Charming.

(Let's ask the women why they wear suits and so on, rather than guessing, ok, Grey Seal?)

If you're a woman who works in an office and wears smart clothes, please tell us why you dress the way you do.

Thanks.

static. that's not the best example. all you see is what they do on tv...or what you hear they do, but unfortunately so do I. Maybe i'm wrong, hopefully not. truth is i responded to your statement for the sake of responding really, I didn't have a point regarding woman senators since that's not really what i started off talking about.

Originally posted by static76
Anorexia is still a problem, and it was never tied to the workplace. It has to do with women who have a distort view of their figure.

i never said it wasn't a problem anymore. i simply stated it's not as much a problem as it was. though it will continue to be a problem as long as skinny is the attractive thing. anorexia isn't really in itself the problem...girls wanting to be skinny. it's more than that. it's girls wanting to be attractive, beautiful and over doing it. skinny is simply 'the attractive thing' right now. not until the 1900's did skinny become fashionable. it became fashionable because women started working. men are associated with success because men are successful, because men were the only ones that worked and therefore succeeded (per se). that's why women started attepting to appear more like men, shoulderpads, firm handshakes, bold colors, thinner figures, pants/suits etc. to appear more successful. that's why skinny is in. being this is a more masuline quality. women naturally have some 30 odd percent more fat on there bodies, that's why thinness is considered a masculine trait...and since women started working thinness became more attractive. now the reason why i said you cant compare our countries with others is because different countries usally have different ideas of what is attractive (though this is becomming less and less with 'americanization' and really became less when the world started intermingling and uhh...'osmosis' occured) . like in africa where they still have a hunter gatherer society. women still stay at home only, that's all they do...much like they used to in the united states. therefore women in their society are only child bearers/home-makers (is that the right way to say it?). in their society the fatter the women the more attractive they are. the women int that society stuff their clothes to be more attractive. remember in earlier america/europe when women used to wear those puffy clothes? the dresses with the huge asses sticking out, they used to stuff them to make them appear...ermm...fuller. that was attractive then...it represented femininity (is that a word?) i sort of lost my train of thought...was talkign to a friend, but that's how thinness became attractive. as time goes on and success becomes less affiliated with males, the 'attractive' thing will change (probably), but who knows right?

Originally posted by James R
(Let's ask the women why they wear suits and so on, rather than guessing, ok, Grey Seal?)

If you're a woman who works in an office and wears smart clothes, please tell us why you dress the way you do.

Thanks.

i'm not guessing bro. i have asked. it also depends on where you live. we live here in california. my aunt doesnt wear the business suits/shoulder pads/bold stuff she used to anymore because women are well (better) established now. i've asked her why she did though, and she said it's because she had to. now, i don't know if she doesnt anymore because she can't climb any higher, and if she was lower down she would, but i know she did, and i know why she did. the thing is that, here in california it's more lax. in st louis (where the rest of the company is) they all still wear suits to work. it's just more stiff there for some reason. i've never spent much time there, so i really wouldnt know why, i assume it's because they're a little more old fashion...they wear suits, we wear jeans and collared shirts/sweaters/vests etc.

by the way i'm talking about major business companies (huge companies). microsoft may be an exception. i've never worked there, but saw a video and i heard that they are *really* lax there.

oh and another thing is that I doubt they'd know. it's mostly subconscious. it's not like women one day switched and made thin the attractive thing. it was 'just that way'. the most likely response theyd give (if they do it) is to appear more 'professional' or because other co-workers do it, or because they are expected to.

james = ~~ and italics

~~I only quoted the parts of your post that I did not agree with, or which I thought were badly thought out. Most of the time, there's really not much point in quoting large slabs of text followed by "I agree."

then what is the fucking point james? really? if you disagree with what i'm saying fine...but what is the fucking point of quoting 'part' of what i said and disagreeing with it? seriously? take it as a whole. why do you think i don't stop halfway through a response? well, probably because i want to get a 'whole' point across. it's idiotic and annoying, it really is. just to show you how stupid it is, let me demonstrate:

(from james' full quote at the top of the response)
James writes: ...not much point in quoting...

My response: You know James, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. I think that quoting is a large boon and really benefits the message board community. I think that the sheer amount that it adds to arguments is immesurable. I think you are a complete moron for writing what you wrote.

see how idiotic that is? that's what you do to me...not to that degree, but it's the same fucking type of thing. pretty gay huh? yeah.

and yeah of course. all of my stuff is poorly thought out. i always type as it comes to me and rarely go back to correct/edit. yeah, i know it's lame, but hey so am i.

~~Of course. Perhaps you can explain to me how war saves children.

jesus christ. am i in hell? deja-fucking-vu. this shit is *really* pissing me off. because...looking back at what i originally wrote...you know, i didnt find anything said about war saving children. however, i do remember...(looks back reflectingly)...i do remember making a solid point, and even at the bottom i typed that the example was simply to prove a point. i must ask you james, are you retarded? you seem to just be pulling this shit out of your ass and taking half points and partial quotes...it is truly amazing. ~~ however no points.

i mean come on james. in you sig there is a quote by aristotle. read the quote james...entertain the idea...entertain the example...it was to prove a point...james...


~~You criticised women for being unwilling to go to war. Hence, it follows that you think going to war can sometimes be a good idea, right? I'm just glad that there are people out there who are much less willing to go to war than you appear to be.

that was one of the most shitball sentances i have ever read. you said that i 'appeared' to be something because i 'sometimes' thought something. with that much downplay what the hell is the point. it's neither here nor there.


~~Yes I do. 40% means 2 out of every 5 people you ask are against the war. In a group of five people, that's 3 against 2 for war. I'd call that real opposition.

great point, and i agree...40% is 2 out of 5. the post wasn't about 40% though. 40% was simply one of the numbers mentioned...hower it's funny that it's the only number you wrote about...



~~If that is the case, more people should care, because it will affect them one way or another.
yeah, i agree. the same thing could be said about voting and voter turnout. maybe it's for the same reasons? i don't know really.


~~What makes you think wearing a suit is "more masculine"?
it's slimming. read my reply to static please, alot of it is explained there. it explains why slimness is masculine. (don't get slim/thin confused with petite) plus, before women entered the workplace there were no women suits. that's just like if dresses become a fashion trend for men in the next 50 years and asking why wearing a dress is more feminine. i mean, cmon man, it's not that hard.


~~It's also inconsistent with the thrust of the remainder of your post, so I concentrated on your real point.
well see, my whole post is my point. it's why i type out the whole thing and don't stop halfway through.


~~Because I disagree with you? Charming.
no, because of this half post bullshit, read my first reply again if it hasn't soaked in yet. read it 1000 times. memorize it. frame it and put it over your bed. disagree with me all you want, what difference does it make? really? that's right, none.

Originally posted by Grey Seal

James:I only quoted the parts of your post that...
then what is the fucking point james? really? if you disagree with what i'm saying fine...but what is the fucking point of quoting 'part' of what i said and disagreeing with it? seriously? take it as a whole. why do you think i don't stop halfway through a response? well, probably because i want to get a 'whole' point across. it's idiotic and annoying, it really is. just to show you how stupid it is, let me demonstrate:
(from the full quote at the top of the response)
My god Grey Seal? Do you have a fucking point? really? An argument (even a one sided one) is made up of statments (premises) and conclusion(s). If your premises are wrong then your conclusion may be wrong. There is no point in repeating the entire post, as more people are intelligent enough to read the thread from the beginning, and it just wastes space.

James writes: ...not much point in quoting...
My response: You know James, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that...
He was quoting entire sentances or paragraphs. There is a big difference here.

see how idiotic that is?
Well atleast you know your limits.

pretty gay huh?
To each his own Mr. Seal.

all of my stuff is poorly thought out.
I have to agree with this.

i always type as it comes to me and rarely go back to correct/edit.
You don't say.

yeah, i know it's lame, but hey so am i.
This is too easy.

Of course. Perhaps you can explain to me how war saves children.
jesus christ. am i in hell? deja-fucking-vu. this shit is *really* pissing me off.
You should invest in anger management classes.

looking back at what i originally wrote...you know, i didnt find anything said about war saving children. however, i do remember...(looks back reflectingly)...i do remember making a solid point, and even at the bottom i typed that the example was simply to prove a point.
But your example does not support your point.

i must ask you james, are you retarded?
Have you compared your post to his?

you seem to just be pulling this shit out of your ass and taking half points and partial quotes
A sentance is not a partial quote.

however no points.
Cool... we can get points?

it was to prove a point...
It didn't work

Yes I do. 40% means 2 out of every 5 people you ask are against the war...
great point, and i agree...40% is 2 out of 5. the post wasn't about 40% though. 40% was simply one of the numbers mentioned...hower it's funny that it's the only number you wrote about...
He didn't really need any numbers for this argument. Statistics just tell you what the average person thinks... not if it's right or not.

What makes you think wearing a suit is "more masculine"?
it's slimming. read my reply to static please, alot of it is explained there. it explains why slimness is masculine. (don't get slim/thin confused with petite) plus, before women entered the workplace there were no women suits.
Before Britain guys didn't where white long haired wigs to make themselves look important.

It's also inconsistent with the thrust of the remainder of your post, so I concentrated on your real point.
well see, my whole post is my point. it's why i type out the whole thing and don't stop halfway through.
But you never actually state your point. Half your post argues one thing, the other half something else.

Because I disagree with you? Charming.
... my... post bullshit
agreed

read my first reply again if it hasn't soaked in yet. read it 1000 times. memorize it. frame it and put it over your bed. disagree with me all you want, what difference does it make? really? that's right, none.
If it doesn't matter then why argue back? If you are going to attempt it, try and be productive about it.

Grey Seal:

<i>then what is the fucking point james? really? if you disagree with what i'm saying fine...but what is the fucking point of quoting 'part' of what i said and disagreeing with it?</i>

Because what I quoted was the gist of your argument. I didn't need to reproduce the whole thing; that would be a waste of space.

If you think I quoted you out of context, fine. Point out where and why.

<i>jesus christ. am i in hell? deja-fucking-vu. this shit is *really* pissing me off.</i>

Take a break. Go for a walk. Chill out. It's not the end of the world.

<i>i must ask you james, are you retarded? you seem to just be pulling this shit out of your ass and taking half points and partial quotes...</i>

So what is your point? I thought you were saying a woman would not make a good President, and so on. If I'm wrong, just say so.

<i>i mean come on james. in you sig there is a quote by aristotle. read the quote james...entertain the idea...entertain the example...it was to prove a point...james...</i>

I am entertaining your ideas - otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. The quote means I can consider your ideas without having to agree with them. Which is exactly what I'm doing.

Me; <i>You criticised women for being unwilling to go to war. Hence, it follows that you think going to war can sometimes be a good idea, right? I'm just glad that there are people out there who are much less willing to go to war than you appear to be.</i>

You: <i>that was one of the most shitball sentances i have ever read. you said that i 'appeared' to be something because i 'sometimes' thought something.</i>

No, read it again. I said you appeared to be pro-war because your words implied that going to war was a necessary thing for a good President to be willing to do. Now you're telling me you only <b>sometimes</b> think that?

<i>great point, and i agree...40% is 2 out of 5. the post wasn't about 40% though. 40% was simply one of the numbers mentioned...hower it's funny that it's the only number you wrote about...</i>

The numbers you wrote about were anything from 20% to 40%. If you prefer the 20% figure, that is still 1 in 5, and that still amounts to significant opposition to war, so my point stands.

<i>it's slimming. read my reply to static please, alot of it is explained there. it explains why slimness is masculine.</i>

There are as many overweight men as women, as I understand it. How is slimness masculine?

<i>no, because of this half post bullshit, read my first reply again if it hasn't soaked in yet. read it 1000 times. memorize it. frame it and put it over your bed.</i>

No thanks. Once was enough.

<i>disagree with me all you want, what difference does it make? really? that's right, none.</i>

It may not make any difference to you, but that's only part of my reason for replying. If you're unwilling to critically examine your own beliefs, so be it. It still puts an alternative view for other people who might read this thread.

Do any of the other countries of the world have presidential women leaders? I don't think so, at least not the more powerful ones.

I'm inclined to think that a woman would be a refreshing change, and a good president, but I can also see where Grey Seal is coming from. Women are against war more than men are. Let's not try to argue that one. There are times when war is necessary, and some people tend to forget that the <insert opressed voice here> horrible, oh so tyrannical America isn't the only country hungry for war. Given the choice, we can do two things about Iraq right now: "Contain", and let Saddam Hussein build up his fortune for funding questionable things, or depose him in a quick and easy war. There will be other examples in the future, but the fact is that the world is not altogether peaceful yet, and there are warlords who require military action. People who watch from the sidelines seem to forget that too often. But war is just a minor issue, and I honestly think that war is becoming outdated.

The more important problem that a female President would have is being taken seriously. Not many countries have woman presidents, the Muslims(not that they matter too much) would snicker behind our backs, and the woman mignt not be forceful enough to demand respect. Let's not forget that most of these leaders are old chauvinists, especially in our Senate and House of Reps. The respect is an important thing, if you want to have your government working smoothly.

Women are more *sensible* in most cases, more emotion and think thigns through more, but often times you need a snap judgement and some balls to make those decisions.

It's true. A woman would start thinking about those poor civilians in Iraq instead of the benefits from the war.

A woman would make a great president though if all of the leaders in the world were women. In my opinion at least. But i doubt that'd ever happen. As things are now, men just do it better...though in my opinion things would be better if all women ruled the world as opposed to all men...thered be a conflist though, especially if the house/senate was made up of men and the lead positions were made for women

Looking over this, it's pretty logical. Right now, women still don't get too much respect, and they are still the sensitive, nurturing homemakers. They raise children, and do it well, while men provide the food and leadership. That's the way it worked in every historical culture I've known. And, like I said, I still think a woman would make a good President.

We also discussed this here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16234

[QUOTE]Originally posted by James R

ok...here's what you originally typed..."You criticised women for being unwilling to go to war. Hence, it follows that you think going to war can sometimes be a good idea, right? I'm just glad that there are people out there who are much less willing to go to war than you appear to be."

and now, here's what you recently typed..."No, read it again. I said you appeared to be pro-war because your words implied that going to war was a necessary thing for a good President to be willing to do. Now you're telling me you only <b>sometimes</b> think that?"

:bugeye:
you're asking me if 'now' i'm saying i only sometimes think that? well, according to the 'quotes' i've said sometimes from the beginning. and yes, i do think that willingness to go to war is a good trait for a president. willing to go towar in my mind isn't using it as the solution to any problem, or trying to go to war any chance they get...it's simply the opposite of unwilling. and someties war is the best choice. simple as that. not sure how you got to your pro-war gung ho bullshit.
now, i know originally i didn't word it as well as i should have, and i apologize for that.

I am entertaining your ideas - otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. The quote means I can consider your ideas without having to agree with them. Which is exactly what I'm doing.
i meant that regarding my examples. i made a few examples in order to demonstrate a point. an example is an example...it's usually hypethetical and will most likely never happened. for some reason, you took the example i used and took it literally...asking me how it could happen, implying that it did not make sesne...thats why i said what i said...entertain it, see what i mean by what i'm trying to demonstrate in the example...it really wasn't that complicated of a thing. now i don't know if you're stupid, or you just took that part 'out of context' in order chalk up one more point for your team.

The numbers you wrote about were anything from 20% to 40%. If you prefer the 20% figure, that is still 1 in 5, and that still amounts to significant opposition to war, so my point stands.
i don't really consider 20% a significant opposition, but i do see what you mean.

There are as many overweight men as women, as I understand it. How is slimness masculine?
slimness is masculine because women have 30% (or is it 33% ?) more bodyfat than men, naturally. I'm not saying that only men can be slim, i'm just saying that it's 'considered' a masculine trait because of that reason. now maybe thinness or slimness isn't the greatest choice of word(s), and it was my fault for wording it that way, but i'm not sure how else to explain it.



If I'm wrong, just say so.
it's not that i think you're wrong about this shit, it's just that I have different opinions than you...you can't really be wrong with an opinion. i'm really only arguing my feelings and views...it's not like theres a huge fucking factbook that i'm going to run to, find a page, point it out and say, "see james? here it is...i'm right and you're wrong, face it!". the thing i do think you're talking about is quoting half-sentances. you've done it. now i know that you can bitch and whine about how it takes up more room, but honestly...i don't think quoting a full sentance as opposed to only half of it is going to put some strain on your eyes and completely drain you. the thing is that you really shouldn't quote something and argue with it, if your argument would be invalid had you posted the rest of it or a few lines more. i eman as a response what do i end up doing? why hell, i end up posting the same thing i posted the first time since you 'happened' to leave it out. it doesn't make sense and it's just stupid. it's like stopping me halfway through a math problem, telling me that the 'aswer' doesnt make sense, then asking me why i put that 'half a problem'as an answer...shit bitch, let me finish...read the rest of it. now i know i seemed pissed in my response...and maybe that wasn't the right choice of words, but i was frustrated. if you had to repeat yourself like i did, because people only post half of your point, and then argue with it, and as a response you end up typing what you did the first time...you'd get frustrated too. which is why when i quote people i quote the whole point. if the rest of what they typed invalidates your point...then you really have no point at all.
does that make sense? i dunno, i have to go, will try to finish latera

"When America chose between two male presidential candidates in November 2000, one might have wondered why a woman has never been a serious contender for the highest office in the nation. The concept of a woman in power is not farfetched. Women have been queens of nations, tribal chiefs and empresses throughout history.

Below, we've listed a few of the women who have been popularly elected or appointed as head of state in a democratic government during the last few decades. For more information, read Women Rulers throughout the Ages by Guida M. Jackson. Distinguished Women of Past and Present also has an excellent guide to women in government.

Indira Gandhi

As prime minister of India from 1966 to 1977 and 1980 to 1984, Gandhi led the world's largest democracy. Indians called her Mataji, or "respected mother."

Golda Meir

Meir moved to Palestine in 1921 from Milwaukee and quickly became a leader in the Zionist movement. She was elected to the legislature of Israel in 1949 and served as prime minister from 1969 to 1974.

Margaret Thatcher

Thatcher began her long career in Great Britain's Parliament in 1959. She was the first female prime minister and the longest serving. She advocated conservative economic policies during her tenure from 1979 to 1990.

Vigdis Finnbogadottir

The first popularly elected female president in history, Finnbogadottir defeated three men in her first run for Iceland's presidency in 1980. She worked to modernize Iceland and improve the status of women until the end of her fourth term in 1996.

Mary Eugenia Charles

The first female lawyer on the Caribbean island of Dominica, Charles was elected prime minister after the island gained independence from Great Britain in 1978. Known as the "Iron Woman of the Caribbean," Charles instituted economic reforms and environmental protections during her three-term tenure.

Benazir Bhutto

Bhutto served as prime minister of Pakistan from 1988 to 1990 and 1993 to 1996 during the country's woes with huge debt, the heroin trade and Afghan refugees.

Gro Harlem Brundtland

As prime minister of Norway from 1986 to 1989 and 1990 to 1996, Brundtland encouraged entrance to the European community. A strong proponent of women's rights, Brundtland helped lead a movement resulting in increased female participation in government. She now serves as the Director-General of the World Health Organization.

Violeta Barrios de Chamorro

Chamorro became the first women to be elected president in the Western Hemisphere when she won the elections in Nicaragua in 1990. Her reforms failed to help the country's ailing economy and she retired in 1997.

Mary Robinson

After she was elected president of Ireland in 1990, Robinson said of the Irish voters, "Instead of rocking the table, they rocked the system." After a successful presidency, Robinson accepted a position as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Mary McAleese

Elected president of Ireland in 1997, McAleese continues to promote the peace process between Catholics and Protestants.

Helen Clark

Clark became prime minister of New Zealand in 1999. She had served in parliament for 19 years and held posts as the head of the health, conservation, housing and labor departments.

Tarja Kaarina Halonen

Halonen was elected president of Finland in 2000. She had served in Parliament since 1979 and as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1995 until her election.
"
http://www.peoplespot.com/features/womenworldleaders.htm

James, I know it's a little late in the thread, but this is in reply to your first post. I thoroughly beleive that the US would elect Collin Powell to office, all he needs to do is agree to run.

On the topic that seems to be more heated-

Their will be no female president within the next 25 yrs for one definite reason, no party with a chance is willing to lose the presidency in support of women's rights. In general, democrats vote for democrats and republicans vote for republicans. However, I am entirely sure that *excuse the sterotype* the millions of minority democrats (it seems to be the party for minorities) who come from backgrounds not as gender blind would have a problem voting for a woman, and the republican *again with the stereotyping* ranchers/middle-upper class caucasions would have a problem with women, who in these situations are usually house wives, becoming the president.

Of course they would pick up a number of female votes, but only from the single, self-empowered women that are, for the most part, still trying to stake claim to their spot in society.

The side that did this first would lose to many votes, and lose the presidency. It'll take the repeated female run for presidency on a legitimate ballot to even give women a chance, and I don't see the democrats or the republicans handing out presidential support to satisfy the few fem-nazi's that have a serious problem with male presidents. Wouldn't it be more productive to find a male president who is sensitive to female issues? Last I checked, thats why the majority of females are democrat.

I didnt wanna say this, but as a republican i cant resist...

Clinton knows how to treat a lady.:rolleyes:

The funny thing is: me as a guy is perfectly content with a black female atheist president from a northern state, but i am afraid a lot of other females will still vote for the guy.

Look at Janet Reno and remember Allbright? These were females in pretty powerfull political important positions, but my neighbours dog has more sex appeal
(seems to come with the territory)

While a developed free america has never had a female president, a semi-backward islamic nation like Pakistan (with much more stringent rules applied to wimen) has had the lovely Benazir Bouto for president. So the US has still a long way to go...