Ive got a theory that because af a womans maternal instinct (to have the best for her young) a woman is more suitable for running a peaceful country, as peace would ensure the survival of her young.

Anyone see any flaws in this theory???

no i think women are so fucking good at servicing men be that home country etc
i think is a good idea

....

Anyone see any flaws in this theory???

Once a month for about 4 days.

Yes. For one, not all women have "maternal instinct." Number two, since when are citizens of a country seen by anyone as a person's "young"? Feelers don't work in leadership positions.

Your theory is hokey, sorry.

Margaret Thatcher hardly could be said to have shown 'maternal instincts' when ordering the british army in to dispense of some hard up miner's and their families.

peace

c20

i dont see any problem with women leaders. We should be taking the best person for the job regardless of there sex, unfortunatly we now have the worst people for the job in power, Bush, Howard, Abott ect

A women is a great leader in housekeeping...thats where she should stay :D

kiding

Did You Know

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1917: Jeanette Rankin (Montana) was elected the first woman member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

1968: Shirley Chisholm (New York) was the first black woman elected to the House of Representatives.

1932: Hattie Caraway (Arkansas) was the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate.

Wives of former governors became the first women governors: Miriam A. Ferguson of Texas (1925-27 and 1933-35) and Nellie Tayloe Ross of Wyoming (1925-27).

1971: Patience Sewell Latting (Oklahoma City) was elected mayor, at that time the largest city in the nation with a woman mayor.

Frances Perkins was the first woman Cabinet member as secretary of labor under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

1981: President Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor as the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court.

1949: Eugenie Anderson was sent to Denmark as the first woman ambassador from the United States.

1979: Margaret Thatcher became prime minister of Great Britain and was the only person in the 20th century to be reelected to that office for a third consecutive term.

1988 – 1990: Benazir Bhutto was prime minister of Pakistan and the first woman to head a Muslim nation.

1992: Poland's first female prime minister, Hanna Suchocka, was elected.

The pathetic one-dimensional model of the human spirit that has been foisted upon Western Civilization by the Abrahamic religions has trained us all to think of everything in terms of "good" and "bad." Either women are better or men are better.

The concept that some things and some people can just be DIFFERENT without automatically being better or worse has been lost and our civilization is impoverished by that loss.

Women and men have somewhat different mixes of instincts. Most of us have all the same ones, just in different strengths. Women and men are also raised differently. It's not necessary to separate the effects of nature and nurture, but just to accept that they exist.

Women are more likely to try to make the best of things as they are, where they are; men are more likely to try to overturn things or simply move elsewhere and start over. Women are less likely to use violence to get their way. Men talk (and therefore probably think) mostly in nouns and verbs; women prefer adjectives and adverbs. (Admit it, guys, how many different colors can you identify?)

I generally find all the metaphors I need to explain life in Star Trek. The difference between men and women is nowhere as obvious and as striking. Captain Kirk and Captain Picard took their scout troops out to explore the universe and have great adventures. Captain Janeway brought her lost family HOME!

Neither men nor women are "better" leaders by nature. But they bring different perspectives to the job. It's best if we get to experience both styles periodically so we get the benefit of the differences.

Of course the first women to become successful in a previously all-male occupation like head of state are likely to be the most "masculine," the ones who learned to play the boys' game by the boys' rules. Duh? The first black people to get to the top in a predominantly white society, the first Jews to become leaders in a Christian culture, the first gays, the first people with now-irrelevant physical disabilities... they're always accused by their own constituents of "selling out." But the ones who follow them down the trail they blazed have an easier time "being themselves."

Let's see a few more women running countries, and we'll see them acting less "like men." And we might even get to find out what that means. :)

Nonsense, Fraggle. If god wanted women to be leaders, he wouldn't have gave them breasts.

Ive got a theory that because af a womans maternal instinct (to have the best for her young) a woman is more suitable for running a peaceful country, as peace would ensure the survival of her young.

Anyone see any flaws in this theory???

Is that why Margaret Thatcher declared war on Argentina and wasted no time in sending out hundreds of young men to be killed or traumatised for life? And the reason? A bunch of rocks called the Falkland Isles near the South Pole!

What about Condolesa Rice? One of the greatest champions of the Iraqi invasion and liar extraordinaire!

When someone gets into the power, it ceases to be human...and becomes crap, be it man or woman.

someting happened in mythology where male seed was tought to be superior to the egg--i think. so this meant women becomes a mere 'receptacle' for te male seed
wpman is also anceintly equated wit Nature. so again we have te patriarchal view tat Nature islesser than 'spirit' case tey associated 'spirit' with male/god/'God' seed.......whereas in te understanding ofperpatriarchal poeople Nature was suffused with spiritALREADY eternally and was te body of t GOdess, and ofcours Nature includes universe

so whati am saying. remeber tat monsters like maggie thatcher, etc arise ion this mindset which is fed to us via myth

tough i am not saying women are better than men. but that we need to see through the ptriarchal upstart myth

Women are humans, too. Therefore, they are greedy, vindictive, destructive, violent, bloodthirsty, and power-hungry. Just like any other human.

When someone gets into the power, it ceases to be human...and becomes crap, be it man or woman.That’s true of large organizations. The bigger the organization, the longer the path to leadership. The more levels you have to go through, the more competitors you have to beat. Obviously the fight to become leader of a huge nation is going to automatically select for the candidates whose primary goal is to have the power of leadership, rather than those who have something valuable to offer.

What’s remarkable is that large nations occasionally get a leader who is a decent, honorable person like Jimmy Carter, or one who thinks in terms of destiny like Winston Churchill. The Lyndon Johnsons and George Bushes are not remarkable because the system is biased in their favor.

The solution to this is to dismantle these ridiculously large “nations” like the USA and China, not just the USSR. Smaller countries don’t automatically get better leaders, but good people have not had as many chances on their shorter way up to be blind-sided or out-manipulated by the power-hungry.

As I’ve posted elsewhere, gigantic countries are really stupid ideas for a lot of other reasons as well.

Women are humans, too. Therefore, they are greedy, vindictive, destructive, violent, bloodthirsty, and power-hungry. Just like any other human.Humans are remarkably kind, caring, self-sacrificing, and noble in small communities comparable to the tribal units we lived in 12,000 years ago, the level our brains have evolved to regard as “family.” As I’ve posted elsewhere, we’ve actually done considerably better. People in isolated towns with populations as large as 20,000 leave their doors unlocked, keep an eye on each other’s children, and pitch in to help fellow citizens who have fallen on hard times without needing a government program to do it for them.

Even the people in tiny countries like Sweden and Bulgaria behave like communities because the populations there are so homogeneous that it’s not too much of a stretch to regard each other as kin.

But it’s not instinctive to feel kinship with people who are significantly different. Our ape brains tell us to keep those outsiders at bay, not to share our own feeding grounds and watering holes with them.

Civilization was an attempt to surpass our instincts, to form ever-larger communities. Today we have a global community. In our nobler moments we actually care about people on the other side of the planet who worship different gods, have different value systems, look entirely different, speak incomprehensible languages… people who are really nothing more than abstractions to us.

It’s a credit to our nature that we’ve done as well as we have.

[Check out the many threads upon which I’ve posted my theory that much of the credit for this rapid evolution of our ability to care about those who are much different from us goes to our friends who 12,000 years ago sidled their way into our hearts despite the fact that they are REALLY different from us: dogs.]

i think margaret thatcher was a leader who wanted to be like napoleon bunapart

A woman's success as a leader would be decided by two things;

Her skills and the men around her.

As capable as a woman maybe it is the men around her which can bring her down. Out of spite, out of personal vendettas, usual power sturggles etc etc.

In the end it all comes down to men and how they percieve woman as their superior.

Thats not the point, the point is you like the idea of women running the country
house,kids, it would create a men's nirvada men could do an infinite number of
other thinks,what do you think?

Thats not the point, the point is you like the idea of women running the country
house,kids, it would create a men's nirvada men could do an infinite number of
other thinks,what do you think?


But they don't want to.....Men like having free time, but not against their will.

Sooner you give men host of new freedoms the sooner they want to be caged again. Especially worse if a woman is running the ship.

There are women president but none with absolute power like men have held, doubt there will ever be.

i think margaret thatcher was a leader who wanted to be like napoleon bunapart
Thatcher had no intention whatsoever of turning Europe into a federation of free peoples under liberal and enlightened rule.

Pms...

^ Male testosterone levels are hardly stationary. They're erratic compared to female hormones, or so it's been gathered.

Anyone see any flaws in this theory???
Does the word "nag" mean anything to you?

it's hard to believe you're as young as your profile indicates.

^ Male testosterone levels are hardly stationary. They're erratic compared to female hormones, or so it's been gathered.

I always thought it was the opposite.

Despite this, I think women on average would make slightly better leaders... if given the chance.

it's hard to believe you're as young as your profile indicates.
How so?

Your posts are very clever and levelheaded.

A lot of people in Louisville, Kentucky are levelheaded.
It's everywhere else in KY that you have to look out for maniacs, fucktards, dumbfucks, rednecks, hicks, hillbillies, goobers, and morons.

They just reported a poll in today's Washington Post. 75 percent of the American people think it would be at just fine to have a female president. And 50 percent believe one will run in one of the next two elections.

Run ? Sure. Win ? Nope. To be honest, I am convinced that we will see a black president before any woman is elected into office...

Ive got a theory that because af a womans maternal instinct (to have the best for her young) a woman is more suitable for running a peaceful country, as peace would ensure the survival of her young.

Anyone see any flaws in this theory???

the best way to get an answer to a question like this is to look at the track records. There have been several female state governors in the U.S. Their job performance could hardly be called stellar.

One of the most recent examples is the governor of Louisiana. She did no better than the obviously inept and bumbling FEMA did.

taylan007 that could be said for a father too you know, my dad is less conferantaional than my mother is. what you need to do is judge people on there indervidual actions which is exactly whats NOT happerning now

Think about it this way...there are plenty of countries out there that think women are inferior to men. Diplomatically, how would the US deal with these countries that would view a woman president as inferior and inappropiate for the job, or countries that would downright break ties with the US if a woman president was elected? I'm no politics buff, but wouldn't this be a problem?