Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’m not sure you will want to hear the truth but here go’s.

Women are not natural leaders. They are weak compared to men and this is natures way. This is not to degrade women in any way as they have capabilities not found in men. Leadership is simply not their biological role.

This is backed up by thousands of years of human history.

It is also the reason that it is highly unlikely that Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin or even Hilary Clinton had or have any real chance of being elected President of the United States. Of the three Hilary probably had the best chance and I will elaborate only by saying it’s not presidential to look hot in a bikini!


8 posted on 10/16/2011 10:28:44 PM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: precisionshootist
Unlike Gov. Palin, Secretary Clinton got where she is on her husband's coattails. Who is the real leader of the two?
10 posted on 10/16/2011 10:42:32 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Better to ask forgiveness than permission.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: precisionshootist; All

Yes, let’s talk about the Leadership of men.

They’ve done a real good job for the past 2,000 years.

The answer in my opinion is, that the right woman hasn’t come along.


14 posted on 10/16/2011 11:53:31 PM PDT by Shadowstrike (Be polite, Be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: precisionshootist

I agree with you completely, and this kind of thinking was common sense all throughout human history until about 50-60 years ago. Now people are afraid to express thoughts like these.


24 posted on 10/17/2011 1:48:27 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: precisionshootist
I am not sure I completely disagree with you, but I don't think looking to the ‘natural biological’ role is a good place to base your argument.

Nature and natural law has many examples of fierce females raising litters on their own. The only contribution of the male being some sperm.

Other situations, like gorillas, clearly show the male in a “leadership role.”

So I don't think it is entirely a ‘natural biological role’ for a man/men to lead. Even within the human family much of the child rearing belongs to the female. From the first words, to getting them ready for school, to who do the kids often call home too from college. Children often understanding in a well run home if Mom says no...it is no.

So where do these observations play into politics? Can a strong woman be President?

It is my opinion when the time is right, we will pick a woman but not for her hardcore politics. It will be for her ability to teach and lead the nation out of its dismal state. She will be like the good wife whispering in the ear of her husband. Telling him to be strong, be kind, be firm, ...you can lead. This kind of woman with leadership skills, skill to raise the nation back up on its feet, is what scares the progressive left. A woman like that will be a fierce protector of her people and the strong woman behind us all...inspiring us back to our independence from government. She won't want us ‘living in our government's parental basement.’

I don't see that woman out there...yet. The old cliche about the woman making the man comes to mind. The question is can a woman transfer those skills into making the nation?

29 posted on 10/17/2011 3:11:54 AM PDT by EBH (God Humbles Nations, Leaders, and Peoples before He uses them for His Purpose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson