Posted on 03/09/2013 7:30:47 AM PST by haffast
Not so long ago, the idea that women might rule the world seemed slightly ridiculous - like something out of science fiction. But in an essay to mark International Women's Day, political analyst and former White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers argues it's now a topic that can be seriously discussed.
Women clearly lacked the intellectual capacity and emotional fortitude to make the difficult decisions that leadership required. It wasn't bias, it was biology - it was just the way women were made.
But that was then. In recent decades, attitudes and ideas have changed - and fast. That's not to say that every corner of the world has welcomed women moving from the traditional and private into the modern and public. But move they have.
So what's changed? A lot. As a huge and growing body of research and experience makes clear, empowering women makes things better. Not perfect. But better.
snip
Former US Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice says she has learned first-hand that you need women to participate in the peace process.
"First and foremost women are often the guardians of the village, the family, and are therefore the ones who suffer most in conflict zones. They're often the target of marauding forces, the target of those who would rape and maim and if you can engage them in the process, then they also can help the society to heal."
So empowering women isn't about political correctness, it's about improving outcomes. It's about investing in stronger economies and healthier communities - it's about ending conflicts, and sustaining peace. It's about improving the quality of life for people all over the world.
Empowering women isn't just the right thing, it's the necessary thing. And because women are increasingly ruling, the world is changing for the better.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
“There have been viable women-run societies before.”
And matriarchal societies can work just fine within their cultural contexts, but the “more peaceful” myth may be exactly that.
Historical examples of women leaders from Catherine the Great to the Tru’ng Sisters to Margaret Thatcher tells us that women leaders are just as capable of fighting wars, stirring thigs up and expanding empires as men. Modern examples of women leaders in business suggests the same. These are only a few examples.
Try not to carry threads over into others, if you want to defend Mormonism then go to one of those threads.
Try not to personalize your posts.
Try to respond to what a poster actually said, you probably got your female voting data from my past posts, since when appropriate I post that information, but voting republican or democrat was not what my post was about, it was about their effect on issues, campaigns, political language, even who a party has to choose in physical appearance and demeanor that can be acceptable to female sensitivities.
If you like the effect that female political equality has had on American politics, culture and law, our lost future, and freedom, and advancement, on everything, then you don’t know what has happened to us in the last 90 years, I wonder if you are conservative, if so then you should be able to see that it led to.
Freedom is not what women want, they want material goods, security and comfort, safety, they don’t build civilizations, they just want to live comfortably in one, anyone and don’t really care about what they call themselves, or their ideology, or whether they are free or not, as long as the living is OK.
“succilently”
Hey, I like that word! Rolls nicely off the tongue.
There never, ever was any matriarchy anywhere. Certainly not in known history. You have been lied to.
There never has been any such thing as a matriarchal society. Where do you people get this stuff?
Behind every successful man is a woman telling him he’s wrong.
What if “D” “O” “G” spelled “cat”?
Revenge of the nerds.
Red Hampshire comes close...they have two female Senators; two female Congresswomen, and a pro-Islam female Governor. :-) /jk
We’d be on the brink of nuclear armageddon for five days every month?
Yes, freedom is only ensured through killing, it’s been that way throughout history. I don’t picking a fight with a vet is a good thing, and it’s counter productive.
As a retired soldier myself, I would have to say I hope your service record doesn’t include combat, that’s a sure way to wreck society too. Men and women are different, one is not better than the other, we’re just different, together we can make some dang good teams, but combat is one area where I will never want to see a woman of any kind.
“The wouldn’t be a Kim Jong-il , Chavez, Castro, Putin, Hussein, Barry unknown last name, Ahmadinejad...”
Just Lucrezia Borgia, Catherine Demedici, Hillary Clinton, Ruth Bader Ginzberg, Janet Napolitano, Janet Reno, etc.
I didn’t check — anyone post the “WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE?” graphic, y’know, because this is really about HILLARY 2016.
Thanks Revolting cat!
Using Dee Dee Myers as a baseline, apparently women “rulers” would stand before the ruled and brazenly lie to them every single day.
Yes, freedom is only ensured through killing, it’s been that way throughout history. I don’t picking a fight with a vet is a good thing, and it’s counter productive.
As a retired soldier myself, I would have to say I hope your service record doesn’t include combat, that’s a sure way to wreck society too. Men and women are different, one is not better than the other, we’re just different, together we can make some dang good teams, but combat is one area where I will never want to see a woman of any kind.
____________________________________________________________
I wasn’t picking a fight with a vet. A poster implied that killing is the only way to insure freedom. You don’t have to be a vet to believe that...and you don’t have to believe that if you are a vet.
I am a vet and I don’t think killing is always the solution to keeping freedom. I also believe that we are sometimes obligated to put our lives on the line to protect freedom. To me there is a distinction between saying that killing/war is the only way vs saying I am willing to kill to preserve our freedom. I don’t personally think war should be the first resort a nation or a people take to preserve or gain freedom.
As for my service record, let me say that I don’t think the person who drops the bomb or shoots the bullet are the only service members who protect a nation. The thing about being in the service is that it’s about being part of a team. You give up your individuality in service because it’s NOT about ‘you’ it’s about us. All of us.
The enemy didn’t care about what my role was...they just saw a uniform. And if they could kill me...they wouldn’t give a fig for what my title was.
I will also add this...one does not have to be in combat to have killed in the line of duty.
Women resisted that at first. They tended to vote Republican more than men did. They were considered more conservative than men in mid-20th century America. They tended to support religion, marriage, and family more than men did.
Eventually they learned how to use the system to what they thought to be their own advantage and became major supporters. That is pretty standard politics under democratic rule.
There are people who are always looking for some group to blame the current state of things on. Maybe the place to start is by looking in the mirror, as it's usually people not so very different from oneself who had a hand in how things turned out.
Is that "impersonal" enough?
Yeah, but Men are more likely to be tyrants, dictators and serial killers. The likelihood of the classic personality disorders which are associated with the previous listed types (Malignant narcissism, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Anti-social and psychopathic), men outnumber women by 4-1 to 10-1 in the population based on various estimates. By the kind of “logic” floating on this thread, Only men should be allowed and Only women should be allowed to lead. Or we could toss the entire laughable discussion on this thread and just realize that we cannot deprive half the population of rights, whatever our perception of the cost.
Wow, what a crock.
You just described how the electorate becoming female changed the issues and the focus of both parties and of American politics, and then said that the men brought in that sudden change into something that had never existed rather than the women, just reversing reality doesn’t work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.