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 ...
If you think that psychopaths and dictators and serial killers were the electorate when we were building the freest, greatest nation in history before we started into this leftist dream of social programs, family assistance, removing freedom and making government our daddy, then good luck with all that, you must be very happy today as our politics and culture, and public space are dominated by womanly concerns.
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.
______________________________________________________________
Yes. I was having a similar conversation w/ my spouse. It’s hard to put the genie back in the bottle, to use a cliche. Women do in fact have the right to vote in the United States. For which I am grateful.
It is up to women (and men) to make sure they are educated on the issues and that they do not squander their vote on superficial issues. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<But that is exactly what led to this discussion. What I may find superficial or unimportant....is what someone else finds very important.
Do you really think if women didn't have the vote through the 20th century our politics would be that much different?
Maybe there are reasons why people "personalize" arguments with you and make reference to the obsessions you voice on different threads. It looks like you bring the same close-mindedness to every topic you discuss.
What is the difference between classic socialism and political socialism?
______________________________________________________________
I was probably not exact w/ my wording. But I do find, that there is a distinction between a ‘social’ society and ‘socialism’.
Under my wording, “classic socialism” would be the act of ‘living in a community: living or preferring to live as part of a community or colony rather than alone’. So under that definition, churches, schools, libraries, clubs....are a part of a social society. Getting together for the ‘common’ good. I don’t think of that as being a male or female ‘thing’. I do think, at least among the women I know, that they prefer to live in a community vs living alone.
“Political socialism” would be the economic system that seeks to manage the economy or part of the economy, through deliberate and collective social control. In my mind, socialism does not equate to communism. But through my inexact word use of calling something political socialism, I have equated socialism w/ communism.
To be clear, I am not advocating that the U.S. moves to a more European, socialistic economy.
Aren't you reading my posts? Of course I do, quit making personal attacks and try and read our posts.
You keep making things up about divorce and social programs for women being something that the men wanted, but you don't seem to understand that females created an entirely new focus for American politics, you can see it today as most of the issues driving American politics are women issues, with an all male electorate they would not even be discussed, much less be the most important issues in America.
It isn't whether they vote democrat or republican, it is what they changed the conversation to, the issues to, the focus to, now soft language, soft issues, and soft men dominate American government and politics, because female voters of either party will recoil at masculine politics and issues.
Blunt, tough talking politicians who wouldn't stand a chance today, tough stances that wouldn't stand a chance today, issues that wouldn't stand a chance today, would do fine if all voters were men, both parties would be totally different, and much farther to the right.
I know it’s a team, it’s like a spear, you need the whole thing for it to function.
As for freedom, There’s only one way, well that is until Jesus himself returns to set things right.
Thanks for your post 92. That pretty much sums it up in terms of women’s influence on our government.
Judging by the means to secure freedom (1776), keep it that way (1812), provoked once (WWI) and again (WWII), yes, the best way to maintain peace is to prepare for war. You’ll see that often on here.
Humans used to know why they don't, today in our Orwellian times, we have to pretend that it is some sort of conspiracy, an artificial construct.
Women do rule the world. Why? Guys don’t want to sleep on the couch.
A woman-run society tends to de-motivate men. The men's attitude becomes "Fine, you want to run things, go ahead. My buddies and I will be off fishing over there. Have fun". They will have little interest in defending the society, or spending lots of work keeping it going.
What inevitably happens then, is that the first man-run society that comes into contact with the woman-run society will conquer it. Which is why, over history, we tend not to see societies where women rule, or even have major influence over decision-making. The (short term) exception is current Western society, which is in the process of being overrun and taken over.
That's very true. A man will work hard to improve the condition of his children and the woman he loves. Except if that woman screwed him over and he now hates her. At that point he'll just have some beers and play video games with his buddies.
I have a simple rule for political discourse - when the word "would" comes up, it's crap.
Those women might have “ruled” but they ruled the same society that came before them.
So its hardly a good example.
What happens if women owned and controlled everything for 1,000 years? What if countries came to be called Queendoms and princesses inherited them, not princes. What would the world look like then?
I think it’d probably be frightening, personally.
Right. Women tend to be risk-averse, and want stability and a guaranteed minimum standard of living more than they want the chance to win big (with the risk of losing big).
For example, offer some men and women the following scenario: "You have the option of flipping a coin. If it comes up heads, you win $100 million dollars. If it comes up tails, you will immediately be killed. Or you can walk away and not flip the coin". A lot of men will flip the coin. Hardly any women will.
I can bring home the bacon.....
fry it up in the pan...
And never let you forget you're a man...
'Cause I'm a woooooman......
..... (Enjoli)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q0P94wyBYk
"I'm a Woman" from the very last performance at the Virginia Theatre, Broadway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=xjdw9krFJcI&NR=1
Sure, and any notion that women ever could rule the world will have to do precisely that. Any complete redesign of the entirety of human history under an alternate hypothesis is tautological; it will achieve whatever the premises allow and no other. That is precisely what is wrong with political theories such as Marxism - the "would" that never happens under real-world conditions. There is only one practical test for such a model, and that is the real world.
So its hardly a good example.
To which I answer that it's the only possible example. The rest is fairy dust. Best to you.
It would be a frightening scenario though, but just an exercise
I disagree because the evidence is all around us. Millions of children are born out of wedlock in this country and the fathers are nowhere to be seen. Many of these unwed mothers have children by multiple fathers and it does not matter to them who these fathers are. So long as they can collect a welfare check and food stamps, all is good - and we all know how they vote on Election Day.
The sad fact is that way too many men abdicate their responsibility to their women and children because the "government will provide."
I’d go a step farther and say what if there were no men in the world? You’d have a lot of fat happy women and no crime.
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.