What If Women Ran the World?

BusinessWeek ^ | Tue Apr 15, 2003 | Thane Peterson

[battlegearboat]

Get your biscuits in the oven and your buns in bed.

[wardaddy]

So the US was not prosperous(relative to that time of reference) before women's sufferage?


Women were liberated by electricity and the washing machine more so than the vote.

Kosovo thanks to UN mandate now requires that 30 percent of their representatives be women....do you expect grand things there?

Japan was rather prosperous prior to women becoming "semi-equal". Japan is still fairly prosperous but with deflated equities markets and yet women there have nowhere near the freedom of access women here have.

I think women having more or less unimpeded economic access according to their talents and qualifications a good thing with some exceptions but if you look around you will find that this is primarily a western cultural identifier and that many of these countries were prosperous before the advent of women's rights or even the ascendancy of any minorities in general. Proserity gives way to more classically liberal thinking frequently.

It's just a matter of opinion...nothing to prove here. By all means you may believe the chicken came before the egg.

[wardaddy]

Oh yes...."Mother" Nature hears him.

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

oh relax its a joke

[Post Toasties]

Hypothecating about women 'running the world' is just another variant of the well known sexist ploy of placing them on a pedestal.

[mabelkitty]

Not so. I've read that is a vicious rumor.

And since the odds of my finding out are about as even as my running for President, I will stick with the illusion ; )

[Chancellor Palpatine]

And vaguely relative to your comment in the immediately previous post:

The Chicken And The Egg In Bed

The chicken and the egg are laying in a broken down bed in a seedy, broken down hotel. The chicken is smoking a cigarette with a satisfied smile on its face while the egg is frowning and looking slightly annoyed. The egg mutters "Well I guess that answers that riddle".

[Dutchgirl]

Hillary didn't have the courage to dump her louse of a husband

Yes, and it makes one wonder why. Do you think she felt "powerless" in that relationship? Do you think women who enjoy real power, don't have to seek it through manipulation? I am thinking of a pilot known as "Killer Chick" who brought her crippled Warthog safely back to base after combat in Iraq last week.

If your wife were nicknamed "Killer Chick" would you think twice about nuzzling interns? Maybe the problem is women not being equipped with the right firepower?

[Charles Martel]

Somehow I picture the episode of Star Trek with the Tribbels...only it would be shoes...

Actually, a far better Trek reference can be found in the cheesiest episode ever: Spock's Brain

The "Givers of Pain and Delight":

[mabelkitty]

...France would feel bad about not going into Iraq with us, so she'd send us champagne and perfume, and we'd hug and cry together....

Germany would be pissed off after finding our France stabbed her in the back that she would cozy up to China just to spite us.

We know how this ends.

[noname]

I love all of you. One just needs to understand the differences and there can be peace. Regards.

[AmishDude]

You mean to tell me that women don't rule the world?

They do. The evidence: If men ruled the world, the de Beers family would be poverty-stricken.

[Amalie]

Points well taken. However, if you read any long-running thread on FR, you know most of this is in good jest. At times, there does need to be a greater awareness on the part of some conservatives that the female side of the electorate is not so simple-minded. The fact is, there are people across every spectrum, and, as stated, the individual is where the rubber meets the road. For some, frustration does set in when it appears that women are led by feelings not fact, but that could certainly go both ways (say the candidate was a Mickey Mantle with a acceptable political agenda against an unknown with the same qualifications to lead). IMO, there are some areas where comprises are not possible - right to life issues are a primary one, though addressing the underlaying circumstances and correct alternatives need to be part of any plan that fixes this modern horror. But there are many other areas where a little understanding of what the other side is really trying to say would go a long way toward resolving misunderstandings.

[MacDorcha]

hehe, yeah, i figure there were simpler thnigs than psychology keeping men under women's command and whim...

[noname]

Read the words. There is no hate. Just reality. However, I have experienced the female instruction set in personal, business, and political situations. I approach the hot stove carefully now but with an open mind.

I also have seen much "damage" to others from the bad uses of those specific rules. And they seem endemic. But, there are men's rules too, and they also have their problems. Regards.

[MacDorcha]

mmm... cake

[mabelkitty]

More women are in the middle-class (either as married women or single women without children).

Therefore, their pocketbooks are affected.

Add to that, the vast majority of younger women (like myself) who have no kinship with women of the boomer generation and are turned off by the Democratic party along these associative lines. In additional to that, working women who want to stay home with their children and feel they were "forced" to work by the ERA movement of the 1960s. These same women are running the Democratic party.

There are more factors moving women Conservative than men "treating" women a certain way. It has more to do with the way women are (not) relating to each other and the unintended consequences of the women's movement than anything else.

If I was wrong, then NOW would have several million members - they don't.

[mabelkitty]

LOL!!!

[mabelkitty]

No, she did it because a divorced woman would not get elected to a higher office, let alone President, of a Christian-based country.