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 ...
And that is a point on which I fundamentally disagree.
What you choose to demean as "picking nits," I offer as indicative.
I most assuredly believe women need to participate in the governing process, but I contend our system does not currently have sufficient protections in place to defend our founding principles from those forms of oppression that are characteristically female in nature.
The bigger question is, are women more susceptable to communism than men?
Things are different now - the push to emasculate men has succeeded so well that there are more manly women than there are real men. At least that’s the way it seems...<p.If you ask me, I believe what we are seeing these days is the answer to the question posed in the article - this is what it looks like when women rule.
That is a fantastic point. Women do not work well with each other. Dr. Laura always said that they create 95% of all problems in a family. They all want to vote for a woman and all as I hear is Hillary. They elect on ugly or meek women who do not threaten their vanity or power. There is a reason the Bible warns against women in leadership roles.
Women are natural socialists. So if you are a socialist/communist then women in leadership roles makes perfect sense.
Wow, did you take your sanity pills today?
You demonstrate my point with aplomb.
The word "histrionics" was coined for a reason.
Don’t forget the 16th and 17th amendments’ role in forwarding the progressive agenda.
Mental note: Remember to google “Harem Keeper of the Oil Sheiks”....
Are you going to make a substantive comment today?
If you look at exit polling data the reason why we are teetering on the edge of socialism/communism is the USA is because of the female vote. Facts are facts.
Once women obtained the right to vote, we virtually guaranteed that socialism and big government would be the result.
This is not really a knock on women as society raises them to seek a provider and protector for themselves and their children, be it a man or the government. Many men have failed in their roles as protector/providers and thus women are forced to seek protection and sustenance from the government - and they vote accordingly.
So I'm not really arguing that the 19th Amendment be repealed (a dead issue anyhow as it would never happen) but for men as a whole to re-assume their role as protectors/providers for women and children.
Do you honestly think that any way of protecting freedom that isn't backed up by a credible promise to kill the enemies of freedom has the slightest chance of success?
Why do women have legs?
How do you propose men "re-assume" a role with women in which women refuse to participate.
Nor did it have sufficient protections against classically Masculine Oppressions. The Original Constitution Institutionalized Slavery and Chattel Ownership of Humans. It was crafted by men, and enacted by men.
It required a profound trauma to modify that error.
Women and Men Absolutely Must Love and Honor Each Other
And the God Given Gifts Within Them.
As Both Honor and Love God
There are No Exceptions to that Rule
Ther is however No Obligation to Agree with each Other
It isn’t often that I agree with rockrr. This is one of those times.
Fortunately, many women out there are more than adequate for men to establish long-term romantic/sexual relationships with that ultimately lead to procreation. There just isn't enough quality men to go around for them.
Nonsense. And waving the shibboleth of "slavery" doesn't change the fact that punching someone in the nose will land you in jail, while destroying their lives with a "whispering campaign" will not.
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.