Nothing like a little hostage situation,...

[Merrida]

Originally Posted by EliteLift

the last president was a competely irresponsible as a decision maker who lead potentially dangerous behaviors, and he just so happens to be male. I can see where you are comming from with the whole tried and true thing, but then what steps do you think woman can make before running for president?

I also never said that having a penis was a direct link to a man being a perfect president. As long as we have different political parties, we will always have presidents in house that some people feel was wonderful and adequate, and simultaneously another group will feel was dreadful and incompetent. Just because I tend to believe men have a better history in more areas of business, does not mean I believe they have carte blanche in every area of life and will always be perfect in their elected roles. If I believed that, then that would mean I somehow supported and believed in every president this country ever had.

I already explained: I think women need to become more worldly, more women need to take on positions within politics, business, science, engineering,....anything that may be male dominated, even if it does not relate to presidency, so they/we can prove our ability to both carry on business, long term, but either demonstrate we've found ways to work through our inexperience historically, our hormones and the real effect they have on us and our willingness to NOT use them as a defense when problems come up, etc. As I said, there are a LOT of positions for women shy of being elected president for us to demonstrate our growing and developing abilities and skills. I believe at this point in our history, we have just not had enough women (too low a volume, too low profile) branching out to give us a broader baseline from which to build from.

Men having conducted the business world for so long, have a longer resume, collectively, so to speak. That does NOT make every man always right all the time, and I never said that.


.

[EliteLift]

hormones aside, I don't think some woman should have to prove them selves so other woman can work in certain positions. it all comes down to the individual person. nothing more. to say some woman are emotionally unstable to or mentally incapable of that sort of position is fine, so are lots of men, but to use that as a reason to justify not voting for somone kinda seems silly to me..

i'v said enough though. I will let the other members express their opinions.

[Merrida]

Elite, as I keep saying, I am not suggesting every woman is a particular way, nor that every man (because he doesn't have our hormones) can automatically be diverted 100% into another category.

I just don't want a woman proving herself in the role of presidency to make a point as to her competency. I think we just have not, as a culture, as a nation, had sufficient experience with women in positions of power to be ready for this. Why should some women prove themselves so a woman can be president? Same reason men prove themselves in other areas. It's the same thing,....except men have been doing it longer.

I don't want a woman testing her potential skills in such a powerful role. Not yet, we're not ready. Every woman is different, every man is different,....but there are basic FACT regarding women we cannot deny that have permitted us to be treated differently than men, and that is unacceptable if she is to be elected president.

.

[Dan C]

Excellent! You obviously have put more thought into this than I. When I said that I found myself thinking along those same lines as you but never put it so frankly, it's because I don't have that much thought to put frank.

First of all, I don't pay much attention to politics. Men, women, dems, repubs; I spend very little of my time or energy on any of them. The thought of a woman president never really crossed my mind until Hillary, and I think my general distaste for liberals outweighs the fact that she is a woman... named Clinton!

Now, I have long since known that women are crazy. At least for 3 days out of every month, and generally for the rest of their lives after the age of 50. I'm sorta speaking tongue in cheek here, but you know what I mean. To be honest, until I read your posts, Merrida, this has been about the extent of my thought process in having a woman president.

[MAURER]

ok so there are differences between men and women. thats a fact. men have had more experience in politics, business, and war. thats a fact. but, like elite said, shouldn't we be judging each individual. for example, in the democratic primary specifically. who' got a better record or more experience specifically. for example, while most women have a lot less experience than barack obama or john edwards, perhaps hillary clinton has more. i don't really know who has the best track record because i don't plan on voting for any of them, but i think thats what we need to be thinking about. not, oh she can't do it because shes a woman. i mean i agree that there are fewer qualified women out there than men. but that doesn't mean that there aren't some who could do just as good of a job, if not better. for example i think men can sometimes act more impulsively and that they will stubbornly hang on to a bad policy till the end because of pride. and with regards to pms... i'm sure that hillary clinton has gone through menopause by now...

[Merrida]

I have no doubt there are women who would have the capacity to do so. However, in this case, we must generalize,....for now. Until more women show more experience. No, it isn't fair. Politics like life, just isn't fair. I'm not going to take a chance on something this big.

I do believe on judging people on their individual merits.

In a position such as this, presidency is not a testing field or breaking ground.

.