Hell has frozen over...

[beau_safken]

Ok Chill for a sec.

I'm not doing any anti-woman angle and all that, so lets nip that in the butt right now.

My point is that most of those countries are either a) Sources of resources vital to the United States (Oil, Labor, Products), b) Hot spots in the world that know little or no reason c) Some countries have male chauvanistic policy, rulers, laws, etc.

In order to deal with these countries on a level basis, I can't see how we would be taken seriously or dealt with properly. I can call a ball square until i'm blue in the face, but its still round. Some traditional views don't view woman on the same level as men, and until that changes or something major happens to shift the power...Sorry but most of those countries are hardly progressive.

As for here in the States, Great. If a woman can get elected, good deal.

 

[michaeledward]

For the moment, regardless of who is leading the nation, we will be taken seriously by everyone because we are the planet's remaining superpower (hyperpower).

We're the big guns in economics. We're the big guns in trade. We're the big guns in the military.

We are the game in town. (at least for the moment).

 

[Carol]

In order to deal with these countries on a level basis, I can't see how we would be taken seriously or dealt with properly.

Yeah it's not like we're a superpower or....oh wait....

And we don't have the largest economy in the...er...nevermind...

Nor are we the richest country on the planet...oh right, I forgot...

Yeah, Beau, you may be right. Change one chromosome in one American and *poof* no one will take us seriously at all. :roflmao:

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't care what gender you are, but unfortunatly most world governments do. I don't know how high our stock would rise with the Middle East, Asia or Africa in that respect. Obviously, thats just an observation but its hard to argue that they aren't the most matriarcial places in the world.

Well, we've got nukes. Might at as well make them give us there oil and accept our female leaders. Imagine, another excuse for war? Think Helen of Troy...

 

[beau_safken]

Sucks not being PC sometimes..oh wait,..nope.

Just taking the path of most resistance to see where it leads sometimes.

 

[CanuckMA]

Female leader in a Western Society: Maggy Tatcher

How about in an Islamic contry? Benazir Bhutto

 

[Swordlady]

Female leader in a Western Society: Maggy Tatcher

How about in an Islamic contry? Benazir Bhutto

Don't forget Queen Noor of Jordan.

Seriously, Beau...you really need to brush up on your knowledge of world leaders before jumping to erroneous conclusions. Check out this site: http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/

 

[michaeledward]

I was thinking Indira Ghandi. I think India had a population of over 800,000,000 when she was last in office.

Was Queen Noor ever a functioning executive? I thought not.

 

[Swordlady]

I was thinking Indira Ghandi. I think India had a population of over 800,000,000 when she was last in office.

Was Queen Noor ever a functioning executive? I thought not.

I'm not sure if Queen Noor was ever a *functioning* executive, but you can't deny her considerable influence. Check out her personal profile; it's very impressive: http://www.noor.gov.jo/personal_profile.htm

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Ok Chill for a sec.

I'm not doing any anti-woman angle and all that, so lets nip that in the butt right now.

In order to deal with these countries on a level basis, I can't see how we would be taken seriously or dealt with properly. I can call a ball square until i'm blue in the face, but its still round. Some traditional views don't view woman on the same level as men, and until that changes or something major happens to shift the power...Sorry but most of those countries are hardly progressive.

Then, what's your point, if it's not that we should adjust our own values to fit misogynist societie's ideals?

What about Margaret Thatcher? I was no great fan of the lady, but she did command respect on the world stage. The UK beat us to it by decades. What a shame that we are still so limited in our views.

Again, Beau, what's your point? You seem to want to have it both ways - say you don't care what sex they are but also that a woman wouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[crushing]

What about Margaret Thatcher? I was no great fan of the lady, but she did command respect on the world stage. The UK beat us to it by decades. What a shame that we are still so limited in our views.

I guess we didn't realize it was a contest.

One thing's for sure, after that last few US presidents, we need real change. If that means a woman, I'm certainly for that. I'm just afraid Hillary is going to be to much like Clinton/Bush.

 

[Swordlady]

I guess we didn't realize it was a contest.

One thing's for sure, after that last few US presidents, we need real change. If that means a woman, I'm certainly for that. I'm just afraid Hillary is going to be to much like Clinton/Bush.

And what was wrong with Bill Clinton? Sure, he was a real dog where Monica Lewinsky was concerned, but he was a good president. And I'm pretty sure that Hilary had a lot to do with the success of his presidency.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I guess we didn't realize it was a contest.

One thing's for sure, after that last few US presidents, we need real change. If that means a woman, I'm certainly for that. I'm just afraid Hillary is going to be to much like Clinton/Bush.

Same here. I want a woman President, but not Hillary - too much of a war hawk. I would like a Democratic President, though, because the GOP has gotten, IMO, too corrupt in power and has no checks on either its spending or power. A Democratic President would remind the Republican Congress that they are conservatives and not deficit spenders on a binge with our grandchildren's money.

 

[Swordlady]

...and as much I would like to see a female president, I do NOT want her to be Condoleeza Rice. She's too much of Bush's puppet.

 

[Zepp]

I'm just afraid Hillary is going to be to much like Clinton/Bush.

I still don't see how any thinking person can actually say that George W. Bush is similar in any way to Bill Clinton. Is the mad cow disease in our beef causing short term memory loss amongst so many people already?

 

[Jonathan Randall]

...and as much I would like to see a female president, I do NOT want her to be Condoleeza Rice. She's too much of Bush's puppet.

A Rice vs. Hillary Clinton ticket is my worst nightmare. I'd pick Sen. Clinton over Rice though, because, while they're both opportunists of the first order, IMO, Mrs. Clinton would most likely display more competence. I don't want either, though.

 

[Hand Sword]

Fear not! Ross Perot to the rescue!

Sooner or later this 3rd party thing is going to take off!

 

[beau_safken]

Ok so what is necessary to have an opinion?

Should I include imperical notes, case law refs, bibliography or what?

Let me know as I want to make sure I can just throw out a opposite opinion everyonce in a while.

Honestly, I don't care that you get a little irritated by my lack of research, backup, etc. I'm just throwing out an idea. No offense but I am not gonna take the high road just to make sure to not irritate someone, or go against the grain.

Reality Check, you could infer from the above posts regarding world superpower, nukes and force that the only way a woman could hold presence in the world stage is thru force. Thanks for help make a point. Saves me a little typing.

 

[Swordlady]

Reality Check, you could infer from the above posts regarding world superpower, nukes and force that the only way a woman could hold presence in the world stage is thru force. Thanks for help make a point. Saves me a little typing.

Didn't you read any of the links at all? There are PLENTY of female world leaders who DIDN'T have the benefit of "nukes" or "force" for them to reach their position. In that regard, I would think the U.S. is actually a bit BEHIND where having a female head of state is concerned.

Really, Beau...you need to rethink your views before you dig your grave any deeper.

 

[beau_safken]

Didn't you read any of the links at all? There are PLENTY of female world leaders who DIDN'T have the benefit of "nukes" or "force" for them to reach their position. In that regard, I would think the U.S. is actually a bit BEHIND where having a female head of state is concerned.

Really, Beau...you need to rethink your views before you dig your grave any deeper.

Why should I rethink my position? Because it doesn't agree with yours? Oh sure there are the joan of arcs, Queen Elizabeths, Mother Theresa's and the like. I totally understand there have been famous female leaders, but how does that apply to what we are doing right now? Why should there be such a dire need for a woman in office, because we have never had one?

Here is a good one. This seems like more an issue of equal treatment to me, than a woman in office issue you are going down. That's great, if you would like to go down that road please let me know the following. IF you want to go down the equal treatment road, please explain the following:

1) Selective service...Why can't woman 18-25 be signed up as that would double the ranks in time of need.

2) Why are there woman/men divisions in olympic sports, martial arts tourneys, and other sport events? Shouldn't it be one division?

3) Maturnity leave, woman choose to be pregnent so why should everyone else have to pay for that choice at work? Should men get a like break for a chosen ailment, problem or the like?

Are the above fair and equal? As for woman in Office, I'd love to see one make it all the way to being elected. The honest answer is it will be a very tall order to make that happen in our country, complain to me about being unfair or whatever...that's life atm.