The Real Problem--Women in Leadership

This was the bests laugh I've had on a forum in a long time.

 

Hi! Go **** yourself. I'll take the infraction.

Your mother would have battered down the door as her hands broke. Go **** yourself. See you in a bit. Happy Thanksgiving folks, and merry Christmas.

 

As bigoted as the original. Fortunately, no Conservative publication would have published the original.

 

Misogyny is a real thing. I believe obama just called it "mommy issues".

 

The original was offensive, but nothing justifies death threats.

Liberals also publish opinions as offensive:

Why can't we hate men and then complain about the response they get.

 

Can't tell if real or just trying to make social conservatives look absurd.

 

Also, I have to love how the whole premise of this nonsense is that they try to portray all women as overly-empathetic and nurturing and play make-believe that women are never vindictive and cruel (. . . were there no women in your junior high or high school?) . . . and then they use Hillary Clinton up as an example. Words fail me. This is just comedy gold.

 

Why do you have to set up an obvious straw man?

Nobody said ALL women are overly empathetic and nurturing.

Nobody said women are NEVER vindictive and cruel.

You started paraphrasing because you can't refute the truth in what I said.

What IS comedy gold is the inability of Liberals on this forum to discuss an issue like rational adults.

When they have no way to refute a post they either:

1. Run to other threads, or

2. Make chippy, snotty personal attacks.

We REALLY need to recruit a higher caliber Liberal to this forum........we'd all be better off.

 

If women are not all like this and are not always like this, then the criticisms of the OP are meaningless. We really need to recruit social authoritarian conservatives who are capable of understanding that not everyone who disagrees and opposes irrational nonsense is a liberal. We'd be better off.

 

Again.......if you had a leg to stand on you wouldn't have to make up straw man arguments.

The criticisms of women listed here are general and factual.

There is no need for ALL women to be overly empathetic and nurturing for the OP to be valid and true--the fact that MOST women are far more empathetic and nurturing than most men is enough.........

AND the recent election saw greater numbers of women being elected to leadership than ever before......thus the concern about their obvious deficiencies in matters that require taking strong action that may result in death and substantial suffering.

This is not a radical idea......it's fairly well-known, in fact.

What we need are Liberals who can tell rational sense from irrational nonsense.

They seem to be scarce to non-existent around here.

Are you out there, bright Liberals?

 

You want to outlaw female politicians?

 

The problem is that the complaint is nonsensical and anti-rational. If it is true that women are, on average, more empathetic than men, then it is true that men are, on average, more psychopathic than women. The rational solution would be to ensure objectivity by having both male and female representation in leadership. Actually, the more rational solution would be to evaluate leaders on an individual basis rather than relying on such generalizations. What we need are social "conservatives" that are able to realize that psychopathy is not a categorical virtue and that humans are individuals. They seem to be scarce and non-existent around here.

 

Exactly they should never have been given the vote. Or put on juries. I mean they are fine doing leadership for nurturing and community care but not when it matters.

 

Poe's law strikes again.

 

Tell it to Maggie Thatcher or Golda Meir. Absolute idiocy. All you GOPers are good at is bigoted intolerance and misinformation... I'm sure you think Hillary is evil but consider that absolutely none of your phony scandals or character assassination about her have made it to courtrooms or respected media around the world. Conspiracy theorists...

 

Hopefully we will long enough to find out exactly how good a female leader of the USA can be!!!And with the poor excuse for a male we have serving right now, the sooner the better.

 

Sorry, I have to laugh at that ridiculous bit.

Now you've turned toughness and the ability to make painful military and security decisions into psychopathy.

Surely you can do better.

Let's look at history. The American Civil War.

General Grant and President Lincoln had to decide to disregard huge and horrific Union casualties and continue to press forward.

It was painful, but it was a winning and smart strategy, because it shortened the war and probably reduced overall casualties in the long run.

It was a bloody hell of a strategy........and would a woman have chosen it?

This is what I'm talking about. Women favor cooperation and negotiation.......men favor smashing the enemy.

 

We need killers running the government. Good to know

 

I don't see how it is different from any other hair-brained conservative opinion.

 

I didn't turn either of those things into psychopathy. Surely you can do better. Or maybe a woman can help you.

But in case it helps: if women favor cooperation and negotiation and men favor smashing the enemy . . . do at least try thinking about this for a moment . . . but are you honestly telling me you are so divorced from leadership decisions in practice that you really can't think of any leadership situation in which cooperation and negotiation are advantageous? Really? Are you honestly saying that "smashing" the person you disagree with is always better than cooperation and/or negotiation? I wish I didn't have to ask, but your previous response indicates that you may not actually know.

 

No, but we DO need tough leaders who are ready and willing to kill.

Not little Hillary with her hand over her mouth in horror.

 

You think Hillary would not have killed our enemies.


Now that is hilarious

 

Now you're subtly creating another straw man. I may "not actually know" that negotiation is sometimes the best path forward?

You're again trying to cheat by twisting what I've said.

Obviously, we need leaders with the ability to do BOTH.

What we don't need is leaders who lack the capacity to smash when smashing is required.......weak leaders who shrink from violence and delay until the enemy has the advantage.

Yes, men have been guilty of weakness in the past.......men made the decision to try to negotiate with Hitler and that decision resulted in horrible suffering and death for many innocents.

My premise here (supported by a couple of links earlier) is that women think and respond differently than men and are far more likely to err on the side of negotiation, delay and avoidance of war or other harsh and painful action (like taking tough measures against illegal aliens, for example).

Women are far more verbal in their problem solving.

So will they talk until it's too late.......and until the men on the enemy side have gained the advantage?

Thus my presentation of this thread. Leadership of women in security matters may very well be dangerous.......thus the recent increase in leadership by women is problematic.

Seems my thread is not politically correct and has spawned specious arguments, death threats and foul language.

So it goes.

 

So you want women banned as politicians....yes?