I confess to heresy

I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)

Eva

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:53:44 GMT, "Eva"
<EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote:

>I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
>don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
>women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
>truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
>thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)

We have a queen for a couple of generations and it works just fine.
:-))

R

Ratatosk, Jola ( I think it's the advisors you need to know)

--

If you need to e-mail me, replace "don'tbother" with "zedicus"

Eva wrote the following on 2/11/2008 7:53 PM:
> I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
> don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
> women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
> truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
> thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)

Golda Meir...

Karen R.

x-no-archive: yes

Eva wrote:
> I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
> don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
> women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
> truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
> thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)


Nope. I mean, I've given the differences consideration, and I think
military action and strategy is about analytical thinking and problem
solving. I don't think that a strong female presidential candidate, at
least not this one, is without those strengths.

Susan

"Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:61ccuiF1ulas6U2@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Eva wrote:
>> I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
>> don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
>> women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
>> truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
>> thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)
>
>
> Nope. I mean, I've given the differences consideration, and I think
> military action and strategy is about analytical thinking and problem
> solving. I don't think that a strong female presidential candidate, at
> least not this one, is without those strengths.
----------------
I have friends who support Clinton and blatantly say, "I loved Bill Clinton,
and I want to see him back in the White House." No feminism there! They
just assume he will be the power behind the throne, and that's what they
want.

Eva

"ratatosk" <ratatosk@don'tbother.tweakdsl.nl> wrote in message
news:uas1r3peho34bgbj3i7cai0dj3ltivreom@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:53:44 GMT, "Eva"
> <EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote:
>
>>I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
>>don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
>>women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
>>truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
>>thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)
>
> We have a queen for a couple of generations and it works just fine.
> :-))
------------------
What happened to Ayan Hirsi Ali?

Eva

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote in message
news:2r8sj.1766$YJ4.174@trndny01...
>
> "Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:61ccuiF1ulas6U2@mid.individual.net...
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> Eva wrote:
>>> I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
>>> don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't
>>> think women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation
>>> faces a truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has
>>> entertained a thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but
>>> the rest of you.)
>>
>>
>> Nope. I mean, I've given the differences consideration, and I think
>> military action and strategy is about analytical thinking and problem
>> solving. I don't think that a strong female presidential candidate, at
>> least not this one, is without those strengths.
> ----------------
> I have friends who support Clinton and blatantly say, "I loved Bill
> Clinton, and I want to see him back in the White House." No feminism
> there! They just assume he will be the power behind the throne, and
> that's what they want.
>
> Eva

I think Hillary's plenty strong & brainy in her own right, and perfectly
capable of making big-time decisions (& a whole lot more rationally than a
certain someone who's presently inhabiting the WH!). But of course Bill
will have input; I can't imagine them not discussing the issues. Hey, a
2-for-1 deal, AFAIC. Whether the Dem. nominee turns out to be Hillary
Clinton or Barack Obama, either way, I'll be happy.

Cathy

Eva wrote:
> "Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:61ccuiF1ulas6U2@mid.individual.net...
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> Eva wrote:
>>> I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
>>> don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
>>> women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
>>> truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
>>> thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)

>> Nope. I mean, I've given the differences consideration, and I think
>> military action and strategy is about analytical thinking and problem
>> solving. I don't think that a strong female presidential candidate, at
>> least not this one, is without those strengths.

I agree here. (It would be nice to have a president with
analytical thinking and problem solving capabilities again. I
didn't realize how much I would miss them.)

I also think that the worst threats facing us are internal: our
faltering economy, our sinking educational system, our crumbling
infrastructure, the shrinking middle class, a national debt
that's approaching $10 trillion (and doesn't include the trade
deficit or Social Security commitments), our inability to respond
effectively to crises like Katrina, our wholesale giveaway of
manufacturing capability to other countries. The economic
dislocations that our warming atmosphere will bring about. Bird
flu, if it ever mutates to become transmissible between humans.
Not so much from external armies or terrorists, unless we don't
figure out a way to stop pissing off our allies.

> ----------------
> I have friends who support Clinton and blatantly say, "I loved Bill Clinton,
> and I want to see him back in the White House." No feminism there! They
> just assume he will be the power behind the throne, and that's what they
> want.

There are some who speculate that Hillary was the power behind
the throne when Bill was president...

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dogs.

x-no-archive: yes

Eva wrote:

> ----------------
> I have friends who support Clinton and blatantly say, "I loved Bill Clinton,
> and I want to see him back in the White House." No feminism there! They
> just assume he will be the power behind the throne, and that's what they
> want.
>


Well, choose a smarter class of friends, then. ;-)

Susan

"Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:61clt4F1t90lvU3@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Eva wrote:
>
>> ----------------
>> I have friends who support Clinton and blatantly say, "I loved Bill
>> Clinton, and I want to see him back in the White House." No feminism
>> there! They just assume he will be the power behind the throne, and
>> that's what they want.
>>
>
>
> Well, choose a smarter class of friends, then. ;-)
-------------
I should. Friends who....hope.....for a.....change!

Eva

"FurPaw" <furrealpawdog@gmaildog.com> wrote in message
news:iLydnS2zNtGMhCzanZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> I also think that the worst threats facing us are internal: our faltering
> economy, our sinking educational system, our crumbling infrastructure, the
> shrinking middle class, a national debt that's approaching $10 trillion
> (and doesn't include the trade deficit or Social Security commitments),
> our inability to respond effectively to crises like Katrina, our wholesale
> giveaway of manufacturing capability to other countries. The economic
> dislocations that our warming atmosphere will bring about. Bird flu, if
> it ever mutates to become transmissible between humans. Not so much from
> external armies or terrorists, unless we don't figure out a way to stop
> pissing off our allies.
------------
I don't understand your last sentence. Do you think Al Qaeda attacked us
because we pissed off Saudi Arabia or Morocco somehow? Do we all have to
put on burqas and stop naming our teddy bears Muhammad so we won't piss them
off?

But more importantly: Am I the only one who's noticed that not *one*, I say
not *one* of the candidates of either party wants to talk about Social
Security?

Eva

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote in message
news:s66sj.2641$CX2.1264@trndny09...
>I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
>don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
>women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
>truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
>thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)
>
> Eva

I don't think the present man in the White House has those qualities.

Stacey

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote in message
news:eH9sj.3901$%q3.2822@trndny07...
>
> "Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:61clt4F1t90lvU3@mid.individual.net...
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> Eva wrote:
>>
>>> ----------------
>>> I have friends who support Clinton and blatantly say, "I loved Bill
>>> Clinton, and I want to see him back in the White House." No feminism
>>> there! They just assume he will be the power behind the throne, and
>>> that's what they want.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, choose a smarter class of friends, then. ;-)
> -------------
> I should. Friends who....hope.....for a.....change!
>
> Eva

I'm not afraid that a female president wouldn't have the brains, the
strength and the will to lead armies. I think Clinton would be just fine
there; gender has nothing to do with strength or leading armies (Golda
Meier, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, etc. etc). But while I hope to
see a female president in my lifetime, right now I'm ready for a change that
has isn't as simple as gender (or race or religion). And before anyone
replies, I'm not implying that anyone else here is, either. We all have
our well-thought out reasons and our emotional reasons, that take in much
more than gender, race, or religion.

As a world-weary cynic, I'm glad to see that Dems have two good choices this
year. Most times, I feel I'm picking the least bad candidate. This time
I'm optimistic.

"Stacey Weinberger" <poppinjay@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13r2ah5oog9sr16@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Eva" <EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote in message
> news:s66sj.2641$CX2.1264@trndny09...
>>I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
>>don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
>>women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
>>truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
>>thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)
>>
>> Eva
>
> I don't think the present man in the White House has those qualities.
>
> Stacey

Amen!

"Cathy F." <clfrclfr@adelphiadotdashdot.net> wrote in message
news:_vWdnWYRDbfVhSza4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
>
> "Eva" <EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote in message
> news:2r8sj.1766$YJ4.174@trndny01...
>>
>> "Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:61ccuiF1ulas6U2@mid.individual.net...
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>
>>> Eva wrote:
>>>> I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
>>>> don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't
>>>> think women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation
>>>> faces a truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has
>>>> entertained a thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but
>>>> the rest of you.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. I mean, I've given the differences consideration, and I think
>>> military action and strategy is about analytical thinking and problem
>>> solving. I don't think that a strong female presidential candidate, at
>>> least not this one, is without those strengths.
>> ----------------
>> I have friends who support Clinton and blatantly say, "I loved Bill
>> Clinton, and I want to see him back in the White House." No feminism
>> there! They just assume he will be the power behind the throne, and
>> that's what they want.
>>
>> Eva
>
> I think Hillary's plenty strong & brainy in her own right, and perfectly
> capable of making big-time decisions (& a whole lot more rationally than a
> certain someone who's presently inhabiting the WH!). But of course Bill
> will have input; I can't imagine them not discussing the issues. Hey, a
> 2-for-1 deal, AFAIC. Whether the Dem. nominee turns out to be Hillary
> Clinton or Barack Obama, either way, I'll be happy.
>
> Cathy
>
>

Yes, although I would prefer a new surname for a change.

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote in message
news:tM9sj.2445$%x3.2113@trndny06...
>
> "FurPaw" <furrealpawdog@gmaildog.com> wrote in message
> news:iLydnS2zNtGMhCzanZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>> I also think that the worst threats facing us are internal: our faltering
>> economy, our sinking educational system, our crumbling infrastructure,
>> the shrinking middle class, a national debt that's approaching $10
>> trillion (and doesn't include the trade deficit or Social Security
>> commitments), our inability to respond effectively to crises like
>> Katrina, our wholesale giveaway of manufacturing capability to other
>> countries. The economic dislocations that our warming atmosphere will
>> bring about. Bird flu, if it ever mutates to become transmissible
>> between humans. Not so much from external armies or terrorists, unless we
>> don't figure out a way to stop pissing off our allies.
> ------------
> I don't understand your last sentence. Do you think Al Qaeda attacked us
> because we pissed off Saudi Arabia or Morocco somehow? Do we all have to
> put on burqas and stop naming our teddy bears Muhammad so we won't piss
> them off?
>
> But more importantly: Am I the only one who's noticed that not *one*, I
> say not *one* of the candidates of either party wants to talk about Social
> Security?
>
> Eva

Yup. Hot button nobody wants to bring up.

"FurPaw" <furrealpawdog@gmaildog.com> wrote in

> I agree here. (It would be nice to have a president with analytical
> thinking and problem solving capabilities again. I didn't realize how
> much I would miss them.)

A thinking president would be lovely.

> I also think that the worst threats facing us are internal: our faltering
> economy, our sinking educational system, our crumbling infrastructure, the
> shrinking middle class, a national debt that's approaching $10 trillion
> (and doesn't include the trade deficit or Social Security commitments),
> our inability to respond effectively to crises like Katrina, our wholesale
> giveaway of manufacturing capability to other countries. The economic
> dislocations that our warming atmosphere will bring about. Bird flu, if
> it ever mutates to become transmissible between humans.

Yes, I'm with you on this.

> Not so much from external armies or terrorists, unless we don't figure out
> a way to stop pissing off our allies.

I'd certainly like to see us get along better with the rest of the world.
However, I don't think terrorists care whether we piss off our allies or
not. That fear isn't at the top of my list, but I think our perspectives
may be colored by time and distance from New York.

Peahen
..

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote in message
news:s66sj.2641$CX2.1264@trndny09...
>I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
>don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
>women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
>truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
>thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)
>
> Eva

Nope, but my kid sister, who is in the midst of peri right now, and all the
joys of hormone and mood swings that can come with it, wondered if a female
going through what she's going through might not lose her patience and her
temper at the wrong time (as my sister has done with her employees), or
forget small details (as she's finding that she's doing more often), or....
I told her that we'd heard all that before, and besides, menopause is
generally less stressful.

Do you think George Bush made good decisions? This is a man who had Military
training...although hubby just keeps calling him a "Stupid Fighter Pilot
Jock" I think Clinton is able to make much better decisions then he has.
She is a strong woman and has been around a long time...and knows exactly
what is going on. She knows who to go to with questions . Whoever gets into
office has to be able to make better decisions then what has been done in
the past years. Well maybe not the other Fighter Pilot Jock that is
running

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote in message
news:s66sj.2641$CX2.1264@trndny09...
I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)

Eva

Well Hillary is 60 so I would think she is finished with Peri I bet
Georgie boy looses his temper from time to time and I would bet the words
that come out of his mouth doesn't make sense either
"Peahen" <peahen1955@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Rq-dnTqoAY8vqyzanZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@comcast.com...

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote in message
news:s66sj.2641$CX2.1264@trndny09...
>I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
>don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
>women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
>truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
>thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)
>
> Eva

Nope, but my kid sister, who is in the midst of peri right now, and all the
joys of hormone and mood swings that can come with it, wondered if a female
going through what she's going through might not lose her patience and her
temper at the wrong time (as my sister has done with her employees), or
forget small details (as she's finding that she's doing more often), or....
I told her that we'd heard all that before, and besides, menopause is
generally less stressful.

Eva <EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote:

> I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
> don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
> women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
> truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
> thought like that?

I once had similar thoughts, but now the US has an entire generation of
men who haven't served in the military, so expecting military experience
(or even interest) has become a moot point. And look at the military,
uh, strategy the male currently in the White House is responsible for.

BTW, Maggie Thatcher sent troops to the Falkland Islands. I think any
_leader_ will lead when necessary, whatever the situation.

It makes me incredibly sad that the US is still using such primitive
methods as military force to solve a problem. I'd love to see somebody
in charge who doesn't automatically think of violent solutions.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

On Feb 12, 12:53*am, "Eva" <EvaDStructio...@NOverizon.net> wrote:
> I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. *Maybe I
> don't think a woman ought to be President after all. *Maybe I don't think
> women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
> truly terrible threat. *Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
> thought like that? *(Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)
>
> Eva

Can't say it seemed to be a problem for Maggie Thatcher during the
Falklands War. Being a peacetime Prime Minister - now that was
difficult for her.

Also we've had a few queens as reigning monarchs during various wars
over the centuries.

Jette

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:53:44 GMT, "Eva"
<EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote:

>I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
>don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
>women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
>truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
>thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)

I was thinking it might be nice to just see what a woman could do in
office. I mean the country has been run by men since day one and look
how that's working out. Could she do any worse? Let's give a woman a
chance and see. I don't think she will be elected, tho. The men won't
let her win.

Dana

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:58:11 +0100, thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no
(Keera Ann Fox) wrote:

>It makes me incredibly sad that the US is still using such primitive
>methods as military force to solve a problem. I'd love to see somebody
>in charge who doesn't automatically think of violent solutions.

What would you have suggested be done after the 9/11 attack? Say you
are President. How would you calm the fears and anger of a nation as
large and the US?


Dana

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

x-no-archive: yes

Eva wrote:

> -------------
> I should. Friends who....hope.....for a.....change!
>


Oy, vey, I'm so sick of the phrase. I want specifics.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Peahen wrote:

>
> As a world-weary cynic, I'm glad to see that Dems have two good choices this
> year. Most times, I feel I'm picking the least bad candidate. This time
> I'm optimistic.
>
>

Yeah, it's nice to think about voting without one hand holding my nose.

Susan

On Feb 11, 7:53 pm, "Eva" <EvaDStructio...@NOverizon.net> wrote:
Maybe I don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I
don't think
> women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
> truly terrible threat.

depends on the size of the wig.....

after going through all this peri hell, i thought - no way would i
put a woman with wacky hormones in office. & that was totally
uncensored & shocking for me as someone who has gone toe to toe with
guys in many ways (still played basketball with them until recently).
but the reality is, while there are legitimate differences that stem
from biology (& which i think we haven't been able to address out of
fear of losing hard fought ground on equality issues), i don't think
it means that a woman can't be a strong & capable leader. certainly
men bring their own biological baggage -good & bad to the table & we
don't question it.

being severely impacted by hormones is a biological but individual
situation & not applicable across the gender.

ellen

Eva wrote:
> I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
> don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
> women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
> truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
> thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)
>
> Eva
>
>

Without getting into the specific people running right now,
but staying strictly theoretical...

I think a woman would see things, and handle things, a little
differently from a man, but not radically.

1. As a species men and women have some of the same
emotional responses - personal ego, territoriality, attraction to
revenge when we feel wronged. Both genders will draw a line
in the sand when any of these are violated. Women will, i think,
wait a little longer, require a little more evidence and take
a little more consideration time before they say "Send in the
bombs," but only some. Once you push us too far, we're as
ready to call a halt and unleash a defensive war as a guy.

2. The above is generalization, and those who rise to the top
of a political structure tend to be *atypical* of the general
population, but *more* typical of the political Big Enchilada
population. I.e., top level politicians are more like each other,
than they are like other run of the mill members of their genders.

Women (or men) emotionally unequipped to deal with stress,
threats, errors, or basic reality are likely to get weeded out
earlier in the process. See Cynthia McKinney.

3. The leadership required of a president doesn't require such
a hands-on ability to lead the troops. It does require the
intelligence to evaluate info and strategies coming from experts.

JMO!

--
pax,
ruth


Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains

nickelshrink wrote:
> Eva wrote:
>> I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe
>> I don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't
>> think women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation
>> faces a truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has
>> entertained a thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but
>> the rest of you.)
>>
>> Eva
>>
>
> Without getting into the specific people running right now,
> but staying strictly theoretical...
>
> I think a woman would see things, and handle things, a little
> differently from a man, but not radically.
>
> 1. As a species men and women have some of the same
> emotional responses - personal ego, territoriality, attraction to
> revenge when we feel wronged. Both genders will draw a line
> in the sand when any of these are violated. Women will, i think,
> wait a little longer, require a little more evidence and take
> a little more consideration time before they say "Send in the
> bombs," but only some. Once you push us too far, we're as
> ready to call a halt and unleash a defensive war as a guy.
>
> 2. The above is generalization, and those who rise to the top
> of a political structure tend to be *atypical* of the general
> population, but *more* typical of the political Big Enchilada
> population. I.e., top level politicians are more like each other,
> than they are like other run of the mill members of their genders.
>
> Women (or men) emotionally unequipped to deal with stress,
> threats, errors, or basic reality are likely to get weeded out
> earlier in the process. See Cynthia McKinney.
>
> 3. The leadership required of a president doesn't require such
> a hands-on ability to lead the troops. It does require the
> intelligence to evaluate info and strategies coming from experts.
>
> JMO!
>

Anyone remember the tv show "Sliders"? In one episode the crew slid
into a universe where females held all the important positions, and
all the power. The argument there for keeping men out of political
office and highly paid jobs was "women's emotions cycle on a 28 day
cycle - men's emotions cycle on a 28 second cycle - who could trust a
man in charge of anything?"

(and the episode was written by a man, IIRC)

--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

Dana© <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:58:11 +0100, thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no
> (Keera Ann Fox) wrote:
>
> >It makes me incredibly sad that the US is still using such primitive
> >methods as military force to solve a problem. I'd love to see somebody
> >in charge who doesn't automatically think of violent solutions.
>
> What would you have suggested be done after the 9/11 attack? Say you
> are President. How would you calm the fears and anger of a nation as
> large and the US?

I'd try to emulate FDR because he was right: The only thing to fear is
fear itself. I would let the country grieve and I would encourage the
comaraderie that arises in shared grief, and I would also let Americans
enjoy the united (and unique) sympathy from the world community. But I'd
remind them that retaliation through violence or force would only fuel a
fire someone tried to start. I'd ask America to be bigger than such a
cowardly enemy. Finally, I would let Americans know that every effort
was being made to capture the ones responsible and bring them to justice
using our already established legal system.

I would never invade Iraq. That country was always completely irrelevant
to 9/11. I would not go to war. Power (sometimes abused) and brute force
is what made us an attractive target in the first place.

Note: I'm assuming that if I were president, any glitches in my
knowledge or decision-making would be filled in by my aids. I don't know
everything. :-)

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 11, 7:53 pm, "Eva" <EvaDStructio...@NOverizon.net> wrote:
> Maybe I don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I
> don't think
> > women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
> > truly terrible threat.
>
> depends on the size of the wig.....
>
> after going through all this peri hell, i thought - no way would i
> put a woman with wacky hormones in office. & that was totally
> uncensored & shocking for me as someone who has gone toe to toe with
> guys in many ways (still played basketball with them until recently).
> but the reality is, while there are legitimate differences that stem
> from biology (& which i think we haven't been able to address out of
> fear of losing hard fought ground on equality issues), i don't think
> it means that a woman can't be a strong & capable leader. certainly
> men bring their own biological baggage -good & bad to the table & we
> don't question it.

This assumes that men aren't run by their hormones - or baser emotions
or whatever. They are. I once had a wise friend who said to beware of
old men trying to hang onto their power. Alpha males and all that.

> being severely impacted by hormones is a biological but individual
> situation & not applicable across the gender.

Honestly, even if I were PMS-ing to hell and back, I doubt I'd start a
_war_. Give your own gender some credit!

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

I think more women go to the polls then men. The problem is the stupid women
who vote for the best looking one

"Dana©" <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote in message
news:cl93r3pss07a0d7p43lr17ov817fh3tc9j@4ax.com...
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:53:44 GMT, "Eva"
<EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote:

>I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
>don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
>women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
>truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
>thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)

I was thinking it might be nice to just see what a woman could do in
office. I mean the country has been run by men since day one and look
how that's working out. Could she do any worse? Let's give a woman a
chance and see. I don't think she will be elected, tho. The men won't
let her win.

Dana

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

WWWSC #4 wrote:
> Eva wrote the following on 2/11/2008 7:53 PM:
>> I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe
>> I don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't
>> think women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation
>> faces a truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has
>> entertained a thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but
>> the rest of you.)
>
> Golda Meir...
>

Indira Ghandi.

--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

In article <kr93r3pl4dc1cchqncanmjpeb4dp3lb8ih@4ax.com>,
Dana? <AneeBear@ownmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:58:11 +0100, thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no
> (Keera Ann Fox) wrote:
>
> >It makes me incredibly sad that the US is still using such primitive
> >methods as military force to solve a problem. I'd love to see somebody
> >in charge who doesn't automatically think of violent solutions.
>
> What would you have suggested be done after the 9/11 attack? Say you
> are President. How would you calm the fears and anger of a nation as
> large and the US?

Talk rationally about causes and effects. Invading countries isn't very
helpful when one is attacked by people not affiliated with any specific
country.

Priscilla

In article <s66sj.2641$CX2.1264@trndny09>,
"Eva" <EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote:

> I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
> don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
> women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
> truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
> thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)

I think it would be refreshing if, in a time of crisis, our national
leader didn't send troops anywhere or order anything destroyed or anyone
killed.

As to the hormone thing, I know when my hormones are causing problems I
tend to shut my life down for a day. I think it'd be helpful for the
President to occasionally say, "OK, everybody take 24 hours to calm down
and get a new perspective. Naps, everyone, and maybe a good mystery
novel. We'll pick this up again tomorrow."

Priscilla, dreaming

In article <Rq-dnTqoAY8vqyzanZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Peahen" <peahen1955@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Eva" <EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote in message
> news:s66sj.2641$CX2.1264@trndny09...
> >I had a thought the other day that actually rather alarmed me. Maybe I
> >don't think a woman ought to be President after all. Maybe I don't think
> >women are capable of commanding armies in a time when our nation faces a
> >truly terrible threat. Is there anyone else here who has entertained a
> >thought like that? (Of course I know Chris hasn't, but the rest of you.)
> >
> > Eva
>
> Nope, but my kid sister, who is in the midst of peri ri