Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Female President?

Posted Sep 12, '12 at 5:08pm

thebluerabbit

thebluerabbit

2,915 posts

how is it helpful to compare males and females. its obvious females werent allowed to do pretty much anything then cook in many places during history. obviously the amount of males who did anything both good and bad is bigger.

 

Posted Sep 12, '12 at 5:26pm

Minotaur55

Minotaur55

1,248 posts

Knight

To be honest.... I dont think so. Not because I am a sexist, but because when do you ever see a Female have a high ranking? It is very rare, and in the USA it has never even happened! There have been a few female Prime Ministers but over all, the male gender gets the upper hand in politics (in my opinion). I think that women would have to REALLY work for it in order to become a president. 

I think Michelle Obama would be great

Hmm, I dont think President Obama would just give up his position to his wife, I think... I dont know. That would be interesting to see though.

 

Posted Sep 12, '12 at 10:32pm

Xzeno

Xzeno

2,082 posts

*skims thread* blah blah someone saying women politicians are better, oh good social context has been discussed, I can skip it, someone didn't read the thread and skipped to an out of context quote... looks like everything's good here. Oh, here's something fun:

It seems, however, that the feminist agenda's modus operandi is to stigmatize male talent and exalt female talent. "Shouldn't be so sexist."

Hmm... this is interesting. I'm gonna say... bull****. Yep. Bull****. Final answer.

There's two myths I'd like to address here. One, that feminism is about making women better than men. That isn't a very fun point, because it's simply false. Feminist is the word for the philosophy asserting equality and rejecting patriarchy. Know your history, y'all. Your history. You're all feminists, I'm sure. If you aren't... choke on a rusty hook, I guess.

The second is the implication that the world is becoming sexist against men or in favor of women. This is largely just a sad instance of the spotlight fallacy. We see rich white men on top, grinding us into the dirt and we go "okay, this is life. Seems right." And then we see some minority or female group being given any form of advantage, and then, even if they're still worse off, we get mad about how the world is giving them special privileges.

Women have historically been disadvantaged. They continue to be so in the United States. We do not have equality, neither actually nor in law. Despite what parydevil's hilariously bad source indicates, the inferior status of women in society is a result of discrimination, past and present, not some falsehood regarding relative merits of individuals. We should see the poor and disadvantaged and wonder how to make society more equal. But we don't. We see them getting barely enough to eat and scream that we should get a bigger piece of the pie.

No one likes to see a ****** on a good horse, and no one hates it more than another ******. For what it's worth, I'm against affirmative action and think everyone ought to be, but that is one principle we should hold onto with the utmost sorrow, accepting that our ethical duty is to endure the horror of inequality in the name of the principle of equality. We should be proud of this principle, but never enjoy it.

 

Posted Sep 12, '12 at 11:34pm

Skyla

Skyla

297 posts

Hmm... this is interesting. I'm gonna say... bull****. Yep. Bull****. Final answer.

Should have hedged, it would have been more appropriate to say "SOME feminists' MO.." - as with any group there are extremists. Since the educated opinions in this thread were too 'pro-women', I felt it was important to offer an alternate perspective.

There's two myths I'd like to address here. One, that feminism is about making women better than men. That isn't a very fun point, because it's simply false. Feminist is the word for the philosophy asserting equality and rejecting patriarchy. Know your history, y'all. Your history. You're all feminists, I'm sure. If you aren't... choke on a rusty hook, I guess.

Not entirely false, though, at least on a psychological level. Seeking equal rights, which is what feminism was about, is a just cause. It seems to me, however, that the agenda is blurry. Do we want blind equality? Or do we want the rights and privileges that men receive in society, while retaining our unique privileges (i.e. being the recipients of chivalric practices, less expectation to take on the role of "provider", and many more inherent and unique advantages).

The second is the implication that the world is becoming sexist against men or in favor of women. This is largely just a sad instance of the spotlight fallacy. We see rich white men on top, grinding us into the dirt and we go "okay, this is life. Seems right." And then we see some minority or female group being given any form of advantage, and then, even if they're still worse off, we get mad about how the world is giving them special privileges.

Privileges, by their nature, defy equality. While I do agree that women should receive equal rights, it's not going to be accomplished by offering different groups of people a disparate set of rights or treatment. A spotlight fallacy? Hardly. One doesn't have to look far to see how intolerant our society is towards misogyny and how closely it borders on supporting misandry, especially in modern feminist circles. Hell, my spellchecker doesn't even recognize "misandry" but does for "misogyny". It started out as a noble movement for equal rights across the sexes, but is spiraling into a 'take what you can get, then get some more' mindset. We should aim for equality with the opposite sex, whether it serves our personal benefit or not.

Women have historically been disadvantaged. They continue to be so in the United States. We do not have equality, neither actually nor in law.

Agreed, and we should push to receive equal rights across the board, in actuality and in law. This would mean we would give up certain inherent benefits (in actuality and in law, again), but the end definitely justifies the means.

 

Posted Sep 13, '12 at 1:14am

Jacen96

Jacen96

2,184 posts

Some feminists do go to far, I heard about a news story where a bunch of women sued walmart because they were getting paid LESS money for LESS work, they won and got a huge settlement.

p.s. No one in my family likes walmart so that is why I heard about this.

I AM NOT 100 PERCENT SURE ABOUT THIS, IT IS A RUMOR I HEARD, BUT IT PROBABLY WILL HAPPEN. (eventually)

 

Posted Sep 13, '12 at 8:13am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,878 posts

Knight

To be honest.... I dont think so. Not because I am a sexist, but because when do you ever see a Female have a high ranking? It is very rare, and in the USA it has never even happened! There have been a few female Prime Ministers but over all, the male gender gets the upper hand in politics (in my opinion). I think that women would have to REALLY work for it in order to become a president. 

Philippines, Argentina, the UK, India, Sri Lanka, Iceland, Israel, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Turkey, Indonesia, Senegal, all have or had female leaders at the top as Presidents or Prime Ministers. If a female can take power in some of those nations which we constantly lampoon as backward looking, I don't see why the US won't see one. Clinton came quite close in 2008 at any rate.

 

Posted Sep 13, '12 at 10:55am

partydevil

partydevil

5,094 posts

Some feminists do go to far, I heard about a news story where a bunch of women sued walmart because they were getting paid LESS money for LESS work, they won and got a huge settlement.

p.s. No one in my family likes walmart so that is why I heard about this.

I AM NOT 100 PERCENT SURE ABOUT THIS, IT IS A RUMOR I HEARD, BUT IT PROBABLY WILL HAPPEN. (eventually)

there is only 1 place where something stupid as this can happen.

 

Posted Sep 13, '12 at 11:01am

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

there is only 1 place where something stupid as this can happen.

OOOH! Ooh! Pick me! Is it the only country starting with "U"?

No, no. Other countries do stupid things. Russia failed to relinquish vanquished lands at the end of WWII, Britain attempted to keep hold of the U.S., France tried to take over Britain, Sweden let the Germans take iron through them, etc, etc.

 

Posted Sep 13, '12 at 11:13am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,878 posts

Knight

No, no. Other countries do stupid things. Russia failed to relinquish vanquished lands at the end of WWII, Britain attempted to keep hold of the U.S., France tried to take over Britain, Sweden let the Germans take iron through them, etc, etc.

How about not leap to conclusions? It is true that much of the world views the USA in such bad light, and there are reasons for it.

 

Posted Sep 13, '12 at 11:17am

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

How about not leap to conclusions? It is true that much of the world views the USA in such bad light, and there are reasons for it.

Errr...do you mean "No, Masterforger, only the U.S. does this kind of thing" or did you misread my post?

 
Reply to Female President?

You must be logged in to post a reply!