Thread: Is the world ready for this?

Now, I'm not saying this is my personal view, but the evolutionary perspective must be examined (this is the part where women get offended)

Men have pretty much always been "in charge", from the household setting to power positions at the head of countries. In older days men were the ones who got education.

Could it be that after thousands and thousands of years, homo sapiens evolved to have men in power simply because they were better at the job? If you think about it, men are physically stronger and more emotionally detached, which is an advantage in stressful situations.

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Now, I'm not saying this is my personal view, but the evolutionary perspective must be examined (this is the part where women get offended)

Men have pretty much always been "in charge", from the household setting to power positions at the head of countries. In older days men were the ones who got education.

Could it be that after thousands and thousands of years, homo sapiens evolved to have men in power simply because they were better at the job? If you think about it, men are physically stronger and more emotionally detached, which is an advantage in stressful situations.

Thoughts?

I was just about to say it is funny how everyone is covering their ass in regards to sexist.
I feel your evolutionary perspective is accurate. The same would apply to other minorities, such as African Americans.
When woman, black green or orange men are not educated for years, it will have to have an impact on the future.
I do not think that this would have any merit on this particular topic.
At this point in our evolution, there are many many woman and black leaders that are more than capable of holding any seat that a caucasian white male could.

We're resorting to Darwinism now? Jeez, just drop the bias already. In case you hadn't noticed, culture has come a long way since everybody was called 'Ug' and we wore bones in our beards.

Originally Posted by Xei

We're resorting to Darwinism now? Jeez, just drop the bias already. In case you hadn't noticed, culture has come a long way since everybody was called 'Ug' and we wore bones in our beards.

What an oxymoron.
Do you want to talk some facts or hide behind your political correctness?
Maybe you should run for president.
If you read the entire post, you may get something more than bias out of it.

Originally Posted by Howie

What an oxymoron.
Do you want to talk some facts or hide behind your political correctness?
Maybe you should run for president.
If you read the entire post, you may get something more than bias out of it.

Oxymoron..? As in... the linguistic device where one puts nouns or adjectives with opposite meanings together? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that, could you explain?

I wasn't replying to your post though, really.

However, I don't think we can start analysing how different men or women's brains are and how suited each gender might be, therefore, for the job. Such things are only ever general patterns anyway.

If the individual is suited to the job, then that's all that matters, and both men and women are perfectly capable, some women being better suited than some men, others worse. And that's really all there is to this.

And one other thing; I'm completely anti-PC. Are you saying that egalitarians are all just trying to be politically correct? Don't be ridiculous. I believe in equality, that's got nothing to do with censorship.

If Condoleeza Rice ran for president, I would vote for her. There is nobody on Earth who would get my vote before her. No matter what can be said about how most women would handle that job, I think she would be incredible at it. Along with having extreme knowledge, intelligence, and communication skills (which would be a big relief after eight years of Bush), she stayed completely calm and composed in every interview I have ever seen her in, no matter how heated the interviewer tried to make the interview. She is much more level headed than any man I know of in a high office. She wouldn't fit the female stereotype and start crying because a political rival hurt her feelings and lock herself in her room or start screaming incoherently because she is in a bad mood. So my point is that some women are very cut out for the job.

I also think it would be hysterical to watch Democrats get a chance to put a black female in the White House and do everything they can to stop it from happening. Then Republicans could start calling them racist and sexist every day to attack the Democrats with their own bullshit. Plus, I think Rice is the one person who could easily beat Hillary.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

...Condoleeza Rice...

I actually thought about mentioning her earlier. She's got to be the most qualified female for the job.

Originally Posted by Howie

At this point in our evolution, there are many many woman and black leaders that are more than capable of holding any seat that a caucasian white male could.

Exactly. I think human intelligence far outweights physical strenghts and weaknesses of men or women. Again, the exsistence of successful female leaders proves that women are not incapable of leading a nation. Human intelligence is the greatest phenomena of any creature. We have superceded our pysical nature.

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but the emotional fragility of women is a factor. As I stated before, any woman who is ruthless enough to get that far in politics is probably emotionally detached. But, still. Women are more affected by emotions, and it has been proven that women tend to base decision making on how they "feel", rather than "common sense". This bring up a VERY important question.

With a nation like the United States, could a woman be better at decision making? Men are "rational" in the way that they base logic on strict evidence. Women tend to OBSESE about every little detail of a subject (you know what I'm talking about). I wonder if this could actually make a better president.

Oneironaught said:

\Right, in the land of bubble gum and cotton candy. But have you noticed that - in the real world - the Islamic countries want to kill us because of what we stand for. What we stand for is everything they despise: Freedom. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can tame a wild beast with good intentions; it doesn't work that way.

What I ment Oneironaught was that with the present attitude the Usa has in relation to world politics, having a female or male president is just an extra detail, sure, but not the base for feeding the mainstream hate from islamic regions, that hate is already there and for some part the Usa is also self responsible for it. A male or female president would so little influence that hate, the main choices the Usa makes conerning world politics have a way stronger influence.
I would be more concerned if the Usa world politic comes from the democrats or from the republicans, that will prob matter a lot more.


Btw Oneironaught, I was not talking about Hillary but just about a female president in general.

Originally Posted by LucidApple

What I ment Oneironaught was that with the present attitude the Usa has in relation to world politics, having a female or male president is just an extra detail, sure, but not the base for feeding the mainstream hate from islamic regions, that hate is already there and for some part the Usa is also self responsible for it.

And what I meant is that for cultures that despise women to take seriously and "answer to" a nation having a women President - especially if that country were to be America (their sworn enemies) - is nigh unto ludicrous. It will only fuel the fires and give them fodder for what they consider to be a "just cause": the killing of millions of innocents simply because they don't subscribe to their bullsh!t fanaticism and oppression.

Btw Oneironaught, I was not talking about Hillary but just about a female president in general.

Yes, that part I understood.

The world is ready for RON PAUL!!!!


RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!