Forum Post: Women are better leaders than Men?
Posted 11 years ago on Jan. 9, 2013, 2:40 p.m. EST by VQkag2
(16478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
2 comments 3 weeks ago by gsw
1 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
Well, of course we are. You will know this to be true after I have completed taking over the universe. Women like Sabrina Schaeffer and Phyllis Schlafly are incredibly weak individuals that must attach themselves to the predominately white male upper class "value system" for their own survival.
I think I agree. The best two bosses I ever had were women; and not only did they make me work hard, they made me like it, and made me feel good about going the extra mile and meeting their expectations. And they were both very sweet, endearing people. I'd go to work for either of them again in a heartbeat. You don't need to be an asshole to be a great boss, and I think women may get that more than men.
GF you are so modest. {:-])
I know, right?
I am incorrigible.
Humble to a fault. {:-])
Some historical data and what happens when women are excluded from power.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13746-a-ladydrawers-history-of-womens-rights-part-i-earnings-and-yearnings
That's cute and true.
Sellouts to their own gender - for power that a man might give them? That's just sick - but hey - being abused by men will lead to victims who believe they deserve it - Mental Illness - kind of like Stockholm syndrome??
Well, ultimately all of this only pertained to the upper classes. The middle class simply acts as a buffer by mimicking and upholding those upper class values and forcing them on the other classes. The women from the working and lower working classes have always participated (work/single parenting/or refusing to marry) or been denied participation. You don't see a lot of shoving this down throats until the 1920s and now it has been indoctrinated. Another left over from the Victorian age work for pay or work for free. Brought to you by a group of women that had hired servants and didn't do a damn thing at all.
Hypocrisy - thy name is privileged?
Yep. What is the first thing to come out when there is an economic crisis? Women are to stay at home and men are to remain in the workforce. Know your place. Then the men can be put back to work.
How are we to move forward how are we to grow - if we do not do away with all of this separatist/privileged Bullshit. No more double standards.
How do you shove about 200 years of history down someone else's throat? How do you smack the shit out of a large group of people that firmly believe in the mytho of a nuclear family? How do you force what's left of the middle class to question that which they are attempting to mirror and by nature what they are attempting to surpress? How do you get people to recognize that no public funding should be granted to FBOs?
Education in common sense??? I have some experience that tells me it is not all that common.
Ya. lol.
It's a class status game and everyone walks away broke and miserable.
In this regard - here is a program that you may have seen - but if not I highly recommend :
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/ending_the_silence_on_climate_change_20130107/
Forward common sense thinking.
Educate the masses.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/murkowski-shell-alec/
Yep - I need to stop in there - still playing a bit of catch-up from my flu week.
So are all women supposed to act like you think they should or can they be allowed to have their own thoughts and opinions? You should send out an open letter titled "Women Need to Do What I Tell Them to Do"
http://emilyslist.org/
Whoops there it is
Why should women be against their own best interests? Does that seem sane to you?
Not really, but everyone is allowed to think for themselves. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they have their well thought out reasons, even if i don't agree with it. Too many times people say "you should think for yourself" when they really mean "you should think like me". People who think for themselves don't always do what you want them to. It's the price we pay. Disagree all you want, but "sellouts" is too close to "uncle tom" territory.
A sellout is a sellout - they are going against their own best interest - knowingly - and for personal gain/power/privilege that they would deny to others who are no different then them except for in who they know.
Thankfully I'm a white guy, so i get to think whatever i want without being called a gender sellout or an uncle tom. Hopefully everyone will get to enjoy that one day, after we eliminate this primitive groupthink mentality.
You can be white and you can be a guy - and - STILL - be a sellout. The club is not really exclusive.
What group think are you having a problem with? WallStreet? Fossil Fuel? CorpoRat in general?
Did you see the episode of Portlandia where the feminist bookstore owners get a bad review and flip out? They confront the reviewer (Martina Navratilova) and tell her “feminism is about good reviews.” So reminded me of this thread.
They can act how they like. It appears they are naturally more progressive.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15025-if-women-were-in-charge
isn't that better?
Support our women!
http://www.care2.com/causes/6-infographics-about-being-a-woman-that-will-make-you-want-to-take-action.html
Yes Schlafly & her ilk show clearly that not EVERY women is a better leader (iMHO). But yes you and other like minded womyn would fit the bill.
(Please don't hurt me)
lol. I'm not. It is a repetitive scene that plays itself right down the socioeconomic scale. One of the things that I had to learn is that the enemy is not usually men but rather women. The don't-rock- the- boat- because- I-might- lose- everything group. It's a very small world to live in and centers around survival rather than living. Originally used by the upper classes but is now used as a method of social control for all lower classes.
Living in fear is no way to live. Here is to the day all people living in fear - stand-up and say - NO MORE.
Deep. Astute. Illustrative of the real challenges we face as we work for progress.
Prove this "Sabrina Schaeffer and Phyllis Schlafly are incredibly weak individuals that must attach themselves to the predominately white male upper class "value system" for their own survival."
By getting some response from them about preparatory amendment and this petition to ALEC requesting their "authoritive" comment up the proposed amendments effect on Article V.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/action-petition-alec-to-make-a-statement-about-the/
BTW, I believe you are correct, but I like proof:-) Test 'em!
pfffttttt...........
Good response to rayovac. Says all that is needed.
Yep. Glad you agree.
That is one of the things I lo....um...Like about you - nothing wasted on slapping a shill. {:-])
Okay, a woman won't make women accountable. Typical. HTF would you know a leader?
I think women have shown more concern for poor & family issues.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15025-if-women-were-in-charge
Isn't that better?
[Removed]
Pfffftttt.............
lol - will ray-o-vac wake-up?
Is this a magic 8 ball question or what?
Lemme see.....
Try again.
Damn.
Very good - shake shake shake . . . not likely. lol
Well, at least one issue has been resolved. lol
Some just seem to kinda answer them self. Weird?
Okay, you are not accountable. Most women here are not.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-forum-is-no-longer-recognized-by-occupy/#comment-896398
http://occupywallst.org/forum/gunself-control/#comment-895144
I am responsible for my shit. You may guilt your mother, your lover or your child............but don't play that shit with me. Fuck you and your article V nonsense.
Thank you - Please repeat as ray-o-vac seems hard of hearing or totally lacks comprehension. Maybe some one can explain - off forum - if there is a keeper available/present.
It's about the female response to social fears. Social can be powerful while they are also unreasonable.
Such is the reason the women I'm challenging to find a mother or father that will relinquish their child's right to live in a society where information protecting their life is freely shared and understood are failing to respond.
You are challenged to prove you are responsible for your position against Article V by proving there are such parents. ' C'mon girl, you can do it, OR you can admit that preparatoruy amendment ASSURING constitutional intent is safe and change your position.
Otherwise you are just a fearful, unaccountable women going along with the status quo being unreasonable.
You have had your head up your ass way too long.
Fuck you and article v. You are a complete and utter douche bag.
Um, really. I'm a father, and I would never consider giving up a real opportunity to make sure the next generation can communicate what they need to, when they need to in order to survive.
What's your problem with this? I don't get it?
Um, really. I don't give a damn.
Hey GF - been busy today?
Yep. The place get overrun by a bunch of thick headed jack asses?
I noticed that jack off, rayolite edited his post.
Could be - it is a school night - and grade schoolers should get plenty of rest - good for cognitive processes and all.
Speaking of which - my synapse ( yes singular ) is getting tired and a little sluggish ( well more sluggish ) - G-Night.
[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (11772) 0 minutes ago
I guess Mom told 'em it was lights out. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
They may have just gotten tuckered out.
[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (11772) 0 minutes ago
Gee, maybe they have gone to screw up another forum? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
I guess Mom told 'em it was lights out.
Me Tooooo - that's why I had ta use it.
[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (11772) 0 minutes ago
I love the mouse question. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Where did everyone go? They seem to have had a problem.
You could say its been an interesting day. {:-]) I used your mouse question.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/women-are-better-leaders-than-men/#comment-914416
I love the mouse question.
Don't know - it got quiet about an hour or so ago.
[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (11772) 6 minutes ago
Where did everyone go? They seem to have had a problem. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Gee, maybe they have gone to screw up another forum?
Rayos links aren't right. This is how we know constitutional intent.
Which mother or father in this nation will ignore or pass up the real opportunity to assure their child will grow into a nation that holds high and honors understanding that can create; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness?
Why don't you simply admit there are no parents that will give that up do their child?
Problem? Why don't you simply admit that you have no valid arguments?
We have a valid argument, and you have no answer, so engage in ad hominum. Simple and . . . typical for a cognitive infiltration.
Oops! Thanks, I lost track trying to keep up with the demands of these unaccountables.
We know how you feel about the constitution and the right to alter or abolish.
Mouse in your pocket?
Split personality?
???
Do you consider yourself to be royalty? Still curious about that "we" bit in your comment.
ray-o-vac uts-a-matta - run out of juice?
Cat got your tongue?
We?
The focus we have is on UNACCOUNTABLES that pretend to want change.
Get a recharge? ray-o-vac?
We?
You have yet to answer that.
We are Americans, constitutional Americans that have no problem using natural law to take back our nation from corporations and infiltrating fascists. We even understand and accept natural law.
Are women to blame for everything?
http://www.care2.com/causes/causes/things-conservatives-blame-women-for.html
[Removed]
My wife, three daughters and two granddaughters never miss an opportunity to tell me they are smarter than me. Then they kiss me on the cheek and tell me they love me anyway. So I’m cool with women being smarter.
Women better leaders?
less corrupted easy frightened
Support our women Please sign this petition.
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=288
The article seems to be about a rino woman complaining about women being elected in the dem party. Go figure that rino's would be complaining.
It ( the article ) says the Independent Women’s Forum - but the comment does not sound very independent - Hey? =
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/more-women-in-office-means-less-freedom-says-conservative-group.html#ixzz2HVhwJvth
It's always something.
1/2 + 1/2 = Whole
Indeed. Well said. We need each other. I prefer women mostly. But I'm not anti-men.
Absolutely. I've often said that an all female government, at all levels, would be more effective at governance.
Ok. I could go for that.
It is not an issue of gender. It is an issue of the policies and core beliefs of the office holder.
Agreed.
Like what?
Why speak in such generalities if you actually believe what you are saying?
I believe in equal rights. Both Pelosi and Reed need to be retired and put to pasture.
Why?
You're still speaking generalities.
How do you feel about the drunken leader of the (R)epelican't "forces", that have frozen the country at 2008?
I do not believe in their idea of the government's role in people's live. I did not approve of Pelosi's methodology for pushing through Obamacare in 2010. I believe in smaller government; more streamlined and efficient, with more money staying in the people's pockets. I believe in the empowerment of the individual, and Pelosi, Reed, and many of their colleagues pass legislation that perpetuates the myth of government taking care of you. Boehner? I would prefer to see a more right-leaning congressperson as speaker. He caves too much.
I like small government too!!
Lets reduce the number States!!!
Far too many for it work properly.
Far too easy for them to get bought out.
Indeed it's been the buying out of the States that went before the buying out of the feds.
So how many should we have?
Go back to the original 13?
Maybe 25?
Not sure.
What are your thoughts?
Reduce the size of federal government. More decisions to the states. Maybe even more states. Not a bad idea looking at the blue and the red within each state
That's just off kilter.
Too many States cost WAY too much money and they're WAY cheaper and easier to buy.
They've been doing it for years, while you were watching FLAKESnews, and even before that.
DIRT cheap for them to buy.
50 sets of laws and regulations are a ridiculous amount.
It's STUPID, expensive and DEVISIVE.
Don't be penny wise and pound foolish.
Hhmmmmm I wonder if failed states - since they are supported on the public/federal dime - could be put under new management - like of a successful and more humane state like say Mn?
No. That's too much like an "emergency manager".
Just let them be absorbed into other States until they can cope.
OK - make a list of really successful and humane ( good for people and environment ) states - put em on a spin wheel and spin - the arrow picks the absorbing state - only one winner per spin winners removed until all chosen receiver states have won once - then they can all go back onto the board if necessary to finish the allotment of loser states.
Hhmmmmm . . . conundrum - I mean what the hell do you do with California? Successful business's making tons of money - an awesome environmental program - But - a Bankrupt state.
I read where Gov. Brown has balanced the California budget that Arnie messed up so well.
Arnie's gone from ruining states for the (R)epelican'ts to staring in a movie with the guy from Jackass, Johnny Knoxville..
Fitting?
Yes - in a way - Yes - something about jackasses?
So - that would mean that California is on probation?
Jackasses, and I'm sure plenty of guns..............:)
Arnie never did much of anything else.....Twins maybe?
But that had guns too.
it's hard to come up with new material
Wonder if he will have a reunion movie with that other jackass ex-governor? JV? predator.
I Mean Bruce W is releasing a new die hard.
Come on!! States have budgets. The states and the localities within them are prime examples of smaller, local government entities. Perhaps, what the government would normally spend on a federal program, it could give that amount to the state. There would be fewer levels of red tape and a local institution with local, knowledgable citizenry who have a much better idea what needs to be done than some beurocrat in Washington.
Bullshit!
Mississippi, Montana, Alabama At least One of the Dakotas.
Welfare States, so don't give me budget crap.
Welfare States who for years were paid for by highly unionized, well paid States, like New York and California.
States that were never paid back for their largesse.
NO Instead those States were bought by the anti-union corporations.
They were the first to go.
And we're still paying their way.
ALEC is buying up States each and every day.
States are cheap to buy and you never dealt with the cost to the Nation of 50 sets of laws and regulations.
Fewer States is the SMART way to reduce government and make it more manageable by the voting public.
Look at all the fucked up shit (R)epelican'ts, with the help of ALEC cost the Nation with their TREASONOUS voter purges..
All that shit cost money.
to give those states that kind of responsiblity requires certain criteria be met. If they can't,,,well, that is the big question
Your still not dealing with what I've told you.
Your still parroting a view I've heard for years, and it's a false paradigm.
Your still ignoring the plain as the nose on your face fact that States as individuals are cheaper to buy for the 1%.
PS, It's their PR departments that have been pushing what you are parroting. Inside the box thinking
Let me ask you this.
Where else have you heard it suggested to reduce the number of States, which would by way, also reduce the size of the federal government needed to administrate them.
Not to mention a more efficient Congress and Senate.
Since I am not knowledgable in these matters, I do not know. I have never heard, before you, the notion of reducing the number of states in the union.
There's just too many States.
They're too cheap and easy to buy.
You want the ALEC list?
And you STILL haven't dealt with 50 sets of laws and regulations.
PS, I have more.
It really does make the most sense.
what you seem to be preaching is centralization of power?
The states each had their own local government at inception
" I will admit that I may be off, but that is my initial interpretation"
It was a knee jerk.
What do you want? a weak ineffectual central government/
If so why even bother having one?
We might as well be 50 individual bought out little countries.
Waiting for the next corporation to come along to bend over and give it another tax beak to do business with them.
Sucking the corporate tit, even worse than now.
What I want, is a small oversight government. It gets involved in the really big problems, not the partitoning of shit piles in the boondocks.
Where did I say that?
Stop makin' stuff up. It's the same as lying, or didn't they teach you that?
At least deal with what I posted.
Show me how it isn't cheaper for the 1% to purchase influence and leverage and out and out legislation in a State as opposed to the feds.
"There's just too many States....And you still havn't dealth with 50 sets of laws and regulations." I will admit that I may be off, but that is my initial interpretation
perhaps more even steps in population state by state
the mid-west Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas could be a vast state
Why weren't they at their inception? Same problem would probable pop up. wide open spaces; resources spread thin. Instead of one low population state, an agency would look after the affairs of, what, 4 or 5 isolated states morphed together? talk about lack of contact and understanding.
be fairly cheap, if we all voted with our names
Poll tax?
WB, BTW.................:)
Hope you're well.
I've been boated from The Magic the gathering gaming forum where I was creating a set of fantasy playing cards
I played a little A D & D back in the 80s, but get my game on with computers these days.
I hope you didn't talk those guys to death at the other forum.........:)
I think that the foundation comes "in the beginning"
little girls seem to play more colaberatively & co-operativly
little boys seem to play more competitively & to "win"
BOTH skills are very important - but today, with selfishness & greed swamping America, more female "tone" is needed.
nice analogy. Thx
Why limit yourself to sexism? Out of all women, do you believe blacks, whites, or asians are the best leaders? Christians, atheists, Jewish, Muslim, etc...? What about age group? If we're going to generalize, let's go all the way!
All races, & all religions (especially atheists) I would consider equally.
I think there are good women & bad women (just like men). I believe further that there are more good woman as a percentage of the whole gender than there are good men.
My opinion is based on my personal experience & my witnessing of all leaders in general.
So I have always preferred woman. but lots f men couldbe better or ofthe best leaders.
In the end, although I think there are more good women, I only ever state that we must replace pro 1% conservatives w/ pro 99% progressives.
........ until the new ground up, horizontal direct democracy emerges, of course.
It would have been more interesting if you hadn't limited yourself to sexism.
"All races, & all religions (especially atheists) I would consider equally."
(that is from my 1st response above, didja miss it?)
No. Got that. That's why I said it would have been more interesting if you hadn't limited yourself to sexism.
Now that's three times you've made the same snarky remark.
Got anything else? Are you spent?
I'm done. Just wanted to point out this thread was sexist. A leader should be judged by attributes that are directly related to leading, not his or her genitalia.
Well said. I agree.
In my experience women appear to be better leaders. I can't say it isabout their genitalia, but I can tell you they do appear better.
Many people would say that white leaders appear better than blacks ones (or the opposite), and, like you, they couldn't say why. They would say, "In my experience they appear to be better." That's racism. What you're doing is sexism. Equally as bad.
I have seen great male leaders too.
Does that help?
It's your thread, you may do as you please. I wouldn't write a sexist thread, and if I did so by mistake I would erase it. However, if you are proud of your sexism, then you should stand by it and let this thread remain for all to see. It's your reputation, not mine.
If I said that white cops are better than black cops judging from experience, then after someone called me on racism I replied that there are great black cops, would that be OK? It's essentially what your saying.
I don't feel sexist, Is there something specific in the thread you want to refer to that illustrates my sexism.?
I will gladly review and correct (even erase, as you suggest) if necessary.
The question "Women are better leaders than men?" is sexist. You judge leadership based on sex alone instead of looking at the many attributes that makes a great leader. You must also think women are better cooks, men better at math, women better and languages, men better at poker, etc...
I guess if you don't feel sexist and don't know why I think your thread is sexist that it must be because you don't understand what sexism is. Use a dictionary.
Thank you.
Good luck to you in all your good efforts.
well I've already responded to your weak accusation that the question is sexist.
It is only a question not a statement and so barely sexism.
If that's all you got then I say I disagree,
Thanks for playing.
You think sexism, racism, etc... does not exist in forms of questions, only statements? Again, which school did you go to? If I asked, "Do you think asians are better leaders than caucasians?" that would be racism.
Good luck to you. I suggest you educate yourself.
Are you suggesting that right wingers prefer women over male leaders?
That is patently false! I KNOW the right wing is behind the most misogynist war on women in the last few decades.
Your obvious lack of understanding of the right wing is enormous.
Actually I'd say the Kennedy's have done more damage to women in the last few decades. Drownings, suicides, beating up nurses, etc...
True. I don't know much about right wingers. Please educate me.
If you think it is sexist, offer proof. Explain your accusation. I won't do you're work for you.
I know I'm not sexist. I don't think this thread is hurtful to women at all.
Perhaps you just don't like the thread because it lifts women up.
Do you prefer keeping women down?
I already did explain my accusation and offered proof. More than once. You can't read? The title of your thread "Women are better leaders than men?" is a sexist question. It wants us to decide who are better leaders solely based on gender. This is sexism. Where did you go to school?
I think women need to be lifted up. They need to share and equal space in society, but I don't think using sexism is the right way to do it. Everybody should be treated equally.
Here is a good bit of info on republican sexism. (THIS is real sexism)
http://occupywallst.org/forum/vote-out-rape-confused-republicans/
Republicans are sexist. That's for sure! You don't have to tell me that. But, you're thread is real sexism as well. Look up the definition of sexism. Why not learn something today?
Conservatives appear to think of women as inferior, they seem to prefer they be seen & not heard, not work, not even vote. Conservatives state they can't decide reproductive rights. As such they have decimated womens health care options in several red state.
Example:
http://action.democraticgovernors.org/page/s/keep-your-hands-off-women-s-health-care
Do I have to educate you about "rape confused republicans" as well?
Yes, i would like to hear your ides.
So you mean the title should have been "Women better progressives than men?" Is that better? Maybe I can make that change.
Oh well you live and you learn. (I should have asked my wife, Have asked the women in YOUR life?)
Nope. Still sexist. I guess that's natural to you. You probably have a twin somewhere who's asking the same questions for black vs white. Lol. Born in Texas? Are you and shooz the two right wingers on this board? You look like a tag team from the Bible Belt.
I judge leaders based on their progressiveness.
You should have written that as the title for this thread. It would have been more interesting and not sexist.
I have said repeatedly that I judge pols based on positions on issues, on how progressive a leader is. So that is just you blatantly lying because I guess you could not find anything that proves your scurrilous personal attack on me.
And A question is not sexist. It is just a question. I want change that.
But if you find anything honestly I will review and correct if necessary.
Otherwise I will simply dismiss your personal attack as dishonest.
Thanks
I didn't refer to pols at all. Why are you talking about that? My comments are about your sexist way of judging a leader. Nothing else.
At worst, it's lurid, and it's lurid thread titles that get the attention.
I can get only a few to post in an important thread on Idle No More.
It's just not lurid enough.
So, you defend sexism on the grounds that it sells well? It gets attention, so it's OK? I guess we went to a different logic school.
Here's the quote from the preacher.
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/pat-robertson-outrage-hard-nosed-awful-looking-women-are-ruining-marriages
You should stop pontificating and start offering examples, or valid solutions.
Why do right wingers even come to this site? Shouldn't you be on a tea party site? I don't get you. Occupy is not about sexism, and we lean towards the left. We care about society. It's about people being equal and helping each other.
What you are doing is ignoring the sexism.
You just got here and you "don't get" me?
I'm asking YOU to comment on the sexism being demonstrated.
Not, denigrate it because of a thread title.
Do you get me now?
I did comment on the sexism being demonstrated. The question - "Women are better leaders than Men?" is sexist. It's the idea that we can decide the quality of a leader solely based on their genitalia. I don't think Occupy should be about this. Do you? (It's okay with me if you are sexist at church, or with your right wing friends at the bar, what I'm saying is that with Occupy we should strive for equality.)
It's stereotyping and "genitalia" that has produced the impediments.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110713142044.htm
A stereotype based on sexism won't solve one based on leadership. We should strive towards a society which doesn't rely on lame stereotypes and baseless opinions. Sexism, racism, leadershipism, etc... should be avoided at occupy.
Positive sexism doesn't make it better.
"baseless opinions"?
"My opinion is based on my personal experience & my witnessing of all leaders in general."
That's from an earlier response. Didja miss that?
Also from the above comment:
"In the end, although I think there are more good women, I only ever state that we must replace pro 1% conservatives w/ pro 99% progressives."
So I agree we must choose based on leadership attributes and political positions.
Racist people also base their racism on personal experience, just like sexist people. That's the problem. You should base your opinions on something deeper. Look beyond the panty line.
Which party line have I referred to?
I've already said our choices should be based on positions on issues. And that we should choose progressives over conservatives.
Isn't that what you're talkin about?
You're obsessed with parties are you? I said panty line, not party line. Look beyond the genitalia. Judge a leader's worth based on qualities that have to do with leadership, not with what hangs or doesn't hang between the legs.
Once again, I have repeatedly said that I judge leaders based on their position on issues and progressiveness.
You have ignored that reality because it doesn't fit your false narrative of me.
Why are you pretending not to see that.?
This thread is about judging leaders based on sex only. The question you pose is "Women are better leaders than men?". That question only refers to genitalia, nothing else. It is sexism. Own it, if that's what you're about.
So it's better to ask.: "Women better progressives than men?"
I did say women, but you equated "women" to genitalia because that is all you see them as. Maybe that makes YOU a sexist.
I think that the genders have differences related to their approach of societal issues. Maybe it is hormonal, or brain patterns, maybe evolutionary, maybe conditioning.
I don't know why I have seen more progressive women leaders than male leaders. Maybe my experience is not really conclusive, it certainly isn't scientific evidence. So I could be wrong.(I have been before)
In the end I have never said anything about genitalia except that it is NOT the way to judge. You keep focusing on genitalia. I have only said we should judge based on progressiveness.
So I hope that helps you understand better
You're right, your evidence certainly isn't scientific. I'll give you that.
You didn't say anything about genitalia, but sexism is based on gender, and you talked about men vs women. That is sexism. You know the old routine. Women cook, men fix the house. That's sexism.
Your title does not even talk about progressiveness. It talks solely about men vs women. Is a women a better leader? That's all you asked. It's sexist.
Would you prefer Rush Limbaugh quotes?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/03/04/the-stubborn-gender-gap.html
How about the "preacher" who recently said that women aren't pretty enough?
A "preacher" who says women aren't pretty enough is similar to what VQkag2 is doing. Just boring sexism. Uninteresting. You think sexism is good? Do you believe Occupy should support sexism?
I haven't referred to womens prettiness. So no that ain't nothing like what I'm doing. WRONG!
I do prefer womens looks over men though.
Your thread is sexist. If you don't understand why, use a dictionary and review the definition of sexism.
No thanks. I'm ok with my provocative thread, and my fairness, & commitment to equality.
If you won't take the time to prove your immature personal attack against me then either you can't find proof, or it ain't that important to you.
Either way, thanks for playing.
I'm demonstrating the level of sexism in the wild.
And in a way testing YOU on your level of knowledge.
You haven't actually offered much.
Not much to offer on this thread. It's a sexist thread and shouldn't be condoned by occupy. Not the occupy I know. What did you offer? Rush Limbaugh? Nobody cares about that loser. Not occupiers anyhow. I guess you're a hard right winger. Good luck with that son. Conservatism is over. It's time to think socially, globally. Get with the times.
I see your "best thing" is missing the point and attempting idologcal reversal.
Sorry. I'm not biting.
Limbaugh?
Someone said the same thing about Beck.
Lots of people "care" about both of them.
So yes, they and others like them have a GREAT affect on the social fabric.
To deny that, is just wrong.
In reality, it's time to start concentrating on the States and what's happening in them.
Take a look around.
Look, it's all good. If you're into Rush Limbaugh and Beck that's fine. You can post their links, but they don't interest me. I know Occupy is open to all political ideologies so I do respect righties like you. I guess we follow Occupy for different reasons. That's cool. What's important is that we all fight together. Personally, I lean pretty far left. But, it's all good. I respect your political position.
I can't accept your defense of sexism though. I know it's a big thing with bible thumpers and right wingers like yourself, but I really believe you have to put that aside at occupy. We really need to build a society that is based on equality.