rather than men, there would be so many wars? I'm not a feminist, far from it. I only think that women are more nurturing, sympathetic and less likely to put their babies/children at risk. You only have to watch the news when two factions/groups (whatever) are fighting/throwing things at each other, how many women do you see?
Just a thought! (not too sure which section to put this in, so chose politics, in view of current affairs)!
2006-08-11 15:11:19 · 22 answers · asked by Sue 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The truth is nothing would change, power corrupts everyone.
2006-08-11 15:32:21 · answer #1 · answered by neorapsta 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I don't think there would be much of a difference really. I am going at this from a supervory perspective in job experiences. I should state I am a woman.
As it goes, I perfer men as my boss. I have found women to be way less sympathetic, moody, and backstabbing. My current boss gave me a hard time about taking two 15 minute breaks a day to pump my breast milk while the smokers in our company (all women) took more like a total of 1 1/2 hours of smoke breaks in a work day. Also during my maternity leave for this child (I had a C-section and had 8 weeks off), I was expected to come in once a week after being physically off for 3 1/2 weeks. Of course, I have a desk job and got comp time for the hours I came in and did not work full days. But, it was understood that my boss did not want to handle the people I service and expected this of me.
Another example, one of my coworkers was dating this guy for a long time (I think 6 or 7 years) and he left her for her best friend. My coworker was devistated! She approached our female boss for a couple days off (making it a long weekend) to get herself together and sort some things out. The boss replied "Why are you upset, it's not like you were married to him!", scoffed, and told her "NO!". I should mention that our boss works in the mental health field and did not like my coworker.
Even my worst male boss was not as mean or vengeful as my previous examples. Although men can be just as moody as women in a supervory role, men get over it quicker in my experience and usually don't hold grudges.
As politics is just as much cut throat as the business world, I would not expect any difference of women in the political arena than in the business arena.
The cultures you are refering to (throwing rocks) repress women to the extreem. Of course, you may not be able to see them because the women and children were shipped off to be sheilds for the terrorists. Or the women are busy strapping the bomb on themselves or their child so as to walk on to a bus full of "the infidel" to blow themselves up.
2006-08-11 22:55:28 · answer #2 · answered by Camping Chick 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wasn't too hot when we had Thatcher, but maybe we were unlucky. Do you know about Segele Royal in France? She is a possible Presidetal Candidate for next year and looks good (good looking too).
Hilary Clinton in the US would be a huge improvement on the cluts they have now - but, on the other hand, the Rice woman woudn't be.
Guess there isn't a straight answer to you question.
2006-08-12 06:53:20 · answer #3 · answered by lykovetos 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While this sounds good on paper, or in your head, it's only because you see it as an alternative to current affairs.
If the world was running smoothly and wonderfully, you wouldn't ask the question.
Women in control means multitasking, and while it's a good trait to possess, it can lead to stretching yourself too thin.
Men do what most women can and won't do, be violent. It's in their nature, it's a part of nature and it's how it will always be.
2006-08-11 22:17:37 · answer #4 · answered by dork_hollywood 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
women are definitely smarter than men and more logical, even with PMS. the only time women act stupid is over a pair of shoes which they know hurt but still wear them anyway or over some guy who's going to cheat on them anyway.
but men act dumb all the time, because they never use the big head, only the little one. i definitely think if more females were in power there would be less wars, but if there had to be a war a woman had to start, EVERYONE better run because it would not be over till she said it was over and until everyone got what was coming to them...
2006-08-12 02:58:18 · answer #5 · answered by latina 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think the women who would choose to go into politics would be very man-like anyway, because it's a male dominated world.
I could use my intellect in that way if I had to, but it doesn't really interest me. I think a lot of intelligent women feel the same way. It just doesn't interest us, so we distance ourselves from it.
Here's a great place for your question, by the way!
2006-08-11 22:19:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is utter folly to think that women will make the world a better place. You should learn to be a feminist. The only difference between the sexes are their sexual organs.
2006-08-12 00:20:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is more the individual than the sex that creates conflict. Males just seem to be more open about it. The press has done a great job of fostering the other perception.
2006-08-11 22:16:48 · answer #8 · answered by viablerenewables 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Whether it be men or women in power:-
"Power corrupts and abolute power corrupts absolutely"
It is sad but true that often the people least suited to power are the ones prepared to fight to obtain it.
2006-08-11 22:38:58 · answer #9 · answered by Martin G 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a good place for it.
There are women in politics already that have a say.
2006-08-11 22:14:16 · answer #10 · answered by cheeky chic 379 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you old enough to remember Maggie Thatcher, or Golda Meyer in Israel, or Mrs Ghandi in India?
2006-08-12 06:53:38 · answer #11 · answered by Charles D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋