English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

becasue women don't work well under stressful situations like don't have the balls to handle the pain and work load that comes with such an important position??

2006-11-08 10:52:20 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Gender Studies

21 answers

You so did not just go there! Women have bigger balls than most men, we handle stress better and we can remain calm under any situation.
Pain? yeah right! A womans pain tolerance is so much higher than a mans anyday. As for workloads, bring it on, I'll squash you when it comes to all of the above!

2006-11-08 13:27:00 · answer #1 · answered by ~SSIRREN~ 6 · 4 0

Democracy is the very basis of the American method, which includes Equal rights. It isn't a person's global or a man factor in terms of Politics, so if a Female is certified for the Presidency then she wins. Of direction guys who "cock up'' will discover no lady must be in that seat, I proposal the ones days are lengthy long gone whilst lady stayed dwelling naked foot and pregnant, which could be very natural in 3rd global international locations. The persons who've issues with which can be often an empty within the head and thrive off of Male egos that has not anything to present someone allow on my own females. I for one haven't any use or love for a cocky guy ever. I will throw each and every little bit of his property at the road so I will turn out to be President then, and a son of a B**** I will also be all that too.

2016-09-01 09:25:55 · answer #2 · answered by shiva 4 · 0 0

First of all, women usually work BETTER than men under stressful situations...it's sexism!

Why should we judge a person by their physical appearance? Just because someone isn't white does that mean they're uglier? Just because someone is a girl, does that mean that they're less intelligent than a guy?

Sexism and racism has plagued our country ever since it was born. Women are expected to "stay at home and take care of children" and that's it. They are expected to "not have any ambition and are less agressive and tough than men."

From personal experience, women can hit way harder than men. Don't ask. Women just usually look before they jump, and they usually use their brains and don't just turn to physical fighting. And think about it, if the world had women presidents, prime ministers, leaders, etc. would the world have less wars or not?

How come a woman CAN'T BE president? Sir, you should look at your question. In all the rules and amendments and bla bla it never says that a women CAN'T run for president. It just says "has to be 40 years and older, born in U. S., etc."...it NEVER says that the U. S. president HAS to be white, HAS to be Christian, and HAS to be male. But why is it that all of our presidents so far are?

Because of how we were brought up. Guys were taught not to hit girls, girls were taught not to hit anything. Guys were expected to be agressive...while girls were expected the opposite. If they weren't, they were out of place. Not "unique"...weird. Strange. That kind of out of place.

And, add that to the fact that women could only VOTE until about what 80? 70? years ago. However, we're VERY close to having a women president...after all we have Pelosi as #3.

However, I did NOT say that men are more stupid than women; that men are less capable of women. Men can also be as capable and more capable of women; it all depends on the person who is running. For example, if it was Hilary against Bush, the results are obvious.

America, all through the freedom, racist-free, sexist-free, liberty and everything else...is still a racist and sexist country.

2006-11-09 14:55:03 · answer #3 · answered by KatH 2 · 0 0

Women often work better under stress than men do. It all depends on the man and on the woman.

Generally, and as far as I know, there is no particular physical pain in being president; but - much to the dismay of many men, I suppose - "balls" are not required to endure physical pain well.

As with stress, many women are far more capable than many men when it comes to handling a work load of any sort. (One thing to note is that many presidents have been sons who were particularly close to their mothers. I've always assumed that a son's having a close relationship with his mother may mean his mother will help him overcome the tendency of some male brains to lack "verbal/reasoning" skills often associated with female brains; which would mean some mother's sons have the benefit of being taught to think and reason by women while other men don't get that benefit.)

Women didn't get the right to vote until 1920, and it wasn't until the late 1960's and early 1970's that people started to even talk about women being equal to men. Women haven't had the chance to demonstrate their potential to be powerful and effective leaders; but that doesn't mean it isn't there. There's actually a good chance women have a higher ceiling of potential than men do.

There is no reason whatsoever that the right woman (just as with the right man) couldn't be the best president the country has ever had.

2006-11-08 13:00:25 · answer #4 · answered by WhiteLilac1 6 · 4 0

that's ridiculous. we don't work well under stress? Try having a full- time job, raising 3 kids and going to night school. My mother did that for 9 years. You think you could handle that? And as for physical pain, have you ever given birth? Also, most women work harder than any man just to get the same recognition. Wake up and smell your own testosterone, buddy. Having a **** doesn't make you more capable!

2006-11-10 16:47:15 · answer #5 · answered by Forrest Ashley 3 · 0 0

That's part of it, Ray B. There are other reasons, too. Women's reactions in this thread are as clear an indicator as any as to their inability to leave their emotional reactions out of the equation. But one of the most unarguable reason is that if we elected a woman as president the Arab world would see us as weak, and we'd have a 9/11 every month. Now, more than any other, is not the time for a woman president. My guess is that most of the women (so far) in this thread don't care how many people would die as a result of having a female president, though...they will instead look for reasons not to count the cost, or perhaps have not even considered that there might be a cost. Another reason against having a woman for president...at least the kind that, for the most part, have posted here.

2006-11-09 02:15:28 · answer #6 · answered by fishman 3 · 1 2

A woman can be president, a woman works wonders under stress. Lets talk about handling pain and work loads, that is the most sexiest thing i have ever heard. Here we are in 2006 and this bs is still going on... women are just as good as men, if a women handle the bills, cleaning house, raising children, working, bettering herself without men, then I believe WE HAVE EARNED OUR RIGHT TO BE CONSIDERED EQUAL TO MEN. I feel sorry for your mother, having a sexiest son like you. But people are a reflection of their parents.

2006-11-08 11:04:22 · answer #7 · answered by cecilia m 2 · 6 1

For fear that things would be done right. I don't know where you got your information from but it's all wrong. The balls? Stressful situations? Pain? Carry a baby for nine months, raise a child or children on your own without the help of the father. Then come talk to me.

2006-11-08 13:56:31 · answer #8 · answered by uneekqamar2004 4 · 3 0

Her eis how it will go down. The process will take time.

First we'll need a SINGLE male President
Then we'll need an interracial President (Hispanic and Anglo)
Then well have a President that is found to have a bisexual past
Then we'll have a full on gay single President with a female VP
Then a Full on Hispanic President because voters will feel the gay Pres was a mistake
Then a black President
THEN a black WOMAN President.

2006-11-08 17:01:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The reason a woman hasn't become president yet is because of narrow minded sexist guys like you...

Other countries have had women leaders, who did a good job of leading their nations during highly stressful times - like Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, who led her country through the 1967 and 1973 wars.

Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi led her country through the Indo Pakistani war of 1970 - and, when their was an internal crisis in her country, she had the "balls" (or I guess we'd have to say "ovaries") to declare martial law.

The second time she was Prime Minster, she led the resistance to the Sikh successionists in the Punjab (who ultimately assassinated her)

And there are lots and lots of other examples, dude...

Bottom line, you don't need testicles to lead a country...

2006-11-08 14:45:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

fedest.com, questions and answers