if the first woman named eve fell to the temptation and let her partner do the same,it is possible that if a woman rule a country,there will be high suceptibility of a nation in confusion,turmoil and chaos in all the societies of the country.
2007-09-22 18:35:49 · 11 answers · asked by aqruipnos888 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I can't believe you even asked that question!
You have a lot of ill founded assumptions. Golda Meir was a good one as was Margaret Thatcher.
I can't believe little boys are still afraid of women, and bring up Adam and Eve as an example! That sure is a stretch, don't you think?
No I don't agree but your question is bifurcated and makes no sense!
2007-09-22 18:55:19 · answer #1 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ok, I'll argue against this from 2 points of view.
1. I'll stick with your mentality first. Adam fell to temptation as well, and her letting Adam do the same doesn't show a difference. He let her, she let him, doesn't prove anything. Fact of the matter is that both of them submitted to temptation because it's part of the human condition, temptation tends to sway our lives heavily.
2. Now I'm going to have to take a different one. Adam and Eve hardly applies to today, even if it was a real story (unlikely as that is, otherwise we'd all be closely related, that's a problem). If you want to look at this from the point of view of hormones, that'd make more sense. The problem is men are fueled by Testosterone, which is far more volatile and causes us to have a more aggressive attitude. Estrogen is far from the same. Sounds more like males should be worse for leadership, because they're more unstable due to their hormones. Doesn't mean they are, just on the basis of the chemicals in their bodies.
2007-09-22 18:55:11 · answer #2 · answered by whiteflame55 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is at the crux of this matter is the term "equal". I can without fail say tha 1 is "equal" to 1, or that 100 is equal to 100. however, I would be wrong to say that 1 is equal to 4 or otherwise. My point is that I believe people "ought" to be treated fairly and or proportionately, however, people cannot be treated equally in all matters because people, from one person to the next, are in fact different.
As far as men and women are concerned, we have our similarities, and of course we have our differences as well. I think the rapper eminem said it best when he said, "What's the difference between us? Let's start at the penis." Men are called men and not women because they are men, and vice versa. So let us treat equal as equal and unequals as unequals.
As far as the question above is concerned, a woman can take the job for all i care as long as she can do the job.
2007-09-23 03:38:08 · answer #3 · answered by l_tone 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You sound like a ghost from the past...like, from 1940! Women can be anything they want...if they want it bad enough. They might get paid less, but someday, that will change too. We have been in "supervisory jobs" for a long time. If Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nominee for President, there is a very good chance she will win..especially if she is up against Romney or Giuliani.
2007-09-22 19:25:41 · answer #4 · answered by ArRo 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree.
It's all about the individual. There are women at the top of major corporations, they got there by fighting, learning, working, and luck, not unlike the men before them.
I'd love to see a woman in the White House. Even if she is awful, at least we tried something different.
Trouble is when you examine a candidate like Clinton, it's not promissing.
2007-09-22 18:55:00 · answer #5 · answered by E. F. Hutton 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If she is qualified and has a good record of responcible decision making............... sure ... let her hold any position that she is aptly qualified for and pay her a comparable wage to do it.
I currently know at least 100 women who could do a much better job than the 'man' at the head of the current administration.
2007-09-22 21:15:48 · answer #6 · answered by pink 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I like my mom when I was a little boy, thus woman might have an unconscious advantage.
2007-09-22 18:41:36 · answer #7 · answered by bobanalyst 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes! Equal treatment, equal respect , equal in all ways,
Just NOT the one running for the Democratic ticket currently.
2007-09-22 18:45:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I bet there are many women(not HC) who could do a better job than the present.
2007-09-22 18:46:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Whatever.
You know,ancient creation myths used as justification for misogynistic beliefs is kind of...passe',to be polite about it.
2007-09-22 18:43:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋