Skip to comments.Women vs. Men: Who Governs Better?
Posted on 07/14/2013 4:09:01 PM PDT by neverdem
Every so often there's that obligatory article asking, "Are Women Superior at_____?" or "Do Women Make Better ______?," with politicians often being the focus.
Of course, the question is always asked rhetorically. No matter the facts of the case, you'll never hear, "We examined the issue exhaustively from all perspectives, consulted with premier authorities in the discipline, collated the data, and have determined that in..."...
Lawrence is fair to the not-fairer sex, though, writing that "some men" are "trying to make things work better"; these would be "[a]spiring deal-makers in today's Senate" such as "John McCain, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner, and Tennessee Republican Bob Corker[.]"
And you put all those guys together, and you still have Low T.
Transitioning to High E, Lawrence emphasizes how "[s]ome of the strongest bipartisan relationships are among the women themselves" (that's easy when your ideology is basically the same) and also reports, "The members have thrown showers for women who are getting married or adopting children. They socialize with their families at each other's homes. They run together and discuss how to juggle a Senate career and the responsibility of raising young children." Yes, it's the Divine Secrets of the Tax-and-Spend Sisterhood.
Look, let's cut the (I'll be sexist) male bovine. It's well-known by the less brainwashed that women are creatures of the flock; they don't like going against the group, which is one reason I didn't think the women judging George Zimmerman would give us a hung jury (though I did predict an acquittal two days ago). And, thank God, this time 6 Collaborating Women did the job of 12 Angry Men. But there's another way of saying women are of the flock.
They are creatures of the collective.
And of collectivism...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It’s certainly NOT Big Sis.
Ayn Rand’s take on this subject:
That would have been a good model to preserve.
It is true that female suffrage was one of the most effective things ever to happen to the world socialist movement.
Thanks for the link!
Women vs. Men: Who Governs Better?
Immaterial in a strong, healthy, God fearing Culture.
I’ve always said the three worst things that happened to this country was the Indians were conquered, the South lost and women got the vote.
It certainly is not a combination of both, as in Lindsay Graham.
Well 0bama pulls down the stats A LOT!
Which team is he on?
Immaterial in a strong, healthy, God fearing Culture.
Women are to obey their husbands.
That 99.99999% of Christians don't bother to emphasize this and have embraced most of feminism makes them apostates.
Daddy is a benevolent dictator and Mama is a loving guide.
The first politic is the family and it is the woman (of a traditional Dick and Jane family) that actually "governs" the many (sometimes) different personalities.
It's mama that wields the first blow of discipline and mama that comforts the boo boos.
To answer the question posed ... I think women govern better than men .. whom lead.
The GOP has a LOT of good women who are fulfilling their terms and responsibilities to their constituents and their beliefs.
The full quote she refers to in the link is as follows:
“I do not think that a rational woman can want to be president. Observe that I did not say she would be unable to do the job; I said that she could not want it. It is not a matter of her ability, but of her values.
...when it comes to the post of president, ...do not ask: Could she do the job and would it be good for the country? Conceivably, she could and it would - but what would it do to her?
The issue is primarily psychological. . .
...the higher [a womans] view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother - or leader.
Now consider the meaning of the presidency: in all his professional relationships, within the entire sphere of his work, the president is the highest authority; he is the chief executive, the commander-in-chief. ...In the performance of his duties, a president does not deal with equals, but only with inferiors (not inferiors as persons, but in respect to the hierarchy of their positions, their work, and their responsibilities).
This, for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation. ... To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman; she would have to function only as a mind, not as a person, i.e., as a thinker devoid of personal values - a dangerously artificial dichotomy which no one could sustain for long. By the nature of her duties and daily activities, she would beome the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch.
For a woman to seek or desire the presidency is, in fact, so terrible a prospect of spiritual self-immolation that the woman who would seek it is psychologically unworthy of the job.”
From An Answer to Readers (About a Woman President),
The Objectivist, Dec. 1968
“Women vs. Men: Who Governs Better?”
A conservative woman governs better than a liberal man.
A conservative man governs better than a liberal woman.
If you have a choice between a conservative man and a conservative woman, it doesn’t matter who wins - in this scenario we all do.
Thanks for the quote!
Let’s not forget Golda Meir.
the exception women are exceptions because thgey govern like strong mnen. maggie had more kahones than all the guys in parliament put together. sure miss her at her best.
She certainly seems to have had more than Blair or Cameron in formerly Great Britain.
one verdict ought not bring up such a question, these were not elected women. further several had engineering husbands, one was a lawyer, so we’re talking about women attracted to men who are very logical and ethodical and organized.
“And women will rule over them,” is a quote from the Scriptures about the folly of nations run by women. Women, in general, have problems with cold logic. They are by nature more nurturing and emotional than men. They are also more “catty.” The last thing that any country needs is to be ruled over by women. Matriarchal societies are exceedingly cruel. We do not need a Jezebel in the White House.
Govern? In an ideal world, Godly men would make the law and Godly women, being more empathetic by nature, would apply the law, the home and community writ large. Reality does not allow this, however. In most situations wherein the law is brought to bear, being logical and dispassionate is the only course approximating justice.
Caring and empathy when dealing with criminals leads to all manner of injustice in the larger realm, whether or not this might be appropriate in any given individual circumstance. Are women capable of being dispassionate and logical? Of course, and there are outstanding examples of such. We’ve just seen a fine instance of this in Florida. Are women as a group noted for this, absolutely not. Argue ‘till you’re blue in the face, ladies, but amongst yourselves you know it’s true.
Remove Godly from the equation and all bets are off. Do you want to ultimately end up with a brutal dictatorship or a smothering nanny state? Smothering nanny state is what we’ve gotten thus far, since the advent of this era of apparent female dominance. There has to be an enforcement arm of even a matriarchy, however, and so we’ll eventually have both.
Much better than those old dead white men ever managed, huh? /s
Giving women the right to ushered in socialism.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Recent feminists and SNAGs in leadership positions have pretty much driven a wooden stake through the heart of that notion. [SNAGS: sensitive New Age guys.] They can keep pushing it, though, right through the remainder of the default process and eventual economic depositions of pathological, favored constituents. Consumers won’t start buying again in spite of measures being taken by leadership against the law of our land.
Thanks for the ping!
Repeal the 19th!! ;)
If you want to gin up your readership and attract a few more ad-buyers, post a “battle of the sexes” column. As predictable as rain in the Southeast this summer.
Because the quality of governance depends on a person’s plumbing.