What If Women Ran the World?

BusinessWeek ^ | Tue Apr 15, 2003 | Thane Peterson

[S.O.S121.500]

Re: Isa 3:12 1 Timothy 2:9-14

"I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent".

[sit-rep]

I could only read the first paragraph and had to bail...

A woman president is not in the near future. It is nice you're trying to please the ladies, but it ain't gonna happen...

[Dutchgirl]

Think of Eva Braun. President Coulter

I prefer this woman's view.

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence... The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law." -Ayn Rand

[Lorianne]

I am a feminist and pro-Life. Your "so-called" women's leaders pretty much sums it up for me.

As far as blanket statements goes, there are many examples of that on this very thread content to group libel and group demonize women. Sadly, groupthink is alive and well in all political camps.

I find very few people of any persuasion willing to think for themselves.

[wimpycat]

Don't worry, I don't take them seriously. It must have been my PMS that tripped me off the rails and allowed me to even give those morons the time of day. Yep, that's it. It was a chemical imbalance. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

[Lorianne]

You're right. I missed her.

[Lorianne]

You said hillary is unelectable. She is presently an elected representative to the US Senate from New Yawk. Ergo, your statement is false.

I'm no fan of Hillary but she is definitely "electable" and has proven so. Sticking ones head in the sand is not an effective political strategy.

[Lorianne]

The Taliban advocated the same. Hmmm come to think of it, where are those guys anyway?

[Zon]

Who determines "force", "threat of force" or "fraud" ?

Please don't eliminate the critical key word initiate. That said, is it not obvious that the victim will determine when he or she has been harmed by the initiation of force, threat of force or fraud.

Who arbitrates any supposed transgressions?

Ultimately it's an impartial jury. The prosecution, defense lawyers and judge have a roles too, as do witnesses. BTW, Since 1894 trial judges have routinely violated the Sixth Amendment -- defendant's right to an impartial jury.

The answer to the question Who decides? is the great bugaboo to liberty. Always has been. The person or persons charged with (or self deputizing themselves with) arbitration of such matters have the true power.

In 1894 judges began an insidious abuse of their power and abused the constitution and all defendants given a jury trial since then. They don't have real power. They have the illusion of real power and it's a house of cards they built via their abuse of the limited power granted to them. Real power delivers honest justice -- not the other way around. That's an important distinction to make because it identifies the two different powers and drives a wedge that separates real power that can only come from objective law that delivers honest justice -- separating it from parasitical elites wielding political-agenda laws and ego-justice that often delivers injustice. The juxtaposition is put up for all to see.

[wardaddy]

I find very few people of any persuasion willing to think for themselves.

Boy howdy is that not so true. I can even tolerate a liberal socially if they are well informed....which is rare. Glad to hear you are pro-life...that is very good. The reference to my old girlfriend was not a slight, she was very bright and kind-hearted but sort of Naomi Wolfe/Faludi-esque babe...but she had an aversion to being called honey or darling and the door being opened for her etc. Once the hormones played out, I had to go. She's now a department head at a major university and unmarried and childless...we were not meant for the long haul. Just the way it is. My wife who is Southern like me rules me no doubt but in a more subtle way which can be frustrating but creates less tension for a guy like me who is too old to change. Nice reference on the midwest working moms...I did not know that. I would like to see a more precise survey of say moms in Cambridge or the Upper West Side. I bet the fewest are in the South...just guessing.

[wimpycat]

Well, I'm in no mood to engage in the battle of the sexes, which is fully my prerogative, as you well know. All I can say is that, sadly, there are both men and women who are emotionally ill-equipped to engage in any long-term romantic relationships with members of the opposite sex, or else unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to sustain the same, and these people are better off not even trying.

[wardaddy]

On the stats....I think what would be more informative to me personally would be the stats on married with children under six working mothers.

Strictly working with children under 6 moms is going to be higher in states like Mississippi where minority illegitmacy is the rule rather than the exception.

[Lorianne]

Who determines if a jury is "impartial". Where do you get impartial juries?

[noname]

True. My best to you, regardless.

[mewzilla]

There'd be more toilets in the ladies rooms.

[pjd]

I can't back this up right now, but I remember reading an article about this very question and the article saying that, if one looks at history, that wars are more frequently launched under Queens than Kings. There is no evidence whatsoever that women i power are any more 'peaceful' than men in power.

Mayber someone with better historical background than me could comment. If this is true, it is a very good refutation of the tired old argument that things would be so much more peaceful if only women ran the world.

[wardaddy]

I think the roles in that regard have sort of evened out. Men used to be more of the dog in commitment but women seem to have caught up but for different reasons. Men hesitate not to roam sexually and thus avoid commitment to a point and young women particularly if well educated today seem to feel they first have to prove they are self sufficient or even in some case competitive before they even think about a family.

I am having this sort of talk with my daughters for college coming up in a few years. I tell them I will pay dearly for the best education there is if it is for a good reason such as med school

But, I will not fork over 200K for 4-5 years at some fancy school like Smith where they can get some BS BA and learn to hate me and then get out and work a few years and then get married and have children and stay home thoroughly "educated" and indoctrinated. I'd rather give them their first home. Sounds like a better use of money. In the meantime, they can go to a public college and find themselves et al.

Am I too neanderthal?

[aruanan]

What If Women Ran the World?

Janet Reno. Bella Abzug. Rosie O'Donnell. Madame LaFarge. Barbra Streisand. Hillary! Depending on who they were, they'd do just as good or just as poor a job as men have done. It seems, though, that the selection pressures in the field of politics or public life bring up at least half a dozen utter bags of slime for every Margaret Thatcher.

[S.O.S121.500]

Your straw man is ashes.