Skip to comments.
What If Women Ran the World?
BusinessWeek ^
| Tue Apr 15, 2003
| Thane Peterson
Posted on 04/15/2003 12:23:32 PM PDT by WaveThatFlag
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 301-310 next last
To: WaveThatFlag
She may be the only one.
Personally, I don't want women running the world. They can come up with some pretty crappy ideas.
To: WaveThatFlag
We had our first black woman president from '92 through '00, and look where it got us.
To: WaveThatFlag
you cant be serious.... please dear God tell me you arent serious
To: WaveThatFlag
dude, this needed a barf-alert.
64
posted on
04/15/2003 12:56:03 PM PDT
by
demosthenes the elder
(If *I* can afford $5/month to support FR: SO CAN YOU)
To: WaveThatFlag
well, they'll be flowers everywhere, and then those who aren't led by women will war against those who are and the women will loose and then we can start again with men.....
As hard as that sounds, it's true.....
what we have, a combination, is the best.
65
posted on
04/15/2003 12:57:33 PM PDT
by
The Wizard
(Saddamocrats are enemies of America)
To: WaveThatFlag
A world of Nancy Pelosi's?
I'd check out...
66
posted on
04/15/2003 12:57:49 PM PDT
by
OpusatFR
(Freud was right! Martha Burk has golf ball envy.)
To: dead
hey: a twofer!
67
posted on
04/15/2003 12:59:05 PM PDT
by
demosthenes the elder
(If *I* can afford $5/month to support FR: SO CAN YOU)
To: Illbay
The women are in charge of the hideous and neverending torture of the captives. Sounds like marriage.
68
posted on
04/15/2003 1:03:37 PM PDT
by
wai-ming
To: WaveThatFlag
The author,
Thane Peterson, of "
What If Women Ran the World?" must not have had sisters!
Let Thane know what you think... Thane Peterson's email address: Thane33@aol.com
To: WaveThatFlag
The title of this editorial whine is "What if Women Ran The World" not What if One Woman Ran The World. Why does the author immediately try to determine how much better life would be if Hillary ran America (she did for awhile in the 1990s, part of the publicly stated unelected co-presidency.
Why didn't the author try to offer a perspective of how much better off the world would be if women were running the Middle Eastern nations (instead they are repressed).
PS, Hillary didn't have the courage to dump her louse of a husband and enabled his sex addictions. If she can't keep her homelife in order, what will suddenly make her do "the right thing" helming the world's Super Power?
70
posted on
04/15/2003 1:11:42 PM PDT
by
weegee
(NO BLOOD FOR RATINGS: CNN let human beings be tortured and killed to keep their Baghdad bureau open)
To: MacDorcha
Anyone who is serious about such cant is hinting that he or she is not a responsible person.
To: wai-ming
LOL!
Glad I hadn't taken a sip of my TAB before I read that one!
72
posted on
04/15/2003 1:12:47 PM PDT
by
Illbay
To: Post Toasties
I think, all in all, women will tend to let the core situations deteriorate much more, hoping quick fixes will resolve issues, and then the ultimate result is likely to be much more detrimental to whichever society has put its trust primarily in women leaders. Wow, you can substitute "Democrats" for "women" in the preceding statement and it holds true.
To: WaveThatFlag
"women tend to pursue conciliation and cooperation long after men would have been at each other's throats"
She hasn't seen my 4 year old daughter on the playgound! Oh brother. . .
74
posted on
04/15/2003 1:15:23 PM PDT
by
NFOShekky
(Lone Tomcat in the Hen House)
To: reformed_dem
Furthermore, if that President Beatch looks at my man again, I am going to rip out her ovaries.
And I don't need someone to tell me my hair looked better before I cut it - I already know that.
To: WaveThatFlag
"Wouldn't we be a lot better off if women were in charge, given all the violence and atrocities perpetrated by men and male-run governments in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, and Iraq (news - web sites)?"
I bet Thane thinks being 'pro-choice' is a great thing and that abortion has nothing to do with violence against the weak.
76
posted on
04/15/2003 1:17:15 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
To: xm177e2
"Their track record in running world governments is no better than men's...."
Another case in point: Benazir Bhutto. Her rampaging vanity helped to facilitate a series of policy disasters for Pakistan.
There is another pernicious fallacy inherent in the article: the idea that armed conflict is always bad. When nations face irreconcilable differences sometimes armed conflict is beneficial. As Clasewitz observed was is "politics by other means". At times war is only way to obtain a desirable political goal.
Margaret Thatcher realized that this was the case in the Flaklands War. There was no strategic British interest at stake over the Falklands but Thatcher went to war because leeting the Argentine agression stand would have brought other undesirable political reults in its wake.
The French had several opportunities to stop Hitler before he became a menace. They failed to act because of their WWI experience. This timidity proved to be their undoing in the long run.
77
posted on
04/15/2003 1:17:59 PM PDT
by
ggekko
To: Havoc
If I were President, I'd have to have Keanu Reeves as my running mate. He's a doll.
To: lilylangtree
Name one successful Western woman in government? Margaret Thatcher does not count - I want American.
To: mabelkitty
I want American ELECTED.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 301-310 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson