Yet another political poll: Gender and the Presidency

[beansprouts]

The theoretical question my dh and I have been discussing is this:

 

If we had two equally qualified candidates with identical ideaologies, but one was a man and one a woman would you have a preference?

 

My dh would vote for the man because he does not feel that men respond well to a woman's leadership. The unfortunate reality is that we still live in a largely male-dominated world and he feels many world leaders would not respect a woman. It isn't fair, and it isn't right, dh freely agrees that the problem lies with the men and not the woman. However, it is the reality and because of it a man would earn more respect as a leader.

 

His opinion ;)

 

I think women are brilliant and multitalented, often more organized and detail oriented then men and able to coordinate and manage multiple tasks competantly. I think the mind of a woman would be extremely valuable in an office of leadership. Besides, I think the right woman could shake things up a bit, and that could be a good thing.

 

So here we are. I would vote for the woman and he the man. In different ways both are sexist views. Nobody's perfect. What are your thoughts?

[newbie]

Wow, now cat is one hundred percent, woo hoo. If its a human, personally I vote sister power, but thats just me. I think we need a woman to turn things around. They are the ones who can truly multitask.

 

Jeannette

[Adrianne]

I believe that God designed men to handle leadership positions not women. We are the keepers of the home created to be our husband's help meet.

 

He designed females to be all of the things you mentioned inside our homes with our families as our main ministry. He gave us emotional hearts to help us nuture and love our families. I have seen time and time again, women in leadership positions allowing emotions to cloud their judgment. We can't help it - God design us this way for other purposes.

 

Men, overall, do not make emotional decisions or allow emotions to cloud their judgment.

 

It is part of original sin commited by Eve for us to want run things and be in charge- but God has not meant that for us. He has given this roll to men.

 

Well, now that I have completely upset women's lib I will go and as someone cleverly said, put on my tomato proof suit. :leaving:

[Closeacademy]

Just love that cat. :tongue_smilie:

 

I don't know it would really depend upon the person who was running.

[newbie]

I wouldnt do tomatoes, didnt you hear there is a recall because of salmonella outbreak. Maybe kumquat suit. I wouldn't throw any, even though I am a woman libber. We need to keep stepping towards the future.

 

Jeannette:D

[beansprouts]

I believe that God designed men to handle leadership positions not women. We are the keepers of the home created to be our husband's help meet.

 

He designed females to be all of the things you mentioned inside our homes with our families as our main ministry. He gave us emotional hearts to help us nuture and love our families. I have seen time and time again, women in leadership positions allowing emotions to cloud their judgment. We can't help it - God design us this way for other purposes.

 

Men, overall, do not make emotional decisions or allow emotions to cloud their judgment.

 

It is part of original sin commited by Eve for us to want run things and be in charge- but God has not meant that for us. He has given this roll to men.

 

Well, now that I have completely upset women's lib I will go and as someone cleverly said, put on my tomato proof suit. :leaving:

 

No tomatoes. I do want honest opinions. I have enjoyed the discussion with dh and thought it might be fun to poll this group also.

 

Last week my dh brought up the emotional issue as well. "Do I want a woman experiencing hot flashes with her finger on the button?"

 

I responded simply: "John McCain"

 

I haven't heard the "emotional" argument since :lol: I think men are just as likely to be hot headed as women, in fact maybe more likely to respond out of pride and arrogance and a need to prove themselves.

 

We all have our sins.

[newbie]

Beansprouts,

We need pics of cat.

 

Jeannette

[beansprouts]

I think RebeccaC is managing the campaign for Baby Leo Kitty.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I think men are just as likely to be hot headed as women, in fact maybe more likely to respond out of pride and arrogance and a need to prove themselves.

 

We all have our sins.

 

:iagree:

[Adrianne]

I wouldnt do tomatoes, didnt you hear there is a recall because of salmonella outbreak. Maybe kumquat suit. I wouldn't throw any, even though I am a woman libber. We need to keep stepping towards the future.

 

Jeannette:D

 

Kumquat is good, I will accept any fruit. :p

[PariSarah]

Because then we could point to her and say, "Look, we've had a woman president." And then we could move on and start voting for people irrespective of their gender.

[Night Elf]

I can't answer because I truly can't fathom having 2 identical candidates to choose from. I wouldn't vote based on male or female, I'd truly vote on the person I thought would be best in office.

 

As for women not being in leadership because of religion, all I can say is that I'm happy I do not live in a Christian country. Though I guess I must admit there are people who believe the USA is a Christian country. If it were though, I'd want to leave for the same reasons our founding fathers left their countries and wanted to start a new, more open and accepting country. I can't stomach the idea of living in a country where everyone was forced to believe the same thing.

 

Men have as many foibles as women. Sin is most certainly not reserved for women alone. I hate the Adam/Eve argument because they didn't have to deal with all the evil we have in our world now. You know, Eve might have been first to take a bite but ultimately Adam followed suit. And who's to say that he wouldn't have sinned later? It was her sin that got them kicked out. But let's remember Cain and Abel too.

 

And now that I think about it, I don't see why a "keeper of the home" wouldn't make a fabulous "keeper of the country". But I'm not a keeper of my home in the same sense that Christian women are. I was thinking it would be nice to have a kinder, gentler attitude... but then I remembered Bush had that slogan, didn't he? Egads! All I can is if McCain gets in, I hope and pray that he doesn't follow in Bush's footsteps.

[HRAAB]

Men, overall, do not make emotional decisions or allow emotions to cloud their judgment.

 

I'll try to remember this the next time my hubby makes one of those rash decisions in the 'heat of the moment' which he later regrets. :001_smile: For such a reasonable, logical man, when he does have an emotional moment, it's a doozy! Plus, when men get emotional, it tends to be much more aggressive and violent.....

 

I would vote for the woman to be able to say I was able to vote for a woman, and then as someone else said, hope we could just focus on qualifications, not gender. Right now I'm considering pulling a name out of a hat. I'll throw the cat in for good measure.

 

Janet

[Adrianne]

 

I haven't heard the "emotional" argument since :lol: I think men are just as likely to be hot headed as women, in fact maybe more likely to respond out of pride and arrogance and a need to prove themselves.

 

 

 

Okay so now I will make another comment no one will like.

 

I think this is because every since women's lib started we raise our men like women. (duck and run)

 

Men used to be taught the art of argument and rhetoric. They learned decision making and how to be effective leaders. Now schools do not know what they are doing. (I just thought I would take a stab at public school)

 

God made us human we all have shortcomings - my point is this, as a Christian believing that the Bible is the word of God - I believe God made men as leaders and women not.

[Adrianne]

Because then we could point to her and say, "Look, we've had a woman president." And then we could move on and start voting for people irrespective of their gender.

 

Nicely said.

[genie]

Because then we could point to her and say, "Look, we've had a woman president." And then we could move on and start voting for people irrespective of their gender.

 

With all else being equal (purely hypothetical situation of course) this was my thought, too.

[5wolfcubs]

I think my dh would vote for the woman...he currently has a woman boss for the first time ever. When he is working late she says things like "Go home and eat dinner with your family!"

[Jenny in Atl]

I love darts! If all thing were equal... it would not matter. ;)

[Adrianne]

I'll try to remember this the next time my hubby makes one of those rash decisions in the 'heat of the moment' which he later regrets. :001_smile: For such a reasonable, logical man, when he does have an emotional moment, it's a doozy! Plus, when men get emotional, it tends to be much more aggressive and violent.....

 

I would vote for the woman to be able to say I was able to vote for a woman, and then as someone else said, hope we could just focus on qualifications, not gender. Right now I'm considering pulling a name out of a hat. I'll throw the cat in for good measure.

 

Janet

 

This would be the exception. Not all men are violent.

 

I was sooooo raised in a women's lib environment. My mom never depended on a man and still does not. She would agree with you.

 

This is my hubby reading my posts on this subject :lol:

[RebeccaC]

Well of course being unable to be objective I voted for Baby Leo Kitty but I would have voted for Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meier. They tho were not your typical lady and I would not want either of them as my mother or if of the testosterone persuasion as a wife. While they were tough women I think they lost a bit of their femininity....softness....ability to nurture.....

 

I am also a Gulf War vet and I know that when doing a male job that includes enormous amounts of stress, like participating in a war, quite a bit of femininity must be sacrifice, (try thinking about really bad cramps while needing to send planes out, track said planes, making sure that nothing goes wrong on those planes, hoping that you did not forget an inspection or the refilling of numerous liquids such as oil, hydraulic fluid, ect.... that if not done might cause some one to lose their life, while in the air and at the same time deal with the emotional swing that goes with ones cycle, while working 12 hour or greater shifts 6 or 7 days a week :blush: all while dealing with atype of stress that can only be understood if one has been there done that.) I think that women who are past the change do better doing that, there is of course the other option, one could offer ones self up as a stress reliever for those of the testosterone persuasion and accept such lowering of responsibilities that they can offer and keep intact the softness of femininity (remember I am the voice of experience here and I know of what I write and am thinking of quite a few gals who comforted several officers in their tents in Saudi and the UAE.)

 

All that written I am running for the hills cause some of the readers here think negative anon reps are the way to go instead of quoting, posting, and writing out what upsets them ... :leaving:

 

If you do feel the need to neg rep please leave your name so that I can apologise for what offended you. I promise I will not rep in kind and will be nice.

[Trivium Academy]

If the ideologies were the same, I'd look at experience and voting record. If those are both the same- I would go with charisma. Whether it is man or woman doesn't matter to me, who would be the most effective would be how I would decide this.

[beansprouts]

I can't answer because I truly can't fathom having 2 identical candidates to choose from. I wouldn't vote based on male or female, I'd truly vote on the person I thought would be best in office.

 

That was my argument at first also, but dh INSISTS that his candidates are virtually identical except for the plumbing.

 

As for women not being in leadership because of religion, all I can say is that I'm happy I do not live in a Christian country.

 

If it helps I am a Christian and so is dh. We don't necessarily share this viewpoint ;) The Bible gives a few examples of women in positions of leadership.

 

You know, Eve might have been first to take a bite but ultimately Adam followed suit. And who's to say that he wouldn't have sinned later?

 

Different, and interesting subject. The Bible says Adam "was with her" when she ate the apple. His sin was apathy. They both sinned in different ways.

 

 

And now that I think about it, I don't see why a "keeper of the home" wouldn't make a fabulous "keeper of the country".

 

And that's part of what I'm sayin' Personally, I'd like to nominate Quiverof10! Handling the house of reps ought to be a cinch for her ;)

[RebeccaC]

I think RebeccaC is managing the campaign for Baby Leo Kitty.

 

Ooo I have no digi camera and no way to post photos of Baby Leo Kitty also known as Snow on Sand. He tho promises that no finger of his will ever be on any red button any where at any time :D and all dirty tricks will be confined to his favorite litter box ;)

 

Baby Leo is quite handsome and depending on the light can look white or tan hence the Snow on Sand name given by one who was deep into the study of Japanese culture. However Baby Leo Kitty has stuck since he is such a cuddly and loving kitty quite unlike others of his species.

[HRAAB]

This would be the exception. Not all men are violent.

 

I was sooooo raised in a women's lib environment. My mom never depended on a man and still does not. She would agree with you.

 

This is my hubby reading my posts on this subject :lol:

 

I do think, generalizing that is, that men tend to react more aggressively than women. And sometimes aggression can come out violently. More violent crimes are committed by men? No?

 

Just for the record, my husband isn't violent. It's usually rash decisions involving money. But when he's stressed and emotional, he is definitely much more aggressive ... masculine. That's why I appreciate and try not to underestimate the influence of the First Lady. Men need the balancing effect of a female. ;)

 

Janet

[newbie]

MY vote still stands for kitty, we dont have to worry about PMS, the change or men being violent.

 

And I think my women multitasking still stands, we can have PMS the change, ... bring home the bacon, ooops I digress.

 

Jeannette

[beansprouts]

All that written I am running for the hills cause some of the readers here think negative anon reps are the way to go instead of quoting, posting, and writing out what upsets them ... :leaving:

 

 

I hope it doesn't come to this. I would like us all to be able to share our views freely.

[Vanna]

I know polls are just for fun but... I don't think it's possible to have two candidates identical in every way except for gender soooo... I vote for the cat :lol:.

[abbeyej]

Because then we could point to her and say, "Look, we've had a woman president." And then we could move on and start voting for people irrespective of their gender.

 

Isn't that the truth! ;)

 

(BTW, does anyone have any statistics on the choice of primary voters under the age of 40?)

[Liza Q]

I chose the man but the more I think about it, the more I realize that I agree with the poster who said that she would go for the one with more charisma.

 

As a Christian I do see Biblical support for male leadership in the home and in the church but I am not sure about secular government - I would have to study it!

 

And I am thinking of Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel - strong and competent.

[Erica in PA]

I believe that God designed men to handle leadership positions not women. We are the keepers of the home created to be our husband's help meet.

 

He designed females to be all of the things you mentioned inside our homes with our families as our main ministry. He gave us emotional hearts to help us nuture and love our families. I have seen time and time again, women in leadership positions allowing emotions to cloud their judgment. We can't help it - God design us this way for other purposes.

 

Men, overall, do not make emotional decisions or allow emotions to cloud their judgment.

 

It is part of original sin commited by Eve for us to want run things and be in charge- but God has not meant that for us. He has given this roll to men.

 

Well, now that I have completely upset women's lib I will go and as someone cleverly said, put on my tomato proof suit. :leaving:

 

I'm not going to throw tomatoes, but I have to say that I feel genuinely feel sad for you, having that view of women. I am a bible-believing Christian also, but the Bible does not teach what you seem to think it does.

 

I am blessed to be able to say that the Lord has given me intellect, strength, the ability to think logically, and leadership skills, as well as empathy, compassion, and the ability to nurture. I'm sure he's given you the same things too. It makes me sad that you don't see that in other women, or in yourself.

 

Erica

[RebeccaC]

And I think my women multitasking still stands, we can have PMS the change, ... bring home the bacon, ooops I digress.

 

Jeannette

 

 

Well I have lived through the stress of finding the body of someone very close to me who killed themselves and handled that and planning their funeral just fine, I worked in the field as an archaeologist back packing supplies on my back while climbing house size boulders and hiking for 12+ hours, lived in a tent while doing field work in remote places, handled the stress of being told that my 3 yo son should be institutionalized for life in a state hospital and did fine.

 

However the stress that goes with war and with being Commander and Chief does not even come close and is not even comparable. The stress and physical energy levels needed to fight a war are huge, greater I think than what is needed to birth, even some men break down but I saw more females than men break. There is the facing of ones mortality and the feelings that go with the knowledge that what you are doing will probably not only kill combatants but also civilians added to tough living condition and little slepp or rest. I can not even describe the emotions that go with that type of stress and anyone who holds high office in any country needs to be able to put all their energy into dealing with those while making good decisions or stupid steps are taken that cost lives. I unashamedly stand by the idea that a woman who has gone through the change would handle such stress levels better than one who has not.

 

This of course is just my opinion, experience, and is of course anecdotal.

[elegantlion]

If the ideologies were the same, I'd look at experience and voting record. If those are both the same- I would go with charisma. Whether it is man or woman doesn't matter to me, who would be the most effective would be how I would decide this.

 

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Night Elf]

Different, and interesting subject. The Bible says Adam "was with her" when she ate the apple. His sin was apathy. They both sinned in different ways.

 

Very true. But all my life, I've heard that the blame of original sin is solely on the woman.

 

Personally, I'd like to nominate Quiverof10! Handling the house of reps ought to be a cinch for her ;)

 

I like that idea! Quiverof10 for U.S. President! :)

[Night Elf]

I am blessed to be able to say that the Lord has given me intellect, strength, the ability to think logically, and leadership skills, as well as empathy, compassion, and the ability to nurture. I'm sure he's given you the same things too. It makes me sad that you don't see that in other women, or in yourself.

 

Erica

 

Very well said Erica.

[Caroline]

Never mind. It was an emotional response and probably not very logical. Thank you Rebbecca for your service to our country.

[Danestress]

I won't consider a game that requires me to favor one gender over another for no real reason. Anyone making a serious run for presidency is going to have a pretty good track record of the kind of leadership, management, and character he or she will exercise. There is no reason to think we would ever truly have to say "whose better, a man or woman" anymore than we would have to say "whose better, a white person or a black one?"

 

We won't be voting for people without extensive records. We won't and can't know everything. There are always surprises. But we will know how they vote, how they make decision, what kinds of advisors they surround themselves with, how they handle pressure, what affect they have on people in person. For the most part, ever major candidate in my memory has been either a governor or a senator. I would look at that record, consider the witness of those who have worked with them, consider their stance on real issues, and vote accordingly.

[Aubrey]

The theoretical question my dh and I have been discussing is this:

 

If we had two equally qualified candidates with identical ideaologies, but one was a man and one a woman would you have a preference?

 

My dh would vote for the man because he does not feel that men respond well to a woman's leadership. The unfortunate reality is that we still live in a largely male-dominated world and he feels many world leaders would not respect a woman. It isn't fair, and it isn't right, dh freely agrees that the problem lies with the men and not the woman. However, it is the reality and because of it a man would earn more respect as a leader.

 

His opinion ;)

 

I think women are brilliant and multitalented, often more organized and detail oriented then men and able to coordinate and manage multiple tasks competantly. I think the mind of a woman would be extremely valuable in an office of leadership. Besides, I think the right woman could shake things up a bit, and that could be a good thing.

 

So here we are. I would vote for the woman and he the man. In different ways both are sexist views. Nobody's perfect. What are your thoughts?

 

By your own definition (& your dh's), the 2 candidates are *not* equally qualified. You think the woman is more qualified because of the way her mind works; he thinks the man because of the way people would respond to him.

 

I didn't vote. I thought about it for a long time, & ultimately, although I see the point of the question, it's kind of like a false dilemma, since absolute equality in candidate qualifications is impossible. I know that's a cop-out, but the more I try to wrap my mind around it, the more my imagination starts spitting out possible differences in qualification, life circumstances, etc., which ultimately don't apply to this poll.

 

Which I guess means, given truly, truly, unimaginable equality between the two, I'd be throwing a dart. But I don't throw darts. I make "educated" decisions, lol.

 

(I feel like I've been asked whether I'd rather be eaten by a tiger or a bear.)

[Adrianne]

[

quote=Ishki;276826]I do think, generalizing that is, that men tend to react more aggressively than women. And sometimes aggression can come out violently. More violent crimes are committed by men? No?

Yes this true.

 

Just for the record, my husband isn't violent. It's usually rash decisions involving money. But when he's stressed and emotional, he is definitely much more aggressive ... masculine.

My dh is like that too.

 

That's why I appreciate and try not to underestimate the influence of the First Lady. Men need the balancing effect of a female. ;)

 

Absolutely! They need us. In my opinion that is how God made us. I never tried to say that men were not emotional (we are all human). My argument is that God made us this way for His purpose. It is not for me to understand. As a Christian, my faith is in His word.

[Greta]

My dh would vote for the man because he does not feel that men respond well to a woman's leadership. The unfortunate reality is that we still live in a largely male-dominated world and he feels many world leaders would not respect a woman. It isn't fair, and it isn't right, dh freely agrees that the problem lies with the men and not the woman. However, it is the reality and because of it a man would earn more respect as a leader.

 

And that is exactly why I would vote for the woman. These attitudes are never going to change until we have examples to point to of women in positions of power who handled it as competently as the men.

[Greta]

Men, overall, do not make emotional decisions or allow emotions to cloud their judgment.

 

Wow, the men you know sound very different from the ones I know!!!

[RebeccaC]

Ok I think I did not post well with my first post soooooo bear with me while I try to make this one, make more sense......

 

My point was that not only do soldiers have to deal with what is happening around them and worry about what is happening at home but when female they also deal with their own down swing of emotions during their cycle. Think about it ,how do you think you would do fighting a war, worrying about your family at home, and trying to handle the down swing of your cycle? I saw quite a few gals get pg on purpose so that they would be sent home because it was too much.

 

Our president did not make all good decisions and he did not have a monthly cycle to deal with. However I think that handling the emotional attachment of sending people off to war can be done better when one does not have a cycle to also deal with. Golda Meier, a female that I would have voted for, made some very hard decisions but again it was after she had passed through the change. Thatcher, again a female I would have voted for, also made hard decisions but again it was after she had passed through the change. Would thay have done as well if their national crisis hit on a bad cycle day with high emotions and cramps, who knows I just think they did a better job because they did not have their cycle to deal with also.

 

The women who I would have voted for all came to power after they had passed the change and were no longer dealing with cramps, mood swings, etc..... All of them were tough as nails and lost some of their femininity. It is a myth that women can do it all and keep all of their femininity. They either lose some of it and become more like a man or they go home.

 

I could write a bit about what it was like to work in the field of archaeology in the 80s when there were very few women in the field and what it meant to keep up with the boys especially doing field work.

 

I used to be a hard line feminist I could out drink my male colleagues and worked longer hours, etc... but it was at an expense, which meant I let go of some aspects of my femininity and it took years to get those back.

 

The only woman in high office who I have seen do a good job during her fertile years is the Gov of Alaska however she is not Commander in Chief and responsible for keeping safe a nation. There may be others but I wonder how their kids and their dh felt about it. In anything in life there are trade offs and with great power comes greater trade offs.

 

My premise is a woman would do a better job once past her fertile years and I do not think that I wrote that well in the first post. My premise is also that she would have to lose some of her femininity in order to do a good job. Ya can't play with the big boys with out doing so.

 

Take a look at the gals in power right now Hillary C and Nancy P both are past their fertile years. Both are hard as nails and need to be to weild the power they have. I personally would not vote for them but that is me. Send up another Golda M or Maggie T and I just might :)

 

For those of you with family members deployed my heart goes out to you and I probably should have softened my first post a bit. Please forgive me if I caused added pain.

[nancypants]

I think it's really hard, if not impossible, to find two people with the exact same ideologies.... It's likely they would differ on some point somewhere! But if it came down to it and that really were a possibility, I would probably vote for the person whose personality I preferred. I will never vote or not vote for someone based on gender so I couldn't answer your poll properly. I guess I could choose the cat option. :D

[Diana in OR]

I know I'm jumping in late, but I have been thinking about this all day.

 

 

 

I have inferred from some of the comments, that a woman cannot concurrently be a "keeper of the home" and be a leader in her community. I consider myself to be a keeper of my home, and I was just elected to my local City Council. And I am a Christian.

 

My first responsibility is to my family and that won't change. My elected position won't put me in spiritual authority over anyone, so I don't see any problem there.

 

As a young wife and mother, I basically taught myself "homekeeping" b/c, as a product of my culture, I didn't have those skills. I work hard to take care of our home. But the fact remains that though I have tried, many of the things that women do in their homes aside from basic home management (crafts, scrapbooking, sewing, knitting, art, painting, etc. etc.) are not in my nature. And since we no longer have to beat our clothes on rocks to do the laundry, I don't have to be a slave to housekeeping every waking hour.

 

I have found my niche in community service and am confident I am right where God wants me to be at this time in my life.

 

I guess I'm feeling a little defensive here. I don't think gender is an issue, although I'm not certain I would vote for a woman for a high ranking office if she has young children at home. (Frankly, I don't know when a woman with young children/babies would have time for a high ranking office!)

 

P.S. I voted for the cat, b/c I think there is more to a candidate than just a basic political ideology--just don't tell my dogs :tongue_smilie:.

[Plaid Dad]

I didn't vote. I thought about it for a long time, & ultimately, although I see the point of the question, it's kind of like a false dilemma, since absolute equality in candidate qualifications is impossible.

 

:iagree:

 

Besides, I can't find even one major candidate to support. I can't imagine there being two worthy of my vote! :tongue_smilie:

[Erica in PA]

Ok I think I did not post well with my first post soooooo bear with me while I try to make this one, make more sense......

 

My point was that not only do soldiers have to deal with what is happening around them and worry about what is happening at home but when female they also deal with their own down swing of emotions during their cycle. Think about it ,how do you think you would do fighting a war, worrying about your family at home, and trying to handle the down swing of your cycle? I saw quite a few gals get pg on purpose so that they would be sent home because it was too much.

 

Our president did not make all good decisions and he did not have a monthly cycle to deal with. However I think that handling the emotional attachment of sending people off to war can be done better when one does not have a cycle to also deal with. Golda Meier, a female that I would have voted for, made some very hard decisions but again it was after she had passed through the change. Thatcher, again a female I would have voted for, also made hard decisions but again it was after she had passed through the change. Would thay have done as well if their national crisis hit on a bad cycle day with high emotions and cramps, who knows I just think they did a better job because they did not have their cycle to deal with also.

 

The women who I would have voted for all came to power after they had passed the change and were no longer dealing with cramps, mood swings, etc..... All of them were tough as nails and lost some of their femininity. It is a myth that women can do it all and keep all of their femininity. They either lose some of it and become more like a man or they go home.

 

I could write a bit about what it was like to work in the field of archaeology in the 80s when there were very few women in the field and what it meant to keep up with the boys especially doing field work.

 

I used to be a hard line feminist I could out drink my male colleagues and worked longer hours, etc... but it was at an expense, which meant I let go of some aspects of my femininity and it took years to get those back.

 

The only woman in high office who I have seen do a good job during her fertile years is the Gov of Alaska however she is not Commander in Chief and responsible for keeping safe a nation. There may be others but I wonder how their kids and their dh felt about it. In anything in life there are trade offs and with great power comes greater trade offs.

 

My premise is a woman would do a better job once past her fertile years and I do not think that I wrote that well in the first post. My premise is also that she would have to lose some of her femininity in order to do a good job. Ya can't play with the big boys with out doing so.

 

Take a look at the gals in power right now Hillary C and Nancy P both are past their fertile years. Both are hard as nails and need to be to weild the power they have. I personally would not vote for them but that is me. Send up another Golda M or Maggie T and I just might :)

 

For those of you with family members deployed my heart goes out to you and I probably should have softened my first post a bit. Please forgive me if I caused added pain.

 

Wow, I didn't realize that monthly cycles were such a major thing for some people. I definitely don't think that my decision making is affected in any way during that time. It's not any more difficult for me to get things done at that time than if I had the sniffles-- actually, probably not even as significant as that. The way I've experienced it, not voting for a woman because of her monthly cycles would be like not voting for a man who has allergies, lol.

 

I guess some women may be affected more than others, but it's truly shocking for me to hear someone suggest that a woman's monthly cycles have that much bearing on their ability to do certain things.

 

Erica

[beansprouts]

I guess some women may be affected more than others, but it's truly shocking for me to hear someone suggest that a woman's monthly cycles have that much bearing on their ability to do certain things.

 

 

That's only one part of what she is saying. I think the point she is trying to make is that many women in these roles have to sacrifice their femininity and essentially become more like men.

 

I really appreciate Rebecca's dose of reality. She has shared a perspective I had not considered before.

[beansprouts]

...and it does appear we have a viable third party candidate.

 

Go Kitty!!

[RebeccaC]

Wow, I didn't realize that monthly cycles were such a major thing for some people. I definitely don't think that my decision making is affected in any way during that time. It's not any more difficult for me to get things done at that time than if I had the sniffles-- actually, probably not even as significant as that. The way I've experienced it, not voting for a woman because of her monthly cycles would be like not voting for a man who has allergies, lol.

 

I guess some women may be affected more than others, but it's truly shocking for me to hear someone suggest that a woman's monthly cycles have that much bearing on their ability to do certain things.

 

Erica

 

Well now think about what severe stress does to a woman's cycle. It either shuts it down or makes it worse. If ya are that gal that it shuts down great no mood swings but if you are in the other camp, well....... Men usually don't have mood swings and emotional spikes with their allergies and wan't to watch 3 hanky girly movies while devouring boxes of chocolate or other comfort foods but a large amount of females do. Are there some who don't ya. Maggie T did not get the nickname The Iron Lady for nothing. Now think about it do you want the iron lady as momma or if you are a man as your sweetie when the light s go out. So I will up the anty on this and write that I think if a woman wants to climb to power she would be better off doing it when her kids are grown and not married. Golda paid a high price with her marriage for her involovement in gov.

[Adrianne]

As a Christian I do see Biblical support for male leadership in the home and in the church but I am not sure about secular government - I would have to study it!

Lisa, that is a very good point! It is a secular government. After giving that some thought, I guess I would be using my Christian principles to make my secular decisions.

 

And I am thinking of Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel - strong and competent.

I never said women should not be leaders. Deborah is a good biblical example of a female leader that God blessed. Both women you mentioned (I personally like Margaret Thatcher very much) were great leaders.

 

But the question that was put before me was about voting for an equally qualified man or woman. I do believe men and women are very different (part of God's plan) and because of this, even though they have had the same education and personal experience, the fact that they are inherently different causes them to respond to situations differently this would be the gender factor.

 

I also agree with those who said they would have to look at character as a factor - again everyone experiences things differently.

 

I have served on many boards both public and private and have seen bad decisions made by both men and women. The difference was men seemed to be less effected by emotional responses and women more. Men could make decisions and move on. Women had to "react" to them and try to make everyone happy. These are just my personal observations in the secular world not scientific fact.

[Adrianne]

I'm not going to throw tomatoes, but I have to say that I feel genuinely feel sad for you, having that view of women. I am a bible-believing Christian also, but the Bible does not teach what you seem to think it does.

 

I am blessed to be able to say that the Lord has given me intellect, strength, the ability to think logically, and leadership skills, as well as empathy, compassion, and the ability to nurture. I'm sure he's given you the same things too. It makes me sad that you don't see that in other women, or in yourself.

 

Erica

 

You are kind of proving my point, don't you think?