independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 18th Nov 2017 2:19am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Got 2 Try a Nu Position: Matriarchy
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 11/07/17 11:54am

Dasein

Got 2 Try a Nu Position: Matriarchy


On the heels of my recent and current gripes with patriarchal men ruining our culture is this
thread devoted to exploring the possible impact of not only a cultural shift but a gender one
too whereby we ask women to do the governing as opposed to us stupid, idiotic, cock-measuring
men:

by Claire Miller / NY Times November 6, 2016

"Fed up with the government shutdown in 2013, Senator Susan Collins took the floor, presented a
three-point plan and implored colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with her.

As soon as she walked off, her phone rang. The first senators to call her, she said, were women:
Kelly Ayotte and Lisa Murkowski, fellow Republicans, and Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat.

“I’ve always thought that was significant,” said Ms. Collins, a Republican from Maine. “And indeed, we
put together a plan for the reopening of government, and women led the way.”

Tuesday failed to be a ceiling-shattering day for women in government. In addition to Hillary Clinton’s
loss, the number of female governors dropped to five from six, according to the Center for American
Women and Politics at Rutgers. Kate Brown of Oregon was the only woman to win a governor’s race.

The number of women in Congress stayed flat at 104, or 19 percent of seats. (The Senate had a net
gain of one woman and the House a net loss of one.) Thirteen states will send no women to the 115th
Congress, including Mississippi and Vermont, which have never had a woman in Congress.

Women’s representation in government is stalled, and in some cases moving backward. Does that
make a difference to the work of governing? Yes, according to decades of data from around the
world.

Women govern differently than men do in some important ways. They tend to be more
collaborative and bipartisan. They push for far more policies meant to support women, children,
social welfare and — when they’re in executive positions — national security. But these bills are
also more likely to die, largely because of gender bias, research shows.

Women in Congress sponsor and co-sponsor more bills than men do, and bring 9 percent more
federal money to their districts, according to a studyin the American Journal of Political Science.

Those bills are more likely to benefit women and children or address issues like education, health
and poverty. In Congress, for instance, women fought for women’s health coverage in the
Affordable Care Act, sexual harassment rules in the military, the inclusion of women in medical
trials, and child care vouchers in welfare overhaul.

“All members of Congress have to follow their constituency, but because of their personal
experiences either as women in the work force or as mothers, they might be inclined to legislate
on some of these issues,” said Michele L. Swers, a professor of government at Georgetown
University who studies gender and policy making.

In a new analysis of the 151,824 public bills introduced in the House between 1973 and 2014, to
be published in print in Political Science Research and Methods, researchers found that women
were significantly more likely than men to sponsor bills in areas like civil rights, health and
education. Men were more likely to sponsor bills in agriculture, energy and macroeconomics.

An analysis of floor speeches during the 106th Congress, by political scientists at the University of
Iowa and Oklahoma State University, found that women spent more time talking about policy
concerns like women’s health and family issues. Another study, of State of the State
speeches
from 2006 to 2008 published in State and Local Government Review, found that female
governors devoted much more attention to social welfare issues than male governors did, even
after controlling for political and situational factors.

Women are less likely to vote for war or the death penalty. Women’s representation in legislatures
is significantly correlated with the abolition of capital punishment, according to a study of 125
countries published in July by researchers at Sul Ross State University in Texas.

A higher share of female legislators correlates with less military spending and less use of force in
foreign policy, even after controlling for other explanations like partisanship, according to an
analysis
by researchers from Texas A&M University of data from 22 established democracies from
1970 to 2000.

Yet when women are in executive positions, the opposite is true: They are more hawkish than
men. The researchers said that could be in part because of a need to overcome stereotypes of
women as weak. Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi, all of whom governed in
conflicts, were described as governing like men.

Whether women’s policies become law is another question. Studies show they hit more obstacles
than men’s policies.

Over all, female lawmakers are just as successful as men at getting their bills passed — except
when the bills are about issues affecting women, health, education and social welfare, according to
the new study of four decades of House bills by Craig Volden of the University of Virginia, Alan E.
Wiseman of Vanderbilt University and Dana E. Wittmer of Colorado College.

Then, only 1 percent of bills sponsored by women passed, compared with 4 percent of all bills.

That has been true since 1970, even when controlling for other factors that influence bills’ success.
The researchers concluded that it was not because of a gender difference in expertise or
lawmaking ability, but because of institutional bias. Bills on the issues that women dominate are
often gridlocked in committee, so they never make it to a vote.

“These are highly contentious issues in the first place, and it could be because there are relatively
fewer women in Congress and as committee chairs, they might have less of a built-in coalition to
push these through,” Mr. Wiseman said.

Yet women also have advantages in governing — and the biggest gender differences appear
during behind-the-scenes work. A variety of research has found that women interrupt less (but
are interrupted more), pay closer attention to other people’s nonverbal cues and use a more
democratic leadership style compared with men’s more autocratic style. The result is that women
build coalitions and reach consensus more quickly, researchers say.

“Women share their power more; men guard their power,” said Michael A. Genovese, director of
the Institute for Leadership Studies at Loyola Marymount University, who has studied gender and
leadership.

Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, said the data backs up her experience in the
Senate. “Women tend to be less partisan, more collaborative, listen better, find common ground,”
she said. “Every time I’ve had a bill that’s important to me, I’ve had strong Republican women
helping me pass it.”

These days, partisanship can seem more highly valued than collaboration in Washington, and
without more women entering government, their influence might be muted.

“Women have the great potential to govern differently,” said Lyn Kathlene, a political scientist who
studied gender and governing and is now director of Spark Policy Institute. “But my expectation is
that’s going to be less overt than behind the scenes, because the reality is you have to play the
game as the game’s played.”"

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 11/07/17 12:05pm

Dasein

"Women Govern Differently Than Men - They're Better"

by Lauren Sandler - The Cut November 2012

"On a certain level, gender parity in government is an issue of democratic legitimacy: Women are a
majority of the American electorate, and yet we have less female representation in government than
most of the planet. (In a recent United Nations study of proportional gender representation in
government, the U.S. ranked 78th, tied with Turkmenistan.) But according to Senator Kirsten
Gillibrand — who hascampaigned heavily for other female candidates in this election cycle and
islikely to win reelection against a female opponent — the lack of skirts in the Senate is more than a
symbolic concern. “My own experience in Congress is when women are on committees and at
hearings
, the nature of the discussion is different, and the outcomes are better — we reach better
solutions, better decisions are made,” she said a year ago. But in this election, with only eighteen
women competing for seats, there’s hardly going to be a longer line at the Senate gallery’s ladies
room; the House raceis more optimistic, with 163 women on the ticket.

You might not know it from the reductive memes on your feminist Facebook friends’ newsfeeds, but
political scientists have proved women’s extraordinary efficacy in federal and state legislatures.


Across the board, findings show that the second sex rates first when it comes to effective
governance. Women in office secure almost 10 percent more federal funding than their male
colleagues and introduce about twice as many bills.

But do these wonder women really make “better decisions,” à la Gillibrand’s claim? The
conventional wisdom is that women in Congress practice what’s known as “surrogate
representation,” introducing so-called “women’s issues” bills regardless of home district
relevance, feeling a responsibility to aid women in cities, say, even if they call farmland home. As
Senator Barbara Boxer has said, “There are still so few women in Congress, you really do have to
represent much more than your own state,” adding, “Women from all over the country really do
follow what you do and rely on you to speak out for them.” This sentiment is how political
scientists understand why women cultivate such diverse and substantial legislative portfolios,
especially when compared to their male colleagues. It’s also why all women candidates, at least
among Democrats, have the potential to be so-called “women’s candidates.” (There is, of course,
a spectrum — I’m not overjoyed with Gillibrand’s own feminism myself, for example, but lately I’ll
take what I can get.)

But defining what constitutes a “women’s issue” can be tricky. For a forthcoming paper on female
lawmakers’ effectiveness, three political scientists crunched all 138,246 bills introduced in the U.S.
House of Representatives over the past four decades. They found women introduced twice as
many bills on civil rights and liberties bills; many more on “family” concerns; and significantly
more on labor, immigration, education, and health. In other words, it’s about much more than who
is paying for my birth control. They note that despite a century of discussion about health-care
policy, it took a female speaker of the House to make universal health care happen. Or as Nancy
Pelosi herself has said, “It’s personal for women … my sisters here in the Congress, this was a big
issue for us.”

All this may seem like a function of liberalism, but it turns out that gender is a better predictor for
these issues than partisanship. When a female senator replaces a male senator, there is a
significant increase in support for women’s issues, or so political scientist Brian Frederick at
Bridgewater State found when examining roll-call voting. “Women and men who represent the
same states vote differently when it comes to women’s issues,” he says. “It’s not a function of
representing more liberal constituencies.” Most women in office are Democrats, and as Frederick
points out, when they show up for their first day of work on Congress, “active feminists are there
to greet you.”

The bad news, though, is how rarely female initiatives turn into reality. Women’s-issues bills are
the ones that see the highest gridlock rates. Overall, only 4 percent of bills become law (I, too,
am singing Schoolhouse Rock! in my head, but bear with me), but a mere 2 percent of women’s
bills ever make it through the process, like Lilly Ledbetter did. That’s only 1 in 50. “These are
issues that the average member of Congress doesn’t see as crucial,” the University of Virginia’s
Craig Volden, an author of the forthcoming paper, told me, underscoring a very real aspect of our
democratic legitimacy problem.

But that’s where critical mass comes into play. In order to understand what proportion of women
in office are needed to bust that gridlock, we have to look at comparative studies on other
countries, since we’ve never come even halfway to achieving equal representation here. The
literature tends to agree that when more than 20 percent of a legislature is female, sisters can do
it for themselves. Without it, there’s simply no deference. “If we can only get the female numbers
up to 25 percent, I’d be having a party in the streets,” quipped Colorado College’s Dana Wittmer,
another author of the forthcoming female-effectiveness paper.

And yet women were still twice as likely as men to say they weren’t qualified to run and half as
likely to be recruited by a party leader. Jennifer Lawless, who heads up American University’s
Women and Politics Center — and ran for Senate herself in 2006 — surveyed 4,000 people in
political pipeline professions to understand self-selection and support for potential candidates in
2001. She repeated the survey last year and found that there was no improvement — not by a
percentage point — over the decade, a decade that saw Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy
and Nancy Pelosi wield the speaker’s gavel. “The good news is it’s not about the voters or
systemic bias against female candidates,” Lawless told me. In other words, the problem is not that
women can’t get elected when they run, it’s that women aren’t running.

When you look at the rest of the world, this crisis of confidence is madness. Five of Latin
America’s current heads are women. For two decades, Argentina has maintained a quota of 30
percent female representation. Granted, Latin America is hardly a hotbed of gyno-liberalism; most
of these female leaders are anti-abortion, line-toting Catholics. So let’s consider Europe, where
women’s organizations met in Strasbourg this week to organize toward 50-50 parity in the next
election, as the continent’s one-third representation is considered an outrage. It’s a poignant irony
that when the United States helps fledgling governments outline their democracies and develop
their constitutions, we emphasize the importance of full female inclusion in government; there’s a
reason that, despite a close adherence to Islamic sharia, Iraq ranks about 40 slots before us on
the U.N. list.

Based on who is on the ticket this year, 2012 has no chance to be our next Year of the
Woman. Gillibrand recently said, “If we had 50 percent of women in Congress, we would not be
debating contraception. We would be debating the economy, small business, jobs, national
security, everything but.” In this election, she might as well be talking about the existence of
unicorns. If we could get even half that number, we might be twice as effectively governed. That’s
not about girl power or some braless, bell-bottomed anachronism, that’s about progress for all of
us.""



 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 11/07/17 12:09pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

copy and paste much? but women are just as free to run and hold office and woman and men are free to vote or support who they like.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 11/07/17 12:10pm

Dasein

"Why Women Make Better Leaders Than Men: the world would be better if most leaders were
women."

by Ronald Riggio, PHD / Psychology Today March 2010


"The vast majority of political leaders and nearly all Fortune 500 CEOs are men. Moreover, in the
industries that make our economy run, such as finance, manufacturing, technology, and
agriculture, men are in the super majority of leadership positions. So, if most of our leaders are
male, and if the U.S. is the dominant super power and the world's largest economy, how can I
claim that we would be better off if women leaders were the majority?

It's simple. Most of our leaders fail. As I've noted earlier, estimates of leader incompetence and
failure range from one half to two-thirds. CEO tenure is very short, and most are fired for poor
performance. Ethical debacles? Can you name a woman who was involved? Companies are often
successful in spite of their poor leadership, because of circumstances (e.g., oil companies
discovering vast new oil fields will succeed regardless of poor leadership), the strong performance
of U.S. workers because of high levels ofeducation and drive, and government regulations that
make businesses highly profitable.

The top scholar on gender and leadership, Dr. Alice Eagly, recently stated that her studies show
that women are more likely than men to possess the leadership qualities that are associated with
success. That is, women are more transformational than men - they care more about developing
their followers, they listen to them and stimulate them to think "outside the box," they are more
inspirational, AND they are more ethical. Dr. Bernard Bass, who developed the current theory of
transformational leadership
, predicts that in the future women leaders will dominate simply
because they are better suited to 21st century leadership/management than are men.

So, why do men dominate leadership positions, and why can't highly qualified women get to the
top? As Dr. Eagly puts it, women have to overcome obstacles to attain leadership positions, while
men are offered a "free pass." Our image of a leader is "male," and so we more often select or
promote men. Men control the hiring and favor men over women. We are simply reluctant to
change the status quo. (When pollsters ask, "Is the U.S. ready for a woman President?" the
majority answer "No.").

So, consider this: What would our world look like with more women leaders? The research
suggests that for organizations, industries, and for workers, it would be a better place."

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 11/07/17 12:14pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Dasein said:

"Why Women Make Better Leaders Than Men: the world would be better if most leaders were
women."

by Ronald Riggio, PHD / Psychology Today March 2010


"The vast majority of political leaders and nearly all Fortune 500 CEOs are men. Moreover, in the
industries that make our economy run, such as finance, manufacturing, technology, and
agriculture, men are in the super majority of leadership positions. So, if most of our leaders are
male, and if the U.S. is the dominant super power and the world's largest economy, how can I
claim that we would be better off if women leaders were the majority?

It's simple. Most of our leaders fail. As I've noted earlier, estimates of leader incompetence and
failure range from one half to two-thirds. CEO tenure is very short, and most are fired for poor
performance. Ethical debacles? Can you name a woman who was involved? Companies are often
successful in spite of their poor leadership, because of circumstances (e.g., oil companies
discovering vast new oil fields will succeed regardless of poor leadership), the strong performance
of U.S. workers because of high levels ofeducation and drive, and government regulations that
make businesses highly profitable.

The top scholar on gender and leadership, Dr. Alice Eagly, recently stated that her studies show
that women are more likely than men to possess the leadership qualities that are associated with
success. That is, women are more transformational than men - they care more about developing
their followers, they listen to them and stimulate them to think "outside the box," they are more
inspirational, AND they are more ethical. Dr. Bernard Bass, who developed the current theory of
transformational leadership
, predicts that in the future women leaders will dominate simply
because they are better suited to 21st century leadership/management than are men.

So, why do men dominate leadership positions, and why can't highly qualified women get to the
top? As Dr. Eagly puts it, women have to overcome obstacles to attain leadership positions, while
men are offered a "free pass." Our image of a leader is "male," and so we more often select or
promote men. Men control the hiring and favor men over women. We are simply reluctant to
change the status quo. (When pollsters ask, "Is the U.S. ready for a woman President?" the
majority answer "No.").

So, consider this: What would our world look like with more women leaders? The research
suggests that for organizations, industries, and for workers, it would be a better place."

gender bias

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 11/07/17 12:18pm

Dasein

OnlyNDaUsa said:

copy and paste much? but women are just as free to run and hold office and woman and men are free to vote or support who they like.


Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. It saves the Orger wanting to participate in the thread the time
from actually having to click on this or that when I can just place the entire article in a post.

Yay! I am so glad that you recognize the fact that women are just as free to run and hold office,
and that women and men are free to vote or support who they like! Thanks for pointing out what
is most obvious, Only! What would have been more imporessive is if you pointed out that even
though there are more women in our country then men, there are more men in power than women.
And then, I would have been even more impressed if you raised the question as to whether or
not this disproportion was a result of a patriarchal strand being embedded in society as being
partially or wholly resopnsible for this.


 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 11/07/17 12:23pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Dasein said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

copy and paste much? but women are just as free to run and hold office and woman and men are free to vote or support who they like.


Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. It saves the Orger wanting to participate in the thread the time
from actually having to click on this or that when I can just place the entire article in a post.

Yay! I am so glad that you recognize the fact that women are just as free to run and hold office,
and that women and men are free to vote or support who they like! Thanks for pointing out what
is most obvious, Only! What would have been more imporessive is if you pointed out that even
though there are more women in our country then men, there are more men in power than women.
And then, I would have been even more impressed if you raised the question as to whether or
not this disproportion was a result of a patriarchal strand being embedded in society as being
partially or wholly resopnsible for this.


I was just going to say to look at the P&R home screen and note the


One last thing: PLEASE do not copy articles verbatim from other sites or post videos without comment! If you want to quote something, or post a video, fine... say where it comes from, provide a link, and also provide ANALYSIS and INSIGHT of your own. We're here to discuss and debate ideas we actually hold. So make your opinion clear, and remember to do so with civility.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 11/07/17 12:24pm

Dasein

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Dasein said:

"Why Women Make Better Leaders Than Men: the world would be better if most leaders were
women."

by Ronald Riggio, PHD / Psychology Today March 2010


"The vast majority of political leaders and nearly all Fortune 500 CEOs are men. Moreover, in the
industries that make our economy run, such as finance, manufacturing, technology, and
agriculture, men are in the super majority of leadership positions. So, if most of our leaders are
male, and if the U.S. is the dominant super power and the world's largest economy, how can I
claim that we would be better off if women leaders were the majority?

It's simple. Most of our leaders fail. As I've noted earlier, estimates of leader incompetence and
failure range from one half to two-thirds. CEO tenure is very short, and most are fired for poor
performance. Ethical debacles? Can you name a woman who was involved? Companies are often
successful in spite of their poor leadership, because of circumstances (e.g., oil companies
discovering vast new oil fields will succeed regardless of poor leadership), the strong performance
of U.S. workers because of high levels ofeducation and drive, and government regulations that
make businesses highly profitable.

The top scholar on gender and leadership, Dr. Alice Eagly, recently stated that her studies show
that women are more likely than men to possess the leadership qualities that are associated with
success. That is, women are more transformational than men - they care more about developing
their followers, they listen to them and stimulate them to think "outside the box," they are more
inspirational, AND they are more ethical. Dr. Bernard Bass, who developed the current theory of
transformational leadership
, predicts that in the future women leaders will dominate simply
because they are better suited to 21st century leadership/management than are men.

So, why do men dominate leadership positions, and why can't highly qualified women get to the
top? As Dr. Eagly puts it, women have to overcome obstacles to attain leadership positions, while
men are offered a "free pass." Our image of a leader is "male," and so we more often select or
promote men. Men control the hiring and favor men over women. We are simply reluctant to
change the status quo. (When pollsters ask, "Is the U.S. ready for a woman President?" the
majority answer "No.").

So, consider this: What would our world look like with more women leaders? The research
suggests that for organizations, industries, and for workers, it would be a better place."

gender bias


How so?

And, if it is a gender bias, would it be immoral or impractical to be biased towards that which has
been proven or shown to be more effective than anything else so far? For example: when it
comes to reading books on theoretical physics, I'm biased towards reading the work of those who
possess PhDs than those who don't.

Education bias? Sure! But, aren't I justified?

Here, I have no idea why you're pointing out a gender bias in the first place apart from you not
knowing what you're talking about, as usual . . .

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 11/07/17 12:26pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

AS to why so few woman run and why woman do not vote more based on gender I do not even care to hazard a guess. What I will say it is biased to suggest that woman are better than men are or that somehow woman should be given some advantage when running.


The most recent examples of a woman running against a man when the man won were deemed to be due in part to gender bias. Maybe the woman just ran a poor campaign?

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 11/07/17 12:28pm

Dasein

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Dasein said:


Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. It saves the Orger wanting to participate in the thread the time
from actually having to click on this or that when I can just place the entire article in a post.

Yay! I am so glad that you recognize the fact that women are just as free to run and hold office,
and that women and men are free to vote or support who they like! Thanks for pointing out what
is most obvious, Only! What would have been more imporessive is if you pointed out that even
though there are more women in our country then men, there are more men in power than women.
And then, I would have been even more impressed if you raised the question as to whether or
not this disproportion was a result of a patriarchal strand being embedded in society as being
partially or wholly resopnsible for this.


I was just going to say to look at the P&R home screen and note the


One last thing: PLEASE do not copy articles verbatim from other sites or post videos without comment! If you want to quote something, or post a video, fine... say where it comes from, provide a link, and also provide ANALYSIS and INSIGHT of your own. We're here to discuss and debate ideas we actually hold. So make your opinion clear, and remember to do so with civility.


But, I did.

I said:

"On the heels of my recent and current gripes with patriarchal men ruining our culture is this

thread devoted to exploring the possible impact of not only a cultural shift but a gender one
too whereby we ask women to do the governing as opposed to us stupid, idiotic, cock-measuring
men . . . "

And now, I'm providing other readings to support that claim. And I most wholeheartedly am en-
joying your participation! LOL! Keep it coming!

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 11/07/17 12:29pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Dasein said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

gender bias


How so?

And, if it is a gender bias, would it be immoral or impractical to be biased towards that which has
been proven or shown to be more effective than anything else so far? For example: when it
comes to reading books on theoretical physics, I'm biased towards reading the work of those who
possess PhDs than those who don't.

Education bias? Sure! But, aren't I justified?

Here, I have no idea why you're pointing out a gender bias in the first place apart from you not
knowing what you're talking about, as usual . . .

you posted at least 2 articles that say woman are better. that is gender bias. you are pushing an anti-male agenda. Not that I am treated but I am just pointing out an undeniable fact. For you to make it into a personal insult is also fine as it shows the kind of person you are.

I forgive you... you may go,

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 11/07/17 12:47pm

Dasein

OnlyNDaUsa said:

AS to why so few woman run and why woman do not vote more based on gender I do not even care to hazard a guess. What I will say it is biased to suggest that woman are better than men are or that somehow woman should be given some advantage when running.


The most recent examples of a woman running against a man when the man won were deemed to be due in part to gender bias. Maybe the woman just ran a poor campaign?


You do not care to hazard a guess because you know what the guesses could include justifiably if
you were informed and honest about your assessment of our patriarchal culture, an existence I
would not be shocked if you denied.

It is not a "gender bias" to suggest women are better than men when it comes to governance: it
is suggestion informed by research. You clearly do not know what the phrase "gender bias" means,
or how to apply it for it would be gender bias to claim women were better leaders than men only if
men who were leaders were being unfairly treated on account of their gender/sex: they are not. In
other words: men are not treated unfairly in the US because they are men/males - women are.
As to why you are making it a point to talk about giving women "some advantage when running"
is beyond me for I never made that claim in the first place.


 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 11/07/17 12:55pm

Dasein

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Dasein said:


How so?

And, if it is a gender bias, would it be immoral or impractical to be biased towards that which has
been proven or shown to be more effective than anything else so far? For example: when it
comes to reading books on theoretical physics, I'm biased towards reading the work of those who
possess PhDs than those who don't.

Education bias? Sure! But, aren't I justified?

Here, I have no idea why you're pointing out a gender bias in the first place apart from you not
knowing what you're talking about, as usual . . .

you posted at least 2 articles that say woman are better. that is gender bias. you are pushing an anti-male agenda. Not that I am treated but I am just pointing out an undeniable fact. For you to make it into a personal insult is also fine as it shows the kind of person you are.

I forgive you... you may go,


Are you going to reply to the substance of my post: am I not justified in having a gender bias
if research indicates women are better than men when it comes to leadership? (this is even if
it is a gender bias to say women are better leaders than men)

But, I think you're simply wanting to troll here because you felt as if I trolled you recently in
your dumb assault rifle thread. The problem here, though, is that I enjoy going back and forth
with you because you're low hanging fruit when I'm ravenous. You represent something to
me so I love it when you reply to my posts . . . keep it coming!

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 11/07/17 2:45pm

poppys

OH heart this topic!

Cages are rattling from my quick skim. Have to go for now but will be back to delve into the deets soon.

Kick the old-school joints. For the true funk soldiers.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 11/08/17 11:18am

NorthC

Angela Merkel is doing a good job in Germany while Theresa May is doing a horrible job in Britain. Michel Macron is doing a good job in France while Donald Trump is doing a horrible job in the US. It's someone's personality that makes a good leader.
I do like the Parade reference in the title, though.
Don't ever lose your dreams.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 11/08/17 12:14pm

Dasein

NorthC said:

Angela Merkel is doing a good job in Germany while Theresa May is doing a horrible job in Britain. Michel Macron is doing a good job in France while Donald Trump is doing a horrible job in the US. It's someone's personality that makes a good leader. I do like the Parade reference in the title, though.


Your point here is good, and does draw some things out, but it is not broad enough.

Yes - there are examples of poor leadership when it comes from women, regardless of their
gender, and there are great examples of leadership with it comes from men, regardless of
gender as well. And, I'm sure that personality also contributes to the quality of leadership
a person possesses. But, personality can be awfully influenced social mores and customs and
role-expectations, e.g.: men are not supposed to cry while women are allowed to; men are sup-
posed to be quiet and strong; women are chatty and emotional. These kinds of norms mani-
fest themselves in our personality, or, at the least, are contours of personality. I can't re-
member if there was a causal connection between testosterone and violence committed by
men or a facilitative effect testosterone had on the violence committed by men. Yet, the fact
of the matter remains more violence is perpetuated on this planet by men than women.

But, when you survey the history of humankind with most of its cultures being maintained by a
patriarchy, and with most leaders in politics and other social institutions being men while taking
notice of the persistent awful state of affairs in our world as given to us as a result of male/men
leadership, you can't point to a handful of women/female leaders that have ever existed as proof
that there is a level playing field when it comes to leadership. Or, neither can you point to the
existence of some female/women leadership who have not fared well have done so commensu-
rately with men throughout history. In other words: for every one poor woman/female leader,
we can probably point out 100 poor male/man leader.

I saw some studies on those European female monarchs from the 1500s - early 1900s who were
30% more likely to engage in war than men. But, I would argue that this could have been the
case because those queens and/or female rulers felt a need to show their mettle by being just as
aggressive as men and not to appear weak. So, I do not think that a woman qua woman can
save us from violence in the world on account of their sex/gender, but when it comes to govern-
ance, they do a better job.

Jus' say'n . . .

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 11/08/17 1:27pm

NorthC

Yeah, I know. There's not a lot of women in power and the few that there are will always have to deal with the men around them.
Politics is always about power, whether it's men dealing with other men or men dealing with women and then I'll be the first to admit that men are easier to do what we call in Dutch: haantjesgedrag, which means, acting like a rooster; walking around and crowing and pretending everything around you belongs to you.
Don't ever lose your dreams.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 11/08/17 3:07pm

poppys

First, let's put some of Only's reactions to this thread in perspective. He does not read links people post. Nor did he want to read the first 2 informational and contextual posts you provided, so he found "technical" gotcha reasons (that made no sense) to make you wrong. Still, he wants to troll and bash the thread. So he commented on the 3rd piece, it was shorter - doesn't mean he read it all, using an easy one-liner of gender bias.


So much great material, where to start. I agree with what you say here Dasein.

'But, when you survey the history of humankind with most of its cultures being maintained by a patriarchy, and with most leaders in politics and other social institutions being men while taking notice of the persistent awful state of affairs in our world as given to us as a result of male/men leadership, you can't point to a handful of women/female leaders that have ever existed as proof that there is a level playing field when it comes to leadership. Or, neither can you point to the existence of some female/women leadership who have not fared well have done so commensurately with men throughout history. In other words: for every one poor woman/female leader, we can probably point out 100 poor male/man leader.'


What I do in local elections, is vote for the qualified female and/or minority candidates first. Every time. Unless we can get women coming up the ranks and winning on a local level, we will never have enough women in politics to know what it would be like.

Kick the old-school joints. For the true funk soldiers.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Got 2 Try a Nu Position: Matriarchy