|
|
|
|
|
| | If women were in power. Page 2 of 7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) |
No, men would be required to sit. Or squat. There wuld be no need for seats to lower since they would not raise.
That would last for about ten seconds until the first woman sat on the wet seat instead of plunging into the abyss. Just because women are in charge doesn't mean men will change. ~~snicker~~
This reminds me of an old friend who incessantly complained about his wife. "Damn wife is such a pig!! Everytime I get up to take a leak the damn sink is full of dirty dishes!!" | |
|
| |
| If women were in power.
Posted: 1/21/2009 6:17:23 AM | Maybe ther is a confusion about where powere is seen to be exercised, in the prifate sphere, as sin your home, and the public sphere, work and political.
Many men on a one to one basis might feel they do not have poewe in relationships, because they do not have both the language and emotional range of women. But powere over an individual changes at best the individual, but not the world they both live in.
In the public sphere, men rule, thier laws, their values, where power can be exercised freely, against other males and of coourse females. Females do fight, expecially when young, or when lacking language skills. THe truth they prefer to talk things out, than physically fight, not just in western cultures but throughout the world. THey tend to compromise, a rather nasty word in the male world.
Bush and his bunch of pirates were very male value orientated, why talk to so called terrorists, or those that were fairly elected but were seen as the wrong choice the population made. Threats, invasion, war is the male way as in our own worlds violence settles some problems to many. Personally I would use violence every time if it actually worked, it changes nothing but makes the victim wary, cautious, but mainly of the potentially violent.
Exercising power in the confines of a relationship is often exercised by males with a show of physical strength. It is a shame there is not a test women might ask males to complete so they could filter oout such nightmares,and in the end lonliness just might change entrenched behaviours. | |
|
| If women were in power.
Posted: 1/22/2009 1:03:07 AM | behind every great man is a woman so they say. but really it should be mommies who rule the world  noone would go to bed hungry | |
|
| If women were in power - they are where I come from
Posted: 1/22/2009 12:52:47 PM | this is almost a redundant question for me - because I am a Mohawk and a member if the Iroquois Confederacy.
In our own society that is a no brainer question - they do.
We are matriarchal by tradition - and still are.
We occupied 250 miles of central NY.
Fended of the Americans, British, Dutch and French simultaneously - no biggie at the time. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| If women were in power - they are where I come from
Posted: 1/23/2009 8:26:34 AM | I think that the point is that you may have seen a Thatcher and a Meir get into wars but you have not seen a female Hitler, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Stalin, Amin, Mugabe, or Niyazov (needless to say, I've left out many more).
Not only that, but the Thatchers and Meirs don't get into power unless they play the boys' game in the boys' world, which is why, when they become leaders, they act like the boys do.
What people mean when they remark that women would be different in power is the 'female' style of management:
Typically male leaders act more like a drill-sergeant while females act more like a coach to their employees. Females, traditionally, are better communicators, use influencing skills rather than authority, are better team players, more readily show appreciation for the efforts of others and are more expressive of their thoughts and feelings than male managers."
"Many females feel they need to, or naturally do, employ ‘male’ management techniques as there is a feeling they need to prove themselves, or to be part of a boy’s club. The jury is still out, and probably will be for a long time, on which management style is best.
Basically, women tend to employ a more collaborative, encouraging form of management.. Remember that 'male' management style derived from the hierarchical structures of the military and of religion: each level got to boss around the level below and expected no questions. The lower level was considered unintelligent; requiring direction and discipline to 'keep in line'. There are still managers and organizations that operate that way. Certainly the Bush administration was 'my way or the highway'management writ large.
Yesterday, you saw Hilary Clinton tell the assembled staff of the State Department that they were to be a team, that she wanted to hear the opinions of all staff, and that she welcomed debate. The staff applauded and cheered wildly when she spoke about 'welcoming debate'; clearly the last leader (Condie) managed like 'one of the boys' and did not welcome debate.
Yes, there are women behind many male leaders, but all they do is serve to temper the harshness of some men. However, Josephine, Ava Braun, Grace Mugabe, and any of Osama's wives don't seem to have helped much. I doubt Laura Bush had much effect on Dubya. Or maybe the ladies did have some effect and those fellows would have been even worse without them.
As for this:
if every country had women as their respective leaders and they all are on their cycle at the same time. Armageddon!  (we need an icon for 'disgusted'). | |
|
| If women were in power - they are where I come from
Posted: 1/23/2009 2:08:56 PM | but you have not seen a female Hitler, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Stalin, Amin, Mugabe, or Niyazov (needless to say, I've left out many more).’’
As I said—the game is, name a point in history and find the women behind the scene…
So I take the first two because the research is a little tedious.
Hitler—
Leni Riefenstahl is likely the most famous propagandist; her film Triumph of the Will is still viewed today as a masterpiece in film making. I wonder how far Hitler might have gone if it were not for a woman named Leni Riefenstahl.
Juana Bormann was a murderous SS woman, who served in the deathcamp Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen. She was known as The woman with the dogs, who took sadistic pleasure in setting her wolfhounds on prisoners to tear them to pieces.
Also the largest rallies that Hitler spoke to were mainly woman.
And of coarse Eva Braun—I don’t think she was whispering don’t kill the Jews in Hitler’s ear.
Napoleon,
It was Josephine who in the winter of 1795 asked that Napoleon be given command of the Italian army
Josephine had a major influence on Napoleon emotionally, directly and indirectly by making him feel secure, providing him with emotional support, and giving him confidence which ultimately had a bearing on his decisions and actions.
Napoleon's brother felt that Josephine was mainly responsible for the for the growth of tyranny in her husband by the emotions she brought forth to him as he once said, "That the disappointments . . . took their toll, made their mark, and blighted, one by one, his capacity for love.
The power of man is inseparable from the will of woman… | |
|
| If women were in power - they are where I come from
Posted: 1/23/2009 2:17:08 PM | | I honestly think the world would be a slightly better place if women were in power, I think they need to devise a cunning plan to eradicate the males species and just leave me alone for breeding purposes. | |
|
| If women were in power - they are where I come from
Posted: 1/23/2009 8:22:51 PM |
Also the largest rallies that Hitler spoke to were mainly woman.
Guess you've never seen the photos.
And of coarse Eva Braun—I don’t think she was whispering don’t kill the Jews in Hitler’s ear.
It was Josephine who in the winter of 1795 asked that Napoleon be given command of the Italian army
I get it. So women are not only 'behind' all men, but they're the source of all evil.
I love it when fishies reveal their true feelings about women on the forums. | |
|
| If women were in power
Posted: 1/23/2009 9:03:51 PM | thanks Merry Lass - some questions that I think about in this sort of debate are - how do our various social structures reflect gender inequities? What are the effects of unbalanced power structures in societies (which are developed over time and in varying social contexts)? Its a complex issue but we can rely on and respond to the effects and outcomes.
See Amnesty International for stats on the outcomes/effects on particular genders and cultures. Foucalt described the fluidity and the shifting nature of power - but the effects come from structural inequities that historically have positioned one gender as superior - it may not have been deliberate, but still exists. | |
|
| If women were in power - they are where I come from
Posted: 1/23/2009 9:37:39 PM | Lol—had a feeling it might come to that, always one in the crowd..
Dump the personal crap—please..
I would hope the forms are for intellectual discourse.
I realize it’s hard for some to stay clear of personalized attacks, but that’s not what I’m here for.
The point of the OP was to get people thinking of women in history.
We could have easily reflected on Pres. Obama’s character reference of his Mother and Grandmother, or maybe Pres. Lincoln, both void of a father in early years.
As per the Hitler photo—I’m quite sure anyone who wants dig a little deeper will find the references.
There was no theme of evil on my behalf, just a thought to explore how both male and female have shaped the world around us. Did you know it was a woman who first discovered that the atom had been split?
Again I postulate-- The power of man is inseparable from the will of woman…
ps. and yes woman are the source of all evil, as is man--they are also the source of all good---they are inseparable...smile. | |
|
| If women were in power - they are where I come from
Posted: 1/23/2009 11:59:31 PM | It is exactly that type of minimisation that renders your response and its attack (ie. the assumption that my response was 'personal') as the opposite of intellectual, you have also told all of us on the postings 'what you expected to talk about'. Hardly intellectual .....
Any discussion of power factors in the historical and the structural but you have positioned that there is an equity of power between genders based on your own interpretation without submitting a shred of intellectual evidence. You have also ignored the status oriented benefits and the effects of exclusion from those benefits. Not only is your position naive and merely anecdotal but loses its innate sense of 'debate' by accusing posting's of being 'personal'. Nothing more than a fine example of superiority in an intellectual desert. If you insist upon intellectual discourse, then step up to the plate.
And as to "the power of man is inseparable from the will of woman" - this is nothing more than an assumption of created codependency that is not particularly well thought out - as the variances between genders, class and race are simply ignored - (ie. same sex power dynamics, transgender, complexity and inequity of power between anglosaxon cultures and indigenous cultures etc) | |
|
| If women were in power - they are where I come from
Posted: 1/24/2009 6:12:25 AM | But it is disingenuous to claim that there are no women in history who have abused their power or were otherwise aggressive (Anna Ivanovna? Elizabeth Báthory?). Don't mistake lack of opportunity for lack of ability after all.
It is, quite frankly, rather bigoted to assume that women would act differently if placed in positions of power. | |
|
| If women were in power - they are where I come from
Posted: 1/24/2009 8:56:31 AM | It was a personal attack—off topic and petty.
‘If you insist upon intellectual discourse, then step up to the plate.’
Fair enough—pick a point / event in history, and lets go !!Broad assertiveness is lame and a source of bigotry..
Try to stay focused.. | |
|
| If women were in power - they are where I come from
Posted: 1/24/2009 2:56:16 PM | It is all very well to cite particular individuals throughout history (or herstory) to validate your position, however, any discussion of power cannot ignoring political, sociocultural contexts (a point you have not yet acknowledged or expanded). It involves viewing the structural echelons of power - as Merrylass pointed out so well, for women to succeed in gaining political power, she must subvert what has traditionally been her social conditioning, and utilise pathways traditionally open to white middle class men (as Indigenous men would never have access - and please remember, I'm speaking historically). Every institution (legal, educational, medical, political) has deeply embedded "ways of knowing, being and working" that carry patriarchal assumptions. For example in medical discourse, it was the male who was the foci of attention in research (and I'm talking about a few hundred years ago) - the female was only considered 'in relation' to the male - ie. the assumption that the reproductive system was the reason women were 'hysterical' (the roving womb) as men simply didn't suffer from hysteria. Women were 'diagnosed' with hysteria when they didn't conform to the social rules, medicated and placed in hospital. Freud's research is another example of structural inequity in the context of the powerful role of the Psychiatric movement in the 1800's. The subsequent exclusions and labelling of minorities in the DSM was unbelievable. What was positioned as 'normal' was at the behest of the powerful medical profession.
When we consider the issue of power, I do not assume that no one gender is powerless (although possibly women/children who are bought, sold and trafficked around the world may well be considered powerless), merely point out that if we do not view the implications of structural processes that the debate degenerates into a focus on individual men and women - this to me is pointless as there are always going to be examples that suit a particular argument. | |
|
| If women were in power.
Posted: 1/24/2009 5:36:33 PM | Men still control women in many parts of the world, so from a woman's perspective, I'd say men do, still rule the world.
Here's what I've learned about the world over the years. The less power and rights women have in a country, the worse off the country is. Those types of countries never advance or move forward, because if they continue to take away basic human rights from people based on their gender alone, then that entire population, suffers. Especially, the children. Health care never advances, science never advances, education never advances, and on and on.
It's a shame really because women are an untapped source of power, that could help so many of these countries improve in so many areas.
I think if more women were in control, there would definitely be less violence because most of us, hate it, in any form. We are tired of the wars men have started on this planet for thousands of years. I think we are better at negotiating without having to resort to some form of violence to get our point across.
Yes, some women are capable of violence, but it's (some) men, who have taken violence to a twisted, and extreme level, especially against women.
I suppose I'm a little biased and still distrusting of many men in general due to the violence my mother experienced at the hands of my father. I still don't understand the amount of violence against women (and children) at the hands of men. I just don't understand why so many men, are wired this way. Look at the Middle East. Why are women still being treated like property in those countries? As a woman, I just don't get it and it makes me sad.
It makes me sad that sexism still exists, that rapists and domestic violence still goes on, etc, etc, etc. I know there are good men out there, who hate this stuff too, but the fact that it still goes on at all, makes me horribly sad and angry sometimes.
I don't think the world will ever get better as long as (some) men keep running it. There will always be war, always be violence against women and children, always. This is just proof to me, that God (if he exists at all) is a man. If God were a woman, she'd never have allowed this kind of stuff to start happening in the first place.
If my post sounds a little bitter and angry, I apologize, but I still get "angry" over this issue sometimes. Again, I realize I'm bias a certain a bit, due to the domestic violence I got to see first hand as a child. I'm just really, really tired of the violence committed by men on this planet, because most women, hate it. I don't like the violence men commit against each other either. They need to value themselves and other men, more too, not just women and children.
This topic probably gets done to death, but sexism is still alive and well, everywhere in the world, and until all women everywhere, have equal rights, this topic, is still important. | |
|
| If women were in power.
Posted: 1/24/2009 6:48:21 PM | | You have absolutely nothing to justify or apologise for (why are we always apologising for having an intelligent perspective?) - your post was beautifully articulated - and your experience is a common one - the current stats in my country are that men who have certain belief systems (a particular masculinist construct) are violent against other men (usually one's they don't know) and are violent against women (usually in a family and domestic arrangement). Those men who have more positive and life enhancing ways of being male fight against this too (ie. White Ribbon Day) as they don't consider this appropriate. Like you, I'm tired of it too.... | |
|
| If women were in power.
Posted: 1/24/2009 7:53:30 PM | | I'm not getting involved in this conversation aside from the famous quote "Behind every great man, there is an even greater woman", but needless to say if women ran the world I'd probably be going on a monthly isolated hunting trip every month or so. | |
|
| If women were in power.
Posted: 1/24/2009 8:28:22 PM | Of course men have the power.
But I don't think it would be a better world if women had it. Remember the myths of the Amazons? | |
|
| If women were in power.
Posted: 1/24/2009 8:33:16 PM | | Women are no better. Their methods are just normally different. Look at how females treat other females they disagree with or don't like. The mental cruelty factor tends to be distinctly greater, and mental cruelty tends to have a greater impact on female victims. Behind every successful *whomever*, there's a woman twisting the knife. | |
|
| If women were in power.
Posted: 1/24/2009 9:13:01 PM | This discussion centres on a gendered analysis on the issue of power at an individual/community/global level - no-one here denies that female violence exists (and it must be stated that research articulates the significant differences between male and female violence) - see Amnesty International websites for the statistics/effects/outcomes of patriarchal abuse.
Women have traditionally (as a result of patriarchal social conditioning) had to 'compete' for male approval and attention (just as men had to compete for various other status related constructs) - and as Germaine Greer stated in The Female Eunich women must become responsible for letting go of financial security and male approval in order to self actualise - hence the need to be disgustingly awful to one another and highly manipulative towards men in meeting socially constructed needs. We are at a wonderful time in history/herstory (at least in Western contexts) when these paradigms are clearly shifting, when social norms are being overturned and we each have the opportunity to embark upon ways of relating that are much more equitable - its exciting but painful. | |
|
| If women were in power.
Posted: 1/25/2009 1:42:47 AM | Thanks, Muse39, for understanding what's meant by 'intellectual discourse' and actually contributing in that vein. Your interjectons are actually based on scholarship and can be backed up, unlike statements such as
Again I postulate-- The power of man is inseparable from the will of woman… . Oh, OP, care to cite a source or two? Yeah. Thought not. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
2
of
7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
|
|
Home
login 
