Women Leaders in Politics - (I'm not Sexist)
- Thread starter eKwatee
- Start date
I don't follow politics (it bores me) but from what I remember, she didn't stay long, and she wasn't considered very good.
While a think a woman can the job, she was not the person for the job.
I'd have to google her, even to tell you her name.
Bob Hawke cried publicly a couple of times, one being after the Tienanmen Square protest aftermath. Did that make him weak?
...so close Mango, so close, that what we say and do. Our Temperament is that 'what we say and do'. And:
"It is Best that we do what we do Best".
It is about the one of the four intelligences we are actually born with, Strategic-Rational, (eg Julia Gillard), Tactical=Artisan, (eg Bob Hawke), Logistical=Guardian, (eg Tony Abbott) and Diplomatic-Idealist, (eg Bob Brown, Aung San Suu Kyi, Gandhi).
Re/ Hawke crying, he is an expressive, the temperaments can either be predominantly 'attentive, or requesting' or 'expressive, more proclaiming'. While we know Aung San Suu Kyi can certainly speak well, (she is a more 'attentive, directive type')-as we all can speak given the need/circumstances, Bob Hawke is naturally an expressive person, it comes naturally to him, his temperament is literally that of, 'let it all hang out'-that including a readily expressive show of his emotions. People are going to have their own opinions of whether they consider he was a relatively successful PM or not. Bob and Bill Clinton share same temperament btw.
But good observations on the steely iron leaders, the Fieldmarshal Rationals are often considered 'leaders of leaders'.
Last edited:
You can also often see show of temperament displayed here, on somersoft, 'in action'.
Did a bit of searching and found this: "Politicians have been having adulterous affairs since before King David got it on with Bathsheba. (Not so much, alas, in Canada, at least not publicly documented, the most notorious violation of vows in memory what Margaret Trudeau did to Pierre, rather than vice-versa.)"
So notorious, we heard about it here in Oz.
lol this could'nt be further from the truth. They are as much a cog in the wheel as the others.
That's true.
(Kim Campbell btw was our lady PM)
Our pollies are so ugly and boring, we have few adulterous scandals.
I just tend to delete the "not" to get the accurate picture of what they are saying.
Absolutely. Again, they are big girls, they can take care of themselves, if you become involved in the political game, you do become 'cogs'-this is an opportunity to see the whole of the machinations, both the males and females can show/be/do poor or good leadership. Having a penis or vagina does not exclude from human fallibilities or strength, and again, people's perceptions, political bias can affect the way they perceive effective leadership, to a point, anyway.
Politics is a kind of theatre, we have our players. Some are great, some are both great and poor leadership/decisions/actions, some are notso good. Within the political 'web'. They, (politicians) are not a unique species, they are human.
Margaret Thatcher:
From her biography:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tetk_ayO1x4&feature=related
That, ladies and gentlemen is a Fieldmarshal Rational in full stride.
Again, we may have differing opinions on/about our politicians, but they will be leaders that will reflect their individual temperaments. Damn interesting!
Last edited:
Incidently they can make excellent war/army leaders too. There was an incident Margaret was involved in with re/ the Falklands, I need to get the detail correct before posting, but it was about her mobilising forces, she was actually dissuaded (yes, sometimes they go against natural instinct), to send in forces ahead like she wished to do, and it was at terrible cost of fatalities, it is one of the 'regrets' she expresses in an interview many years late.
No, it was the Community Charge, popularly called the Poll Tax. Before it came in, local government was financed (in part) by rates much as here in Australia. Under the poll tax each council levied a fixed tax per adult head regardless of where you lived (within that council area). The arguments for this were that (a) you could have two identical houses, one occupied by an elderly widow, the other by a family with four working people and under rates they both paid the same, although the latter made much more use of local council services, so charging per head was fairer; and (b) given that those with the lowest income probably didn't pay anything much in the way of rates, if they voted out of self interest they would vote for high-spending high-service councils.
It was an idea not without merit (as a single person household I was a beneficiary) but as ever with tax reform the voice of the losers is the one that gets heard. The far left exploited this mercilessly with demos turning into riots and sane debate became impossible. End of said tax to be replaced by Council Tax, a *******ised form of rates with houses being banded A-G according to (even now) what they would have been worth in 1991. Revaluation in the UK is now political poison, since, as before, the winners would show you no gratitude and the losers will be in every paper. Anywhere else in the world, you'd be though crazy to tax houses on their value 20+ years ago.
Gender is about as relevant as race when it comes to job performance (which is what we're really discussing here). I'd happily employ a two-headed humpback eskimo dwarf if they had the right skills and I could sell their time to my clients.
But what if one truly & fully deludes themselves that they are not racist / sexist whilst being so ? Me thinks this has happens sometimes...
But what if one truly & fully deludes themselves that they are not racist / sexist whilst being so ? Me thinks this has happens sometimes...
Everyone is to a degree...if they say they aren't..then they are a liar.
I know/.. I'm not racist against canadians but.....
No, there are actually people out there who judge others on merit alone, not their age, race or gender. Hard to believe, I know...
I think it is more subconcious.
I'm not saying anyone is doing it on purpose.
Only way an application for a job could be considered fair, is if it only had qualifications and a number.
Names, age,gender,race, will all come into play otherwise.
