Women Leaders in Politics - (I'm not Sexist)

[Mr. Fabulous]

I reckon women can do things way better than most men!

Whenever I come across a person who says and believes something like this, I usually say to them 'Sure, no problem. Let's split the world in half. Put all the females on one side and all the males on the other. Then we'll see who lasts longer.'

Or as a woman who understands and appreciates the value of males' contribution to civilisation once said...

If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts.

 

[pennyk]

Whenever I come across a person who says and believes something like this, I usually say to them 'Sure, no problem. Let's split the world in half. Put all the females on one side and all the males on the other. Then we'll see who lasts longer.'

Or as a woman who understands and appreciates the value of males' contribution to civilisation once said...

Do you have the same kind of response with the BS that Piston Broke posted?

Its a shame for me when we set up men and women as competitors instead of partners. (I hate it whether its women or men taking that position.. its just not necessary. If we dont have each other, we dont survive as a species!!!)

I think the main reason its easier to identify disappointing women leaders is because there havent been as many women leaders, so its easy to spot the poor performers.

 

[Belbo]

Whenever I come across a person who says and believes something like this, I usually say to them 'Sure, no problem. Let's split the world in half. Put all the females on one side and all the males on the other. Then we'll see who lasts longer.'

Or as a woman who understands and appreciates the value of males' contribution to civilisation once said...

So, you've quoted the Cavewoman. As her US sisters would reply -

"Like . . , Duh!" And they ARE in the NASA programme . . . .

I mean, really: How painful is it to NOT to buy into pig-ignorant bigotry?

Oh! It's okay? I'm no f***ing racist? F! you are.

Tosser!!!!!

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Do you have the same kind of response with the BS that Piston Broke posted?

Hi Penny, both men and women have provided plenty in the formation of our civilisation. Our society needs both men and women and we should acknowledge the efforts of both men and women through time. But it irks me when women puff their chests out and say 'they can do most work better than men'. Let's not remove focus from what Nat said and what I rebuffed:

"I reckon women can do things way better than most men!"

This statement is not factually correct. Women cannot do most work way better than men. That's just fact. If you don't like it or think I'm sexist for saying so, then so be it. Unlike eKwatee or whatever his name is, I have no desire to fall all over myself in an attempt to be nauseatingly PC.

Let me take my rhetorical example a little further. If we were to split the world into two halves and put all the males on one side and all the females on the other, with regard to the female side, who's going to do all the construction? Build and maintain all the infrastructure? Mine resources? Drill for oil? Do all the other dirty, crappy, dangerous, life threatening work that men do exclusively in todays world? It's no coincidence that men make up 95% of workplace deaths.

Also, have a look around you and tell me how many things that you consider essential (or even basic needs) in your everyday life and tell me how many of those things were invented by women. That doesn't mean that women aren't capable of such things, I merely point it out, because when people like Nat say that women can do anything better than men, it not only discounts the great achievements men have made throughout history, it blatantly ignores fact.

 

[pennyk]

But it irks me when women puff their chests out and say 'they can do most work better than men'. Let's not remove focus from what Nat said and what I rebuffed:

"I reckon women can do things way better than most men!"

This statement is not factually correct. Women cannot do most work way better than men. That's just fact. That doesn't mean that women aren't capable of such things, I merely point it out, because when people like Nat say that women can do anything better than men, it not only discounts the great achievements men have made throughout history, it blatantly ignores fact.

And yet thousands of years have proved they did not and still can't.
Chicks don't make good blokes, no matter how much you try.
Sure the service economy gives them a place where they can do well, but men are still the best at almost everything.
And when women ain't good enough (or little cleavage don't work) they call for quotas, discrimination and whatever BS they can think of including.

Many women are self employed (just like men)you say?
Yep because most are not very employable as previous posters stated.

I agree with you that Nat's comment is not factually correct..
I guess my point is that it is only as unfactually correct as Piston Broke's comments that the only way women get ahead is to show cleavage and that women are unemployable, apart from as sex objects....
I find both type of comments unhelpful, stereotypical and objectionable, and I think both should be challenged equally as being sexist and degrading (rather than only one or the other of them...)

 

[Dazz]

Getting back on track, the vast majority of new talent coming thru the parties on both sides, at both state and federal levels is still male. Most of the president's of the young groups are all male. Haven't looked at the Greens too closely cos I despise them so much, but looking at the senators in Parliament, it seems to be Bob and his harem.

 

[slammindan]

If the 50/50 line ball call is between a non overly religious person and a person who wears their religion openly though specific clothing or practices then do you risk disrupting the workplace by hiring someone who might raise racial/religious issues in other staff members? Why hire someone who is a higher risk factor to the company?

But of course when they ask why they didn't get the job the employer would say there was a 'better fitting candidate'. Not the fact it's their religion, race, colour, political opinion, sexual preference, disability, age that's the problem.

As an employer you have a duty to the company to protect it financially and to protect it from unions/discrimination cases.

Ironic don't you think?

 

[Ideo]

Only weak and insecure people see a problem with gender.

Suddenly dominance is gone and they are afraid they have additional legitimate competition.

 

[MangoMadness]

But of course when they ask why they didn't get the job the employer would say there was a 'better fitting candidate'. Not the fact it's their religion, race, colour, political opinion, sexual preference, disability, age that's the problem.

Totally agree, thats the society we live in, cant be honest because that might hurt someone. As i mentioned in an earlier post, if we were all open and honest and open to discussion then maybe different cultures/religions etc could address each others concerns whether they were actually valid or just myth/fear mongering.

With no avenue for discussion the problems get worse.

Ironic don't you think?

True irony, not just song irony

 

[jaycee]

Totally agree, thats the society we live in, cant be honest because that might hurt someone. As i mentioned in an earlier post, if we were all open and honest and open to discussion then maybe different cultures/religions etc could address each others concerns whether they were actually valid or just myth/fear mongering.

With no avenue for discussion the problems get worse.

Yeah not so sure I agree at alll

 

[MangoMadness]

Only weak and insecure people see a problem with gender.

Suddenly dominance is gone and they are afraid they have additional legitimate competition.

Maybe in some circumstances but there are many legitimate problems with gender in the workplace.

Equal pay for equal work sure but where is the equal work? With jobs requiring physical labour, why does the woman get the same pay for doing less of a job due to not being up to physically keep up the the males?

Why is the female physical requirements for military service less than males? do they not get shot by the same bullets?

There are many other examples out there and also some where the roles are changed where the males perform poorly compared to females whether it be data entra or work requiring agile numble fingers but generally men arnt trying to beat down the door to female dominated industries/workplaces, it is the women stamping their feet and putting 'women can go anything' stickers on there bumper bars

On another hand i have found that women are generally better employees and have more of a responsible attitude to work and the independance it brings.

Am I sexist because i believe that in general women and men have different traits, physical aptitude and have different things to offer to a workplace?

Am I agist because I look for employees over 30 because they are more stable and generally stay longer at a company because they are more settled in life?

I will wear the badges if you think they fit but to me it is simple logic looking after the company by hiring the best candidates which means taking into account both age and gender (not religion though as that isnt a problem in my workplace)

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

Only weak and insecure people see a problem with gender.

Suddenly dominance is gone and they are afraid they have additional legitimate competition.

This is very true. Kudos.

 

[Piston Broke]

Do you have the same kind of response with the BS that Piston Broke posted?

Its a shame for me when we set up men and women as competitors instead of partners. (I hate it whether its women or men taking that position.. its just not necessary. If we dont have each other, we dont survive as a species!!!)

I think the main reason its easier to identify disappointing women leaders is because there havent been as many women leaders, so its easy to spot the poor performers.

It is women and their femminist BS that think of it as a competition.
They are always spouting how difficult what they do is and that they can do better than men, when facts prove differently.

And there is a reason there are not many women leaders.
Good leaders need logical pragmatic unemotional and focused thinking processes, and nature has made that the man's domain.

I do think that men and women do things differently but this is not a bad thing?

Already twisting your own words?

I can't really think of many jobs where you need to be a bloke to be successful

I can think of many, and history and facts prove it, just as any forbes or brw list does.

and just because women may do things differently doesn't mean we are not as good as or better than men at our jobs.

retracting your own words...again.

I work in a very male oriented field (mining and construction) where there are more and more women being employed every day because companies recognise that the best person for the job is not always a man.

And nobody wants to work there regardless of high pay. They employ anything with a pulse.

I have also worked in industries where there are lots of women who take off to have babies and yes it is very annoying for other staff who have to pick up the slack but it is not a valid reason not to employ women especially since paid maternity leave is not mandatory.

Yes it is because it disrupts the workplace, lowers morale (as youpoint out), is a huge waste of resources and expenses.
Only gov and gov style large organsations can afford to employ women in roles that require considerable skills and training.
Small business is priced out of the process.

 

[our obsession]

Only weak and insecure people see a problem with gender.

Suddenly dominance is gone and they are afraid they have additional legitimate competition.

+1 Kudos.

I've been following Rwanda's story, most people are familiar with the devastation of the genocide, it's like from the ashes of humanity springs:

Excerpt only from wikipedia Women in Government :

Rwanda

Since the election of 2008, Rwanda is the first country to have a majority of women in legislature.

Rwanda is an example of a developing country that does not have spectacular gender equality in other aspects of society, but radically increased its female leadership because of national conflict. After the genocide that killed 800,000 Tutsis in 100 days, women in legislature went from 18% women before the conflict to 56% in 2008.

Two pieces of legislature enabled and supported women into leadership positions: the Security Council Resolution of 1325 urged women to take part in the post-conflict reconstruction and the 2003 Rwandan Constitution included a mandated quota of 30% reserved seats for all women in legislature. Of the 24 women who gained seats directly after the quota implementation in 2003, many joined political parties and chose to run again.

Once again we can see the quota working as an “incubator” for giving women confidence, experience, and driving women’s participation in leadership. It is argued that the increase of female leadership in Rwanda also led to an increase in gender equality. World Focus (2009) writes:

“Rwandan voters have elected women in numbers well beyond the mandates dictated by the post-genocide constitution. And though women in Rwanda still face discrimination, female legislators have influenced major reforms in banking and property laws.”

A parliamentary women’s caucus in Rwanda (FFRP) has also “led a successful effort to pass ground-breaking legislation on gender-based violence in part by involving and garnering support from their male colleagues”.

While some researchers see reform, others see dominant party tactics. Hassim (2009) writes, “It could be argued that in both countries [Uganda and Rwanda] women’s representation provided a kind of alibi for the progressive, ‘democratic’ nature of new governments that at their core nevertheless remained authoritarian, and increasingly so”.

Rwanda shows that increased women participation in democracy tends leads to progress in gender equal legislature and reform, but research must be careful not to immediately relate increased gender equality in politics to increased gender equality in policy.

 

[natmarie73]

It is women and their femminist BS that think of it as a competition.
They are always spouting how difficult what they do is and that they can do better than men, when facts prove differently.

And there is a reason there are not many women leaders.
Good leaders need logical pragmatic unemotional and focused thinking processes, and nature has made that the man's domain.



Already twisting your own words?


I can think of many, and history and facts prove it, just as any forbes or brw list does.


retracting your own words...again.


And nobody wants to work there regardless of high pay. They employ anything with a pulse.


Yes it is because it disrupts the workplace, lowers morale (as youpoint out), is a huge waste of resources and expenses.
Only gov and gov style large organsations can afford to employ women in roles that require considerable skills and training.
Small business is priced out of the process.

I certainly am not retracting my own words and fail to see how you think that. I think women can do things just as well as men can and have not seen or experienced anything during my working life to make me think otherwise. I don't give a crap about the forbes list or history (male censored propaganda with absolutely no bearing on anything). I make judgements on what I see and experience for myself.

If you want to "prove" anything you had better come up with actual proof and not just the rubbery statements you have posted thus far, but it won't change my opinion so you'd only be wasting your time. It would be far better just to concede that we will never agree on this topic and leave it there.

 

[MangoMadness]

I certainly am not retracting my own words and fail to see how you think that. I think women can do things just as well as men can and have not seen or experienced anything during my working life to make me think otherwise.

I feel that you and some others with a 'women can do anything that men can' are talking about white collar jobs, would that be true?

I have little experience with white collar jobs but I would think that men and women would be pretty even when comparing mental faculties.

My experiences have been dominated by blue collar jobs and my comments reflect those experiences and the facts are well known, the average woman is physically weaker than the average male. I recall reading an article many moons ago stating that the average 25 yr old female has the same physical strength of the average 65 yr old man.

Do you truly believe that women are physically the equal of men?

 

[MIW]

I just googled this up. It says MP remuneration is around $140k per year. Ministers around $250k per year.

Successful people with real life experience aren't exactly going to jump into politics for the cash.

...- If their business or investing interests wouldn't represent a conflict of interest with a political career (this can be a tough one...).

I would slightly disagree, if they don't jump into politics for the cash they may so for their families to make cash (imagine the contacts, influence, information they have).
Wasn't Anna Blighs husband involved with Carbon Tax or Environmental business agenda? And what about the wife of Kevin Rudd, running the business (or making a lot of money of government Cetrelink recruits?).
So what do 75% of Labor background is from unions, they don't do it for the money?
I think if politicians truly did it for the policies they belived in, we would have a better governed country, that's just my opinion only....

 

[Piston Broke]

Am I sexist - hell yeah! I reckon women can do things way better than most men!

If you want to "prove" anything you had better come up with actual proof and not just the rubbery statements you have posted thus far, but it won't change my opinion so you'd only be wasting your time. It would be far better just to concede that we will never agree on this topic and leave it there.

And here it is, and that is why many man know that arguing with a woman is pointless because facts mean nothing, just your emotions count on whatever it is you "feel" at any given time.
Just because you work with blokes does not mean you are like them, the femminists have sold you a dud.
You can't be like them, and you can never be better than them at what they are good at.

The forbes list proves that men make the best leaders, inventors, investors, builders and many other things by far.
Always have always will, don't like it? Blame your creator or gaia.

 

[Sunfish]

Why is it that if you were to compile a list of the chess grand masters, the great playwrights and poets, the very best composers, painters, musicians etc, scientists [M. Curie was noteworthy but part of a team], the great entrepreneurs and so forth there are so few women included? None of these pursuits require physical fitness, BTW.

Millions of years have conditioned the sexes for different tasks. Governments cannot legislate to abolish this difference: It is in the DNA.

I am not too far short of my golden wedding anv. and my lady has always been free to do as she wished. Never in those 49 years have I said what MUST happen. I genuinely wish her and her friends the very best. But it was MY planning and forethought that has set us up in the modest comfort that we enjoy. She is the kindest, most thoughtful mother, daughter, sister, wife anyone could wish for, but left to her own devices she would flounder with simple financial planning.

Vive la diff'erence!!!!

Why do you want it different? Stuffed if I know.

 

[Ideo]

Because it is only recently that women have been afforded the same opportunities as men to progress in those fields.

God. You lot are hardly setting a shining beacon for supposed male intellectual prowess.