The world would be a better place if women were calling the shots

[weltweit]

with blair you've forgotten iraq (1998), kosovo and sierra leone

the second thing is, what alternative do you think thatcher had? to go, i'm a nice peace-loving woman and the argentines can have the falklands? you're not comparing waging aggressive war (iraq 2003) with comparatively just wars (afghanistan and the falklands) in any meaningful way.

Yes, I had forgotten Sierra Leone..

What alternatives did Thatcher have, indeed that is a good point we had been attacked but my feeling was that the gathering of a task force and taking it that far away was fraught with danger and the very real possibility that we might fail and be defeated with heavy loss of life.

She meant business when she ordered the sinking of the General Belgrano while it was outside the exclusion zone. What else could she have done in that situation I don't really know.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, I had forgotten Sierra Leone..

What alternatives did Thatcher have, indeed that is a good point we had been attacked but my feeling was that the gathering of a task force and taking it that far away was fraught with danger and the very real possibility that we might fail and be defeated with heavy loss of life.

She meant business when she ordered the sinking of the General Belgrano while it was outside the exclusion zone. What else could she have done in that situation I don't really know.

not have ordered the sinking of a ship heading away from the falklands - just a thought.

 

[weltweit]

not have ordered the sinking of a ship heading away from the falklands - just a thought.

An aside: If I recall right, the General Belgrano had been an American warship in WWII and was one of only a few to survive the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour unscathed.

 

[weltweit]

not have ordered the sinking of a ship heading away from the falklands - just a thought.

I think that particular argument could go on and on...

 

[Plumdaff]

I've worked in A&E for over a decade and while there has been a huge increase in female drunk attendances in that time, the vast, vast majority of perpetrators and victims of violence who pitch up remain male. As do the vast majority of those being violent towards staff in the department, whether because of drunkenness, drugs, general wankerness or anything else.

I really can't agree with Corax's assessment.

 

[weltweit]

I am not sure violence has a lot to do with it, I mean football hooligans or friday night drunks don't generally start international wars.

And, the question posed by the OP, is really: do women make as good leaders as men?

I don't see too many reasons why they would not.

 

[DotCommunist]

I am not sure violence has a lot to do with it, I mean football hooligans or friday night drunks don't generally start international wars.

And, the question posed by the OP, is really: do women make as good leaders as men?

I don't see too many reasons why they would not.

But as churchill knows, they'll end them by god!

 

[DotCommunist]

If we had a 50-50 balance between the sexes in high-level politics there would definitely be less war, if only because the women would get in the way of the men while saying things like 'Eek, eek, stobbit Kev, it's not worth it,' etc etc.

to voice an unpopular view- women should not be front line troops in danger of lead poisoning. Equality be damned, when a woman is in distress we all white knight it to carry her safely to the physick. That is not the behaviour of a soldier. Rome conquered against enemies who brought their women to war. In the heat of conflict the male reaction to a downed female soldier is an unacceptable distraction. As an armchair general I would never allow it- it is as bad as sending troops in with shit equipment or empty bellies.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

to voice an unpopular view- women should not be front line troops in danger of lead poisoning. Equality be damned, when a woman is in distress we all white knight it to carry her safely to the physick. That is not the behaviour of a soldier. Rome conquered against enemies who brought their women to war. In the heat of conflict the male reaction to a downed female soldier is an unacceptable distraction. As an armchair general I would never allow it- it is as bad as sending troops in with shit equipment or empty bellies.

Female only units then for those mad enough to want to join?

 

[Bakunin]

An aside: If I recall right, the General Belgrano had been an American warship in WWII and was one of only a few to survive the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour unscathed.

Formerly the USS Phoenix IIRC.

 

[The39thStep]

I remember a similar argument in the 70s when feminists argued that the news would be different if it were read by women newsreaders.

 

[miss minnie]

We all hope that male leaders will be 'good' or 'nice' but we accept that they may not be. In an equal society, women should be afforded the same deal.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Apart from it being apolitical gender-essentialist junk borne out by absolutely nothing, I can't see anything wrong with this position.

 

[Corax]

I am not sure violence has a lot to do with it, I mean football hooligans or friday night drunks don't generally start international wars.

And, the question posed by the OP, is really: do women make as good leaders as men?

I don't see too many reasons why they would not.

I think nick's proposition was more that women make better leaders - at least when it comes to peace, injustices etc.

 

[girasol]

With regards to finance it's thought that women are more cautious and hedge funds run by women do better than the ones ran by men (sorry, no link, I heard it on world service)

As for the world being a better place if it was ran by women, we just need to look at Thatcher to know this isn't the case. We do need more balance though, that's for sure.

 

[girasol]

I found this link: http://www.finalternatives.com/node/15598

not sure what is meant by minorities in this context though?

 

[smokedout]

Needless to say, I am not opposed to woman suffrage on the conventional ground that she is not equal to it. I see neither physical, psychological, nor mental reasons why woman should not have the equal right to vote with man. But that can not possibly blind me to the absurd notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed. If she would not make things worse, she certainly could not make them better. To assume, therefore, that she would succeed in purifying something which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit her with supernatural powers. Since woman's greatest misfortune has been that she was looked upon as either angel or devil, her true salvation lies in being placed on earth; namely, in being considered human, and therefore subject to all human follies and mistakes. Are we, then, to believe that two errors will make a right? Are we to assume that the poison already inherent in politics will be decreased, if women were to enter the political arena? The most ardent suffragists would hardly maintain such a folly.

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_eg_an9_woman_suffrage.htm

 

[kyser_soze]

A female leader in this society will have all the same traits as a male - competeitive, semi-sociopathic, agressive. This is not 'women being made like men' rather 'homo sapiens being made like beasts' by their environment. While I have no doubt that the main reason for the the glass ceiling at the C-suite end of careers is principally down to trad old-fashioned sexism, I also suspect that a lot of women are simply better at being able to look at themselves and say 'No, I'm stopping this now.' as their souls shrivel into golfing weekends & Sigma 6 company workshops.

As for sending young people to their possible deaths for whatever purpose, I don't think there's a difference between a man or a woman in how the decision would be made, or that it would be made.

Anyway, the OP is bollocks, all the 'traits' mentioned are socially conditioned, and as stephj said, change society and you'll change the people in it, rendering this kind of nonsense unecessary.

 

[nino_savatte]

Thatcher, Macapagal-Arroyo, Yulia Tymoshenko...they aren't exactly angels.

Don't forget Indira Gandhi.

 

[Bakunin]

Don't forget Indira Gandhi.

Or Hungarian Countess Bathory either for that matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Báthory

 

[twentythreedom]

Female only units then for those mad enough to want to join?

Gaddafi seems to think it's a good idea

 

[DotCommunist]

Female only units then for those mad enough to want to join?

I've known some stony women but none that I'd think capable of saying 'hold on mate, medics coming' while soldiering on to secure the objective. Call me mr old school but in a war situation the women and the bumfluff brigade are last fucking resort. And an active detriment to the fighting efficiency of a unit. Theres no doubt that women are capable of the role- but the guys might not be capable of abstracting enough. As there are more of them and they are better suited through physical and mental prep so things which actively hold back that doggish attack training should be disallowed. This isn't chauvanism even- it is recognizing a blokes inability to not go stupid when as woman is hurt. We can't and shouldn't train that instinct out of proffesional non conscripted soldiers. Its not a bad thing. It limits effectiveness though, when the spear carrier next to you is a girl and every instinct and impulse is screaming 'fuck the enemy, look to the wounded woman'

 

[stethoscope]

Have you made my fucking tea yet, DC?

 

[DotCommunist]

Have you a paper cut that makes wielding the kettle impossible love?

well watch as I climb on the backs of fallen comrades to secure you a decent brew.

 

[stethoscope]

Have you a paper cut that makes wielding the kettle impossible love?

I can be pretty lethal with a tefal tbf.

 

[_angel_]

A female leader in this society will have all the same traits as a male - competeitive, semi-sociopathic, agressive. This is not 'women being made like men' rather 'homo sapiens being made like beasts' by their environment.

Probably. I don't know much about what traits Angela Merkel has, or any of the female leaders in Scandinavia (there have been some I think) but for this country, I think you'd have to be like a Thatcher figure to get as far as PM.

While I have no doubt that the main reason for the the glass ceiling at the C-suite end of careers is principally down to trad old-fashioned sexism, I also suspect that a lot of women are simply better at being able to look at themselves and say 'No, I'm stopping this now.' as their souls shrivel into golfing weekends & Sigma 6 company workshops.

As for sending young people to their possible deaths for whatever purpose, I don't think there's a difference between a man or a woman in how the decision would be made, or that it would be made.

Anyway, the OP is bollocks, all the 'traits' mentioned are socially conditioned, and as stephj said, change society and you'll change the people in it, rendering this kind of nonsense unecessary.

The whole nature/nuture thing is a bit of a minefield, but I don't believe people's personalities or gender roles are 100% conditioned by nurture (ie society and external pressure) altho they do play a part... how much is the tricky question.

 

[DotCommunist]

I can be pretty lethal with a tefal tbf.

I'm furious with a foremans. So good I clamped the enemies face on it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think the jury's still out on this issue.

 

[CyberRose]

If women stayed at home and did the cleaning etc there'd be no unemployment in this country

 

[JHE]

According to today's Times, it was women - specifically, Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Hilary Clinton - who persuaded Obama to make war on Libya. That's 'calling the shots'!