Women are good things indeed. But to have more department stores under a government of a woman, it will not bring jobs. The women will be having their parliamentary meetings in the shoes department at Wallmart or Sears. G* summit at the Bay and so on.
Bush’s Iraq syndrome
- Thread starter Anonymous
- Start date
See now I could say the same about men here...
You guys will discuss/read while on the toilet or urinal. Even better to do so with a lapdancer on your lap, or at a superbowl game...
And you know I could go on forever...
So you stop stereotyping me, and I will leave the male ego be
You guys will discuss/read while on the toilet or urinal. Even better to do so with a lapdancer on your lap, or at a superbowl game...
And you know I could go on forever...
So you stop stereotyping me, and I will leave the male ego be
Truthful, no, you are being stubborn.
Because yes we all know how many women go running into a walmart store for any type of meeting! *gives a sarastic glance at sam*
And no, I am not going to take your bait to ruffle my feathers either ;p
Because yes we all know how many women go running into a walmart store for any type of meeting! *gives a sarastic glance at sam*
And no, I am not going to take your bait to ruffle my feathers either ;p
But you are not even giving women a chance to even enter your mind as a possible option.
And we have not even been in office to show you right or wrong yet. And man has been in office for the past, what 200+ years!!! So I think 200 years is a long enough turn to show that you haven't really done anything impressive yet, and just let us have a go at the wheel.
And yes go ahead and debate that, but it just goes to show that you do not have an open mind about such things.
And we have not even been in office to show you right or wrong yet. And man has been in office for the past, what 200+ years!!! So I think 200 years is a long enough turn to show that you haven't really done anything impressive yet, and just let us have a go at the wheel.
And yes go ahead and debate that, but it just goes to show that you do not have an open mind about such things.
Kim Campbell suffered from the actions of Mulroney. She never had a chance.
I think Alexa McDonough would have made a decent PM.
I think Alexa McDonough would have made a decent PM.
Kim Campbell was the sacrificial lamb, put into power by the outgoing Mulroney-ites, in the hope that her being a woman would be enough to overcome the overall disgust the country was feeling at the time for the PC party.
There is no way anyone can use her as an example of whether or not a female PM is a good thing - she wasn't in power long enough to be able to prove anything.
If you want to consider a female PM, try Thatcher; even if you're not a hard line right winger, you have to admit she was there for a long time, and she was pretty effective.
All these anti-women-in-power comments are the products of stunted minds. Women can do anything they want to, the ability is a personal thing, not determined by sex. And these assinine comments about holding meetings in WalMart - just how juvenile and inexperienced are you, anyway?
There is no way anyone can use her as an example of whether or not a female PM is a good thing - she wasn't in power long enough to be able to prove anything.
If you want to consider a female PM, try Thatcher; even if you're not a hard line right winger, you have to admit she was there for a long time, and she was pretty effective.
All these anti-women-in-power comments are the products of stunted minds. Women can do anything they want to, the ability is a personal thing, not determined by sex. And these assinine comments about holding meetings in WalMart - just how juvenile and inexperienced are you, anyway?
Having a meeting art Walmart was a joke. I am with having a female PM. Ghandi, Thatcher and some other more were very effective. Please do not misunderstand me. I was just talking about a Canadian Female PM. As you said, and I agree that Alexa McDonough would've been a great PM.
How Juvenile and Inexperienced I am, this is debatable. we can have a new thread for me and you to debate various issues if you wish.
How Juvenile and Inexperienced I am, this is debatable. we can have a new thread for me and you to debate various issues if you wish.
In his massive work on the sociology of wealth, titled "What Is To Be Done?," Leo Tolstoy observed how, in the end, every man in a position of power was raised by a mother (generally-speaking, of course) and imbided his core values with her milk. Women earn 35% of the income, and make 65% of the decisions on how to spend it. Why did India turn away from an alignment with the Soviet Union, and embrace America? Because the Soviets couldn't produce a reliable refrigerator. Geopolitics driven by demand for reliable household appliances?
This might make an interesting spin-off topic. Moderator?
This might make an interesting spin-off topic. Moderator?
moghrabi said:
Probably because the majority of women prefer to control the men from behind the scenes.
And don't fool yourself, the women may not be in "power", but they do control the market. Ever walked into a shopping mall?? How many stores are specifically for women compared to men?
I am interested though Moghrabi, why do you think the world's leadership positions are male dominated?