[icantdrive55]

I'm with you, with the exception, of, 'I think a women should have a chance a leading our country-'

I used to think that way. Give them a chance. After Margret Thatcher, I changed my mind. Women are just as ruthless, egotistical, quick to war, as men. That lady ruined the "A women wouldn't act like a man." argument.

I too suffer form anxiety. It really affected the quality of my life.

[anexprogrammer]

To be fair, and that's not something I'm inclined to often with Thatcher, the two wars were much clearer cut cases than adventures since.

Falklands - British Territory had been invaded at gunpoint. Several histories have commented that in making the Task Force decision the day after invasion, British lives were a key factor. They also commented that she made a point of listening to all views, and continued to do so in the War Cabinet.

Gulf - Kuwait had been invaded at gunpoint, Saddam was setting fire to every oil field he could find, and a large coalition being assembled. she'd resigned before action started, so the war itself was under Major. As was Bosnia.

There's been several commentaries that the successful military operations, and the associated public popularity of a clean, won, war, heavily influenced Blair's adventures. He wanted to be a popular, and successful, war leader and saw the poll advantages. So she was perhaps some influence on Blair buggering up the next 15 years. The Iraq War was plain stupid.

She stayed as PM far too long, and had dozens of other issues mind you. Not least, the poll tax.

I suspect that sex and much personality is irrelevant to running a country, it's the nature of the position that shapes the personality. You can have policy and ideology differences, but if events need a fast or firm response that's what you get. At ministeries there's more room for individual differences.

[Can_Not]

> Falklands - British Territory had been invaded at gunpoint

I think what you meant to say was that England felt like invading random weaker nations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty...

[nijiko]

Interesting, for me, gender, like race, plays no part in my decisions or thoughts.

I always find it intriguing that so many people actually care what gender or race someone is. Very jarring that people can't get over such basic things.

Before someone says that I am making small of a large issue, perhaps that is the entire goal, to eradicate those notions that we are different simply because of our race or gender. I choose to believe we are the same, we all get the same chances, modifiers might be different from situation to situation just as in any situation, but very much the same, regardless of what you say, and I always will.

So, gender of the president? I don't care. Can be anything you want, as long as they are worthy of the position in their ideals and plans.

[im4w1l]

Hillary is more war eager than Donald. Look at her mails regarding Syria. Also, she hates Russia (meaning that the proxy war there would continue) while Donald do not (meaning he may work to find a solution).

[mikegerwitz]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'd like to ask for clarification:

It sounds as though you are saying that women should not have a chance to lead the country because they are as X as men. But I'm not sure how it follows that, all things equal, men with X should be given favor over women with the same X.

[coldtea]

From what I understand it, parent hoped women would be better than men in government (e.g. alluding to matriarchy vs patriarchy in societies), but the women that do make it in politics in our era are the same (or even more) cutthroat and ruthless politicians as the men are.

So, what you read as

"all things equal, men with X should be given favor over women with the same X"

is not really saying "favor men over women" but more like "don't bother voting a woman candidate if you think it will be better just because she's a woman, it will be just the same shit".

Or, maybe "those women that get to play at the top of politics, are even more ruthless than men, because they have to be so to match and surpass their male competitors in a male dominating field" -- so instead of a matriarchical viewpoint, you'd get patriarchy x 2.

[SolaceQuantum]

Forgive me, but I don't see where "let's give a woman a go, maybe, see if it works out" is equivalent to implying women will be better Leanders than men. It seemed to be merely recognizing that there has never been a woman president and maybe, a woman can be president and not be a garbage fire.

[coldtea]

>Forgive me, but I don't see where "let's give a woman a go, maybe, see if it works out" is equivalent to implying women will be better Leanders than men.

Well, that they could be as bad as men is probably a given, and no reason to give a woman a go just because she is one ("see if it works out").

Only if one had some stronger expectations from women in power compared to men would it make sense to just say "let's give a woman a go" just because of her sex.

>It seemed to be merely recognizing that there has never been a woman president and maybe, a woman can be president and not be a garbage fire.

"It won't be a garbage fire" or even stronger, "it will totally be business as usual", is hardly something to excite one to vote though, is it?

[erikpukinskis]

> no reason to give a woman a go just because she is one

It's a bit like going to a different restaurant just to mix things up. It's not because you have some belief it will be better, it's because you think the possible unseen benefit is worth something.