|
njlauren -> RE: Female Supremacy (6/16/2013 10:25:35 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AthenaSurrenders
quote:
ORIGINAL: LasDomina
It has been proven that women mature faster than men
It doesn't really matter who matures fastest - generally 18 year olds aren't world-leaders anyway.
Women have more chance to lead now than they have in the past. If you think we need more female leaders then support women's rights, educational equality for girls in all corners of the world, workplaces supportive of families and pregnant women, and the individual women who want to lead. Give them the opportunities to do it because they are the most competent, not because they have vaginas.
Saying that women should do all the leading now because men have made mistakes is as stupid as saying that only gay/teenage/black people should hold positions of power since traditionally they've been held by straight middle aged white people. Women are human too, with human failings. There would be liars, cheats, selfish people, clueless people and lazy people in an all-female leadership too.
To talk of female supremacy actually sets back the cause for women. It takes us back to the idea that one sex is fundamentally more valuable than the other, that we are a certain type of person just because of our sexual organs and forces people into particular gender roles. How about we think of people as people, with strengths and weaknesses and complexities which defy generalisations based on gender?
The female supremacy fantasy is as objectifying of women as the notion that all women were made to serve men.
Nice post...and I agree totally. It isn't about male supremacy or female supremacy, the whole argument is simply that women (and minorities, and so forth) have often not been given equal access to the table of power, so to speak, and that is always a problem, because you end up with one view.While men are disparate (as are women, of course), and you can argue there was diversity among the men who led (which I could argue isn't really true, that men in leadership roles tended to fit a certain type), leaving out 50-51% of the population (women) automatically makes it lacking in terms of diversity. MacArthur was asked why he insisted that in Japan women be given the right to vote, given Japanese culture it would not be popular, etc, and the old military man said "very simple, because if women have the vote, it is a lot harder for politicians to send their boys into battle mindlessly, because women as mothers are a lot more reluctant to risk their son's lives'.
As someone who has played with both male and female dominants, there is a blessing in the differences between them, one isn't superior to the other (well, okay, I am still a lot more partial to a dominant women in high heel boots and leather, but that is my fetish *lol*....and My Lady would snort and say "only if you want to wear them, dear" *lol*). I don't think even today women have been given the chance to lead....and yeah, there have been f-ups, very few people would argue that Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman represent the height of female leadership, or Carly Fiorentina, but then again, there have been people like Golda Meier, Margart Thatcher (whose policies I didn't agree with most of the time, but still was a leader), Milicent Fenwick, Queen Elizabeth the 1st (who if you haven't read up on her, do so, amazing woman.....a lot better than Victoria, who frankly was somewhat of a dimwit but did have some quality people around her, including her husband)........
What I think is that women bring a lot of diversity to the table, and that diversity in the right time and place leads to some pretty incredible things (which is true of men as wel; how many 'great business leaders' when not in the right time and place, fail? Or 'business leaders' who go into politics and don't do particularly well, leadership and success are often by being in the right place with the right skill set, not about general 'superiority').
|
|
|
|
