Now that's what I call a presidential candidate!

Ségolène Royal has won the socialist party's nomination for the presidential race in France next year.

She has some interesting, if undeveloped ideas and may well be the breath of fresh air French governance needs, without being an Anglo-Saxon firebreather bent on alien reform.

I addition to which, she will be by far the hottest president of modern times anywhere in the world. French, intellectual, charismatic and fabulous in a bikini. The older woman of my dreams. :smitten:

More seriously, by 2008 will we see the major countries of the world led by women? (Yes, I am convinced David Cameron is a girlie :tongue:). I know some US orgahs will be choking on their wheety-bangs at the mere thought of Hilliary anywhere near the White House, but indulge me.

Do you think women as leaders make a significant difference to policy or implementation? Do they over-compensate in a male-dominated environment, or flourish? Is there any evidence? If countries like the USA, France and Germany are led by women at the same time, will this influence international discourse positively or negatively?

People who seek power are people who seek power, doesn't matter whether they are male or female.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Do you think women as leaders make a significant difference to policy or implementation? Do they over-compensate in a male-dominated environment, or flourish? Is there any evidence? If countries like the USA, France and Germany are led by women at the same time, will this influence international discourse positively or negatively?

---

Interesting question, but there is very little basis for comparison, is there? Whenever women have led (modern) states, their policies have not differed essentially from those of men. And as far as I know their style has not been very different either.

Would a happy little bonobo like Ségolène be a welcome change from all those ugly, pompous chimps that dominate the world stage? You bet. But any expectation of some sort of fundamental change in the way the world is run is a feminist pipe-dream, I'm afraid.

I love this one:

https://img216.imageshack.us/img216/...egolenexn9.jpg


"It's been 10 years since Uncle (Mitterrand) is gone, and
she didn't even party!"

Well, I'm a little worried.
In History Class, we learned that pre-world war 1, women won the suffrage and promised No More Wars!
Then nearly 100 million casualties later, the world had shifted into a Cold War position between the Soviet Union and United States.

France needs something different and she looks nice in a swimsuit (and having a woman in charge might really tick off the extremists there), I’d vote for her.


As far as women in politics goes I have found that they are typically a bit more abrasive than the men, but having only meet a handful of female politicians it is hardly a good reference. BTW most of the male politicians I have met are either a bit pompous or nice in a fake sort of way, definitely not as abrasive.

Quote:

---

If countries like the USA, France and Germany are led by women at the same time, will this influence international discourse positively or negatively?

---

It is my understanding that women that are around each other all the time tend to follow the same “cycle”. ~D I think that women in business and probably in politics are usually more aggressive, often to the point of ticking others off, I don’t mind it all the time but it is not always good to be the “bitch”. Of course, from a global perspective I don’t think the US, France or Germany would make decisions based on their like or dislike for the countries “leader” but rather the benefits of the country.

So if you vote socialist, you're now a royalist? :inquisitive:

My first thought on hearing the news this morning echoed Kralizec's - "A socialist Royal, what next?" Then thought of Charles and realised that's nothing new :laugh4:

I don't really believe female leaders, per se, make that much difference. Just a few I can think of follow, judge for yourself if their respective nations were remarkably different whilst they were in power: Golda Meir (Israel), Indira Gandhi (India), Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan), Corazon Aquino (Philipines), Margaret Thatcher (UK) -- oh, hit a blank... a few names on the tip of my tongue but getting no further -- current German chancellor, Icelandic prime minister of a few years (decades?) ago, Mary Robinson(???) in Eire, etc.

Of the ones I can place, they all seem to give the impression of "out-machoing" the male competition, as though politicians of either gender have more in common than the individuals do with their gender generally. I guess so long as it's a largely male-dominated world (ie politics) then getting to the top will be on that basis, regardless of gender. Maybe as women in politics become more established the culture will change, but in the short term I doubt it. 'Til then the women will all be "honourary men" (just like our dear Queen on her visit to the King of Morocco :2thumbsup: ).

I think interpersonal relationships between particular individuals can influence affairs, as in Maggie Thatcher's pronouncement that Gorbachev was "someone (she) could do business with" testifies, but I don't really think that speaks to the gender issue. I believe Churchill and Roosevelt had a pretty stormy relationship, but they still managed to muck along together for the common good. Also I imagine personal style in cabinet varies between leaders and will influence government performance for better or ill.

On the pure cosmetics though, Mlle Royal is a lot more fetching than M. Le Pen :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Do you think women as leaders make a significant difference to policy or implementation? Do they over-compensate in a male-dominated environment, or flourish? Is there any evidence? If countries like the USA, France and Germany are led by women at the same time, will this influence international discourse positively or negatively?

---

Because Presidents are generally controlled by parties, the choice of frontal figure will not affect politics as much as it will affect speeches. That's why most successful parties nowadays usually choice their leader based solely on their speaking skills, and why the choice of gender on frontal figure doesn't really matter much at all.

As for the reason why many women suddenly receive high posts, I can think of many reasons:
- the political correctness issue which forces people to choose women rather than men in many cases
- the feminism-extremism which keeps telling all men that they are villains because of their sex and that they deserve to die or at the very least suffer because they are inferior beings
- the culture which seeks to make it look like men who seek to gain higher education, ambition, success, knowledge and creative thought would be geeks/nerds or similar, while women working hard are considered cool
- the fact that women are uncommon as political party leaders. Women and men in my experience have different ways of solving problems and reasoning about things, and parties who lack many women as a result lack the type of thinking that women in general more often are able to provide. As a result, the few women who are in the parties can point out many faults and mistakes of the sitting men, just like a few men would be able to do if parties were dominated by women. As a result, these few women can make rocket careers in the parties and stand out as skilled politicians even if they aren't necessarily that.

I personally think the idea of giving half the minister posts to women as a method of political correctness is foolish. Rather, it would be more appropriate to have each minister posts held by two - 1 woman and 1 man, due to the different perspectives provided depending on which gender you belong to. It's ridiculous to see family politics dominated by women, and economy by men, or the opposite. This discriminates men in family politics and women in economical matters, and above all loses the potential a cooperation between male and female problem solvers would give. Quite often in my experience women provide better intuition and reality-connection, while men make better theoretical analyses in politics, and the combination makes for the best results. The women make good approximations of the end results and verify what the men present, while the women often forget theoretical details and practical consequences of an implementation of a theoretical system of laws, regulation and similar.

As for the consequences of more women in leader positions, it's a good thing as long as this means women add a woman's perspective and add the ways of thinking common to women to politics, but not if it means a switch to politics which oppress men and forget the male point of view and ways of reasoning, or if women are simply assigned half the minister posts or something similar, in which case there's no gain at all. Also the idea that women in command would make for more peace and stability is a myth that has been disproven many times in history.

What worries me most is the type of female leaders that try to out-macho the men, as mentioned above. We don't need to get more macho politicians, but politicians who think through their decisions, don't haste, and always seek a peaceful solution to things - and above all: realize that many conflicts and imagined threats are just misunderstanding, not malevolence. In fact, I think it probably takes a man, not a woman, to carry out such stability-creating non-macho politics... As for dangers of women in command, I couldn't imagine anything worse than a seductive woman in charge. That would disrupt serious political discussions with and between the men, and the women could use their seductiveness to win discussions even when her arguments are wrong. As if we don't already have enough problems with biological low-level primitive instincts of the voters sometimes enabling some leaders who are fools who shouldn't set foot in politics to gain charisma and popularity... Another point to add to the out-macho attempts of women in command, is that statistics show quite well that women in command has generally resulted in lower salaries for the average women, and not the opposite, as some feminists claim. This could be quite important to remember before calling more female leaders a good step forward for equality of the sexes. As with all feminism, this is just a matter of taking from the poor men and poor women to give to the already rich women. And as I said before - the choice of frontal figure of a political party doesn't matter nearly as much as the choice of internal ideological leaders and people with influence within the party. It's usually the party that makes the most crucial decisions. I think women inside the parties are more important than women as political party leaders if the desire is more equality between genders, and/or more female ways of thinking to contribute to the male ways of thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

but not if it means a switch to politics which oppress men

---

I would so want to be oppressed. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

I would so want to be oppressed. :beam:

---

Some men are apparently masochists, but masochists usually (unless severely perverted) only find it nice as long as it's a sexual game without serious undertones.

However being someone who has had a totally non-sexual, hostile, evil behavior from an oppressive woman who happened to have power, popularity and strength at a time when I was weak, I can tell that you don't know what you're talking about in that matter. The only time she confronted me with any sexual behaviors was as a means of making me weak and drop my weapons so that her subsequent attacks would strike deeper, harder, and cause more damage. Brought close to suicide and repeated self-destructive behavior, 3 times close to jumping in front of a train but not doing so because of mere coincidence (for example one of these 3 times, someone happened to pass by reading a magazine which happened to be about someone who had suicided by jumping in front of a train, and the coincidence struck me as macabre), then suffocating myself half to death under the cover in my bed almost daily to force myself to a point where I would be so close to death that I would call forth such a strong fear that I couldn't continue, as a way of awakening my desire to live. I have sworn that this will never happen again. "Oppression" might be fun for some people as long as it's a game, but when it isn't a game, it's hell.

Am I seeing comments actually lauding this woman's appearance?

*make no mistake, she may be very bright and charismatic, and possess other traits beneficial in politics, but I can't make any case for her comeliness...*

Some of her campaign themes have sounded a little too populist for my tastes, but whatever. Not even remotely as bad as that twit Le Pen anyway. And seeing as how France isn't exactly at the vanguard of gender equality a female president would certainly be a step forwards.

Mind you, if some future US presidential elections end up as Hillary Clinton vs. Condolezza Rice, I'll be having a hard time deciding on whether I should root for a female president from a party I can remotely stomach, or a black female president from a party I loathe...
:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Mind you, if some future US presidential elections end up as Hillary Clinton vs. Condolezza Rice, I'll be having a hard time deciding on whether I should root for a female president from a party I can remotely stomach, or a black female president from a party I loathe...
:juggle2:

---

How's it relevant that she's black? Does that give her some extra points or palatability?

Oh come on. It still shows quite well enough US blacks had to fight to get full civil rights as late as the damn Sixties. A black woman as the US president would be kind of killing two birds with one stone, since she'd have both the sex and race parts covered.

Alas, I loathe Republican policies categorically enough that might not compensate.

She's a filthy, evil Republican, but I'll think twice cause she's black!

As if one black person in the entire country would genuinely feel empowered and their plight championed because Condi's in office. If anything, the idea of voting for her as some sort of 'civil rights' victory smacks of serious condescension towards African-Americans.

It'd be like rooting for a Jew to win the Prime Minister spot in Germany before even considering their platform, I love it.

Eh, you're missing the point now. Although I don't think you quite appreciate the significance of such thresholds being crossed either. Anyway, I was talking of a hypotethical Hillary vs. Condi situation, in which case I'd probably end up rooting for the former for the sole reason I earnestly detest the Republicans and their policies.

...how about you pay a little more attention to what I actually post...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

However being someone who has had a totally non-sexual, hostile, evil behavior from an oppressive woman who happened to have power, popularity and strength at a time when I was weak, I can tell that you don't know what you're talking about in that matter. The only time she confronted me with any sexual behaviors was as a means of making me weak and drop my weapons so that her subsequent attacks would strike deeper, harder, and cause more damage. Brought close to suicide and repeated self-destructive behavior, 3 times close to jumping in front of a train but not doing so because of mere coincidence (for example one of these 3 times, someone happened to pass by reading a magazine which happened to be about someone who had suicided by jumping in front of a train, and the coincidence struck me as macabre), then suffocating myself half to death under the cover in my bed almost daily to force myself to a point where I would be so close to death that I would call forth such a strong fear that I couldn't continue, as a way of awakening my desire to live. I have sworn that this will never happen again. "Oppression" might be fun for some people as long as it's a game, but when it isn't a game, it's hell.

---

Whoa there. Why are you getting all serious over a joke? What did you do to earn such wrath from a woman? And how the hell does she, whoever "she" is, push you over the edge that far?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

She's a filthy, evil Republican, but I'll think twice cause she's black!

As if one black person in the entire country would genuinely feel empowered and their plight championed because Condi's in office. If anything, the idea of voting for her as some sort of 'civil rights' victory smacks of serious condescension towards African-Americans.

It'd be like rooting for a Jew to win the Prime Minister spot in Germany before even considering their platform, I love it.

---

Not necessarily. In a way, it forces some of us who are closet racists or perhaps having racist/sexist tendencies really deep inside to confront ourselves when such a major decision like a Presidential election no longer possess the safe "white male" choice(s). Such an inner confrontation would "breaks down another invisible barrier," so to speak. It's like if the Japanese male-dominated society have to admit a woman Prime Minister -- that would do a great many things by the symbolic nature of the event alone. In this hypothetical case of Watchman's it's not nearly as potentially dramatic, though.

It would, for example, be quite fun to observe the general tendencies (very important word there, since I'm saying this in very general terms -- not claiming a person from a specific region is suddenly racist) of the Southern vote if the next Presidential election would hypothetically be a face-off between Obama and Rice. Or if it's Hillary vs Rice (again :P) it would also be fun to see how the male voting base's going to vote.

I really don't think it would be that significant. Most sexist/racist people have the whole "I'm not racist you know, I have black friends, but most black people..." and they could easily rationalize Rice as one of the "ok" black women, not like the rest of them you know.

It would piss off the mullahs though, and in the end, isn't pissing of other countries (' governements) what politics is all about ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

What did you do to earn such wrath from a woman?

---

Exist

Supreme power to females:

Fewer wars, but they’ll be to the bone.