Re: Now that's what I call a presidential candidate!
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.Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
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.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks