|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 4, 2008 22:39:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Feb 5, 2008 4:56:08 GMT -5
Guess it worked once for her. I don't want the beast anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Feb 5, 2008 7:05:36 GMT -5
Crocodile tears!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Feb 5, 2008 7:43:16 GMT -5
I don't want a POTUS who cries while ordering young folks to go out and protect us from the evils of the world, I want one who can do it stone faced and resolute no matter how they feel inside.
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Feb 5, 2008 8:40:43 GMT -5
Don't believe it was real for one minute; it's all a game on what she thinks will gain her the most votes in the primaries today.
|
|
|
|
Post by parson on Feb 5, 2008 8:45:30 GMT -5
Fellas,
I'm sensing a little cynicism here.
At the risk of sounding like a knuckle-dragger, there are some roles that a man ought to occupy!
If you'll excuse me now, I've got ironing to do!
parson
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 5, 2008 10:26:11 GMT -5
Fellas, I'm sensing a little cynicism here. At the risk of sounding like a knuckle-dragger, there are some roles that a man ought to occupy! If you'll excuse me now, I've got ironing to do! parson I REALLY do like your sense of humour.. You were kidding, right?  |
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Feb 5, 2008 11:38:51 GMT -5
Don't over do the spray starch......
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 5, 2008 11:44:27 GMT -5
Don't over do the spray starch...... Sounds like the voice of experience talking there.. |
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Feb 5, 2008 12:01:19 GMT -5
No tickee, no washee!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by parson on Feb 5, 2008 12:24:13 GMT -5
I was kidding about the ironing. I'm not (nor will I ever be) ready for "Madam president."
Regardless of PC thinking, there are differences that better suit each gender for different roles.
parson
|
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Feb 5, 2008 14:26:22 GMT -5
Gender bender here! I love to cook...
|
|
|
|
Post by bowpro1 on Feb 5, 2008 14:38:16 GMT -5
If she is this stressed over an election, what she going to do if she become President? Fold like a cheap lawn chair.
|
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Feb 5, 2008 14:46:15 GMT -5
Hillary sheds tears for only one thing....... herself.
|
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Feb 6, 2008 5:49:18 GMT -5
I was kidding about the ironing. I'm not (nor will I ever be) ready for "Madam president." Regardless of PC thinking, there are differences that better suit each gender for different roles. parson I'm wondering--how the heck do you figure? What is keeping "Madam President" (I'm not referring to Hitlery--I'm referring to any woman) from having the ability to serve this role effectively? I just don't see why a woman couldn't serve as an effective president just because she is a woman. The only way I could see one coming to this conclusion is based on stereotypes and ignorance, as if all women were incapable, overly-emotional weaklings incapable of achieving what men can. (I am a woman, but I'm not a feminist and never will be, in case you were wondering--I believe in hard work and blood, sweat, and tears in achievement in moving up in this world, rather than handouts from Steinem-types who like to make women believe they were somehow oppressed in this world and deserve a handout or a "bump up".) How is it possible to assume that all women are alike in their behaviors, attitudes, and problem-solving patterns, and that however they are supposedly alike makes them a lesser fit for the role of President? There are so many women in this world that it seems the only way to say they are all alike in as many ways as you imply is to use stereotypes--so I just don't understand your reasoning here. Good for you, DT!!!!! ;D *pats DT on the back* |
|
|
|
Post by parson on Feb 6, 2008 8:42:16 GMT -5
All women, obviously, are not alike; neither are all men. I simply stated that I believe that our gender equips us for different roles in life. I do believe that we can be separate, yet equal.
I don't believe that this is condescending, nor oppressive. I have the utmost regard for the progress that people acheive through their individual, as well as collective efforts. We simply are better equipped for differing roles in life.
Sure never wanted to be stereotyped as stereotypically ignorant.
I'll just grab my mate be the hair and retreat into my cave now. Might make her bake some cookies.
parson
|
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Feb 6, 2008 9:53:54 GMT -5
Let me restate my original question--how does this make the Presidency a less appropriate role for a woman to fill?
No, not a stereotype, as I didn't jump to that conclusion (the conclusion that you were stereotyping) on the basis of a superficial and/or irrelevant factor or feature without considering the logic of the argument. However, I can't see the logic of the argument you are making, and therefore I can only assume you are stereotyping on the basis of the fact that you made the statement as if all women would not be able to fill the role solely on the basis of their gender. I did not call you ignorant, but I'd say it is ignorant to hold to an incorrect and archaic assumption that all women are alike in not being as good of a fit for the presidency solely on the basis of their gender while ignoring all evidence to the contrary of women's capabilities and achievements. Please, please give me a well-articulated reason to believe otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Feb 6, 2008 14:48:40 GMT -5
I'll have to side with doc here parson, but I'll stay away from theoretical arguments and offer up one Margaret Thatcher as concrete proof that women can indeed be totally capable of handling such an office.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 6, 2008 14:51:49 GMT -5
I'll offer up one Margaret Thatcher as concrete proof that women can indeed be totally capable of handling such an office. |
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Feb 7, 2008 5:57:48 GMT -5
Thanks!  I agree on Margaret Thatcher too. |
|
I agree on Margaret Thatcher too.