New Fox show: ‘Can women effectively rule society?’
New Fox show: ‘Can women effectively rule society?’
Fox is planning a new show this fall called “When Women Rule The World.” From the description:
What if it was “a woman’s world”? What if women made ALL the decisions? If men were their obedient subjects?
These questions and more will be explored when a group of strong, educated, independent women, tired of living in a man’s world and each with a personal axe to grind, rule over a group of unsuspecting men used to calling the shots on WHEN WOMEN RULE THE WORLD. [...]
The participants will be brought to a remote, primitive location where the women will have the opportunity to “rule” as they build a newly formed society — one where there is no glass ceiling and no dressing to impress. For the men, their worlds of power and prestige are turned inside-out and upside-down. And for these women, turnabout is fair play! [...]
How will the men react? How will the women treat the men? Can women effectively rule society? Will the men learn what life is like for some women in today’s world? Will this new society be a Utopia or a hell on earth? And in the end, who will be man enough to succeed in the new social order?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Will this new society be a Utopia or a hell on earth?
Gee, I wonder what their predetermined outcome will be? Any guesses?
July 13th, 2007 at 12:03 pmSadly for Fox, it’s already clear conservatives can’t rule the world.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:04 pm“each with a personal axe to grind”
A good summary of the average Fox viewer’s stereotype of what women in power must be like.
Nice work, Fox!
July 13th, 2007 at 12:06 pmSadly for Fox, it’s already clear conservatives can’t rule the world.
Comment by Furious
Right, Furious. Considering the scope of the issue, we need to work backwards. We know what DOESN’T work, which is GOP control.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pmAnd, in true Fox fashion, the women who are most successful will then be married to a dwarf.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/30/television.dwarfs.reut/index.html
“Conservative Values” must include sexism.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pmOK, so they’ll have axes to grind, but will they get honing stones or grinding wheels?
July 13th, 2007 at 12:08 pmWow, I can’t wait to not see this.
Hmmm… seems interestingly timed when the person they seem to hate most (yes it’s not the muslim world) might actually become the leader of our country is a women.
These people hate success that isn’t theirs.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:08 pmSliding backwards so fast, our pants are on fire.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:08 pmWell, isn’t this what Norman Lear did to great comic effect in All That Glitters?? And that was 30 years ago.
Somehow I immediately thought of the stupid line from the Star Trek episode Spock’s Brain: “Brain, brain. What is brain?”
Clearly this show will be literally a No Brainer.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:10 pm1.. The Cleveland Browns would have less hideous uniforms.
2. Lindsay Lohan, the Olsen twins and Paris Hilton would be forcefed a diet of cheesburgers and extra thick milk shakes so that they look like normal human beings.
3. Perhaps some in the GOP can better explain about being “obedient subjects” (safeword: Hypocrite!)
Oh … and the world would be a much, much better place.
.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:10 pmJesus… We don’t want to ‘rule the land’.
We simply want equal representation for the fact that we live in a country where women are about 52% of the population, and that when qualified for the position, a woman CAN be elected to the office of President.
Countries that treat women as equals to men have higher standards of living. It lowers crime rates, raises employment and infant mortality, and levels out the birthrate. Just compare Sweden with The Sudan to see how much of a difference equality (not better than rights) does make.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:11 pmWill they have ultimate power to kill the Fox execs who came up with this idea for a show? Please, oh please….
July 13th, 2007 at 12:12 pmseems interestingly timed when the person they seem to hate most (yes it’s not the muslim world) might actually become the leader of our country is a women.
That will never happen. I am sure that even the Democrats understand that a woman cannot be an effective commander-in-chief or the leader of our foreign politics. Heck. We have to deal with countries where women aren’t allowed to go out alone. Do you think they’ll respect someone like Hillary. Hell no.
Furthermore, a woman president will make decision based on emotions and have undue interest in creating a nanny-state at the cost of our national economical power.
As I said. It will never happen. I’m sure there are already mechanisms in place to derail Hillary’s campaign and that it will be bipartisan effort.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:12 pmHistory shows that Matriarch Societies generally are more peacefull and have less wars.
there is a book studying one such society in a part of indonesia.
http://www.albionmonitor.com/0205a/matriarchy.html
July 13th, 2007 at 12:13 pmAnd in the end, who will be MAN enough to succeed in the new social order?
Interesting phrase to use: it couldn’t just ask, “…who will be STRONG enough” or DETERMINED enough or MOTIVATED enough?
July 13th, 2007 at 12:13 pmi look forwar to the day.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:14 pmMD, don’t mess with the brown and orange!
July 13th, 2007 at 12:14 pmIt could have been much worse, too! Paul Brown took the colors from Bowling Green State University just outside of Toledo, which are orange and Brown (so switch the scheme…primarily orange uniforms)
forward*
July 13th, 2007 at 12:14 pm“And in the end, who will be man enough to succeed in the new social order?”
Man enough?
July 13th, 2007 at 12:14 pmThere have been numerous female monarchs, presidents and prime ministers throughout the world.
America is one of a few countries where having women in the highest positions of power is such a new and radical concept.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:15 pmWhen I was in Corporate America, I would solicite input from everyone, and then make decisions accordingly (aka consensus).
I found that if someone wanted to work on one aspect of the project, rather than randomingly being assigned to another they didn’t without any consideration for them as a person, they were more productive, everyone was mostly happy, and my projects made bigger profits.
It’s not about RULE. It’s about LEADERSHIP, regardless of gender. And good leadership starts with respecting the team, treating all players like grown adults, and solving conflicts without placing blame…
July 13th, 2007 at 12:16 pmKucinich Camp Outraged by ‘Overheard’ Plans of Clinton and Edwards to Eliminate Candidates from Future Presidential Debates, Forums
July 13th, 2007 at 12:16 pmRe: #17
July 13th, 2007 at 12:16 pmThe Cleveland Oranges ?
Comment by Cracklin’ Jack — July 13, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
You’ve never heard of Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi I see…
Pig.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:18 pmWhen I was in Corporate America, I would solicite input from everyone, and then make decisions accordingly (aka consensus).
July 13th, 2007 at 12:18 pmAnd that is your weakness. Often you can’t make consensus decisions or run things by a committee. That’s why there are so few successful women CEOs. If you listen to everybody’s input even when you already know what’s the best course, you’ll just waste time and resources.
This is too stupid! Ever begining student of mammalian social organization and behavior already knows that females are the ones effectively running most soical groups.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:19 pmFox News and especially Rupert Murdoch are misogynists.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:19 pmLast November Kerry Healy (she was Lt. Governor of Massachusetts when Romney was Governor) — she ran against Deval Patrick. I remember, being a Mass. citizen, woman who were going to vote for Kerry Healy just because she is a woman.
Now, we are faced with Hillary Clinton running for President. I wonder how many women wil vote for her just because she is a woman.
Sad really.
If only Hillary Clinton had Russ Feingold’s and Dennis Kucinich’s voting record and convictions.
Then, I would vote for Hillary.
With Hillary, as she is, all you get is more of the same – -just in a pantsuit and make-up.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:20 pmThis show is obviously Fox’s attempt to scare the crap out of their ignorant audience at the thought of Hillary Clinton being President.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:20 pmIf Hillary weren’t running, this show wouldn’t have even been a thought.
What’s next?
‘Can blacks effectively rule society?’
July 13th, 2007 at 12:21 pmManly women make fine leaders.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:21 pmThis is too stupid! Ever begining student of mammalian social organization and behavior already knows that females are the ones effectively running most soical groups.
Yes, and where are those groups? I am sure that if human societies were matriarchal, scientific progress and engineering would have been sacrificed to some freaky holistic “respect the trees, do not build machines or acquire knowledge of how mother nature works” pseudo-religion.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:22 pmOf course Fox would suggest powerful educated women would have an axe to grind. Man isn’t great they can make a bogus survivor show based on pure misogynist fantasy over at Fox and the King of women haters Rush Limbaugh can’t even buy his own tv show. My daughter is only seven and she knows Walmart doesn’t pay women the same as men. Pure Fox trivialization of real problems. Wonder who there sponsors will be, Depends for men?
July 13th, 2007 at 12:23 pmWomen can effectively rule society if they are Rupert Murdoch ‘Stepford Witnesses’.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:23 pmhttp://www.unknownnews.org/070702a-KevinGood.html
People, this is Fox. The purpose is not to conduct some sort of dozy social experiment. It is to put breasts on teevee.
Guaranteed, you will have some shots of the guys being ordered around, but ninety percent of the time it will be boobcam and tight shorts.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:23 pmComment by Cracklin’ Jack
madeline albright negotiated and condi rice negotiates (albeit not effectively) with leaders of countries where women are repressed. troll.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:24 pmIf you listen to everybody’s input even when you already know what’s the best course, you’ll just waste time and resources.
Comment by Cracklin’ Jac
You are more than mildly stupid, ain’t cha?
Is it a waste of time to get other points of view?….views that might have thought of something you hadn’t even considered?
Seems prudent and practical, not wasteful.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:25 pmAnother new Fox entry…
‘Can the Shit we Broadcast get any worse?’
July 13th, 2007 at 12:25 pmYes, and where are those groups? I am sure that if human societies were matriarchal, scientific progress and engineering would have been sacrificed to some freaky holistic “respect the trees, do not build machines or acquire knowledge of how mother nature works†pseudo-religion.
Comment by Cracklin’ Jack — July 13, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
What the hell are you talking about? Insecure are we or is this sarcasm?
July 13th, 2007 at 12:26 pm#36: You really think she does the negotiations? International affairs are taken care of by a horde of professional bureaucrats. Condi only shows up for the signing and handshakes. President’s another thing. He’s the authority behind the bureaucrats. If he doesn’t get taken seriously, the bureaucrats aren’t taken seriously and that’s a BAD thing.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:26 pmZimzone
‘Can the Shit we Broadcast get any worse?’
Yes?
Not sure why I answered, it appeared somewhat rhetorical.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:27 pm#39: If you’re a guy, I’m sure you know how annoying the “Mommy knows best” attitude of women can be. Imagine that on a national scale.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:27 pmHeck, if Republicans can elect John “The Crybaby” Boehner as their leader in the House of Representatives, surely they’d agree that even an “emotional” woman has the ability to lead.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:28 pmWhy is this news? Anyone who has been through a divorce where children are involved already knows that women rule society. Now we’re going to have a tv show about it?
July 13th, 2007 at 12:29 pmFor the most part, women already do rule Western society….just not through government.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:29 pmWOW TP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I CAN’T WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
to go to a different thread because this is a non-story.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:29 pm#39: If you’re a guy, I’m sure you know how annoying the “Mommy knows best†attitude of women can be. Imagine that on a national scale.
Comment by Cracklin’ Jack — July 13, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
Can’t be any worse than Dad’s “because I said so”. I am a guy but I am a little more enlightened and apparently more confident in my”size”
July 13th, 2007 at 12:31 pmbut before I go, let me just say:
IT’S A MAN’S, MAN’S, MAN’S WORLD!
July 13th, 2007 at 12:31 pmI don’t know if this isn’t just a rip off of another show on another network. It’s what Fox does. They did it with their sing along show, too. There’s a network that’s got a reality show coming out about kids ruling a town.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:31 pmHehehehehe …
I actually respect the Browns’ amazing history — inventors of pass patterns, Jim Brown, Otto Graham, et al.
But back in the 80s, any time they played the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, I’d turn the color off on my TV.
Bleh!
:-)
Oh, and Cracklin’ Jack deserves no attention whatsoever. It’s pretty obvious he hates women, probably due to:
a.) a mommy who didn’t love him enough;
b.) other women who showed him no love;
c.) insecurity about his manhood, thus causing him to denigrate women to try and raise himself up;
d.) All of the above.
I’m going with “D” …
.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:31 pmOther countries have had women leader. Fox is just of a bunch of women hating freaks.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:31 pmAnd that is your weakness.
It was actually my strength. None of my projects ever lost a dime, and none of my team members quit or complained to upper managment during my time at the helm. We were efficient, so we worked very little OT as well.
Often you can’t make consensus decisions or run things by a committee.
I still had the final say – it wasn’t committee decisions, I just gave everyone a voice. Sometimes they ahd to do things they didn’t like, but they understood it wasn’t standard operation procedure. And I was the most profitable PM in the entire firm. Clearly it works. You just can’t stand that it does work to treat other people like competent human beings.
That’s why there are so few successful women CEOs.
Nope. It’s because of jackasses like you who see gender rather than qualifications. It’s also because our patriarchal society makes it harder for them to get ahead.
If you listen to everybody’s input even when you already know what’s the best course, you’ll just waste time and resources.
Comment by Cracklin’ Jack — July 13, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Then why did it work so well for me?
I even inherited a project that was $25k in the hole and turned it around for a profit. It bid below budget with very few change orders that stayed below budget and the client was happy. Explain that.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:33 pmI can just hear all the hateful responses I’m going to get, but…
Females are the majority gender in most “human resources” departments in large corporations. If you’re in one of these corporations, how do you feel about your HR department?
There is no difference between the genders, when it comes to effectiveness or the lack thereof, when one gender has a monopoly over the other. You are just being PC if you think otherwise.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:33 pmWhat’s next?
‘Can blacks effectively rule society?’
Comment by Bob — July 13, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
Touche!
July 13th, 2007 at 12:34 pmCracklin’ Jack–you aren’t this round guy with pointy hair with a job in Dilbert, are you?
Ultimately, yes, one person makes the decisions. But your subordinates know more than you do about the details. And any manager who doesn’t know that–and any manager who doesn’t get the maximum amount of information before making a decision–is guaranteed to fail.
Still in school, eh?
July 13th, 2007 at 12:34 pmWomen rule? Several of the Native American nations did this quite effectively for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Only the arrival of Europeans with superior weapons and diseases ended it. In one indigenous society decisions about going to war were made by a committee of pregnant women.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:35 pmLast November Kerry Healy (she was Lt. Governor of Massachusetts when Romney was Governor) — she ran against Deval Patrick. I remember, being a Mass. citizen, women who were going to vote for Kerry Healy just because she is a woman.
Now, we are faced with Hillary Clinton running for President. I wonder how many women wil vote for her just because she is a woman.
Sad really.
If only Hillary Clinton had Russ Feingold’s and Dennis Kucinich’s voting record and convictions.
Then, I would vote for Hillary.
With Hillary, as she is, all you get is more of the same – -just in a pantsuit and make-up.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:36 pmSeems prudent and practical, not wasteful.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 13, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
He thinks he knows everything… Which means he’s hiding the fact that he actually knows nothing.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:36 pm#
but before I go, let me just say:
IT’S A MAN’S, MAN’S, MAN’S WORLD!
Comment by Mr. President — July 13, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Spoken by someone who sleeps with his blowup doll!
July 13th, 2007 at 12:36 pmI didn’t expect them to do science fiction related content like this. Much like the day after, but to target women? and the black caucus is going to play with fox? is it a big payday? what justification can anyone have for having anything to do with them? if you stop, they will go away
July 13th, 2007 at 12:36 pmOk. When we get to ad hominem slurs it’s time to quit posting.
I hope you guys like your girlfriends and wives so that it makes your self-emasculated state worth it. Just don’t impose it on the entire nation by electing a female President.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:36 pmWomen already rule the world of Republicans.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:37 pm“We have to deal with countries where women aren’t allowed to go out alone. Do you think they’ll respect someone like Hillary. Hell no.”
Lots of countries have female leaders (Germany, Chile, etc.) who sit at the same table Bush does to deal with all sorts of issues. At this point a female American President would be far more effective than Bush.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:37 pmOnly the arrival of Europeans with superior weapons and diseases ended it.
The perfect case-study of where matriarchal societies lead to: defenseless tribes.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:38 pmAt this point a female American President would be far more effective than Bush.
Comment by ann — July 13, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
The “jake” I just flushed would have been more effective than bush.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:39 pmAnd if anyone is interested, here’s a link to a list of current and past female world leaders:
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/charts_rest_female-leaders.php
July 13th, 2007 at 12:39 pmCould this special help any women who actually watch Fox to move on to other networks and leave Fox in the dust?
July 13th, 2007 at 12:39 pmIn one indigenous society decisions about going to war were made by a committee of pregnant women.
Comment by Proud American Liberal — July 13, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
That’s brilliant…
July 13th, 2007 at 12:40 pmDue to the inherent aggression which arises from male competition for access to females, in nature adult males are usually solitary whereas the larger social groups tend to be matriarchial. Even in mixed groups such as gorillas and chimps where adult males do hold leadership they are usually largely influenced by the will of the dominant females. Ringo wishes not to acknowledge the evolutionary basics of animal behavior and its implications in humans but it all makes perfect sense. I suggest again the works of Frans de Waal for those interested in such dynamics in humans and other primates
July 13th, 2007 at 12:40 pm…
July 13th, 2007 at 12:41 pmI’d comment, but It’s just too easy…
‘What if women made ALL the decisions? If men were their obedient subjects?’
‘each with a personal axe to grind‘
‘he unscripted series will reveal how women and men react in a world where women are in charge and men are subservient‘
Nobody seems to have noticed the sexual subtext in this shabby promo.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:42 pmCould it be that this will be an opportunity for ‘Fox men’ to act out their secret masochistic fantasies?
All of you well spoken Americans were raised by good honest strong Mothers I’d say she did a great job. As for men ruling well Mrs. Johnson just died and she started the environmental movement with the support of her husband the President. Fox news knows that Hillary is the best candidate as their scared. So now it’s time to put down woman. The Christian values is gone now it’s on to the next Republican movement. Yes alot of Christian Moral Values Republicans and Dems. have been caught using Prostitutes but that’s just the way men are and it’s ok if their Republicans. How stupid does the GOP think Americans are. Many countries around the world have female President with no problem yet the Greatest Country in the World that pushes equal Rights for Women are pushing women back to the kitchen. Explain that to me like I’m a 6 year old?
July 13th, 2007 at 12:42 pmThe perfect case-study of where matriarchal societies lead to: defenseless tribes.
Comment by Cracklin’ Jack — July 13, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Who financed Columbus’s voyage? Yep.. QUEEN Isabella.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:42 pmCracklin Jack reminds me of Bud from The Cosby Show
July 13th, 2007 at 12:43 pmDon’t these Fox freaks have anything better to do than have their bones to pick with people?
July 13th, 2007 at 12:43 pmAnd that is your weakness. Often you can’t make consensus decisions or run things by a committee. That’s why there are so few successful women CEOs. If you listen to everybody’s input even when you already know what’s the best course, you’ll just waste time and resources.
Comment by Cracklin’ Jack
I’ve worked for execs with that attitude, and they invariably ruin the company. So-called “leaders” who haven’t got the sense to listen to the people they work with, and assume that because they have the biggest check they know everything already, can’t lead. They can boss people around for awhile, but eventually they end up either destroying the company or leaving.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:44 pmWhich means he’s hiding the fact that he actually knows nothing.
Comment by unbelievable
He’s HIDING that fact? I missed that part. lol
July 13th, 2007 at 12:44 pmI wonder if they will have pictures of RUDEE G in his dress and wig as part of this series?
And I heard Ann Coultergeist is the host!
July 13th, 2007 at 12:45 pmThe perfect case-study of where matriarchal societies lead to: defenseless tribes.
Comment by Cracklin’ Jack
Riiiight. Because the patriarchal tribes did so much better against the white man.
Obviously, having a Y chromosome didn’t give you an advantage in intelligence.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:46 pmYawn. Another unreal “reality” show on the tube. Many of you are right-this program says more about its makers than its watchers…but I hope it dies a quick death.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:48 pmJack’s picked the perfect name. Cracklin’:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracklin
A pig.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:48 pmcan women effectively rule society?–i don’t know–all i know is that men sure can’t.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:49 pmJackie, how do you feel about women having the same obligations as men?
If women are going to rule a country, should they be required to sign up for the military and/or draft at age 18? Is the military in, for example, the United States, mostly female, male, or an equal mix?
Are you for equality in that case, and if so, shouldn’t that law be instituted now, before anything else, just for balance?
What about family leaves for pregnancy? Shouldn’t men, as fathers, be entitled to the same number of weeks off as women? They are not, you know, in most corporations. Shouldn’t that change, too, all things being equal in the future?
There’s other things, too, but I won’t get into them. I think that the stuff I already mentioned needs to be instituted right now. It would certainly positively impact my feelings about equality in the future.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:49 pmSorry for the OT post but…
Threads die quickly here, for those of you who said I was just a republican troll, please take the time to read my response in the Vitter/DeMint thread.
Thanks.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:50 pmI’ve worked for execs with that attitude, and they invariably ruin the company. So-called “leaders†who haven’t got the sense to listen to the people they work with, and assume that because they have the biggest check they know everything already, can’t lead. They can boss people around for awhile, but eventually they end up either destroying the company or leaving.
Comment by gummitch
I have worked for execs with that attitude and the companies have done very well. They gathered information from others, but it was their decision and not up to a vote. Also, one of those execs was a woman. She ruled and made all the tough decisions while rarely asking anybody’s opinion. She did a pretty good job too.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:50 pmHe’s HIDING that fact? I missed that part. lol
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 13, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
:D Touche…
The odd thing is that there are great women leaders and bad women leaders. In fact, the Principal of my school is a terrible leader. She is also unqualified to be a human being… So it’s not as simple as these baboons, like Jack, are trying to make it. But there are also bad male leaders. The point is quality of leadership not gender…
I won’t vote for Hillary in the primaries because she doesn’t represent me. I don’t care that she is a woman. I need qualified.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:51 pmThe answer is a definitive “AN EXTREMELY BETTER PLACE,” and the question SHOULD BE – What if it WERE a women’s world?”
Obviously written by the idiot MEN of Faux Noise!!!!!!!!!!!
July 13th, 2007 at 12:51 pmI happen to know WAY more about this show than I’d like to, and believe me folks there is nothing political about it its a really really really lame REALITY DATING SHOW. That’s it. Produced by “Rocket Science Labs” the people who brought you “TEMPTATION ISLAND” at one time they were calling it ‘AMAZON WOMEN’ Don’t waste your time tuning in to this crapola.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:52 pmThe men at FOX Noise clearly didn’t get enough attention from their mommies…
July 13th, 2007 at 12:54 pmIt’s not an honest question. Fox always spews it’s propaganda in question form. What it is doing is implying the can’t or they wouldn’t ask. They are targeting Pelosi and Hillary. They’re goal is to get people to “question” whether women can rule the world. The “rule the world part” is also a set up to threaten their stupid male base. Both women and men should rule together. They imply that women would dominate men the way men have women. This “study” of theirs is prejudicial. Anyone…..and I mean anyone outside of the white male fat knee jerk base is a threat to these people. Too bad they’ve found a way to buy the media. I guess a lot of those tools have a lot of money because that is their idea of a good life. People who think and feel put money alongside ….not as their ONLY goal generally. But Fox’s question is SO stupid and misogynisic that it’s sad. Sad that there is so much crap out there.
Fox SUCKS THE BIG ONE.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:54 pmMore than likely this will be an attack on Hillary – showing that women in power are evil, and vindictive. Fox is media at it’s worst. I won’t be watching it, it is blocked at my house.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:54 pm“unbelievable”, are you talking about the “gender equal” Sweden that has male only forced conscription? Are you talking about the gender equal Sweden that allows women to draw their pension at the age of 60 but the age for men is 65? The same Sweden that has MANY gender extremely biased family laws?
The one thing that history has taught us from the many women who have been heads of state of various countries is that they are no less warlike and that no matter the gender of the person who sends the boys into wars it’s ALWAYS the BOYS who fight them.
I’m all for reversing gender roles across the board but not for selectively picking and choosing which “rights” and “privileges” we want to switch and which “burdens”, “responsibilities” and gender biased traditions (like chivalry and combat service and military drafts and family law) that women seem to have no issues with and would rather just leave in place.
By the way, I’m a traditional femininst. A person who truly believes in ending gender biases. Unlike the modern incarnation of feminism, which could better be called womanism, traditional feminism is dedicated to eradicating gender based biases INCLUDING those that are used against men.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:56 pmCindy Sheehan for President!!!!!
July 13th, 2007 at 12:56 pm@13 You have heard of a certain ally of Reagan named Margaret Thatcher, right
July 13th, 2007 at 12:56 pmThe odd thing is that there are great women leaders and bad women leaders— that’s not odd, that’s human. Many times people ar put in leadership positions to FIND OUT if they’re cut out for it or not. Sometimes they are, sometimes they’re not. It’s also a good way to give someone who’s unsure of themselves some experience in leadership, kinda gives ‘em a sense of what to expect.
In fact, the Principal of my school is a terrible leader. She is also unqualified to be a human being —-Well, at least you’re not bitter about it. lol jk
But there are also bad male leaders. — For example? lol jk
because she doesn’t represent me. I need qualified. — Good luck with that…I’m still undecided at this point. then again, it’s still early.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:56 pmTell it to ya’ mama. I did – just last night.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:56 pmat one time they were calling it ‘AMAZON WOMEN’ Don’t waste your time tuning in to this crapola.
Comment by Billy — July 13, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Oh, I saw that ad… Like a Survivor version of Dominatrix for men who have abnormal sexual fantasies? Looked stupid.
Don’t worry, I wouldn’t watch it if they paid me. FOX has a history of crap like this that gets low ratings and pulled after two or three episodes…
July 13th, 2007 at 12:57 pmAnother david said
Well, this is not me. And as it isn’t a case of namejacking as far as I can tell, I’d merely ask that this other david add an initial or something to distinguish himself.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:57 pmAnyone who thinks it would be all “peace love and understanding” – didn’t go to high school.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:58 pmIs there anything positive about pointing out to people how stupid Faux News is? They are like Ann Coulter and the best way to deal with them is to ignore them. Leave them alone, they are useless. You aren’t going to change any minds about either one of them here. We all agree. They don’t. Ignore them and maybe they will go away. Keep calling attention to them and they will stick around and get worser everytime.
Accenuate the positive, do away with the negative. The worst thing humans can do to another human is to shun them, they go away and die.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:59 pmTruth.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:59 pmGood luck with that…I’m still undecided at this point. then again, it’s still early.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 13, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Yeah, me too… I was hoping Al Gore would step up, but that’s unrealistic now, and of everyone left, I think Kucinich is the best qualified, but still don’t like his stand on the public education system…
I may just write in Al Gore in the primaries to make a point, and then go from there. :D
July 13th, 2007 at 1:00 pmAnd I heard Ann Coultergeist is the host!
Comment by upside00 — July 13, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Unfortunately, she had to be dropped when genetic tests determined she was not a woman.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:03 pmOr a human!
Un, not Kucinich!
July 13th, 2007 at 1:03 pmI’m so disillusioned with you now, so conflicted!
‘Women can’t manage or lead.’
One more lie brought to you by the misogynist, anti-abortion, science hating Christo-fascists who are determined to take us back to the dark ages.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:04 pmDon’t waste your time tuning in to this crapola.
Comment by Billy — July 13, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
July 13th, 2007 at 1:05 pmOr talking about it!
Well, I must concur with an early post that this show is merely Rupert Murdoch’s quest for the jiggle factor. He’s the media giant who brought you the Page Three Girl. (If you don’t know that, you clearly haven’t visited Britain.)
Fox will really play up the Amazon Women Take Over America angle. I can see plenty of babes dressed like Xena, Warrior Princess. And the hapless men will all be made to look like liberal progressive wimps. Well, I suppose the Amazons will find a need for the male boffin and beefeater. And that’ll be the chance for the conservatives to shine.
Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:05 pm83 G Whiz
July 13th, 2007 at 1:06 pmMy daughter just got back from here second tour in Iraq. Woman have always been a part of the Military, now their allowed in combat. The Bagdad Green zone pictures are nice.
you know what they say: face your deepest fears directly
July 13th, 2007 at 1:09 pmWoman have always been a part of the Military, now their allowed in combat.
Comment by Jackie
I’m not entirely sure, but that may well be because of the fact that they’ve been allowed in combat SUPPORT positions… like truck driver’s and whatnot….well this war kinda put them on the front lines, so saying they weren’t allowed in combat would have been a right silly position to take. btw, glad she’s home! =)
July 13th, 2007 at 1:10 pmCracklin’ Jackass – you are a sexist pig – but you already know that.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:11 pmThis has got to be the dumbest concept for a television show yet. Of course the outcome is predetermined: either the women will grind their axes on the heads of the hapless males, causing them to revolt, ultimately resulting in war between the sexes, OR the women will be seduced into giving up their power by the males (”oh Matt — you’re SO masterful (giggle giggle)!”). Either way, the outcome will make women look like they couldn’t even run a Tupperware party successfully.
There is really no reason why it’s necessary for one sex to “rule” the other.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:12 pmUn, not Kucinich!
Don’t worry – he’s too short. People in America don’t vote for short people.
He’s for health care reform. More than I can say about Obama or Hillary…
I’m so disillusioned with you now, so conflicted!
Comment by Wilco — July 13, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Why? I thought you Ohioans loved Kucinich.
If Gore isn’t going to run, I have to pick someone else. I don’t like any of them, frankly, but I’m not going to not vote.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:12 pmI’ve known that Americans have a problem with Race, but their problem with Sex is truly bizarre. Read Author’s Nude Drawings too hot for US Publisher.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:14 pmWell, this is not me. And as it isn’t a case of namejacking as far as I can tell, I’d merely ask that this other david add an initial or something to distinguish himself.
Comment by david
Sorry, I did not realize there was another david poster. It was not namejacking.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:14 pmOh, gee. A sexist filled reality TV show. ‘Axes to grind’? Any self respecting woman would find a big ax to grind just over the show’s premise. Yep….like RUCerious, I think I’ll pass on this tripe. *waiting on the next ep of Stargate Atlantis
July 13th, 2007 at 1:16 pmUn, he’s an opportunist. I’ve never understood why people keep electing him. And he announced his run for president the day after the Nov elections! He had the fewest primary votes the first time and was the last to drop out. And he wants larger government, at least in the form of Secretary of Peace…isn’t that the Secry of State by a different name?
July 13th, 2007 at 1:17 pmAnd he’s short. Ha ha
But I agree, some positions I don’t dislike.
And there’s no one out there I actually WANT to vote for.
That will never happen. I am sure that even the Democrats understand that a woman cannot be an effective commander-in-chief or the leader of our foreign politics. Heck. We have to deal with countries where women aren’t allowed to go out alone. Do you think they’ll respect someone like Hillary. Hell no.
Comment by Cracklin’ Jack
You do pose an interesting point. How will countries in the middle east deal with us if a woman were president? We already have very little credibility with most of the Muslim countries, given many of their views of women how would that work out?
July 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pmIt’s obvious from this latest president that some men are very poor leaders. Hell, he couldn’t run a business and now he runs (or should I say ruins) the country. It’s also obvious that there are some women that are very poor leaders – Condi and Meirs come to mind.
This ’show’ is just a ratings ploy pandering to the lowest form of human curiosity and another example of Fox being the idiot box version of a tabloid newspaper.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:20 pm102 Unfortunately, she had to be dropped when genetic tests determined she was not a woman.
Or a human!
Comment by funky p
That adam’s apple will give it a way every time!!
And that body!!! Looks like he/she/it escaped from the front of Skeletal Anatomy 101 classroom at Peoria Junior College.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:22 pmHow will countries in the middle east deal with us if a woman were president? We already have very little credibility with most of the Muslim countries, given many of their views of women how would that work out?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
How’d they “deal” with Thatcher? I don’t recall any problems.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:23 pmI don’t know why Cindy Sheehan is running for Congress. With her nationwide audience, she really should run for President as an independent.
She could run on a platform of:
1. End the war in Iraq.
2. Hold those resposible for the war and lies accountable.
Both Hillary and Rudy supported the Iraq war. Cindy would give Americans who want to get out of Iraq an option.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:24 pmAnd there’s no one out there I actually WANT to vote for.
Comment by Wilco — July 13, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
I want to vote for Gore… I seriously may just write him in in the Primaries. As far as I can tell, the rest running aren’t that much of a different flavor from one another anyway…
July 13th, 2007 at 1:28 pmHow will countries in the middle east deal with us if a woman were president?
Since when do we set national policy or hold elections by what the Middle Eastern countries think?
We already have very little credibility with most of the Muslim countries,
Yes, because of a MAN (Bush) as President.
given many of their views of women how would that work out?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
Given their views of Christianity, then you shouldn’t have one of those as President either.
Idiot.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:30 pm“unsuspecting men?” Where are they going to find men who aren’t aware of the premise of the show to audition for the show? How will that work exactly?
By the way, to #9: ALL THAT GLITTERS was more weird than funny. Good premise though.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:31 pmBen, the problem with your idea is that there is a lot more to being President then this dumbass occupation of Iraq. I don’t believe Cindy has the experience necessary for the job. Kind of like the current holder of the job.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:31 pm83 G Whiz
My daughter just got back from here second tour in Iraq. Woman have always been a part of the Military, now their allowed in combat. The Bagdad Green zone pictures are nice.
Comment by Jackie
Sincerely, three cheers for your daughter, and I thank her for her service to the country. I do hope she is treated fairly and with priority if she needs medical, educational, or employment Veteran assistance in the US. She’s earned it.
However, she was there by choice, and by that, I mean:
She was never required to register for the military and/or the draft in the United States, unlike all males, by law. Don’t you think this is unfair, if all things should be equal?
And again, do you know the ratio of female-to-male in the military right now? Is it 50/50? We both know the answer to this question.
All I’m saying is that I would like to see ALL things equal, not just some things. The vast majority of females in the US would be in absolute shock if they heard me suggest, you have to register for the military on your 18th birthdays.
All the best.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:33 pmHow’d they “deal†with Thatcher? I don’t recall any problems.
Comment by margaret
With our standing in the Muslim community can we afford a riff because of gender issues in their culture? Great Britian had a little more ground to stand on when Thatcher was Prime Minister.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:37 pmAll I’m saying is that I would like to see ALL things equal, not just some things. Comment by G Whiz — July 13, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
You want women to have d!cks?
Stop with the absolutes. Some differences are good things…
July 13th, 2007 at 1:37 pmHow will countries in the middle east deal with us if a woman were president?
Since when do we set national policy or hold elections by what the Middle Eastern countries think?
We already have very little credibility with most of the Muslim countries,
Yes, because of a MAN (Bush) as President.
given many of their views of women how would that work out?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
Given their views of Christianity, then you shouldn’t have one of those as President either.
Idiot.
Comment by unbelievable
I thought we were trying to work through diplomacy to stop terrorism. Is doing something that is obviously against their culture the best way to do that?
July 13th, 2007 at 1:38 pmHow will countries in the middle east deal with us if a woman were president? We already have very little credibility with most of the Muslim countries, given many of their views of women how would that work out?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
How do these countries deal with our current (worthless) Sec. of State?
July 13th, 2007 at 1:40 pmOne thing for sure, none of the female constestants will be Muslims since they have been indoctrinated into complete subordination of their own will and capacity for free thought.
Another nation-state for Islamofascists to declare “jihad” on…
July 13th, 2007 at 1:41 pmI thought we were trying to work through diplomacy to stop terrorism. Is doing something that is obviously against their culture the best way to do that?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
Women leaders in our country isn’t against their culture. Stop trying to rationalize your misogynistic fear of a woman President.
Besides, Jake (the way you response to posts gives you away), Nancy Pelosi did just fine in Syria when whe went to visit them. It’s more about the way you treat people than what’s between your legs…
July 13th, 2007 at 1:42 pm“Unbelievalbe: You want women to have d!cks?
Stop with the absolutes. Some differences are good things…”
That’s the stupidest comment you’ve said yet. You are truly a lightweight.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:42 pmIs doing something that is obviously against their culture the best way to do that?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
unbelievable’s argument is right, then? We should elect a Muslim as president?
Pee will love that!
July 13th, 2007 at 1:43 pmAll I’m saying is that I would like to see ALL things equal, not just some things. The vast majority of females in the US would be in absolute shock if they heard me suggest, you have to register for the military on your 18th birthdays.
All the best.
Comment by G Whiz — July 13, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
If we got your wish, women would be equally represented in Government, and in big business, and in the media. Is that really what you You want. You argue against your own point.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:44 pmI do not think it would be a problem for women to register with selective service at 18. It isn’t like we have a draft.
That’s the stupidest comment you’ve said yet. You are truly a lightweight.
Comment by G Whiz — July 13, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
I know you lack the brain cells to get it, but it was actually pretty funny.
Whne you can start having babies, women can start signing up for the draft… Fair exchange of one inequity for another… Deal?
July 13th, 2007 at 1:44 pmOne thing for sure, none of the female constestants will be Muslims since they have been indoctrinated into complete subordination of their own will and capacity for free thought.
Comment by JT — July 13, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Or baptists, or right wing fundamentalists, or conservatives…..
July 13th, 2007 at 1:46 pmMuslims since they have been indoctrinated into complete subordination of their own will and capacity for free thought.
Islam and conservative Christianity have yet another thing in common! Why are you two not engaged?
Another nation-state for Islamofascists to declare “jihad†on…
Comment by JT — July 13, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Islamofascists/Christonazis… Same difference…
July 13th, 2007 at 1:46 pmWomen leaders in our country isn’t against their culture. Stop trying to rationalize your misogynistic fear of a woman President.
Besides, Jake (the way you response to posts gives you away), Nancy Pelosi did just fine in Syria when whe went to visit them. It’s more about the way you treat people than what’s between your legs…
Comment by unbelievable
I am not misigynistic, I am just curious as to whether or not countries that are would have a problem with a woman president and whether or not it would lead to more terrorism or anti American views by Mulsim countries.
I am not Jake, I don’t even know who he is.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:46 pm“I do not think it would be a problem for women to register with selective service at 18. It isn’t like we have a draft.”
Oh my God, that’s the funniest accidental stepping in a pile of crap I’ve seen in this section.
If there WERE a draft, however, by God, that would be different, eh?
I knew the PC people would balk at all of this equality talk. Such is the way of “progressives”…and I’m one, just not as PC as you folks.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:48 pmCindy Sheehan for President!!!!!
Comment by Ringo the Gringo — July 13, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
——————————————————————————-
HEyOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 13th, 2007 at 1:48 pmunbelievable’s argument is right, then? We should elect a Muslim as president?
Pee will love that!
Comment by Egreggious — July 13, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
That does appear to be the only remaining option he’s willing to support for diplomacy. :D
Mr. Pee or Pees in Pants?
July 13th, 2007 at 1:49 pmUn, apparently you didn’t see that Schwarzenegger movie where he takes a child to term….
July 13th, 2007 at 1:49 pmI think you need to study up on science. As we all know, art reflects life.
And movies don’t lie.
“Whne you can start having babies, women can start signing up for the draft… Fair exchange of one inequity for another… Deal?
Comment by unbelievable”
Women, take note:
Unbelievable thinks you should start having babies on your 18th birthdays.
Give it up, lightweight.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:50 pmI am not misigynistic, I am just curious as to whether or not countries that are would have a problem with a woman president and whether or not it would lead to more terrorism or anti American views by Mulsim countries.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Yes, you’re correct david M. I think I see your point now. If we elect a woman president, the terrorists win!
July 13th, 2007 at 1:50 pmWell, I still see the whole concept as 1950s Eisenhower Era nostalgia. I reminds me of those silly newsreels where they fraudulently showed men getting perms or women as grease monkeys. It’s all an attempt to enforce gender stereotyping.
What I find curious is that I have no problem with gender roles in Hollywood films during the 1930s and 1940s, but then the Cold War era sets in and suddenly Equality is a dirty commie pinko word and The Philadelphia Story gets made into that awful tripe High Society and Ninotchka becomes the dreadful Silk Stockings.
I’d say it will look like a bad episode of Married…with Children. And that’s BAD.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:50 pmIt’s a man’s world!
July 13th, 2007 at 1:51 pm…
I am not misigynistic, I am just curious as to whether or not countries that are would have a problem with a woman president and whether or not it would lead to more terrorism or anti American views by Mulsim countries.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Now’s the time for SuRReNdER mONkeY, Pee!
July 13th, 2007 at 1:51 pmIf we elect a woman president, the terrorists win!
Comment by funky p — July 13, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
——————————————————————–
Agreed!!!
July 13th, 2007 at 1:51 pmI am not misigynistic,
Then stop acting like you are.
I am just curious as to whether or not countries that are would have a problem with a woman president and whether or not it would lead to more terrorism or anti American views by Mulsim countries.
No. Again, for examples see Great Britian, Germany, India, and many other current countries run by women at:
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/charts_rest_female-leaders.php
I am not Jake, I don’t even know who he is.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Sure Jake…
July 13th, 2007 at 1:52 pmEquality is a dirty commie pinko word and The Philadelphia Story gets made into that awful tripe High Society and Ninotchka becomes the dreadful Silk Stockings.
Comment by david — July 13, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
You continue dissing Cole Porter movies and I will leave!
July 13th, 2007 at 1:53 pmTo G Whiz –
You suggest that the “vast majority of females in the US would be in absolute shock if they…have to register for the military on (their) 18th birthdays”. I seriously doubt that. If an executive order went out that said the Selective Service requirement now includes women as well as men, I doubt that “shock” would be the word. Young women would dutifully register as young men have been doing, and the only reaction would be mild annoyance at having to perform a chore that takes a little time out of their schedule.
Why? Because let’s face it — the chance of ANYONE actually being drafted (man or woman) is very slim. Nobody wants to reinstate the draft — to do so would be political suicide.
But let’s play fantasy for a moment. Suppose the draft was reinstated. And both men and women were drafted into the armed forces. I think you would find the reaction pretty predictable on the part of the draftees, BOTH men and women — no objections to performing a patriotic chore when it comes to genuine defense of our country, but a rather negative reaction to being asked to participate in a senseless war.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:53 pm“Whne you can start having babies, women can start signing up for the draft… Fair exchange of one inequity for another… Deal?
Comment by unbelievableâ€
You are equating the decision by a government/country to gender differences caused by nature? Great argument.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:54 pmAnd movies don’t lie.
Comment by Wilco — July 13, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
I stand corrected :D
July 13th, 2007 at 1:54 pmYou mean….women don’t rule the world already?!
Awwww God!
July 13th, 2007 at 1:56 pmWomen, take note:
Unbelievable thinks you should start having babies on your 18th birthdays.
Only if you are a f*cking retard with a single digit IQ…
Give it up, lightweight.
Comment by G Whiz — July 13, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Give up what? The truth? Okay – you lost the debate and have resorted to strawmen… Next, you’ll just insult me. It will be even less mature and valid than your silly strawmen. LOL
July 13th, 2007 at 1:56 pmI am not misigynistic,
Then stop acting like you are.
I am just curious as to whether or not countries that are would have a problem with a woman president and whether or not it would lead to more terrorism or anti American views by Mulsim countries.
No. Again, for examples see Great Britian, Germany, India, and many other current countries run by women at:
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/ charts_rest_female-leaders.php
I am not Jake, I don’t even know who he is.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Sure Jake…
Comment by unbelievable
I have looked at all other countries that have had women presidents and aside from Great Britian, none of those countries have issues with Muslim terrorists and Thatcher was in office before it was an issue in England. If Muslim countries would have a problem with a woman being president is it worth it, if it may lead to worse relations and more terrorism?
July 13th, 2007 at 1:56 pmYou are equating the decision by a government/country to gender differences caused by nature? Great argument.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Only to prove a point. Thanks for explaining the punchline to your fellow trolls… I get tired of doing it.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:58 pmIf only some of the Trollmonkeys who post here, all males I believe, were in charge; we’d teach those terrorists a thing or two. When Trolls
July 13th, 2007 at 2:01 pmrule the world, terrorists will suffer the scathing insults, the withering attacks of non-sequiters and insults.
That should be the new fox show! When trolls rule the world.
While the opposite team is actively building it’s society, the troll team, typing furiously, annihilate their opponents with a fusillade of exclamation points!!!!!!
I am not misigynistic, I am just curious as to whether or not countries that are would have a problem with a woman president and whether or not it would lead to more terrorism or anti American views by Mulsim countries.
I am not Jake, I don’t even know who he is.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Muslim countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Turkey have actually had women as president or prime minister several times, and nearly all have women as members of parliament or in cabinet ministries. So somehow I doubt this would be a problem in “Mulsim countries.”
July 13th, 2007 at 2:01 pmI have looked at all other countries that have had women presidents and aside from Great Britian, none of those countries have issues with Muslim terrorists
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Get it yet? I know… I ‘ll have to connect the dots for you….
and Thatcher was in office before it was an issue in England. If Muslim countries would have a problem with a woman being president is it worth it, if it may lead to worse relations and more terrorism?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
If no countries run by females currently have terrorist problems, then it sounds like putting a women at the helm will HELP the problem, not make it worse.
Sheesh…
July 13th, 2007 at 2:01 pmIf Muslim countries would have a problem with a woman being president is it worth it, if it may lead to worse relations and more terrorism?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
SurREndEr MOnKEy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 13th, 2007 at 2:01 pmAll I have seen by you is insults, so I guess that means you have lost a number of debates in the last 30 minutes.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
Not true. The truth isn’t always pleasant. When we point out facts, you may not like it, but it’s true none-the-less…
July 13th, 2007 at 2:02 pmGive up what? The truth? Okay – you lost the debate and have resorted to strawmen… Next, you’ll just insult me. It will be even less mature and valid than your silly strawmen. LOL
Comment by unbelievable — July 13, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Looks like he pre-emptively assaulted you.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:03 pmHow about a new Fox series: “Crap, can we make it smell good?”
July 13th, 2007 at 2:04 pmWhat was your point, that women have it harder because of the laws of nature so they should have more advantages in society?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
No, that he was being hysterical. Sheesh… You didn’t get it. This is why I teach high school and not third grade… high school students atleast have basic reasoning skills…
July 13th, 2007 at 2:04 pmThere is the distinct odour of trolls here. I have a gut feeling they are here, but I see nothing posted.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:06 pmLooks like he pre-emptively assaulted you.
Comment by funky p — July 13, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
How very conservative of him :D
July 13th, 2007 at 2:08 pmHow about a new Fox series: “Crap, can we make it smell good?â€
Comment by helenahandbasket — July 13, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
LOL… :D
July 13th, 2007 at 2:09 pmYea just what we need a woman with one hand on the bomb button and the other on a maxipad.
Comment by Flaco — July 13, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
It could be worse, it could be a man with one hand on the bomb button and the other on a bottle of Jack Daniels. Oh, wait….
July 13th, 2007 at 2:10 pmWhat was your point, that women have it harder because of the laws of nature so they should have more advantages in society?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Yeah! you go boy. It was a sad day for your kind when women got the right to vote. Now they want to be leaders. What will they do then? Insanely invade a sovereign nation, under a pretext, to steal that country’s resources? These women must be stopped. If you are with these women, then you are with the terrorists.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:10 pmHEYOoooOOOOOoOoOOoooOoOoOoo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Mr. President — July 13, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
For some reason I always picture this guy raising his hand in a high five, looking around and seeing that no one is paying any attention to him.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:12 pmYou keep dodging the point,
No, I have addressed it several times. But you keep dodging my answers, and asking the same question over and over.
many Muslims do not treat women equally.
Neither does the US!
Do you think that they will see us in a worse light if we had a woman president?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
No. And if they ever do – who cares? You might want to live your life cowered in fear of some obscure ‘what if’ that will never matter, but that is NOT what the United States stands for.
Sheesh…
July 13th, 2007 at 2:12 pmYou keep dodging the point, many Muslims do not treat women equally. Do you think that they will see us in a worse light if we had a woman president?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
No. If a person already treats women as second-class citizens, regardless of religion, then they probably don’t have a high regard for the United States to begin with. So they would not see us in a worse light if we had a woman president.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:12 pmYou keep dodging the point, many Muslims do not treat women equally. Do you think that they will see us in a worse light if we had a woman president?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
July 13th, 2007 at 2:14 pmYou clearly are making statements without reading (or more likely comprehending) the answers to your lame questions, and those responding to you may find your incomprehension tedious, and beyond their ability to correct. You should re-read the thread; repetition is the key to comprehension.
Now be a good lad and write 100 times
“We do not pick our leaders based on what Muslims think!”
Back to insults the sign of true maturity.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
Not an insult… a truth.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:14 pmNow be a good lad and write 100 times
“We do not pick our leaders based on what Muslims think!â€
Comment by funky p — July 13, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Exactly. We pick our leaders based on what James Dobson thinks.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:16 pm“We do not pick our leaders based on what Muslims think!â€
Comment by funky p — July 13, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Let’s repeat it for him again…
“We do not pick our leaders based on what Muslims think!â€
“We do not pick our leaders based on what Muslims think!â€
“We do not pick our leaders based on what Muslims think!â€
“We do not pick our leaders based on what Muslims think!â€
“We do not pick our leaders based on what Muslims think!â€
“We do not pick our leaders based on what Muslims think!â€
“We do not pick our leaders based on what Muslims think!â€
“We do not pick our leaders based on what Muslims think!â€
“We do not pick our leaders based on what Muslims think!â€
“We do not pick our leaders based on what Muslims think!â€
July 13th, 2007 at 2:16 pm“We do not pick our leaders based on what Muslims think!â€
Comment by funky p — July 13, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Let’s repeat it for him again…
“We do not pick our leaders based on what Muslims think!â€
Comment by unbelievable — July 13, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Then again – are we counting the Saudi Royal family? Cause they certainly had some influence in getting Bush Jr. elected.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:18 pmI hope you don’t speak to the students that disagree with you like this.
It’s not about disagreeing in your case, it’s about truth. My students, unlike you, are ignorant by age. They can’t help it.
He thinks he knows everything… Which means he’s hiding the fact that he actually knows nothing.
Comment by unbelievable
FACT
The men at FOX Noise clearly didn’t get enough attention from their mommies…
Comment by unbelievable
FACT
Idiot.
Comment by unbelievable
FACT
I know you lack the brain cells to get it
Comment by unbelievable
FACT
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Those were all true…
July 13th, 2007 at 2:19 pmSo do you think we should try and handle the terrorism problem through diplomacy?
Yes.
If so you are contradicting yourself with comments like “And if they ever do-who caresâ€.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Nope. Not a contradiction. The two can be simultaneous.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:20 pmI never said we did, but shouldn’t we be aware of possible consequences in our decisions?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Absolutely. What we shouldn’t do is make those decisions based on religious stereotypes.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:21 pmThe other david, david M, said
Well, for someone who just began posting, you certainly have gotten busy. And you do seem to have fairly conservative views.
As has been pointed out, women have had prominent roles in Muslim governments. That conservative Muslims cling to gender stereotypes is true, but so do conservative Christian. See REAL Women and other retro movements.
Roman Catholicism still does not recognize women as equals in churhc matters and has rather simplistic notions about how to control women’s fecundity.
The argument that a woman can’t fight like man has been put to rest many times. I point to the recent discovery of mummy of Egyptian queen Hatshepsut; she was a real powerful woman. Then there’s the first Queen Elizabeth.
The whole question of women in the workforce and women in government has to do with accommodation. It’s a matter of ending careerism and making positions more modular and mobile. It means thinking outside the Male Box.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:22 pmI thought we were trying to work through diplomacy to stop terrorism. Is doing something that is obviously against their culture the best way to do that? – david M
You thought wrong. Bush is using occupation, misdirection, fear mongering and other ways to make it look like he is trying to stop terrorism. He has done very, very, very little diplomacy.
It seems an odd view to say that having a woman president of the US would not be the best way to stop terrorism because having woman as leaders is against their culture. Tell me, are there other things that we are doing that are against their culture that are preventing diplomacy from working considering we have occupied a country and not used diplomacy?
This view seems sexist and not based on reality.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:22 pmTo David M –
Wow, you’re right! Having a woman leader practically guarantees no terrorist attacks! Hillary should make this her campaign slogan!
I realize that wasn’t the point you were trying to make. You were trying to sell the idea that Muslim countries won’t work diplomatically with women in charge. I think you see Islam only as a Taliban-like characature – a society where women are held in forced subjugation, permitted virtually no human rights, and required to be silent and invisible. There are Muslims like that, I’m sure (just as there are Christians with bizarre interpretations of their scriptures), but they aren’t the norm.
Women can and do hold political office in Islamic countries, including head of state. And we currently work diplomatically with Islamic countries using women (two out of three of our last Secretaries of State are women, remember?).
There are plenty of valid reasons to vote for Hillary or against Hillary. But the fact that she’s a woman shouldn’t be one of them.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:22 pmThen again – are we counting the Saudi Royal family? Cause they certainly had some influence in getting Bush Jr. elected.
Comment by toasterhead — July 13, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
True, but they have enough problem comprehending that a woman can be an effective leader. The truth behind who actually selects our leaders…thats like rocket science to them.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:23 pmI never said we did, but shouldn’t we be aware of possible consequences in our decisions?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
6.5 years too late to make that case. If you truly cared about that, Bush never would have stood a chance.
Again, it’s NOT about gender. It’s about a person’s capacity to be an efficient leader. Until you stop spreading people’s legs to see what they’ve got under there, you won’t understand that you have no point here.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:23 pmI get it david M
July 13th, 2007 at 2:24 pmBush is a woman!
This view seems sexist and not based on reality.
Comment by Yikes — July 13, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Ding! Ding! Ding!
July 13th, 2007 at 2:25 pmMissMolly: “I seriously doubt that. If an executive order went out that said the Selective Service requirement now includes women as well as men, I doubt that “shock†would be the word. Young women would dutifully register as young men have been doing, and the only reaction would be mild annoyance at having to perform a chore that takes a little time out of their schedule.”
MissMolly, we’re basically on the same wavelength. But I strongly disagree with you on the shock part: I think they’d be pissed off (as would a lot of guys in reaction to it).
Registering for the military is one thing: you labeled it a mild annoyance.
But it’s not an annoyance when a draft and/or war is taking place, and Mr. Bush wants us to have more wars. I think you’d see such outrage from females that…well, it just might stop Bush dead in his tracks!
I want the equality thing now. I want all people, at age 18, to register, and I think women ought to put that at the top of their priority lists.
If a real war is started and an actual draft occurs, there is power in numbers, and you’d see this war talk stopped dead in its tracks.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:25 pmThere are plenty of valid reasons to vote for Hillary or against Hillary. But the fact that she’s a woman shouldn’t be one of them.
Comment by missmolly — July 13, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Excellent post!
July 13th, 2007 at 2:26 pmI never said we did, but shouldn’t we be aware of possible consequences in our decisions?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Just like many of us were aware in 2000 and 2004 of the consequences of having Bush as president? Turns out we were right. Bush is a disaster. There are many, many woman that would have done a hell of alot better.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:27 pmYour opinions are not fact, how would you know if people at Fox News got enough attention from their mothers?
Well, you see, I read a lot of non-fiction. Including psychology books. The reality is that some boys who don’t get enough attention from their mothers growing up, grow to hate women. I’ve known men like this. It’s sad… But true.
The other insults are just that…insults. Perhaps one day you will be able to disagree with somebody and act like an adult.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
I did. And it didn’t seem to work… LOL
July 13th, 2007 at 2:29 pmI’m actually not conservative, but a libertarian. I merely brought up a possible outcome from intolerant people if a woman is elected president in the most powerful and recognized country in the world. Nobody has to agree with me.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Yep the hard line right wingers will hate it. Oh, were those not the intolerant people you were talking about?
July 13th, 2007 at 2:30 pmI merely brought up a possible outcome from intolerant people if a woman is elected president in the most powerful and recognized country in the world. Nobody has to agree with me.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
There are plenty of people in the world who are intolerant of Bush and his regime. People confuse this with anti-americanism. The point is that intolerance from outside the US should not matter at all. If the people of the US choose a leader then the world is stuck with that choice. In the current case, it’s not only the world but the US that feels ’stuck’ with the choice.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:32 pmThere are however many Muslim countries that have adopted sharia law.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
So you want to elect a Muslim President then, since sharia law is ISLAMIC law… And there isn’t respect for non-Muslims in honoring it.
For the record, Osama didn’t attack up because of our women leaders….
July 13th, 2007 at 2:32 pmWomen can and do hold political office in Islamic countries, including head of state. And we currently work diplomatically with Islamic countries using women (two out of three of our last Secretaries of State are women, remember?).
Comment by missmolly — July 13, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Bingo! I’m'a repeat this since it was ignored earlier in the thread. Women have been elected president or prime minister of many Muslim countries. Here’s a sample:
Pakistan: Prime Minister – Benazir Bhutto – 1988
Turkey: Prime Minister – Tansu Çiller – 1993
Senegal: Prime Minister – Mame Madior Boye – 2001
Indonesia: President – Megawati Sukarnoputri – 2001
Bangladesh: Prime Minister – Khaleda Zia – 1991
If these countries elected a woman as head of state, I doub’t they’d have a problem with a woman as President of the United States.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:32 pmI, for one, welcome our new master overlords. Their wish is my command. But then again, I’m a liberal (likes woman) not Republican (likes men and boys).
July 13th, 2007 at 2:33 pmOf course he didn’t, but is rocking the boat the best solution?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
It’s not rocking the boat. That’s the whole point.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:35 pmNo they can’t we can’t be diplomatic and then elect a president that they will not even talk to .
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
That is utterly specious. Prove they won’t talk to her.
They had no problems speaking with Nancy Pelosi, a female leader, when she went to Syria – and Syria is pretty hard-core sectarian. She actually accomplished more then the Republican men who preceeded her…
And clearly, they speak to Condi.
Your argument is bogus. You have no facts in your favor, have actually provided facts to debunk yourself, and cannot sustain a credible argument here. And you want us to take you seriously as an intelligent adult? Then act like one.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:36 pmThank you for the list, however these are more moderate countries that we do not have any issues with. What about countries that have had terrorists grow from?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Terrorists haven’t grown from Pakistan, Turkey, or Indonesia?
July 13th, 2007 at 2:38 pmOf course he didn’t, but is rocking the boat the best solution?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
The best solution has been passed on by Bush – capture and hold accountable Osama. He is the one that rocked the boat. Too bad the helmsmen lost his rudder.
I do believe your chasing a view that is just not right. It doesn’t matter the gender of the US president. Others are trying to tell you this and some happen to be female. This may have gotten a reaction you didn’t expect but you have to face it david M, there is no reason to be worried about the reaction of Muslim countries to the gender of the president.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:39 pmBut it’s not an annoyance when a draft and/or war is taking place, and Mr. Bush wants us to have more wars. I think you’d see such outrage from females that…well, it just might stop Bush dead in his tracks!
I want the equality thing now. I want all people, at age 18, to register, and I think women ought to put that at the top of their priority lists.
If a real war is started and an actual draft occurs, there is power in numbers, and you’d see this war talk stopped dead in its tracks.
Comment by G Whiz — July 13, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Your final statement here is undoubtedly true, the re-arranged version earlier in the same post which I made bold shows gender bias.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pmYour demand that registering woman for the draft be #1 on their priority list, is plain loony. What’s your agenda…just turn 18?
Yes some men that do not like women did not get enough attention from their mothers, but you do not know anything about fox news people that you have never met.
You don’t have to know them personally – just look at the crap they spout! It’s OBVIOUS.
I believe that one rule of psychology is to first meet the patient before you treat the patient.
Not necessarily. It’s documentation of behavior that matters.
As for you acting like an adult, I have not seen it yet.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
You also haven’t seen any of the many facts that have soundly debunked your argument. Selective vision will do that to you….
July 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pmOf course he didn’t, but is rocking the boat the best solution?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
So, your point is that people shouldn’t vote for a woman because of what other peoples in the world might think?
I’d say, to hell with them. This is a sovereign decision by the people of the US.
If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, Americans shouldn’t vote for an African-American for president because of the prejudices in other countries against dark-skinned people. Or, if you are overly worried about the religious aspect, maybe a Muslim president would be the way to go to improve the US’ standing in the MiddleEast.
Your argument is ridiculous.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pmI do however, think that as a world leader we need to be aware of other countries.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
If only this were true! Far too many voters in the US don’t give a toss about other countries. Great idea but the reality is awareness of other countries is reserved for the countries being taken advantage of.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:43 pmOf course he didn’t, but is rocking the boat the best solution?
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
So you’re afraid?
Well, then to feel better, why not just declare the US as an Islamic country and adopt Sharia law?
It’s a slippery slope….
July 13th, 2007 at 2:43 pmThe other david, david M, said
Libertarian is a vague term. Left libertarian or Right libertarian? Do you prefer Ayn Rand or George Woodcock? I tend to find people who claim to be libertarian are masking their Far Right status.
Now, I don’t see why a libertarian should be second-guessing and behaving differently because of how intolerant others are. Are we to change our behaviour because others are racist, sexist and bigoted? I think not. This is essentially ’separate by equal’ thinking. It is the kind of thinking to put off ending slavery until the Union dissolved into civil war.
What do you care what others think? A woman president, a black president? Either would set a shining example of why America is the Defender of Democracy & Freedom. As it is, America is falling behind and other democracies look far more representative of their populations than does the American government. Don’t be ruled by Fear. Be ruled by Hope.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:44 pmTerrorists haven’t grown from Pakistan, Turkey, or Indonesia?
Comment by toasterhead — July 13, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Oh, silly facts… :D
July 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pmNo they can’t we can’t be diplomatic and then elect a president that they will not even talk to .
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
July 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pmTwo of the last three Sec. of State were women.
The President isn’t the one they are talking to. So, are you okay with a woman President with a male Sec. of State to appease the scary Muslims?
Yes they did talk to Condi and Pelosi, however they were not the leaders of the country, which is very different.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Now you’re just making up crap.
Post proof, or admit you have none and are just being paranoid…
July 13th, 2007 at 2:46 pmYes they did talk to Condi and Pelosi, however they were not the leaders of the country, which is very different.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Only in your inaccurate stereotyped view of shari’a law. Yes, there are some imams who say that the Quraan forbids women to hold positions of power. There are other imams who say ay the Quraan encourages it. This is an ongoing and vigorous debate among Islamic scholars. There are also leaders of Christianity and Judaism that also say their religious texts forbid equality for women. In all three cases, these don’t represent the majority view.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:46 pmYour argument is ridiculous.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — July 13, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
His response will be that you are insulting him… :D
July 13th, 2007 at 2:49 pmThe President isn’t the one they are talking to.
Comment by funky p — July 13, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
In fact, I don’t think Bush is allowed to talk to them anymore :D. Seems he spends his all days at little league games and country clubs lately…
July 13th, 2007 at 2:51 pmThere are also leaders of Christianity and Judaism that also say their religious texts forbid equality for women.
Comment by toasterhead — July 13, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Speaking of Daryll… :D
July 13th, 2007 at 2:52 pmI merely brought up a possible outcome from intolerant people if a woman is elected president in the most powerful and recognized country in the world. Nobody has to agree with me.
Comment by david M — July 13, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Appeasing the intolerant is not diplomacy.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:52 pmComment by unbelievable — July 13, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
I was going to use something milder, like “absurd” or “silly”, but those don’t even begin to describe the nonsensical idea that votes in the US should be driven by what other people in other countries might do, say, or think.
With a world so full of prejudicial twits, who do try you please? And why would you do that?
(India under Indira Gandhi seemed to deal with Pakistan just fine)
July 13th, 2007 at 2:57 pm171 I’m sure Hillary Clinton is no longer menstruating. Women generally tend to stop that in their late fourties when they run out of ovum. Go read a book on human anatomy already.
Comment by unbelievable
But then flake-o would only be looking at the pictures with one hand.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:59 pm“Your demand that registering woman for the draft be #1 on their priority list, is plain loony. What’s your agenda…just turn 18?”
No it’s not loony at all: It just doesn’t fit into your distorted view of equality.
Gender bias? Again, you have a distorted view of equality. You are picking and choosing your terms for “equality.”
Some people here attempted to use screwy anatomical differences between the genders to declare that equality can’t exist.
I, on the other hand, feel that if females truly want equality, either as Presidents or in the workplaces, they should stop picking and choosing the low-hanging fruit–the easy, good stuff–and accept equality that ain’t so attractive.
Like registering for the military.
Like insisting that men, as parents, have the same paid leaves of absence that women are entitled to in the workplace. Not two weeks; two months.
What in the world is wrong with my reasoning?
And no, I am hardly close to the 18-year old range. I was subjected to the draft in the ’70s, back when when women were burning their bras for equality…but not insisting that they be part of the draft, and certainly not considering men as parents who deserve time off when their children are born.
Geez, what kind of heat and nit-picking will THIS response generate here?
July 13th, 2007 at 3:00 pmTo G Whiz –
You’re right, we agree. If we had a draft, and young people no longer had a choice in going to fight Bushney’s wars, the revolt from the American people would make the Vietnam War protests look like mild dissension.
I am a woman who signed up for the Navy in 1973 after I graduated from high school (by choice, I admit — my gender rendered me safe from the draft). I was proud to serve my country, and at the time I joined I figured this service would be to defend us from any attack (or genuine threat of attack) from our enemies. After all, we had just gotten out of Vietnam, and surely we would NEVER get involved in a stupid quagmire like that again, would we?
My enlistment ended in 1979, after six years of relative peace. However, my tour ended about the same time American hostages were taken in Iran. There were no billets available for my specialty at the time, so I couldn’t re-up with pay, but I extended my tour as an inactive reservist for an extra two years — just in case the Iran situation escalated into a threat requiring military intervention (I was honorably discharged in 1981 without being activated).
If I can feel an obligation to serve, I’m sure other young people will as well, as long as their leaders don’t play with their lives frivolously. And I agree with you 100% — both men and women should answer their country’s call equally.
I was once asked if I thought combat was a fit place for a woman. My response was that combat isn’t a fit place for anyone. War should always be an absolute last resort. But when we reach that absolute last resort, everyone should be willing to pitch in.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:02 pmComment by missmolly — July 13, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Good golly, missmolly, well said.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:08 pmMissMolly, I salute you; you are a much more worthy person than I.
You make sense, you know what I’m saying.
You’ve got my vote should you choose to run for President. :-)
July 13th, 2007 at 3:10 pmI was once asked if I thought combat was a fit place for a woman. My response was that combat isn’t a fit place for anyone. War should always be an absolute last resort. But when we reach that absolute last resort, everyone should be willing to pitch in.
Comment by missmolly — July 13, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Gems like this make wading through all the troll spam on this site worthwhile. Thank you!
July 13th, 2007 at 3:13 pmTo G Whiz –
HAHAHAHAHAHA!! On the other hand, could I do a worse job that what we have in the Oval Office now?
July 13th, 2007 at 3:36 pmnot even if you had your period every day for six years!!
July 13th, 2007 at 3:47 pmI know exploitation when I see it. And, guess what,,,,,,,,,,,,,
July 13th, 2007 at 4:07 pmAnyone a discrimination lawyer? FAUX needs some defense against it’s own stupidity
July 13th, 2007 at 4:30 pmNot to pick nits (I see what you’re saying and don’t necessarily disagree), but last I checked, a majority of business are ran by MEN.
Meaning that men are the ones making the unequal policy, not women.
As far as government sanctioned leave, anyone can take FMLA leave for a medical issue, including child birth.
Again, hate to pick nits, but just thought I’d throw that out there.
:-)
July 13th, 2007 at 4:41 pmWhat in the world is wrong with my reasoning?
And no, I am hardly close to the 18-year old range. I was subjected to the draft in the ’70s, back when when women were burning their bras for equality…but not insisting that they be part of the draft, and certainly not considering men as parents who deserve time off when their children are born.
Geez, what kind of heat and nit-picking will THIS response generate here?
Comment by G Whiz — July 13, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
I want the equality thing now. I want all people, at age 18, to register, and I think women ought to put that at the top of their priority lists.
This is the part I characterized as loony. In general I agree about the equality thing. But to suggest that women make this their #1 priority is like asking muslims to approve of our President. It would be great, but they certainly have bigger priorities. Women would probably put equal pay above women registering for the draft on their list of priorities.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:09 pmAll that aside, your posts have hidden agenda written all over them and I was probing to see what that agenda was!
MD –
You’re one of my favorite posters here, so I will gently pick nits with you. FMLA is a great thing, but it doesn’t guarantee PAID leave, just leave. For many people (especially with a new baby just arrived!), taking any unpaid leave is an unaffordable luxury.
Many companies do give paid paternity leave the same length as paid maternity leave, and I applaud those that do (and yes — many of those policies are made by men).
Unfortunately, some businesses (particularly small ones) can’t afford to give a male employee a paid extended leave AND hire a temporary worker to take up the slack while he’s gone. I think it’s unreasonable to expect the government to pick up the entire tab in this situation (hey, I’m happy we have FLMA!), but it would be nice if small businesses were give some kind of tax break when this happens so more fathers can be with their new babies during a critical bonding period.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:16 pmWhat?
July 13th, 2007 at 6:28 pm.
.
.
You mean women AREN’T ‘in charge’ right now?
….perhaps Fox needs to dig a little deeper into who REALLY wears the pants in most american families….
Lamest thread ever.
(other than the Paris Hilton threads)
July 13th, 2007 at 6:33 pmWhat if we let black people into leadership position? Or people who don’t believe in Jesus Christ?
July 13th, 2007 at 10:39 pm“I, on the other hand, feel that if females truly want equality, either as Presidents or in the workplaces, they should stop picking and choosing the low-hanging fruit–the easy, good stuff–and accept equality that ain’t so attractive. Like registering for the military. Like insisting that men, as parents, have the same paid leaves of absence that women are entitled to in the workplace. Not two weeks; two months.”
Comment by G Whiz — July 13, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Your’re just trolling. Just trying to get a response for the idiocy of it.
It’s the old 1970’s sexist, “oh but what if they get pms, they’ll hit the nuclear button,” or “they’re emotional,” or “if they want equality by god then let them be drafted.”
Equality has nothing to do with the draft. It’s about having the right to vote, having the right to get custody of your children, the right to work for fair pay, and many other things women deserve as taxpayers, family-raisers and over 50 percent of the population.
It’s a shameful thing that in Britain they will hire a Margaret Thatcher, but in America they’re still scratching their ass and saying, oh what it she gets pms? It’s unbelievably moronic statements.
No one ever said that there were not differences between men and women. You want women drafted? Then start pulling your own weight, and come back to me when you can show me your uterus, when you can carry a baby for 9 months, when you have raised an entire generation for the continuation of this country. Come to me when you’ve done that, (and that’s just for starters) and we’ll talk about draft.
And by the way women don’t get the choice low hanging fruit. We work some of the worst, dirtiest jobs in america. When we DO get a choice job like stockbroker we expect to be paid like a stockbroker, and not like a maid, thank you.
And there IS NO paid 2 month leave. What country do you live in, France? In America you get a week or two. If you need to leave to give birth, then it’s FMLA and Unpaid.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:06 pm——————-
We already live in a Socialist Matriarchy in Western Nations.
Read The Garbage Generation if you want to understand what life under women will be like. In fact, simply walk around any ghetto to see what life under women is like.
Feminism must be renounced if we wish to restore sanity to the USA.
——————–
July 14th, 2007 at 7:03 pmFOX = PROPAGANDA. End of discussion.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:09 pm