Even if, on average, women are more governed by emotions than are men – and thus less “steady” – women politicians who are successful prove by their success that they are as steady as men. A male democrat is usually more emotion-driven than a female republican. This doesn’t mean the 19th amendment wasn’t a huge fucken mistake.
kokoda - the most deplorable
June 7, 2017 9:51 am
Only women that are Conservative.
Francis Marion
June 7, 2017 9:52 am
I’m with Iska.
Depends on the woman. By and large liberal women are a disaster. Unfortunately, they are the most prevalent types in politics these days. Witness what they have done to places like Sweden and are currently doing to Canada. It’s ugly.
While not our first female PM Justin is definitely our most flamboyant and ‘progressively liberal’.
[img[/img]
Diogenes
June 7, 2017 10:27 am
I was drinking beer, before attending a concert, with a group of about 25 men who worked for corporations. At the time, I was working in a small family business with no women employees. I asked them what it was like working with, and for women. All of them without exception said it sucked. Said they were too emotional and took things too personally (too much drama).
Card802
June 7, 2017 10:30 am
Liberal women can’t be trusted in politics, too emotional, racist, hateful, sexist, brainwashed, economically ignorant, and most are butt ugly too.
Probably to appeal to their emotional, racist, hateful, sexist, brainwashed, economically ignorant, and butt ugly voter base.
Sinema may be the craziest one. I knew her when I lived in Phoenix. She actually ran Green Party for state legislator before someone tapped her on the shoulder.
I think that any women can learn to lie cheat an steal as good as any man.
Since these are now REQUIRMENTS to hold office I say yes.
Miles Long
June 7, 2017 11:48 am
Smoke nailed it. The 28 day scourge hits some women harder than others but affects them all. Can you imagine something similar to the Bay of Pigs thing happening with a premenstrual president?
Is this a trick question? In case it ain’t, the answer is fuuuuuuuck no.
anon
June 7, 2017 2:16 pm
Of course, no.
While we’re at it, if we want suitable people to be politicians we should limit it to straight, married men between age 40 and 60, with children, so that they will have ample maturity, breadth of experience, and sufficient concern for the future based on both their remaining lifespan and their children.
People who are near death often change many important values. People who have no children often never develop certain important values at all.
Personal experiences may vary, but ask: do you find the DINKs to be better than married with kids after you control for education and general intelligence?
I’ll suggest to you that DINKs average higher for education and slightly higher for intelligence, but comparing DINKs to peers with kids, in my experience the with-kids have always been far ahead in thinking about the future and about other people (vs. dogs “as children”, wild animals, “the environment”, etc.).
Generally speaking, moderately smart, self-centered people who are blissfully cancelling their genes in a manner that would make Darwin amused.
They are a widespread and common plague among the white chattering classes of the west, though fortunately more common among the liberal end than the conservative end.
i forget
June 7, 2017 2:38 pm
Good & political is an impossibility. Gender has nothing to do with it.
Exactly. The question should be reframed “do women make worse political leaders than men?”. Hillary clearly is as bad as any male politician now living so I’d have to call it a draw. This might just be HILLARY’S crowning achievement.
Boat Guy
June 7, 2017 4:42 pm
Having dealt with violent mood swings and hot flashes ,I don’t see how they could be in many situations . Yet in other situations “no problem” .
There were not any women involved in the Gulf Of Tonken decision so I guess the men at the time had a whore moan inbalance ! ( mis-spelling not)
Since then women have moved into traditional men’s roles in politics and seem to be fucking things up as well as any of the men have , maybe better
rhs jr
June 7, 2017 8:03 pm
I’ve never had a female boss who didn’t suffer many liberal insanities so I vote no, that’s not for me: I don’t want a female POTUS or Congressman.
dnb
June 8, 2017 3:32 am
That last one is Tulsi Gabbard, and I have a whole lotta respect for her — probably more than any others in that collage above.
MarshRabbit
June 8, 2017 6:57 am
“Mrs Thatcher” by Belfast street entertainer Alan Dean
james the deplorable wanderer
June 8, 2017 12:53 pm
Like most things, depends on the individual.
Maggie Thatcher had it together. Some others.
Most humans cannot lead large groups – they lack the corruption gene. Rarely is there any statesmanship involved, because solutions acceptable to large groups are HARD. Large and diverse groups make acceptable solutions EVEN HARDER. Lack of cohesive, shared values leads to lack of agreement on what is acceptable – the Romans and the barbarians had that problem, so they were always at war. We are headed the same way.
Also, lack of agreement on reality makes it even harder. Is the planet:
(A) dying because of man-induced “climate change”, or
(B) relatively OK but heading into another Little Ice Age due to solar minimum activity, or
(C) irrelevant because I’m personally starving and just barely getting by, or
(D) slowly accumulating CO2 in the atmosphere from natural and anthropogenic sources, which may someday cause a problem?
How can you craft a solution when the problems are not agreed on or even demonstrable?
Women can make good leaders when they understand what the problem is. Otherwise, they can become Hillary, which isn’t good for anyone.
harry p.
June 8, 2017 5:36 pm
No, unless freedom is not important.
If you hate freedom then women would make great politicians.
Even if, on average, women are more governed by emotions than are men – and thus less “steady” – women politicians who are successful prove by their success that they are as steady as men. A male democrat is usually more emotion-driven than a female republican. This doesn’t mean the 19th amendment wasn’t a huge fucken mistake.
Only women that are Conservative.
I’m with Iska.
Depends on the woman. By and large liberal women are a disaster. Unfortunately, they are the most prevalent types in politics these days. Witness what they have done to places like Sweden and are currently doing to Canada. It’s ugly.
While not our first female PM Justin is definitely our most flamboyant and ‘progressively liberal’.
[img
[/img]
I was drinking beer, before attending a concert, with a group of about 25 men who worked for corporations. At the time, I was working in a small family business with no women employees. I asked them what it was like working with, and for women. All of them without exception said it sucked. Said they were too emotional and took things too personally (too much drama).
Liberal women can’t be trusted in politics, too emotional, racist, hateful, sexist, brainwashed, economically ignorant, and most are butt ugly too.
Probably to appeal to their emotional, racist, hateful, sexist, brainwashed, economically ignorant, and butt ugly voter base.
Yeah, but that’s true of all libs.
Sara Palin, Kyrsten-Sinema, I’d hit it.
Sinema may be the craziest one. I knew her when I lived in Phoenix. She actually ran Green Party for state legislator before someone tapped her on the shoulder.
Just put a sock in her mouth.
Keep it in your pants, Dutch, getting involved with crazy bitches isn’t worth it. Haven’t you learned anything watching the Fox debacle?
One word. Menstruation. No.
Ewwwww
Tulsi!!! Yowza.
Damn, son. If you get excited over that skanky lez, then you’d fuck a rosebush hoping there was a snake hiding in it.
How didja know?
But, really, she’s criticized for being ANTI – gay. So, I don’t get the “lez” part.
I don’t know, but she looks like a lez. She acts manly, too so there’s that. I threw “lez” in there because I suspect that she is.
She has/had a girlfriend & is or was openly gay, pardon me, bisexual.
I’m not surprised. What surprises me is when some otherwise sensible guy says he’d like to boink her skanky ass.
Maybe fuck both of them.
puke
I’d hit that too. Might taste like pineapple.
I think that any women can learn to lie cheat an steal as good as any man.
Since these are now REQUIRMENTS to hold office I say yes.
Smoke nailed it. The 28 day scourge hits some women harder than others but affects them all. Can you imagine something similar to the Bay of Pigs thing happening with a premenstrual president?
lol
freakouts
Is this a trick question? In case it ain’t, the answer is fuuuuuuuck no.
Of course, no.
While we’re at it, if we want suitable people to be politicians we should limit it to straight, married men between age 40 and 60, with children, so that they will have ample maturity, breadth of experience, and sufficient concern for the future based on both their remaining lifespan and their children.
People who are near death often change many important values. People who have no children often never develop certain important values at all.
Disagree on the people with no kids part, I find DINK’s to often be more concerned for the future than the breeders.
Personal experiences may vary, but ask: do you find the DINKs to be better than married with kids after you control for education and general intelligence?
I’ll suggest to you that DINKs average higher for education and slightly higher for intelligence, but comparing DINKs to peers with kids, in my experience the with-kids have always been far ahead in thinking about the future and about other people (vs. dogs “as children”, wild animals, “the environment”, etc.).
I don’t know about better, but more informed and compassionate, yes.
WTF is a DINK? During the Vietnam war, I remember guys I knew who came home from that war referring to asians as dinks.
“double income no kids” = DINK
Generally speaking, moderately smart, self-centered people who are blissfully cancelling their genes in a manner that would make Darwin amused.
They are a widespread and common plague among the white chattering classes of the west, though fortunately more common among the liberal end than the conservative end.
Good & political is an impossibility. Gender has nothing to do with it.
Exactly. The question should be reframed “do women make worse political leaders than men?”. Hillary clearly is as bad as any male politician now living so I’d have to call it a draw. This might just be HILLARY’S crowning achievement.
Having dealt with violent mood swings and hot flashes ,I don’t see how they could be in many situations . Yet in other situations “no problem” .
There were not any women involved in the Gulf Of Tonken decision so I guess the men at the time had a whore moan inbalance ! ( mis-spelling not)
Since then women have moved into traditional men’s roles in politics and seem to be fucking things up as well as any of the men have , maybe better
I’ve never had a female boss who didn’t suffer many liberal insanities so I vote no, that’s not for me: I don’t want a female POTUS or Congressman.
That last one is Tulsi Gabbard, and I have a whole lotta respect for her — probably more than any others in that collage above.
“Mrs Thatcher” by Belfast street entertainer Alan Dean
Like most things, depends on the individual.
Maggie Thatcher had it together. Some others.
Most humans cannot lead large groups – they lack the corruption gene. Rarely is there any statesmanship involved, because solutions acceptable to large groups are HARD. Large and diverse groups make acceptable solutions EVEN HARDER. Lack of cohesive, shared values leads to lack of agreement on what is acceptable – the Romans and the barbarians had that problem, so they were always at war. We are headed the same way.
Also, lack of agreement on reality makes it even harder. Is the planet:
(A) dying because of man-induced “climate change”, or
(B) relatively OK but heading into another Little Ice Age due to solar minimum activity, or
(C) irrelevant because I’m personally starving and just barely getting by, or
(D) slowly accumulating CO2 in the atmosphere from natural and anthropogenic sources, which may someday cause a problem?
How can you craft a solution when the problems are not agreed on or even demonstrable?
Women can make good leaders when they understand what the problem is. Otherwise, they can become Hillary, which isn’t good for anyone.
No, unless freedom is not important.
If you hate freedom then women would make great politicians.