Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post - Feminists, Or Man-haters?

RebelWithanAK · Oct 17, 2003, 12:27 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp)
seperate but equal used to be what they said about 'blacks' and 'whites', and then that never worked out because how can you ""seperate equally""? its a contradiction of terms. It was a bill i think, or an act ?? Anyway it didn't work out, maybe i'll go looking for that 'cuz i remember it from a history class.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That was in reference mainly to schools, and secondarily to everything else. It didn't work out because while it was separate, it most certainly was not equal. We still have remnants of it in just about every county that's successfully fought off bussing propositions.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp)
When you see a woman leader who does not have these qualities, but a strong sense of the traits that women generally possess -- let me know. Or point out some in history. This way i can "define leadership in the terms a woman would lead"<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Eleanor Roosevelt.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp)
Who would follow a woman who was sensitive to the other parties feelings to debate a subject? would you? and if you would.. would one of the reasons for following her just include that she is considerate? sensitive? compassionate? cautious?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
How about because she won't put half the federal budget into the war department and then laugh off all diplomatic institutions?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp)
I don't think those are good qualities for someone who has to make decisions 'on impulse / on demand / on-the-fly' which any good leader should be able to do logically and quickly.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Considerate? Sensitive? Compassionate? Cautious? WHAT LEADER SHOULDN'T HAVE THESE QUALITIES?!
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp)
What does that do though women leading with those said traits? because normally those things are to impress/cater to the males imperfections, inadequacies, or fix what males don't have sexually. but in this case, what void does it fill? whats the purpose? It feels like its just to show that women 'can' and thats great, but what purpose?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Err... you ARE thinking this through a patriarchal viewpoint.

That said, what do you define as a "leadership persona"?

Oct 17, 2003, 12:27 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp) seperate but equal used to be what they said about 'blacks' and 'whites', and then that never worked out because how can you ""seperate equally""? its a contradiction of terms. It was a bill i think, or an act ?? Anyway it didn't work out, maybe i'll go looking for that 'cuz i remember it from a history class.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That was in reference mainly to schools, and secondarily to everything else. It didn't work out because while it was separate, it most certainly was not equal. We still have remnants of it in just about every county that's successfully fought off bussing propositions. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp) When you see a woman leader who does not have these qualities, but a strong sense of the traits that women generally possess -- let me know. Or point out some in history. This way i can "define leadership in the terms a woman would lead"<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Eleanor Roosevelt. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp) Who would follow a woman who was sensitive to the other parties feelings to debate a subject? would you? and if you would.. would one of the reasons for following her just include that she is considerate? sensitive? compassionate? cautious?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> How about because she won't put half the federal budget into the war department and then laugh off all diplomatic institutions? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp) I don't think those are good qualities for someone who has to make decisions 'on impulse / on demand / on-the-fly' which any good leader should be able to do logically and quickly.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Considerate? Sensitive? Compassionate? Cautious? WHAT LEADER SHOULDN'T HAVE THESE QUALITIES?! </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp) What does that do though women leading with those said traits? because normally those things are to impress/cater to the males imperfections, inadequacies, or fix what males don't have sexually. but in this case, what void does it fill? whats the purpose? It feels like its just to show that women 'can' and thats great, but what purpose?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Err... you ARE thinking this through a patriarchal viewpoint. That said, what do you define as a "leadership persona"? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.