Jump to content

Barack Obama: Women are indisputably better than men


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

As usual, just taking the bare headline on its own is misleading. If you take his remarks in the context of his entire speech, he is clearly not talking about women being better than men in all things, but specifically about them being better as leaders.

 

I did a quick Google search and the only studies I could find that look at this, seem to confirm his views. See two examples below:

 

Quote

"We find that constituencies that elect women experience significantly higher growth in economic activity through the electoral term than similar constituencies that elect men." - The International Growth Centre


"According to an analysis of thousands of 360-degree reviews, women outscored men on 17 of the 19 capabilities that differentiate excellent leaders from average or poor ones." - Harvard Business Review 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Imagine the outcry if some ex leader had said the opposite. Or someone had said whites are better leaders than blacks; or homosexual male and females make better leaders!

 

Sexist. But like only whites can be racist, only hetrosexual men can be sexist in the PC world that Obama lives in.

 

As for women leaders - May, Yingluck, the imprisoned Park in Korea, Mrs Marcos, etc - not all brilliant then!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

As usual, just taking the bare headline on its own is misleading. If you take his remarks in the context of his entire speech, he is clearly not talking about women being better than men in all things, but specifically about them being better as leaders.

 

I did a quick Google search and the only studies I could find that look at this, seem to confirm his views. See two examples below:

 

 

 

That's also another view. In what countries are women more likely to be elected? The societies women govern with in on a whole are more privileged places. I am not saying that is wrong by any means but you can't equate Saudi Arabia with women leaders from Germany or Finland.

 

If you can find a study involving the G7 only you might be able to make a case. But you can't compare Norway to South Sudan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

I can't say I disagree.  Though, I think it's impossible.  In a democracy, strength flows through numbers.  There will always be a tendency to revert to parties as a way of solidifying political power. 

That's the sole purpose of political parties . . . to consolidate power.  And those leading a given party direct the party and reap the most benefits for themselves.  I call it a scam.  And not impossible.  Impossible only given the mass accepted mainstream ideas of today.

 

As you said, "In a democracy, strength flows through numbers."  Strength in numbers is an idea which, dare I say, is rooted in a false premise.  It ignores and even tramples on the power of the individual.  And that is where true power lies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

That's also another view. In what countries are women more likely to be elected?

[...]

If you can find a study involving the G7 only you might be able to make a case. But you can't compare Norway to South Sudan.

Only the first study quoted, deals with women elected to political office. The second study from the Harvard Business Review deals with women's leadership skills in general.

 

I don't understand your second point - are you saying that because a woman is less likely to be elected leader in South Sudan, she would therefore be a worse leader than a man, or what?

 

Also, why would only a study comparing women's leadership skills and performance in G7 countries be valid? Surely the opposite is true - the wider the parameters of the study and the more different countries it encompassed, the more valid it would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Only the first study quoted, deals with women elected to political office. The second study from the Harvard Business Review deals with women's leadership skills in general.

 

I don't understand your second point - are you saying that because a woman is less likely to be elected leader in South Sudan, she would therefore be a worse leader than a man, or what?

 

Also, why would only a study comparing women's leadership skills and performance in G7 countries be valid? Surely the opposite is true - the wider the parameters of the study and the more different countries it encompassed, the more valid it would be.

 

Women only lead such countries when the men that live there allow them to do so. The other countries don't have basic social rules. Compare countries where it is allowed for men and women to run equally and I doubt you will find much of a difference. 

 

Look at countries where this is not possible you will find religion. Islam in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Berkshire said:

I'd have to agree.  If you look at all the scumbag dictators in the history of the world, nearly all are men.  And the scumbag dictators in the modern world?  All men.  Obviously, not all men are evil.  But the evil leaders are almost always men.

Berkshire that is hardly a fair statement. Its like saying that throughout history most of the evil lumberjacks have been men.  Given that throughout history the vast majority of world leaders have been men obviously most of the evil leaders have been men.  It is equally true that most of the virtuous leaders have been men. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, RideJocky said:

Then why does he make $500k a speech when his wife only makes $200k? 
 

what happened to equal pay for equal work? 

Because he was POTUS.

 

She was FLOTUS. 

 

POTUS WORTH 2.5 times more 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, digibum said:

There are good men and bad men.  There are good women and bad women. 

I've noticed throughout my life that women tend to go for "bad boys", rather than the good guys. You know the saying "good guys get washed away".

I did some research and it all comes down to genes. Women want to mate with the alpha male to produce genetically strong children,but they then look for a "good" male that will raise the child safely. See lots of that in Thailand where Thai women have children with rat bags that abandon them, and then hook a "rich" farang to bring up the child.

The women may not even realize what they are doing as it's imprinted in their genes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've noticed throughout my life that women tend to go for "bad boys", rather than the good guys. You know the saying "good guys get washed away".

True and it is also true that if you "treat them like sh** they will love you forever". 

Treat them like gold and they will get bored real quick and just move on. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning beating them or treating them in this manner, this is just my overall observation over several decades working as a police officer and a firefighter/EMT.  How many women have we have seen who were beat, physically and emotionally abused, treated worse than a rabid soi dog and the women just never leave the abuser (for more than a few hours or days). 

 

They always seem to come back to these guys and if you ask them why they will tell you that "he really is a good man, he just has a bad temper but I still love him".  Some of these women end up dead eventually (sad) but they seem to be beyond help and will listen to no one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This fatuous pronunciation by St Barack is not exactly a vote of confidence for his corrupt former running-mate, Joseph Biden, who (alas) happens to be both old, male and white.

Sorry, Joe, you'd better resign in favour of ...erm...Warren? Klobs? Harris-put-em-in-prison? or (please let this be a joke) the fat lady of Arkansas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Catoholic said:

he is a representative of a political party that believes all a man has to do is identify as a woman and he's a woman... so his statement is as meaningless as he is insignificant. 

He has a lot more influence than an anonymous TVF poster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This absurd incorrect generalization by Obama has no foundation in truth and is just self hating nonsense as is the idea that white people are superior to black people. He should be ashamed of himself, especially as this is an attack on young men and boys who already contend with far more difficulties in life than women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


 

9 hours ago, mogandave said:


How?

in a word, man spreading,

and scientists has also been able to establish a link to climate change

to this arrogant display of power, of which electric power is but one aspect,

(that needs to be neutered asap)

 

SOCIOLOGY | RESEARCH ARTICLEThe conceptual penis as a social constructJamie Lindsay1* and Peter Boyle1

Abstract: Anatomical penises may exist, but as pre-operative transgendered women also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent con-struct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomi-cal organ but as a social construct isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity. Through detailed poststructuralist discursive criticism and the example of climate change, this paper will challenge the prevailing and damaging social trope that penises are best understood as the male sexual organ and reassign it a more fitting role as a type of masculine performance.Subjects: Gender Studies - Soc Sci; Postmodernism of Cultural Theory; FeminismKeywords: penis; feminism; machismo braggadocio; masculinity; climate change

 

2.2. Climate change and the conceptual penisNowhere are the consequences of hypermasculine machismo braggadocio isomorphic identification with the conceptual penis more problematic than concerning the issue of climate change. Climate change is driven by nothing more than it is by certain damaging themes in hypermasculinity that can be best understood via the dominant rapacious approach to climate ecology identifiable with the con-ceptual penis. Our planet is rapidly approaching the much-warned-about 2°C climate change thresh-old, and due to patriarchal power dynamics that maintain present capitalist structures, especially with regard to the fossil fuel industry, the connection between hypermasculine dominance of scientific, political, and economic discourses and the irreparable damage to our ecosystem is made clear

 

https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conceptual-penis/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Credo said:

I am in agreement with Obama on this one.   It's not 100%, but as a general rule, women have some positive attributes that make them better.   They are usually more compassionate.   

 

You must be kidding...they are not all Anne Frank or Florence Nightingale, you know.

Have you read up on what kind of women we have in power these days.

 

Look at the Burmese woman....absolute disaster.

 

And dont get me started on that fraud Barry O....obviously he never thought that way when he was running in the primary against Hillary. Shut it Barry.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

You must be kidding...they are not all Anne Frank or Florence Nightingale, you know.

Have you read up on what kind of women we have in power these days.

 

Look at the Burmese woman....absolute disaster.

 

And dont get me started on that fraud Barry O....obviously he never thought that way when he was running in the primary against Hillary. Shut it Barry.

 

 

Your sexist baiting is not worthy of a response.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Credo said:

Your sexist baiting is not worthy of a response.   

And yet here you are. With nothing to say.

What pre disposes women to be better at certain tasks than men or vice versa?

It's centuries of conditioning, physical strength, the role they used to play in the tribe etc.

These roles are now changing and that's good.

Women are free to compete for jobs that men usually did and why not?

But to issue a blanket statement saying they are better is dishonest, pandering BS.

I have dealt with some high powered who were the total antithesis of grace, compassion and temperament.

No better than their male counterparts...but usually smelling slightly better.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

That's also another view. In what countries are women more likely to be elected? The societies women govern with in on a whole are more privileged places. I am not saying that is wrong by any means but you can't equate Saudi Arabia with women leaders from Germany or Finland.

 

If you can find a study involving the G7 only you might be able to make a case. But you can't compare Norway to South Sudan.

Indira Gandhi?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...