doojable

Multi-tasking has its benefits and it's drawbacks. I think some are better at it than others. I'd have to say that holding a full-time job and being a Mom is a challenge - but not impossible. My experience is that people learn how to add responsiblities and the better they are at this determines how a woman (or sometimes a man) juggles both home and work. I know many men and women that do a grand job at both home and work. As to Hillary.....I for one would like to discuss a woman in the White House without always returning to her. Queen Elizabeth - If I'm not mistaken, the royalty in England are chosen by bloodline. I'm not sure that any of them serve by the will of the people. Now, I would like to think that there are many that served with the good of the people in mind.

I guess I thought that everyone lost interest.

There were lots of folks that empowered the drunk and his minions. Remember the ROA? Fear was present at every level. Manipulation was rampant.

Oh well - this thread died..... too bad..... I still think we missed the most important points

Bumpy. Please don't take the Corps and lump them all together. I for one only wore my nametag when I was required to do so. It's so easy to make snap judgements. I keep trying to remember to take each person as I find them and to do no harm

I can see my house from there.....!

Well, Chatty, that certainly is one of the steps. However, I can give myself authority all day long and if I don't possess the skills to carry out the demands of the particular responsiblity, then there's a problem. The marriage relationship is just that - a relationship. It seems to me that for a marriage to really work there needs to be a sense of mutual respect and shared authority. But what of the other areas we mentioned? I think the workplace has been touched on somewhat. I would really like to see a serious discussion on the qualities that women possess that would qualify them to be President. That takes authority. There are pros and cons to a woman being in the White House. I would expect that there is also a lot of prejudice regarding a woman in that role. Some qualities I would find necessary are: strength of character, integrity, the ability to lead a wide range of personalities and backgrounds. A strong sense of being able to listen to one's gut important to me in order to cut through the spin. I think one of the arguments I've heard about a woman in the White House has centered on a woman being too emotional. Anyone else...?

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever hoyd!

Happy Birthday! You old Grouch you! And - for the kid in you...

No arguments from this corner........

Go Ca D!

I'll give on that point even though I don't agree that short hair necessarily implies a loss of femininity. What certainly was true was that she was perceived to have misbehaved. BTW - why are we arguing about losing feminity? I don't think that it is necessary for a woman to stop acting feminine to make history. But there certainly are times when acting feminine would be perceived as misbehaving. It may be that we agree to disagree on this matter - but I still welcome the discussion.

Vickles - I suspected Dot was an 11th - but I wasn't sure.

I had a very good friend that was a doctor. He told me that the more he studied the human body, the more apparent it was to him that the body was designed to last a very long time. I never saw the need to get ministered to for a cold - why bother? My body was going to take care of that just fine. The pressure to get healed quickly came from leadership who were stuck in some wieird set of rules. A person in our area once said that the unbeliever gets a flat tire, pulls over, gets out of the car changes the tire and goes on his way. The Churchgoer does about the same thing except he says a prayer thanking God that he knew how to change that tire, and he's on his way. The TWI follower on the other hand, pulls over the car, prays to God for word of knowlege on what he missed and how he was out of fellowship because he should have heard God warn him that the tire was going to go flat so that he could avoid the nail in the road. Then he prays for a person to help him change the tire because he refused to carry a jack in his trunk. (That was believing for a flat, doncha know.) Then when he shows up late to work he tells everyone that will listen that the Devil was trying to stop the move of the Word and that is the real reason he's late. Come on! This wasn't rocket science!

I would need more information before I agreed or disagreed. I never thought that either woman was particularly more or less classy. They just each have different agendas. (No! I don't want Hillary for President. She just doesn't seem to be a good fit.) Again, this all begs the question: What qualities make a good President? Oh and one more point regarding well-behaved women. Here is the meaning of the quote in the words of the author herself: The phrase you coined, "Well-behaved women rarely make history," has come to mean that if you're a woman and you want to make history you need to misbehave. And in fact you meant the opposite, as in "Well-behaved women don't get their due." Exactly. It's come to mean everything and anything. Every once in a while I'll Google and see where's it's turned up next. It's come to mean a whole range of things, from the very frivolous to the very serious. And actually, I've just handed in a manuscript of a book with that title, which will be out next fall. The Rest of the Article I'd say the argument can be made for both sides. You certainly don't make history by following the crowd. On the other hand - there is certainly something to be said for living your life in a manner that speaks of high character, class and integrity.

Cannon

It depends on what you call being "well-behaved." The wives of the men that signed the Declaration of Independence may have been feminine and genteel - but to the British I bet they were not considered well-behaved at all. Think about Joan of Arc. She definitely didn't fit the status quo of being well-behaved in France! Amelia Earhart? Eleanor Roosevelt? Harriet Tubman? Ann Sullivan? Helen Keller? Mary? I don't believe that a woman has to sacrifice feminity in order to make a difference. I am not an advocate of women being harsh and hard - strength comes from within. It takes great strength to break out of what is dictated as acceptable in a society. Whenever I let public opinion speak louder than my inner moral compass and my passion for fairness, I may be considered well-behaved by those around me, but I become contemptable to myself. That in my opinion is the worst behavior one can exhibit.

I was wondering where all my friends ended up after all these years. Also I was wondering if twi was still able to sustain itself since I had heard some horror stories from the ninties and i couldn't imagine anyone joining voluntarily. So, yes, I googled and found the cafe. I started a thread that was ......ummmmmmm....long and controversial....to say the least. But I even though I have told some stories, I personally don't have any real horror stories to tell. I stick around hoping to help, post recipes, play pictionary, and mostly to keep meeting friends and making new ones. I also hope to make folks laugh and heal. Came looking for some coffee and stayed for the company...

Salvador Dali Ving Rhames (sp?) Dale Evans Its (as in Cousin Its) gotta think on this one....

You forgot the right to dance your booty off!

I've never checked.....

Ok I'm going to put out some random thoughts that hit me while reading the posts from the past 24 hours. Authority in any relationship doesn't have to be denied to be lost. It can also be relinquished. This can be a good thing when there is a greater good that is served. It can be disastrous when the person better suited to make a decision or do the job is deferring to another, less qualified person - "just because." We have seen this in marriages and in the workplace. I've even seen it on the playground! How many times have you seen a group of children trying to come up with something to play and they all follow the "leader" of the group even though there is another idea that is much better but not offered through the proper channels? You can actually see the dilemma on their faces. ("Boredom or follow the leader? Boredom or follow the leader?") Another point: Frequently (but not always) the person with the most inherited or innate ability is not the best person for the job because they don't always push themselves to achieve more or push the envelope of their abilities. Here I must use an example from my experience as a drawing teacher. Each year I get students who have a wide range of abilities. Some have natural talent, others have great desire but less natural ability, still others are there because Mom is making them take my class. I won't discuss this last group for obvious reasons. I tend to prefer those students who have great desire over those with great natural abilities. This has nothing to do with playing favorites - just an honest look at the students themselves. When I get a student with natural ability, all too often they have been praised and put on a pedestal. Not that this is a bad thing, but the fear of losing praise can be a factor when it comes to trying some new thing. There are a lot of things I do with my students that are designed to break down old and bad habits. If a student is only interested in impressing Mom and Dad, they don't do what I tell them and they stay stuck in their ruts. These students come to class and give me 'what they do" but don't seem to push beyond. Their work is nice but shows no growth from month to month. I get their "tricks." When my assignments challenge them to break out and push and stretch they complain and whine. ("This is stupid!") OTHO - when I have a student with less ability but a ton of desire I see growth and enthusiasm right from the start. They tend to not only do the assignments, but even repeat them again for themselves. They have no tricks they are trying to impress me with, but rather impress me with their hard work and the progress they make. It's as if they realize they have nothing to lose by doing what I tell them to do as I tell them to do it. Such can be the case with women in certain fields. A few posts back I put up Norman Rockwell's "Rosie the Riveter" to make a point. During WWII women not only did the work, they did it WELL! They were motivated by love of their men - brothers, sons, husbands, lovers - as well as love of their country. The results were stunning. Regarding a woman as the Commander in Chief. Well, I guess we would have to start a list of those qualities that we deem important in that role. For many Americans, the person filling that position must at least have served their country as a commanding officer. (I'm not stating MY opinion per se, only what arguments have come up in the past.) I personally think that the ability to compartmentalize and separate emotion and fact is a must. I also see the that one must possess the capacity to listen to many suggestions and filter the facts from the "spin." Ok - done for now.....Fire away! I see that I made one of the same points that Rascal made- I just used more words to do it ;)

Three Pesos?

We may be women in authority - but we're NICE women in authority!