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.
I figure 90% of the women that would think in authoritative definitions would have the requirements necessary to be one. Although I certainly do understand you point.
WEll I am interested still. I just haven't felt like I have had anything vital to add but have been enjoying reading the points of view that others have.
Consider that my controversial post was done last Monday, and there hadn't been any previous posts for 2 days, and that post was on page 4. Perhaps this topic is off limits on weekends for some reason.
Just for the record, I didn't intend that post to start a gender war, I intended it to "throw a curve" in the discussion. You women HAVE access to a lot of the same authority as men. I don't want to take that away from you (as if I could), I just speculated that possibly if a woman makes the committment and sacrifice required to be a full time "career woman" that then she could risk losing her affectiveness as a guardian of the home, but I never said it was automatic.
I think some of you may have responded to that post by assuming that..."he thinks a woman's place is exclusively in the home! TO ARMS, LADIES; WE'RE UNDER ATTACK!!!" (sirens blaring) Like I said, by now too much time has passed. Women have proven that they can handle a lot of the authority that was once traditionally assigned to men.
As far as Hillary goes, the idea of her being president scares me; not just cause she's a woman. She spoke at the 1996 democratic convention and said she was proud that her husband was the first president who ever said that a man should never hit a woman. Then 2 plus years later she hit her husband with a cell phone knowing that he had to go on TV an hour later. I don't want someone with that kind of temperment to have access to the launch codes, if you know what I mean.
This all now reminds me of something. During the 80s there was a SNS tape with LCM as the teacher. This is a segment of it as close as I can recall..."If you're a woman and you CAN'T be the guardian of the home, I don't care if you can run every corporation there is! You're a MORON!" Like me, he questioned whether women could be both guardian of the home AND have a serious career, but unlike me, he didn't allow the possibility that they could, or should be allowed to choose their own path. So I guess I can understand some of you women who were around in the 80s being a little trigger happy in this matter.
.........I actually think that we were doing just fine here without you returning to stir the pot again John, which I think you meant to do all along anyway.
By the way, from what I have read so far, your wife seems to be a class act with well thought out opinions. Of COURSE she would be welcomed, and her input appreciated.
Oh, I see now jeaniam that you have started posting under your own name...Welcome, welcome, I didn`t mean it to sound as if I was talking about you...lol
You make some interesting points about women in history. I think that makes the great point that we can do just about anything that we THINK we can do....
I mean wouldn`t have Elizabeth believed that she was capable because of her royal birth right? Didn`t Joan of Arc have the courage to do what she did because she believed that God called her?
Can it be the same with us when we believe that we are fully capable functioning human beings to achieve the goals and dreams that we strive for when we stop believing that we must be subjet to the vagaries of our spouses opinions?
This idea that a wife cannot make a good parent/guardian/professional, is simply another thing that holds people back from achieving their true potential in my opinion.
I understand about needing to make choices. I mean it would be difficult to be an effective parent and juggle the demands of a high demand professional career, but is it not equally so for either parent?
I know some families where the wife is as instrumental in her professional career as her spouse, they share the responsibility of home and kids, the husband actually takes on the lions share of the cleaning and much of the child care.
They make it work because they believe that they can and ought to.
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.
Agreed, Dooj. I would have no problem with a woman president. But certainly not hilliary. Good lord almighty, she didn`t raise her child, the nannies did. She is dishonest and opportunistic.
She is NOT an example of a professional woman or parent.
I do know a woman who is an awsome mom. She is a professional that made her millions and retired at 40 to raise her family on her farm. She is also in the national guard and is more intimidating than any man I ever met when it comes to sheer bull dogged determination and intensity.
She can out do most guys physically, yet be as genteel and charming as the most sophisticated people in society.
In the case of Elizabeth I, she was the queen at a time when her role was more than merely constitutional. She had a great deal more actual power than her namesake, but I have read that she believed that her role as leader meant serving her subjects (he that would be chief among you shall be servant of all). In both the cases of Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc, you have women who sacrificed the feminine side of their personalities to fulfill the destiny they believed God had called them to (i.e. neither one of them ever married or had children). In the cases of Victoria and Elizabeth 2, you have women whose roles in the world put them in positions of authority over their husbands (for example they are required to swear oaths of loyalty to them, walk several steps behind them on state occasions, etc.), but each of them were married to men who expected to be in charge of their own households, to wear the pants in the family, so to speak. And, yes doojable, the royal family continues by bloodline not election.
I'm not sure that a female president needs any other qualities to be successful than a man does; i.e. intelligence, a good education, natural leadership abilities, good political savvy, and, possibly most important of all, a good set of advisors.
As far as Hillary goes, the idea of her being president scares me; not just cause she's a woman. She spoke at the 1996 democratic convention and said she was proud that her husband was the first president who ever said that a man should never hit a woman. Then 2 plus years later she hit her husband with a cell phone knowing that he had to go on TV an hour later. I don't want someone with that kind of temperment to have access to the launch codes, if you know what I mean.
I think the answer is simple enough, just don't have Bill on staff, and have the secret service follow him about, to keep him from giving her a reason to hit the red button..
I'm beginning to think authority has to be given to ourselves by ourselves before we can have it over another. Or in other words we have to believe in ourselves and our ability before we can ask another to believe in us also. Authority given in a work place isn't our personal choice. You work there, you give respect to the one in authority. But in personal things we earn or give ourselves the right to have authority.
I thought this was an awsome point Kathy, but just now figured out how to do the *quote* thingee.
That was a lesson I have had to learn the hard way since leaving twi and having to break out of the mold that was designed for us as women.
I thought the forums were a place were all the members were allowed to express their points of view, even my husband without receiving "flak", nor do I agree that he deserves it. Some of the posters seem determined to read negatives into his posts that he didn't intend.
This is an awsome forum for presenting ones point of view, with the freedom also to disagree...shrug. Some folks cannot handle that and view that as a personal attack. Generally if you are respectfull though, that is how you are treated. If you want to address any more personal issues, how about we to address those in private as I do not want to once again derail this otherwise excellent thread.
You make some excellent points. You and I ought to both contain our comments to the topic at hand.
quote: .........I actually think that we were doing just fine here without you returning to stir the pot again John, which I think you meant to do all along anyway.
quote: Jean, don`t tell me what to do, or whom to address
Anybody else see some inconsistency here? Rascal, don't tell ME what to do or what not to do.
quote: just don't have Bill on staff, and have the secret service follow him about, to keep him from giving her a reason to hit the red button..
So her unstable tendencies are Bill's fault? What else would she possibly blame stuff on? Personally I think they feed off each other.
quote: As to Hillary.....I for one would like to discuss a woman in the White House without always returning to her.
Yeah, but Hillary actually has a shot at it. No woman before her has. Edith Wilson functioned as pres during her husband's last year or so (any communication to or from him was through her) and THAT'S when women got the right to vote . But any talk of a woman president without a real life candidate is basically theology. She actually might win.
We could start a why I hate John or rascal really is a doody head thread, we could take this private, any of which is more appropriate than to continue to make this particular thread personal.
Forum ettiquette and all of that you know?
Nothing personal, but I am putting you two on ignore in order for me to avoid the temptation to continue in a de rail.
Back to the point of women juggling parent/guardian/professional. I will say as a single parent this is hard. I don't think I could handle any more authority in my life than I currently have. Sometimes I wish it would stop. I know now, why God made it a man and a woman that work together to raise the kids and manage the household. It's hard as hell to do it yourself. But the beauty of the makeup of a woman is that she is equipped with that ability to multi-task which helps in managing it all if that is what is necessary.
This weekend was one of those weekends where I wanted to relinquish all authority and live in my Van down by the river. So in considering my melt downs as I am bombarded with all my pressure, I don't have a problem with a woman in office that had nanny's help her with her children. That arrangement would leave her open to be able to focus on the important matters of state. On the other hand I wouldn't want to see that woman totally neglect the parental relationship between herself and her children all together either. It's a balance.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
68
41
19
Popular Days
Mar 26
41
Mar 21
35
Mar 14
33
Mar 22
29
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 26 posts
ChattyKathy 68 posts
FreeAtLast 41 posts
QuietThinker 19 posts
Popular Days
Mar 26 2007
41 posts
Mar 21 2007
35 posts
Mar 14 2007
33 posts
Mar 22 2007
29 posts
ChattyKathy
I figure 90% of the women that would think in authoritative definitions would have the requirements necessary to be one. Although I certainly do understand you point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Oh well - this thread died..... too bad.....
I still think we missed the most important points
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Why do you think the thread died?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I guess I thought that everyone lost interest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeAtLast
WEll I am interested still. I just haven't felt like I have had anything vital to add but have been enjoying reading the points of view that others have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I am also but don't have my thoughts of what a female President needs although I've mentioned a couple things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Why do you think the thread died?
Ain't dead! Just off for the weekend.
Consider that my controversial post was done last Monday, and there hadn't been any previous posts for 2 days, and that post was on page 4. Perhaps this topic is off limits on weekends for some reason.
Just for the record, I didn't intend that post to start a gender war, I intended it to "throw a curve" in the discussion. You women HAVE access to a lot of the same authority as men. I don't want to take that away from you (as if I could), I just speculated that possibly if a woman makes the committment and sacrifice required to be a full time "career woman" that then she could risk losing her affectiveness as a guardian of the home, but I never said it was automatic.
I think some of you may have responded to that post by assuming that..."he thinks a woman's place is exclusively in the home! TO ARMS, LADIES; WE'RE UNDER ATTACK!!!" (sirens blaring) Like I said, by now too much time has passed. Women have proven that they can handle a lot of the authority that was once traditionally assigned to men.
As far as Hillary goes, the idea of her being president scares me; not just cause she's a woman. She spoke at the 1996 democratic convention and said she was proud that her husband was the first president who ever said that a man should never hit a woman. Then 2 plus years later she hit her husband with a cell phone knowing that he had to go on TV an hour later. I don't want someone with that kind of temperment to have access to the launch codes, if you know what I mean.
This all now reminds me of something. During the 80s there was a SNS tape with LCM as the teacher. This is a segment of it as close as I can recall..."If you're a woman and you CAN'T be the guardian of the home, I don't care if you can run every corporation there is! You're a MORON!" Like me, he questioned whether women could be both guardian of the home AND have a serious career, but unlike me, he didn't allow the possibility that they could, or should be allowed to choose their own path. So I guess I can understand some of you women who were around in the 80s being a little trigger happy in this matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
.........I actually think that we were doing just fine here without you returning to stir the pot again John, which I think you meant to do all along anyway.
By the way, from what I have read so far, your wife seems to be a class act with well thought out opinions. Of COURSE she would be welcomed, and her input appreciated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Oh, I see now jeaniam that you have started posting under your own name...Welcome, welcome, I didn`t mean it to sound as if I was talking about you...lol
You make some interesting points about women in history. I think that makes the great point that we can do just about anything that we THINK we can do....
I mean wouldn`t have Elizabeth believed that she was capable because of her royal birth right? Didn`t Joan of Arc have the courage to do what she did because she believed that God called her?
Can it be the same with us when we believe that we are fully capable functioning human beings to achieve the goals and dreams that we strive for when we stop believing that we must be subjet to the vagaries of our spouses opinions?
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
This idea that a wife cannot make a good parent/guardian/professional, is simply another thing that holds people back from achieving their true potential in my opinion.
I understand about needing to make choices. I mean it would be difficult to be an effective parent and juggle the demands of a high demand professional career, but is it not equally so for either parent?
I know some families where the wife is as instrumental in her professional career as her spouse, they share the responsibility of home and kids, the husband actually takes on the lions share of the cleaning and much of the child care.
They make it work because they believe that they can and ought to.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Agreed, Dooj. I would have no problem with a woman president. But certainly not hilliary. Good lord almighty, she didn`t raise her child, the nannies did. She is dishonest and opportunistic.
She is NOT an example of a professional woman or parent.
I do know a woman who is an awsome mom. She is a professional that made her millions and retired at 40 to raise her family on her farm. She is also in the national guard and is more intimidating than any man I ever met when it comes to sheer bull dogged determination and intensity.
She can out do most guys physically, yet be as genteel and charming as the most sophisticated people in society.
We gals CAN do it, we just have to believe it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
In the case of Elizabeth I, she was the queen at a time when her role was more than merely constitutional. She had a great deal more actual power than her namesake, but I have read that she believed that her role as leader meant serving her subjects (he that would be chief among you shall be servant of all). In both the cases of Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc, you have women who sacrificed the feminine side of their personalities to fulfill the destiny they believed God had called them to (i.e. neither one of them ever married or had children). In the cases of Victoria and Elizabeth 2, you have women whose roles in the world put them in positions of authority over their husbands (for example they are required to swear oaths of loyalty to them, walk several steps behind them on state occasions, etc.), but each of them were married to men who expected to be in charge of their own households, to wear the pants in the family, so to speak. And, yes doojable, the royal family continues by bloodline not election.
I'm not sure that a female president needs any other qualities to be successful than a man does; i.e. intelligence, a good education, natural leadership abilities, good political savvy, and, possibly most important of all, a good set of advisors.
And BTW, rascal, stop picking on my husband.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Jean, don`t tell me what to do, or whom to address. John is a big boy and earns the flack that he recieves. What transpires between us is between us.
Otherwise, I agree with your post entirely. You make some excellent points, and I admire your grasp and understanding of history.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think the answer is simple enough, just don't have Bill on staff, and have the secret service follow him about, to keep him from giving her a reason to hit the red button..
She may make a good president, you never know..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I thought this was an awsome point Kathy, but just now figured out how to do the *quote* thingee.
That was a lesson I have had to learn the hard way since leaving twi and having to break out of the mold that was designed for us as women.
lmao hamm, you sir are brilliant!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I thought the forums were a place were all the members were allowed to express their points of view, even my husband without receiving "flak", nor do I agree that he deserves it. Some of the posters seem determined to read negatives into his posts that he didn't intend.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
This is an awsome forum for presenting ones point of view, with the freedom also to disagree...shrug. Some folks cannot handle that and view that as a personal attack. Generally if you are respectfull though, that is how you are treated. If you want to address any more personal issues, how about we to address those in private as I do not want to once again derail this otherwise excellent thread.
You make some excellent points. You and I ought to both contain our comments to the topic at hand.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: .........I actually think that we were doing just fine here without you returning to stir the pot again John, which I think you meant to do all along anyway.
quote: Jean, don`t tell me what to do, or whom to address
Anybody else see some inconsistency here? Rascal, don't tell ME what to do or what not to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: just don't have Bill on staff, and have the secret service follow him about, to keep him from giving her a reason to hit the red button..
So her unstable tendencies are Bill's fault? What else would she possibly blame stuff on? Personally I think they feed off each other.
quote: As to Hillary.....I for one would like to discuss a woman in the White House without always returning to her.
Yeah, but Hillary actually has a shot at it. No woman before her has. Edith Wilson functioned as pres during her husband's last year or so (any communication to or from him was through her) and THAT'S when women got the right to vote
. But any talk of a woman president without a real life candidate is basically theology. She actually might win.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
We could start a why I hate John or rascal really is a doody head thread, we could take this private, any of which is more appropriate than to continue to make this particular thread personal.
Forum ettiquette and all of that you know?
Nothing personal, but I am putting you two on ignore in order for me to avoid the temptation to continue in a de rail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeAtLast
Back to the point of women juggling parent/guardian/professional. I will say as a single parent this is hard. I don't think I could handle any more authority in my life than I currently have. Sometimes I wish it would stop. I know now, why God made it a man and a woman that work together to raise the kids and manage the household. It's hard as hell to do it yourself. But the beauty of the makeup of a woman is that she is equipped with that ability to multi-task which helps in managing it all if that is what is necessary.
This weekend was one of those weekends where I wanted to relinquish all authority and live in my Van down by the river. So in considering my melt downs as I am bombarded with all my pressure, I don't have a problem with a woman in office that had nanny's help her with her children. That arrangement would leave her open to be able to focus on the important matters of state. On the other hand I wouldn't want to see that woman totally neglect the parental relationship between herself and her children all together either. It's a balance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I don't have time to catch up fully but quick glance makes me think we need a mud wrestling room. :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeAtLast
Someone should start a mud wrestling forum. lol. CK you are a hoot.
By the way I broke 500 posts today. After about 5 years out here I finally broke 500 posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.