Jump to content

Women in Politics


willedoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Finland's new prime minister Sanna Marin at 34 is now the world's youngest leader, being a year younger than North Korea's Kim Jong-un . The Finland government is a coalition of five parties all headed by women, with four of the five aged under 35 years old.

 

[ATTACH]50483._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

ELSBmj5XUAESKJv.thumb.jpg.73897888e77efd37285968fbf1b3276d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt all of them better politicians than the mob we have, but our female pollies don't impress me.

 

We have had state government and federal government women leaders and I cannot see them as any better than their male counterparts. They are all "Party" people.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Au Contraire... I'm very impressed with some of them.. But I don't think ALL politicians are bad people, It's mainly the party apparatchiks and their Cunning stunts and voter brain insulting slogans and wedgislation  that $#1ts me off. A lot still behave as if they are at the University Union games and pranks stage of brain and personality development. Mainly the blokes.  It's NO wonder they are not well regarded by the masses. It's a big job we expect them to do and IF they are on the take they should cop it and be dispensed with quickly, same as anybody else in a position of trust. There's about half a dozen who shouldn't be there at all.  Probably about the same % as most places. and less than many. Nev .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had great hopes for Julie Bishop, until she became foreign minister and demonstrated her lack of sense. She could have solved the Julian Assange problem, but decided not to.

 

Penny Wong appears to have a reasonable head on her shoulders, but doesn't seem to want the top job. She would surely be better leading Labor than that bloke who is there now, can't remember his name.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well she's in the Senate to start with.  The elected pollies pick the leader they think will do the best job for them and I can't think of a better way. THEY KNOW more about the Individual than we are allowed to. They have to work with whoever it is. and it's hopefully a team effort rather than some Messiah/Dictator one man band (like Trump) who is unable to be restrained or controlled at all as He's above all that (for some reason,)  Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I don't think it's that simple... the leader is generally a compromise between warring factions rather than the best person for the job.

 

Let's face it Abbott got the gig by one vote and he's not fit to lead a primary school marching band.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What nonsense to lump all women together like that. The reality is that they are as different as men. I reckon Julia was the best pm we have had, although the treatment of Assange was a negative.

 

Anyway, Julia was as different as could be from the fat lady you see buying cigarettes at the shop.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Margaret Thatcher was a woman"

 

AND went to WAR !

 

as did most female Leaders.

 

spacesailor

 

Generally in our system government an idividual does not take a country to war by themselves. Whilst Bush was the president during the gulf wars I would argue that it also required the colloboration of Chainy Rumsfeld etc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, you guys are agreeing with my point. The thing about males being war-prone was an example of the ridiculous idea that you could generalize about a whole gender.

 

Margaret Thatcher was as different from Julia as you could imagine. 

 

Here's a confession... At the time of the Falklands war, I was rooting for the Brits, and belligerant as hell. Gosh, I was wrong and silly too.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the first comments in the Black Pigeon video was that women are "biological creatures" with an underlying aim of reproducing and protecting their offspring. Equally, men are "biological creatures" with an underlying aim to have as much copulation as possible.  Females are very choosy in allowing males to mate with them. They will gravitate to the male who shows the greatest ability to provide protection for the female and the offspring. In order to maintain the relationship with her "perfect" male, the female will grant favours in a number of different ways to the male. Males, hoping to increase the number of copulations, either with the same female, or as many females they can attract, use physique as well as actual and symbolic protective behaviours to keep females in their sphere of influence.

 

Civilisation has created rules and modes of behaviour that hold the males' reproductive behaviour in check. Civilisation has also replaced physique and the more violent protective behaviours with things like wealth (which enables food and housing to be provided) and leadership. Now we live in an age where women seek out rich men, and men who can wield power (actually or apparently) on whom to grant favours. 

 

Is it any wonder then, that in societies where the members decide who are the leaders either in finance or government, certain women will make be more forward in breaking the rules governing mating behaviour with society's leaders? So Bob, Bill and Don were offered on a plate what every other male in the society wanted - copulation with more than one woman.

 

Campaigners for "Me too" and "Take back the Streets" are doing admirable work that deserves the support of all. Unfortunately, there is a coterie of women who are white-anting the goals of the campaigns.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The drive in males generally is to individually/ personally fertilise as many females as possible thereby passing on THEIR genes. The strongest sexiest monkey gets more like him around that way. That's the deal. When he loses his teeth or antlers the system brings  the next strong sexy male forward  to continue the concept of the fittest. fathering the most offspring and propagating his genes.. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too true.

 

The instincts don't change. Only the conscious interpretation changes. That's also called 'culture'.

 

Society uses a current paradigm to create social pressure (peer pressure?) Because one underlying instinct requires 'in groups'and 'out groups'. But society ignores all the underlying instincts, thus sometimes the conscious logical mind is  in conflict with instincts.

 

Instincts will always win over logic.

 

That's when societal expectations fail.

 

And individuals become victims and society looks for a scapegoat.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some societies  relate the number of wives you have with success

 

And our Society has adopted monogamy. So when a husband "plays away" it is scandalous. If a wife "plays away" it is also scandalous. But if a husband has a mistress, then in some European societies it's accepted. But if a husband jumps from bed to bed it depends on how much wealth or power he has whether his behaviour is  scandalous or accepted. Different story if the male is not married. He's just "sowing his oats".  Women are inhibited from engaging in the same "oats sowing" because the chance of pregnancy is not 100% eliminated by pills or condoms. 

 

So, while we claim to be a monogamous society, the number of sexual relationships a man is involved in is still a reward for successfully meeting some criterion of success recognised by his peers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...