When you think about it when all men are in charge of political affairs, they have brought us two major world wars resulting in over 100 million deaths in the past 100 years, not to mention all the other wars and genocide they have done.
Men also tend to be far more apt to government corruption than women are.
With a healthy balance of gender to bring a different perspective and attitude can help improve politics and social affairs. Do you agree?
Do you think every president cabinet of your country should be 50% women based on merit and should there be more women involved in politics?
Disagree strongly. Some of the most hawkish, pro-war, corrupt people in government are women: Hillary Clinton (war in Libya was her initiative to help banker friends), Pelosi (son got rich in Ukraine like Hunter Biden), Victoria Nuland (the architect of the Ukraine catastrophe), Madeleine Albright (“What good are all these bombs and missiles if we don’t use them?”), Liz Truss (an absolute harridan who urged young men in the UK to go to Ukraine). It is all easy for women to send men to war. They never have to go to to the front.
Exactly. My point is that the warmongering is not really because people are men or women. It is because our oligarchy are neoliberal and neoconservative globalists, none of whom will ever risk sending themselves or their children to war. They view constant agitation as a way to force the rest of the world into dependency on Western financial institutions, from which they can be pillaged and controlled. The women in this corrupt elite are just as hawkish as the men.
It's a small field of female politicians. Throughout history as well as now. So your argument about men starting wars is a hard sell to me, since there really isn't a controlled study to base it on. Also, I would say female politicians are just as corrupt, again, based on the numbers. Hilary Clinton, Stacy Abrams, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren... We all know how quotas work, don't we? Enter Kamala Harris.
By the way, I'm all for more women getting involved in politics but don't call me sexist because I don't agree with their politics and don't call the ones I support a "sell out".
I read the question and my immediate reaction was "feck no!" Healthy balance of gender? It's BS. Nothing should be based on this. Things should be based on talent and experience and skills. Not gender, nor race. I wouldn't care of the president of my country was a reptilian if they can govern the country with the interests of the common people.
I'm not native English, for me what you are saying is that every cabinet should be 50% women, on merit or not, if you put 50%, it is not merit anymore but quota because there might be men who would be better qualified but because of the 50% they can't be part of the cabinet. This is how I read what you are saying. If I'm wrong, just discard what I said.
Since there are more women in the world than men. It might actually help us to move forward in creating a constituency consider gender based issues. But it's imperative councillors remain impartial. Since it's for the greater good and development
All you have to do is look at the so called squad to find your answer. I cannot imagine a more incompetent, corrupt and morally bankrupt group of people and it is frightening that they found enough people to vote for them.
so... forced diversity? I don't think so. It's more important that the people be qualified and have morals than what's between their legs to me. Prime example is this new fool taking over for Jen Ballsacki. I've heard "she's qualified" but ALL they really tell us is she's the first openly gay black women to hold the position--which I don't give two shits about. But seemingly, THOSE are her qualifications because that's literally all that gets discussed about her.
No! Even though there are a few very bright an capable women, women should be excluded from voting and politics since there is no way to only select the best and the average of those voting and in politics are much worse then the average of men.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Queen Victoria famously never invaded a single country and massacred the people there. Not one.
No it should be based on qualification I will always go for qualifications over demographics when I apply for a job I never state my gender my race or the fact I have autism on the application. I do not think it should matter
no, women have the wrong ideas about how to run things. and you can't have reserved spots for X group and still be fully merit based. because you limited the pool.
a woman's skillset tends to be more micro level, emotional wellbeing of kids, nurturing roles. they often but not always lack the skillset to be leaders or longterm planners of macro level enterprises. it's just biology.
plus if you reserve 50% of a cabinet for them you are squeezing out more qualified men. you can't reserve seats and give those seats to teh best person at any given time. or you wouldn't need to reserve the seat.
Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton prove ur point is 100% wrong. I see u just like make up facts left and right. U should consider not doing that for the sake of academic Integrity.
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > Do you think every president cabinet of your country should be 50% women based on merit and should there be more women involved in politics?
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
