|
|
#1 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
Will America become a matriarchal society? Thoughts on this would be appreciated, this is just my theory, take no notice if you don't agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
This is a custom title.
|
No it won't.
Proof: Hyenas. Edit: Oh...CT... No, I don't think a woman president will instantly change the role of women in our society. It seems like a far-fetched notion because there is a difference between a society being matriarchal and having female leaders. I mean, Iran is run by men but it's a matriarchal society.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Resident One-Hander
|
I do not necessarily believe that. American society has been patriarchal as a whole since we moved here, and this was brought over by the people from Europe/Britain who migrated here many, many years ago. Their cultures still live within us today, even if we aren't all pious and religious, and part of that is that the male typically dominates.
Now it is true that many matriarchal societies from the past were dominated by men, but that was a historical trend in that women had ruled for many years before that. America is historically a patriarchal society, and while a female leader may inspire women to take roles of power, it doesn't imply that America could radically shift from patriarchism to matriarchism. Women have been fighting for equal/feminine rule for over 100 years since the beginnings of the feminist movements, it won't suddenly change now. Hillary Clinton is not an overlord. She can't force all of America into becoming dominated by women, even if she can appoint more female leaders then male based on gender. But that is blatant sexism that could destroy her potential to be re-elected if profound enough. America's traditions are habit, and habits ingrained into society as a whole take a very long time to undo. ~Bynary fission |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
And far more to the point, if history has shown us anything it is that -most- women (not all, I point to Indira Gandhi primarily as a counterexample) who become state leaders do so by emulating men as much as they can. Thatcher is a good case example of this, and I don't think Clinton is any different.
She has the political ruthlessness, ambition and drive that we more commonly associate with men, and she's generally just assumed she would get the female vote, and done very little to cater to it. That's just smart though since most women -would- vote for her simply because she was a woman so she needs to spend her time convincing men to vote for her even though she's a woman. In order to have a matriarchal society that is actually matriarchal, you need to have women in a majority if not monopoly of positions of authority. A woman president is nothing without a predominantly female senate, house, and supreme court. None of those institutions are even remotely representative of a female majority let alone female domination, so even if we assumed that Clinton would try to move things in that direction, she would just fail miserably. As a moderation note: rzr "if A happened would B happen?" isn't something that can be "your theory" unless you explain -why- you think B would happen, and what might lead to it. You need to actually describe your own position before you can ask people to respond to it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
FFR Player
|
i think if she got elected it would be somewhat of a turning point in our history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Please to explain -why- we believe what we believe when we post in Critical Thinking.
Why a turning point? Turning to what that is new? Is this a good thing or bad thing to you? |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
FFR Veteran
|
Am I the only person who thinks that Xinpig has the posting knowledge of an 8 year old?
__________________
FUS RO DAH! |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
The Chill Keeper
|
Quote:
In answer to the subject at hand: My personal thoughts on the subject would have to be no. Our society as a whole has been a patriarch since we were founded. While our president would be female, most of the government is most certainly not. It would maintain the status of a patriarch. I do, however, believe that should she become our president, the perception of how women do in a government position will be swayed greatly. Condoleezza Rice is a good example of my point here. She gained government position and was very popular. Her decisions were almost always widely supported. If Clinton does well in office it will help gain respect towards women in office. If she does poorly, It may effect this viewpoint in a negative way and do a lot of damage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12
|
Quote:
However, in the long term, Clinton could potentially bring around a shift to women and American politics in general if she is elected president. It is possible that more and more females would be interested in politics in general if Clinton was elected. You can argue that she is not a person who can motivate others, and I'm sure there will be some who say that the only reason she has managed to get this far is because of her name. Nevertheless, the first woman coming into the presidency would still likely inspire a lot of other females who might find themselves in public office someday. However, this is only assuming that Clinton would have a successful presidency. A poor showing by Hillary in office could mean that a lot of women become turned off by politics as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Even though there is a vagina underneath those pants of her's, Clinton is still a politician, and politicians are asexual beings in the eyes of the public so long as they keep their junk in their pants (eyeroll).
Maybe it's just me, but until this thread, I never once thought about the sex lives of our elected leaders outside the context of the Clinton scandal. But in all seriousness, until either women have the ability to open their own jars without whining about breaking their fingernails, or staple foodstuffs cease to be bottled in jars, men will always be in-charge of this country (ps. I'm only kind of being serious, I know a few girls who are quite capable of opening their own jars, but I suspect that might be because they are lesbians). |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05howley.html
__________________
last.fm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cary, NC
Age: 26
Posts: 695
|
Please read this:
http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...ad.php?t=89321 I just thought it would be appropriate for this topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Frau Bow
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kansas
Age: 30
Posts: 9,200
|
I think america is ready for a female president. I just dont think america is ready for hillary clinton. Even if she ends up being a good president people will be more paranoid about the fact thats shes hillary clinton then worrying about things that matter.
__________________
Join SMO IRC. irc.rizon.net#smo |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
If Clinton is elected she will single-handedly destroy the women's political movements achievements. The thing is, no matter who becomes the president next, Bush has run us so far into the ground they president will come off as just as stupid, simply because they can't fix his problems in the 4 years they'll have. I say 4 years because if my theory is correct America won't reelect the next president.
So if Clinton is elected, and my theory is correct, she'll look like an idiot trying to fix her predecessors mistakes and knowing ve public they would view it as "Well, we let women in office and this is what happened. Let's not do that again." |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I think (though I'd often joke this wasn't possible) that you may be overestimating the alleged stupidity of american voters. I think the majority who are dissatisfied with the Bush administration understand that it isn't going to be a magic bullet to elect someone else, and that so many things are in motion that they can't simply be undone by the incoming president.
If the next president sets a hard timetable for withdrawl from Iraq, tones down some of the more horrific abuses of the Patriot Acts 1 and 2, cuts a few billion from defense spending to not run such a large deficit, and maybe for the first time in its history, declare a green or blue terror alert level, that will be enough to satisfy most Americans that the problems are being worked at. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
Withdrawing from Iraq would literally be the stupidest possible thing the next American president could do. If we leave (we meaning Americans) that's just telling the Middle Eastern people to attack us with even less of a defense because we'd have no knowledge of the coming attack.
Now, devonin, I'm not saying the American voters are stupid. What I am saying is that the people behind the presidential campaigns are more intelligent than they average joe, and can really easily manipulate the thoughts and possible ever morals of the public. That's how certain presidents got into office to begin with i.e. Nixon, Bush himself, Clinton (somewhat, he was very beneficial to the American economy). |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Wow. You've completely bought into the Bush doctrine on Iraq. Leaving is ABSOLUTELY VITAL. The longer America sits there as an occupying force, the more they radicalize people in the area. They being there is encouraging more people to become more apt to want to attack them than leaving ever would.
You know how many of the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq? None You know how many were connected to Iraq? None Why on earth would them leaving Iraq make them have "no knowledge of the coming attack" when NONE of the attacks have had ANYTHING to do with Iraq? If the next US president doesn't set a hard timetable for withdrawl from Iraq, that is when you are going to be in severe trouble. Also, Clinton was in my estimation one of the best things to happen to America's presidency in decades. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
No, actually I haven't payed any attention to the Bush doctrine. What I'm saying is, we hardly got the Taliban out of Iraq and Kuwait. If we leave they WILL just come back. And if they come back they may end up doing the same thing Saddam did. Actually, they would most likely secure their territory by attacking us.
However, even if the Taliban don't return, there's no doubt that hostile Iraqis will attack America. And if there is no American troop or intelligence there we would have no knowledge of a coming attack. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 | |||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
The same Taliban that the US didn't distance itself from until 1997? As in 6 years AFTER the gulf war? As in "while the US was involved in Kuwaiti affairs, they were SUPPORTING the Taliban in the hopes of stabilizing Afghanistan? Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|