The Beauty Of Truth - by bruce potter

[ February 2010 ] [ April 2010 ]

The Beauty Of Truth - March 2010

More Female World Leaders 3

March 31st 2010 12:16

The Agony and the Apathy

Okay, I'll get myself away from this topic soon I swear, and back to the really important stuff like what's the deal with online dating?

But for now, let's tackle the larger issue.

More women in power and sooner, but when? Is Julia Gillard going to be the first Australian female prime minister? Why not? She's certainly closer than anybody in government, and certainly closer than anybody from the opposition.

I have a certain awkwardness with her cadence and diction. She always seems to be speaking like she's addressing a fourth grade class. Now - - - then - - - I'm - - - the ---- Deputy - - - Prime - - - - Minister - - - - so - - - - sit - - - - down - - - and - - - - pay - - - - attention.

But from most angles she seems to be well informed and moderate and an entirely safe bet. It would be good if people could stop commenting on her hair. Naturally, nobody comments on Kevin Rudd's hair. And her outfits seem to get a good deal of attention. But nobody ever comments on Rudd's suits. That is the world she's entered and she seems to be coping fairly well.

Those comments about her appearance seem to come mostly from other women. And this relates to my earlier point. If women are going to succeed in business and politics, women have to judge them for what they stand for, not for what they wear.

When Hilary Clinton made her presidential run, there was far more commentary about her pants suits, then her policy on the middle east.

As for the scariest woman to ever enter public life – Sarah Palin, so many people commented on how attractive she was, before they noticed that her policies rendered her not unlike the daughter of satan.

Women are by and large, far more humanitarian and far more considerate then men. They are far more in touch with themselves and others emotionally. This, for me, makes them far more attractive a proposition as political leaders. I doubt very much if Condaleeza Rice had have been US President she would have been so willing to rush headlong into wars without end. She would never have said such great Bushisms as “Wanted: Dead or Alive,” or “The Axis Of Evil.”

It is probably only Margret Thatcher who is a female leader of recent times to lead her nation into war, in the Falkland Islands.

It is troubling to note that in researching this post, women have mostly agreed with my view, but are resigned to the situation being beyond repair. Or they have just been plain uninterested. As usual apathy is the status quo's greatest ally.

So for the future of world peace how about more women get involved in politics? For is there is to be a future, it is to be with some greater measure of world peace than we currently abide.

Vote

Comments (1)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: bruce potter - Category: Relationships

Email this Post to a Friend

More Female World Leaders 2

March 30th 2010 12:11

Women earn 79c for every dollar a man earns. This is the bald reality that faces women the world over and it's wrong. But what can be done about it? How does it relate to more female world leaders? Allow me throw some new light through old windows.

If there is one sure way to achieve real equality in the workplace, it is for women to not just get close to the decision making process, but to become it. If there was a female President in every one of the 192 member nations of the UN, then there would be probably be wage equality in the workplace. Easier said than done.

If every Supreme Court Judge was female, then there'd probably be wage equality in the workplace. Easier said than done.

If there was a female boss in every work situation, as a pre-determination, then there'd probably be wage equality in the workplace. Easier said than done.

But why not? As noted before, with 57% of the world's population, women have the numbers in almost situation.

So what is it?

Well, one thing that it might be, and this is hopefully going to raise some ire and rankle some feathers, when I'm standing in the queue at the supermarket and have no choice but to look the covers of women's magazines, I don't see too many articles suggesting a stronger way forward for women in the workplace.
I don't see articles on how to use the numerical imperative of 57% to get a better deal.

I see “How Tiger Cheated” and how “Sandra's husband is a scumbag”, and the great new “Mango Diet” and “How to be a better lover”!

Now, far be it for me to suggest that women's magazines are a general rule for what all women are thinking. Far be it for me to believe that this is all women are worried about. But clearly some women are, because they wouldn't sell any of these wonderful publications if they weren't.

So where to from here? How about everybody stops caring about what cheating husband did what with whom? I don't care. And I don't think caring about this crap is going to get you elected to anything anytime soon, or get you a raise anytime soon.

The Papparazzi industry has never been stronger or bolder or more intrusive. So let's vote
with our feet. No photo taken by a papparozzo will ever be looked at or clicked on or swooned over or purchased, and suddenly they're out of business.

This has been a particularly unfocused rambling turd of a post, but I do have a point; we should have more female world leaders and female managers and wage equality because I firmly believe that would make the world a better place.

But I can't help thinking a significant impediment to women's progress in almost every area may just be women themselves.

What do you think?

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: bruce potter - Category: Relationships

Email this Post to a Friend

More Female World Leaders

March 18th 2010 00:53

I have no doubts that if it were President Georgina Bush, Prime Minister Antonia Blair
and Prime Minister Janette Howard, then we wouldn't be immersed in this fool's errand of wars that will never end in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's clear that women are far better at conflict resolution than men. I just think there may be a couple of coldish wars going on.

Political idealogies were described once as follows: A right wing approach is like having your father in charge – very strong on security; strong on discipline in law and order; but fairly loose economically. A left wing approach is like having your mother in charge – very strong on health, strong on education, very sensible with money, but not too concerned with defence.

Leading from that, if women world leaders were more common place it stands to reason that we would have very few wars being waged; we'd be very well placed for universal health care and everybody would have an opportunity to get the best education they desire.

I made the observation at a dinner party recently that it was troubling that the average 12 year old girl was much more likely to know who Paris Hilton was than who Gloria Arroyo was. A girl who perhaps belongs to generation Y, and who will remain nameless, looked a little puzzled, and asked why I thought it was important that 12 year old girls should know the identity of the lead singer of the Miami Sound Machine rather than Paris Hilton. Enough said.

That Gloria Arroyo can be President of the Philippines and be that country's second female president, shows that some countries have all ready embraced the idea of female leadership. Angela Merkel of Germany, and the recently deposed President of Chile Michelle Bachelet show other countries are ready to have mum in charge.

Robin Williams once said that women should be in power all over the world, that way there'd be no wars – just every 28 days you'd have really intense negotiations.

Taking Robin's lead, imagine the United Nations General Assembly with entirely female ambassadors. 192 women jammed into one room for weeks at a time decided the measure of world peace as we know it. Me thinks there would some time before resolutions would be achieved. But there would be very few calls for military action.

And I think that quite a number of countries would be involved in long periods of silence. There'd be no conventional weapons of mass destruction; just the deadliest known to all women – the silent treatment. It wouldn't be long held religious differences keeping countries apart. It might be more that Sweden aren't talking to Austria for some fifteen years because of something the Austrian Ambassador said about Sweden's shoes. And military action might be considered between Yemen and Libya because of the “regrowth” remark.

But seriously, women should be in power for one obvious reason – you've got the numbers. 54% of Australia's population and 57% of the world's population is female. By any measure that is the majority.

The darker side of it is that of those 192 UN member nations, two thirds are “developing”
countries. By “Developing” read poor; by poor read the oppression of women, because that is the reality of poor countries the world over.

So to solve the world's greater problems let's get more women in power. We'd be much closer to having an active reasoned policy for climate change for all nations.

And as can be witnessed in so many regions, men aren't exactly getting any of the problems fixed in a hurry.

What do you think?

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: bruce potter - Category: Relationships

Email this Post to a Friend

1 Posts

3 Posts

1 Posts