Amazon.com Widgets

European Queens Involved In More Acts Of War Than Kings:Should We Have A Woman President?

  • Yes. A woman president should be considered.

    Yes, nominating a woman as the president of the United States should be considered solely on that person's abilities and beliefs. It does much more harm to see all woman as incapable leaders just by evaluating the actions of European Queens, who do not carry the same legislative powers as U.S. presidents. The history of a few faulty incidents of feminine leadership should not hinder the opportunity to elect an intelligent, caring individuals into higher authoritative positions based on their gender.

  • We should have women presidents.

    I honestly can not support an argument stating that a female would be worse than a male in any career. I do realize that the chemistries are different, and psychology women obviously think differently than men. Honestly we are never really going to know until we have a female president. Also, since every individual is different, one bad female president will mean nothing.

  • The monarchies wield power differently

    Comparing any given position to another is a flawed premise. Simply because one woman or man in a given position reacted a particular way is not reason to assume that allow those in the same position would respond in an identical manner. We have been subjected to plenty of acts of war by previous male presidents, how could it be worse simply because a woman holds the job? It is really quite an occupational hazard.

  • No we should not

    Sorry Ladies but running a country is a man's job apparently. If we want to give peace a chance, then we can't do the same for women. The proof is in the pudding. I personally do not want to be involved in more acts of war, so keep the broads away


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.