Question of the Day | 05/22/2008 12:00 am

Would you feel safe with a woman as commander in chief? Why or why not?

Read more about: Ann Richards, Election, Military, U.S.

364 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Kevin, It is not just THAT or another culture. Men everywhere feel superior to women, which is a form of disrespect. Please read Jane Juska’s thoughtful, “Unaccompanied Women.” Thanks.

By Kay Weeks on 05/22/2008 7:56 am

e-mail alert

Is it disrespect or is it just what it is. Any organization that requires physical fitness requirements such as the military. they are higher for men than they are for women. In our culture it is more acceptable for women to stay home, while there spouse works than if it were the other way around. This also works in reverse, There are some things that women do that are better than men. To be completely honest as a man, I would rather, when I turn on the news in the morning, the first thing I see is a beautiful woman than some other man.

By Kevin W on 05/22/2008 8:12 am

e-mail alert

See, it is beauty rather than knowledge or trust, or respect. Do you think men are progammed (genetically) to DO, while women are progammed to NURTURE? Our country could use some nurturing…not always in a war posture. Are men afraid of a woman in (er) control, do you think? Wome in other countries are made heads of state—look at Thatcher? Very feminine, very strong. What is the problem with a female President? I mean, for you, personally. Men cook, men garden, men create beautiful art; women pilot airplanes, women do karate; women are tougher than you think.

By Kay Weeks on 05/22/2008 8:16 am

e-mail alert

Does it even matter who the news anchor is, there is a producer telling them what they can talk about. They have a team, a large team of both men and woman getting the facts for that news anchor. Being as the news anchor is not much more than a mouth piece for the company all that is required for them is to speak clearly. Once again as a guy when I wake up first thing in the morning I wake up happier hearing the sound of a womans voice I find it more relaxing. Now to answer your question do I believe that men and woman are programed differently. It is proven that the chemical testosterone is proven to be more aggressive than estrogen. In the latest studies on video games, which tend to be more violent it has been proven that men show more activity in the reward areas of the brain than women. To be fair the study was done with a non violent video game. I would be willing to bet if there was a study done you would see those reward areas in the brain would be more active in woman. Even though women do do karate, do you believe that she will be able successfully compete with a man at the same level of training and skill?

By Kevin W on 05/22/2008 8:52 am

e-mail alert

Deni is right—Evolve! Your comments are totally disrespectful to all the men and women who are serving our country and who have lost their lives doing so. Women are police officers, fire fighters, soldiers and risk their lives everyday to protect even the small-minded among us.

By Brooklyn Gal on 05/22/2008 12:35 pm

e-mail alert

Mr.W, This testosterone based aggressive edge you tout for the male species in addition to the little brain buzz they achieve with violence (as evidenced by video game performance effects on PET scan I imagine?); would you share with me what positive benefit this brings to a resume? Do you think it might be time to reallocate power from the brawn to the brain as I’m not sure the current distribution is serving our evolution? That is a legitimate question not rhetorical. Please feel free to give your take on it. Lastly, to address the question of a woman’s ability to compete with a man successfully, I have watched “tiny” women single handedly drag drunken husbands at least twice their size out the door of a pub and navigate them into the back seat of the car while in their state of humiliation and anger knock over tables, chairs and a sundry of other drunken men (or just the nosy ones) on the way out. And they didn’t even break a sweat…

By T S on 05/22/2008 8:30 pm

e-mail alert

Evolve.

By Deni G on 05/22/2008 11:08 am

e-mail alert

Evolve.

By kermie b on 05/22/2008 2:40 pm

e-mail alert

This is silly, Kevin. The male leaders constantly put us at risk in ways that women would be more careful. The Bay of Pigs mess brought us to the brink of nuclear war with Russia, for example. Any women who is the commander in chief of the largest arsenal in the world will command respect just ipso facto. Don’t you see, the only reason the majority of the world even talks to Pres Bush is that reason. Otherwise they wouldn’t give him the time of day because they neither like, trust nor respect him. So imagine how much more powerful a woman would be in taht position. It is circular thinking that you are doing. You like to feel that you are superior in certain ways to women because it makes you feel certain things and believe certain things. But that isn’t the truth. That’s just what you believe. There are many many many many women completely competent and capable of being commander in chief, and you need to examine why you are troubled by that. That’s a war you need to fight with yourself, not with women in general. We know we are capable. You’re the one with the concern.

By Mugsy Peabody on 05/23/2008 1:46 am

e-mail alert

Kevin ! YA PIG

By immoddesta godessa on 05/23/2008 1:54 am

e-mail alert

Don’t be ridiculous! Of course I feel safe with a woman as Commander and Chief! Probably more safe! In particular with Hillary! She’s no powder puff! lol

By Valarie Brooks on 05/22/2008 7:56 am

e-mail alert

As long as men not women are the “real” fighting force of the military, yes. Margaret Thatcher, and Indira Gandhi were both females who did a good job. But what made them good leaders was they they represented all the people not just half. Unfortunately, Hillary is a “womans” candidate. A feminist from a bygone era who doesn’t speak for 50% of society. She is an “in your face” feminist who is offensive to many men. Margaret Thatcher was not like that. That is why Hillary would never win, she is unlikeable and has her own feminist agenda. Remember how in the 90’s we had “Take your daughter to work day”? Now it has been changed to take your child to work day. She really has a goal to help women and women only. I mean, come, on be real. Ask yourself an honest question. Would you vote for Hillary if she were a man? Probably not, she lies, says anything and does anything to win. Just look at how she wants to change the rules to win the nomination. She wants to include vote where she was the only one on the ballet! She was dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, because it was too dangerous for her husband? A complete fake. Also realistically, she would not be where she is if it were not for her being married to Bill. This is differant or Margaret Thatcher, she was a strong woman who stood up on her own. And also she was well liked, because she had to learn to get along with men. It is amazing how male canditates “pander” to women’s votes, while Hillary is arrogent and never attempts to speak to the “other half” of society. That has to change. Why is it acceptable that many young men are no longer going to college, the ratio is a shame to this country. Why is it acceptable that men live 6-8 years less then women? Are as many heathcare dollars being spent on prostate cancer as breast cancer? I don’t know? Why is it that in divorce cases the more men loose rights to there kids than women? Maybe a women candidate should start trying to solve the problems of all Americans, and not just one half.

By dudeasp dudeasp on 05/22/2008 7:56 am

e-mail alert

Disagree with you dude…Hillary is supported by many men, Hispanic, Black. I believe she could represent all of us and is not an intellectural visionary.

By Kay Weeks on 05/22/2008 8:20 am