BBC: "Obama: Women are better leaders than men."

[Testadura]

Interesting and provocative.  Will generate much-needed debate, especially up at Drake's Bay.  Cenk said that he doesn't agree.    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50805822

"If women ran every country in the world there would be a general improvement in living standards and outcomes, former US President Barack Obama has said.

"Speaking in Singapore, he said women aren't perfect, but are 'indisputably better' than men.

"He said most of the problems in the world came from old people, mostly men, holding onto positions of power.

"He also spoke about political polarisation and the use of social media to spread falsehoods.

"Speaking at a private event on leadership, Mr Obama said while in office he had mused what a world run by women would look like.

"'Now women, I just want you to know; you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is that you're better than us [men].'

"'I'm absolutely confident that for two years if every nation on earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything... living standards and outcomes.'

"When asked if he would ever consider going back into political leadership, he said he believed in leaders stepping aside when the time came.

"'If you look at the world and look at the problems it's usually old people, usually old men, not getting out of the way,' he said."

[HSFBfan]

5 minutes ago, Testadura said:

Interesting and provocative.  Will generate much-needed debate, especially up at Drake's Bay.  Cenk said that he doesn't agree.    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50805822

"If women ran every country in the world there would be a general improvement in living standards and outcomes, former US President Barack Obama has said.

"Speaking in Singapore, he said women aren't perfect, but are 'indisputably better' than men.

"He said most of the problems in the world came from old people, mostly men, holding onto positions of power.

"He also spoke about political polarisation and the use of social media to spread falsehoods.

"Speaking at a private event on leadership, Mr Obama said while in office he had mused what a world run by women would look like.

"'Now women, I just want you to know; you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is that you're better than us [men].'

"'I'm absolutely confident that for two years if every nation on earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything... living standards and outcomes.'

"When asked if he would ever consider going back into political leadership, he said he believed in leaders stepping aside when the time came.

"'If you look at the world and look at the problems it's usually old people, usually old men, not getting out of the way,' he said."

Idk about that. England has some nasty female leaders In their history. Women are crazy. To have one as a leader is insanity. Some things in life is part of a man's world and leading countries should be in that realm

[Bormio]

2 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

Idk about that. England has some nasty female leaders In their history. Women are crazy. To have one as a leader is insanity. Some things in life is part of a man's world and leading countries should be in that realm

Margaret Thatcher says hello

[HSFBfan]

2 minutes ago, Bormio said:

Margaret Thatcher says hello

Yeah yr always going to find one that was good but again I keep my position. It's a man role. Always has been at least in this country and should continue to be so going forward 

[Testadura]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVRCyELQnSw

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxiO3I0XJbw

[Testadura]

A CNBC article says he's right:  https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04/barack-obama-says-women-make-better-leaders-and-data-shows-hes-right.html

 

[Testadura]

CNBC isn't it.  Countless universities and journals and publications say the same thing.

Ron Burgandy and Dr. Yamek might be wrong.

[Testadura]

For he record, I doubt it's true, and I suspect, it's not provable.  Despite sociologists best efforts to convert their discipline into a science, they always come up woefully short.  Social science ain't science, and there will never be mathematical certainty or statistical comfort to most of their observations, including this beaut.

It's sexist and biased and ageist.  It's the kind of statement that we've been hearing for years not to make.  For, e.g., most top universities are no longer covering IQ in social-psychology and psychology-intro courses because it offends.  But this incendiary comment is fine.  People are beginning to catch on.  It gets us nowhere or heading backwards.  It's another attack on a group of people, but one that's fair game. Thinking about it, it really is absurd, and makes intelligent people query whether an intelligent exchange can really be had with intelligent people who have agendas.

Also, due to Pres. Obama's stature, statements such as his carry more weight than do other peoples'.  It's pure pot-stirring.  And because he does know better, this was no slip up.

Had others made the equally-dumb statement that old men are better qualified than women to be leaders, people would have lost their minds.

This is why politics is a circle jerk.  We're getting to the point that we can admit freely that women are better than men, and ends do justify the means.  Shortly arrives might makes right.

 

[Hardcore Troubador]

3 hours ago, Testadura said:

Interesting and provocative.  Will generate much-needed debate, especially up at Drake's Bay.  Cenk said that he doesn't agree.    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50805822

"If women ran every country in the world there would be a general improvement in living standards and outcomes, former US President Barack Obama has said.

"Speaking in Singapore, he said women aren't perfect, but are 'indisputably better' than men.

"He said most of the problems in the world came from old people, mostly men, holding onto positions of power.

"He also spoke about political polarisation and the use of social media to spread falsehoods.

"Speaking at a private event on leadership, Mr Obama said while in office he had mused what a world run by women would look like.

"'Now women, I just want you to know; you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is that you're better than us [men].'

"'I'm absolutely confident that for two years if every nation on earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything... living standards and outcomes.'

"When asked if he would ever consider going back into political leadership, he said he believed in leaders stepping aside when the time came.

"'If you look at the world and look at the problems it's usually old people, usually old men, not getting out of the way,' he said."

Cenk.  🤣

[Hardcore Troubador]

3 hours ago, HSFBfan said:

Idk about that. England has some nasty female leaders In their history. Women are crazy. To have one as a leader is insanity. Some things in life is part of a man's world and leading countries should be in that realm

I’d bet most of us married dudes on this board would admit we barely rule our own homes...

[Troll]

17 minutes ago, Testadura said:

For he record, I doubt it's true, and I suspect, it's not provable.  Despite sociologists best efforts to convert their discipline into a science, they always come up woefully short.  Social science ain't science, and there will never be mathematical certainty or statistical comfort to most of their observations, including this beaut.

It's sexist and biased and ageist.  It's the kind of statement that we've been hearing for years not to make.  For, e.g., most top universities are no longer covering IQ in social-psychology and psychology-intro courses because it offends.  But this incendiary comment is fine.  People are beginning to catch on.  It gets us nowhere or heading backwards.  It's another attack on a group of people, but one that's fair game. Thinking about it, it really is absurd, and makes intelligent people query whether an intelligent exchange can really be had with intelligent people who have agendas.

Also, due to Pres. Obama's stature, statements such as his carry more weight than do other peoples'.  It's pure pot-stirring.  And because he does know better, this was no slip up.

Had others made the equally-dumb statement that old men are better qualified than women to be leaders, people would have lost their minds.

This is why politics is a circle jerk.  We're getting to the point that we can admit freely that women are better than men, and ends do justify the means.  Shortly arrives might makes right.

 

Why not just say some women are better than some men....and some men are better than some women, when it comes to 'leadership'...

Anyone who thinks that looking at any chart or pointing to some statistic, is going to make them a better leader,

is severely mistaken...

or trying to push some personal bias...

 

Leadership is individual, not statistical.....

[HSFBfan]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore Troubador said:

I’d bet most of us married dudes on this board would admit we barely rule our own homes...

Well that sounds like a you guys problem. No I'm not married but if you bend over to your wives jeez man lol

[Hardcore Troubador]

3 hours ago, HSFBfan said:

Yeah yr always going to find one that was good but again I keep my position. It's a man role. Always has been at least in this country and should continue to be so going forward 

Where do you rank Mayor Pete Buttigieg on that man scale?

[HSFBfan]

1 minute ago, Hardcore Troubador said:

Where do you rank Mayor Pete Buttigieg on that man scale?

Is he even a man.......I have no time for Democrats sorry. Probably the bitch of his relationships 

[Troll]

1 hour ago, HSFBfan said:

Well that sounds like a you guys problem. No I'm not married but if you bend over to your wives jeez man lol

It's called give and take...

You can't do just one in any successful relationship....

 

Then you can always gripe about the better half 🤣

[StJoesFanboy]

2 hours ago, Hardcore Troubador said:

I’d bet most of us married dudes on this board would admit we barely rule our own homes...

we're not the ones they're concerned about

[StJoesFanboy]

2 hours ago, Troll said:

Why not just say some women are better than some men....and some men are better than some women, when it comes to 'leadership'...

Anyone who thinks that looking at any chart or pointing to some statistic, is going to make them a better leader,

is severely mistaken...

or trying to push some personal bias...

 

Leadership is individual, not statistical.....

you're right, but you're implying that the end game of all is to arrive at truth, as if truth is noble or a virtue worth attaining for ITS OWN SAKE, and not because it's instrumental in gaining another end.  but if the end is a different world, then truth is merely instrumental, and used or disposed with as the case may be.

and btw, they know what the truth is--they're not as stupid or misguided as many think.  they can probably present our arguments better than we can.  they have an end in mind, and its not JS Millian truth arrived at after free speech and debate.

a simple but perhaps definitive question:  pretend that you convinced them that you're right and that they're wrong, do you actually believe that they will change their position, and lose an arrow in the quiver to socially engineer a different-looking world?

and assuming some don't know the truth and are misguided, do you think social scientists in academia care the same as you do about truth that doesn't serve their purposes?  if they do care about truth, they march to the beat of a drum that's foreign even to almost all Americans regardless of the political viewpoint.  this kind of academia generally believes that science has a Western (rational) bias, and that it's impossible to view things accurately, thus triggering our biases (Kant & Hegel really started that line of thought off).

4-6% of university professors are conservative.  around 17% are some sort of Marxist.  let that sit a minute.  don't react; just let it sink in.  That breakdown is not a recent phenomenon; that's been the case at least since the early 2000s, and very likely sometime earlier.

The rest are along the left side of the spectrum, with the progressives/radicals much more concerned and at war with traditional liberals than with conservatives, for obvious reasons.

Traditional liberals still believe in science, Western Civ, tolerance, free speech, liberty, Great Books etc., and they tend to be more understanding of old-fashioned values like family and religion.  Those "virtues" (ends to traditional liberals) stand in the way of attaining radical, socially-engineered goals (ends to others).  What are end-game virtues to the majority of the Country are, in fact, hindrances to academia's end game.  (We keep coming back to means and ends, which is why I said it so fact- and situation-dependent.)

I'll be sure to tell post-modern academia and their fellow travelers that real leadership should be blind to gender.

Longer term, it's not about Dem or Repub short-lived scandals; this is where the real fight is.  But this strategically-fired missile is not entertaining or scandalous or spectacular enough for our frivolous culture, which is why George Carlin said that we tend to get what we deserve.

[Troll]

18 minutes ago, StJoesFanboy said:

you're right, but you're implying that the end game of all is to arrive at truth, as if truth is noble or a virtue worth attaining for ITS OWN SAKE, and not because it's instrumental in gaining another end.  

Who ever said they were exclusive? 🤣

The world, and the human psyche are a conglomerate of parts...

 

Everyone pretty much has the same parts,

but perceptions of reality tend to dictate priorities...

And priorities are where most become mistaken...

[StJoesFanboy]

7 hours ago, Bormio said:

Margaret Thatcher says hello

Of course, she pops up immediately, but Obama wasn't thinking of her. 

Nevertheless, this is almost pure theory against thousands of years of reality.  Might be right, but it's nothing more than rank speculation, which is a shame, because there should be more "film" of women in action, were they discriminated against.

Pro days and the Combine look at some markers of what can make a successful player (which is what these leadership studies bring to mind), but with all, or virtually almost all, players, there's tape going back to Pop Warner of the subject playing in game conditions.  And we know that they survived from Pop Warner till Pro Day or the Combine and didn't crack and are still highly regarded, and if they did, we know it.

Leadership is so subtle.  I can't believe intellectuals or pseudo-intellectuals stand behind this, unless they're getting desperate trying to rally a relatively up-for-grabs voting base that might be needed in 2020.  This was no innocent, throw-away set of remarks.

[StJoesFanboy]

6 minutes ago, Troll said:

Who ever said they were exclusive? 🤣

The world, and the human psyche are a conglomerate of parts...

 

Everyone pretty much has the same parts,

but perceptions of reality tend to dictate priorities...

And priorities are where most become mistaken...

you did. 

you asked, correctly, why don't we all "just say some women are better than some men," and vice versa, which you correctly implied is the straightforward truth.  Why don't we just point out the truth, you effectively said.  you were right, and I then explained why we don't do as you inquired.

You then said, "Anyone who thinks that looking at a chart * * * is severely mistaken * * * or trying to push some personal bias."  I again agreed with your truthful proposition, but said why I thought that it's a bit more nuanced than that.

Finally, you said, Leadership is individual * * * ."  I agreed with that.  Sounds like your perceptions are pretty unremarkable--they sound right.  Sounds like only idiots could disagree with you.  And again, I agree with you.  But I simply explained why your correct observations don't carry the day.

I don't get your most-recent post, other than to say re-read Macchiavelli's The Prince, and Mustapha Mond's part at the end of Huxley's Brave New World.  Some people have similar perceptions to you; yet come to different courses of action.  You sound like a post-modern relativist if you hold too strictly to what you say--"perceptions of reality."  Are you backing off your initial perception of reality?  You didn't sound as if there was much wiggle room in how to perceive reality--e.g., "severely mistaken."

again, don't react; just let it simmer.  i don't debate people with whom I generally agree, which is starting to become the norm b/w us

[Troll]

34 minutes ago, StJoesFanboy said:

you did. ...

you asked, ...

You then said, ...

Finally, you said,...<<see A)

I don't get your most-recent post, other than to say re-read Macchiavelli's The Prince, and Mustapha Mond's part at the end of Huxley's Brave New World.  Some people have similar perceptions to you; yet come to different courses of action.  You sound like a post-modern relativist if you hold too strictly to what you say--"perceptions of reality."  Are you backing off your initial perception of reality?  You didn't sound as if there was much wiggle room in how to perceive reality--e.g., "severely mistaken."<<See B)

again, don't react; just let it simmer.  i don't debate people with whom I generally agree, which is starting to become the norm b/w us <<See C)

A) No need to try and rephrase what I said to suit your theories...

The question "why don't they just say..." was rhetorical...as in..the answer is already known...👍

Your novel on "truth for virtue vs truth for gain" reads as mutually exclusive..... a good response, just not applicable to what I said.

regardless I gave you my response for it...😀

 

B) You are simply crossing your own wires here, and then trying to apply them to me...If you want to know what I think, just ask...

My "perception of reality" may be different from your "perception of reality"....

But that does not change reality...  

 

C)  underlined statement...most people don't...That's why they don't develop that 'nuance' you spoke of.....

 

 

[Slotback Right]

4 hours ago, HSFBfan said:

Well that sounds like a you guys problem. No I'm not married but if you bend over to your wives jeez man lol

The only time my wife has any power over me, is three times a week when she has control of my joy stick.

[Bormio]

Of course, if someone had uttered the opposite, it would have been sexist hate speech.  Obama is just pandering here, he thinks he is the greatest leader who ever lived.  Or is he subtly taking a shot at Joe (my vote)?

BTW Jesus Christ was a man, so we know which way God feels.

[Troll]

3 hours ago, Bormio said:

Of course, if someone had uttered the opposite, it would have been sexist hate speech.  Obama is just pandering here, he thinks he is the greatest leader who ever lived. 

Good thing big O is not Canadian....

Sexist speech like that (or basically any speech that some don't like) could be considered hate speech...

and little T has just made that against the law in the great white....