You don't have to like the title, but if that's the only part
of this you respond to, you're too shallow to have an opinion
worth hearing, so don't bother me with it. Read on, instead.
A local (Florida) newspaper editor asked the question,
"Is the United States ready to elect a woman as President?"
I said that if you can consider that a valid question,
you already have half the answer.
I don't think a single female Presidency would cure everything
overnight, but I do think it would change some of the thinking
(or lack of thinking) that has been passing for "leadership".
The twentieth century may well have been the last of the
"guns or butter" times of humanity, wherein a choice
between spending either for defense or for other necessities
was considered necessary.
Weapons are now too powerful to bother stockpiling for the
next war. One nuclear weapon equals several Chernobyls, and
everybody knows how badly that turned out.
Conventional warfare on a global scale is probably a thing
of the past, although the minor nations may continue to
conduct wars of attrition or turf wars against each other.
Question: since the nuke ban treaties, where has all the
money once spent on stockpiling nuclear weapons gone?
It seems not to have reached the schools or hospitals and
not buying nukes certainly hasn't caused either a slowdown
or a decrease in either the national debt or inflation.
Simple facts:
Too many people are homeless due to one large medical bill
or a single natural disaster such as recent floodings,
hurricanes, earthquakes, and crop failures.
We have people with cancer and other illnesses and injuries
trying to live without treatment due to the cost of treatment.
Our public schools turn out people who can't read or count,
which in turn leads to those people being unemployable.
These problems are management errors. The money was available
for the Vietnam war, the cold war, the space race, and making
vast piles of nuclear weapons for the last fifty years, so
don't even think of telling me money can't be found for
socially-beneficial programs. I won't "buy" it.
A woman President? Yeah, I can handle that idea.
Would she see the country as an extended family instead of a
herd of expendable, interchangeable units who exist and function
only to generate products, power, and money?
Would she govern as a Mother-figure, arranging assistances for
the ill, infirm, and involuntarily-destitute? (Yes, there ARE
some voluntarily-destitutes out there. I've met them.)
Would she force-feed repairs to our educational systems?
And don't give me noise about women not having what it takes
to send their children to war. That just isn't true. In our
very recent history, two female leaders, Golda and Maggie,
used their militaries when necessary and WON.
Men tend to use and discard things and people.
Women tend to try to enable continuous usefulness from both.
This is a generalization, true, but it's one backed by history.
Humanity's traditional, male-based forms of government have
produced misogynistic religions and one war after another with
little regard to the real needs of the people being governed.
Women have been denied the simplest of human rights and social
status until only very recently in human history.
For centuries women have been the quiet backbone of humanity,
supporting and maintaining the general welfare as best they could
under any and all circumstances presented to them.
I believe the time has come that circumstances be created by, and
not forced upon, those who know the real jobs involved and do the
hardest work of maintaining our society.
Sixty percent of the population is female, and many among these
women are capable and qualified for top leadership positions.
Let the majority finally, truthfully rule.
Elect women whenever they're honestly the best of the candidates
available. As my title said..."Get Real!"
Indexes to my other articles and ebooks
may be found on my websites:
Abintra Press!
and
|
