Barack Obama: Women are indisputably better than men

[Cat ji]

He should <deleted> now.  Imagine if every one of those jokers/actors carried on talking sht after they had their time.  Carter, Reagan, Clinton...oh wait, Clinton still does it.

[Berkshire]

15 minutes ago, mogandave said:

If they can’t run men, how will they ever run the world? 
 

How have men stopped them? 

Are you being deliberately obtuse?  If you're an American, perhaps you can tell me when women were first allowed to vote?  Can a woman be the Pope today?  When did Saudi Arabia even allow women to drive a car?  The list is endless.  Why would you ask such a question?

[canuckamuck]

 There are two indisputably sexist points of view to have.

-Men are better than women

-Women are better than men

 

However, only one of these opinions is offensive.

Because double standards are hot right now.

[sirineou]

37 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

How have men stopped them? 

Do you have a couple of years while I run through it?

[rabas]

56 minutes ago, DaRoadrunner said:

Was Obama pussy whipped into saying that by Michelle?

 

I am no fan of Thai men, but they do have their women under control.

But they cannot control the ducks.

 

[oldgit]

1 hour ago, DannyCarlton said:

I think that it's an inarguable fact. The Labour party are already blaming their recent crushing defeat on the fact that their leader was a middle aged man. They seem determined to elect a female leader in order to rebuild the party. Lisa Nandy appears to be the favourite, although I would prefer Jess Philips.

The Liberal Democrats are blaming their results on having a leader who came across as like a head girl. Labour need to be very careful what they wish for.

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

 

Historically, man have stopped women from running the world.

Well, they take care of the children better than men, isn't it ?

[sirineou]

14 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, they take care of the children better than men, isn't it ?

Absolutely!! and since many man are perpetually caught in a Peter Pan syndrome, if women run the world it would be a much better place,

except for a few days every month LOL

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Absolutely!! and since many man are perpetually caught in a Peter Pan syndrome, if women run the world it would be a much better place,

except for a few days every month LOL

I'm wishing for a healthy mix, to say that women are better than men in general, or the opposite, is wrong imho.

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

I'm wishing for a healthy mix, to say that women are better than men in general, or the opposite, is wrong imho.

A healthy mix is always desirable, we all have something positive  to bring to the table.

 

[sanemax]

3 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

I think that it's an inarguable fact. The Labour party are already blaming their recent crushing defeat on the fact that their leader was a middle aged man. They seem determined to elect a female leader in order to rebuild the party. Lisa Nandy appears to be the favourite, although I would prefer Jess Philips.

You would like a Margaret Thatcher in charge of every Country in the World ?

[Credo]

I am in agreement with Obama on this one.   It's not 100%, but as a general rule, women have some positive attributes that make them better.   They are usually more compassionate.   They tend to be better listeners and their lives are not ruled by a penis.

 

That said, things tend to work better when there is a balance between men and women.  I've worked in situations where it was all men and it did not work well -- a little too much competition, aggression and some other bad traits.   Two women were hired, one was a secretary and the other a part of the profession.   The work environment improved greatly.   Negative competitiveness and aggression decreased.   Personal hygiene improved along with the extreme swearing that had become common.  

 

[thaibeachlovers]

Does the OP include the Kardashians?

[thaibeachlovers]

45 minutes ago, Credo said:

I am in agreement with Obama on this one.   It's not 100%, but as a general rule, women have some positive attributes that make them better.   They are usually more compassionate.   They tend to be better listeners and their lives are not ruled by a penis.

 

That said, things tend to work better when there is a balance between men and women.  I've worked in situations where it was all men and it did not work well -- a little too much competition, aggression and some other bad traits.   Two women were hired, one was a secretary and the other a part of the profession.   The work environment improved greatly.   Negative competitiveness and aggression decreased.   Personal hygiene improved along with the extreme swearing that had become common.  

 

I worked in a female dominated occupation for decades, as well as years in the military, and IMO female bosses are just as horrible as male bosses.

 

I've also worked in a mostly male situation, and the presence of women in small numbers brought out excessive male competition to nail one of them. When there were no women at all, life was far more peaceful.

 

I do think though, that an all female environment is probably more placid than an all male environment.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, sirineou said:

Do you have a couple of years while I run through it?

As I see it most of women's problems stem from getting involved with/ married to bad men. If they could only be happy to remain single, they would do better as a gender, IMO.

Japanese and Singaporean women seem to have realised that.

[Credo]

33 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Does the OP include the Kardashians?

I have no admiration for the Kardashians, but Kim has managed to focus on the issue of prison reform and stuck to it without getting too heavily involved in extraneous political events.   

Compared to her husband, Kanye, she's a much better candidate for a political role.   

 

[scorecard]

12 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

This guy just can't help but play identity politics. His age is over, thankfully.

"identity politics"

 

What's that?

[DoctorG]

Have you ever seen a group of women together? No-one wants to be the first to leave because everyone else starts slagging her off. ????

[JonnyF]

Give him a break, what else are you gonna say if this is waiting for you if you don't?

 

 

Seriously though, what a stupid, sexist generalization to make. I'd like to say I thought he was better than that but then I'd be lying.

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Give him a break, what else are you gonna say if this is waiting for you if you don't?

 

 

Seriously though, what a stupid, sexist generalization to make. I'd like to say I thought he was better than that but then I'd be lying.

To achieve a breakthrough it always has to be exaggerated.

[DoctorG]

Surprisingly good Michelle Wolf show on Netflix that deals with a lot of feminist issues.

https://www.netflix.com/au/title/81036542

Her previous outings have been well below standard, but this one is worth a watch.

 

[JonnyF]

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

To achieve a breakthrough it always has to be exaggerated.

No it doesn't.

 

It was a stupid, sexist generalization. If he'd come out and said men are better than women or whites are better than blacks he'd have been destroyed and rightly so. Reversing it doesn't make it intelligent, edgy or progressive. It's still a stupid, sexist generalization. 

[IAMHERE]

13 hours ago, Curt1591 said:

Just laying the groundwork for his Hillary endorsement.

That aside, seems kinda sexist to me ....

Won't argue with that but I'd not be surprised if he is laying groundwork for his wife's political career.

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No it doesn't.

 

It was a stupid, sexist generalization. If he'd come out and said men are better than women or whites are better than blacks he'd have been destroyed and rightly so. Reversing it doesn't make it intelligent, edgy or progressive. It's still a stupid, sexist generalization. 

It was necessary.

[Cryingdick]

Being gay sometimes works out so fabulously. I am not addicted to vagina and don't have to pay lip service to the idiotic notion that one sex is better than another to appease the women around me. 

 

They love me because I am so audaciously  fabulous. 

 

[Tippaporn]

All I've gotta say is that liberals have incredible ability to promote endless false ideas.  And with each new one the world becomes more f'ed than the day before.

 

[Cryingdick]

 

30 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No it doesn't.

 

It was a stupid, sexist generalization. If he'd come out and said men are better than women or whites are better than blacks he'd have been destroyed and rightly so. Reversing it doesn't make it intelligent, edgy or progressive. It's still a stupid, sexist generalization. 

 

It would be like me saying you can't take what Obama is saying seriously as he is black. Mods this is just an example of why what Obama said is wrong. The notion of one person being better than the other is absurd. If we don't agree upon that then any sweeping generalization should be welcomed and embraced.

 

I remember jimmy the Greek being fired for saying blacks were better athletes. He got fired and was known as a pariah after that. We can't allow double standards.

[Curt1591]

22 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

Won't argue with that but I'd not be surprised if he is laying groundwork for his wife's political career.

Michelle has absolutely no qualifications. 

Although she packs a freight load of baggage, Hillary has spent her life in the system. And, after lying low for a period, she is beginning to pop up again.

 

I think she was the candidate all along. They just didn't want her punch drunk, from all the other contenders, before she had a rematch with Trump.

[digibum]

12 hours ago, CNXexpat said:

Well, a little bit too much generalizing, but most murderer are men, most fraudsters (perhaps except Thais) are men, most mass shootings are done from men...

 

I agree, too much generalizing ????

 

One could easily argue that women commit less violent crime because violent crimes tend to be physical crimes and women would be at a disadvantage against men. 

 

We're sort of seeing that today when transgender (former men, now women) compete in women's sports.  They crush it because, even when you match the weight class, men, genetically, have certain advantages in physical competitions like bone density and muscle mass. 

 

Obviously, there are women who are outliers, and could beat down many men, but that may also explain the difference in types of crime.   

 

For instance, in cases of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, the perpetrator is almost always a woman. 

 

Also, how do you define fraudster?  I think we could have a spirited debate about whether or not women have successfully gamed the system to their advantage in western society.  Isn't every gold digger committing fraud? 

 

I've worked in the corporate world and can attest that women, given enough power, can be just as evil and conniving as any man. 

 

Again, my point isn't to demonize women or write a 13-page dissertation on why males express themselves in more aggressive ways, but I did want to provide a counter-point to what you are saying. 

 

There are good men and bad men.  There are good women and bad women.  There are also a lot of societal and physical factors that make each sex more prone to certain types of behavior. 

[digibum]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

All I've gotta say is that liberals have incredible ability to promote endless false ideas.  And with each new one the world becomes more f'ed than the day before.

 

Yeah, and conservatives never promote bad ideas.  LOL