How might history have been different if women had not won the right to vote?
America is great because we are good. Allowing all to vote is good, therefore it made America greater. So, I guess, we would be not so great if we hadn't done this. We are doing a lot of bad things now and are losing some of the greatness that we once stood for. PS This is a very brave question, thank you
Does practicing Islam in America differ from practicing Islam in the Middle East? If so, how? Do women who practice Islam live by a different set of rules from country to country or do Muslim American's 'change' the rules here in the USA?
Yes of course. This may surprise you but Christianity is different outside the US. Teaching darwin isnt a problem and a lot of countries allow gay marriage etc.Anyway: on to Islam: it's a vast global religion with many brands and local cultural definitions. Women are instructed to dress modestly, So going topless would be out, but dressing like, say, Pollyanna would be OK. Being fully covered up is an Arab tradition.The Koran says to avoid alcohol: so for most this would be a complete ban, but not all.No global brand is ever going to have the same rules everywhere.A lot of Islam is sold as liberating for women: no diet plans or being judged on appearance: no sexualisation of young girls. Blokes wearing trousers that fit.(Not Egypt)Islam came around 4-6 hundred years after the Bible and grants rights to women the Bible doesn't (the bible doen't even recognise women as people, but livestock). For it's time it was very liberal, yes that was the 7th century.Islam has the same message as the Bible: love, forgiveness and tolerance, with a bit more emphasis on charity and it is also a lot keener on devoutness. I.e. praying a lot.The Koran mentions cats and expressly forbids you to harm them. Muhammad was married so had a greater understanding of relationships than the Abstinent JesusThe Koran is a lot bigger on hygene and monthly cycles than the bibleWhat people don't seem to understand is that Islam is popular and it isnt because people are backward and brainwashed: it has a genuine message brought to you by God's messenger, Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him.
How different would the world be, had it been dominated by females?
Nothing would be different.For any society to exist and function, they must solve several things and solve it competently.Accessibility and availability of basic resourcesStability & safetyEconomyWhen these basic things cannot be adequately resolved, you have wide ranging conflicts, corruption, wars, inequality, and injustice.You can see the world as an example of what I mean. I won't name countries because some people may be offended, and I am not writing this to make a point by using them this way.Instead look at the world, you will see that some countries are incredibly stable, safe, relatively egalitarian, with access to plenty of resources, while others are rife with crime, dysfunction, corruption, and poor access to resources, despite not being resource poor.A world lead by women would still need to resolve the most fundamental issues and as we see in the world, not all people will agree on how to achieve these fundamental things.The world will look roughly the same as it does now but I am inclined to think it might even go backwards because societies where women are largely in charge aren't very advanced.In any event, the world would still be fractioned based on belief systems, and philosophical and cultural traditions. If you think A Chinese woman will think the same as an American woman, or that a Middle Eastern woman will think the same as a Russian woman, you will be very much mistaken.And as we have seen, some women in power are just as craven and genocidal as some men in power.I see no change, possibly a regression. The examples in the world of male dominated world isn't a shining example, but it's functional and it's been progressing. The examples of women dominated societies has shown us they have died out or are not advanced enough or not ambitious enough to advance.The fact that we see so few of them makes it quite obvious it is not a competitive advantage to have “women rule world”, whatever that actually means.
Why hasn't America had a female president?
We were a country built on white, patriarchal puritan values. This means extreme conservatism and resistance to ideas that fall outside of the scope of the bible and the power structure it provides. Because of this we have taken longer than other 1st world western countries to accept progressive ideas. Look at how long it took to give women the vote, look at our resistance to gay marriage. These resistances exist because religious people look to the bible to preserve their power. So, because the bible implicitly subjugates women and much of what this country has based it's decisions on comes from the bible, we have resisted women being in power. But because, just like other 1st world western countries, we are slowly rejecting the influence of these values, we allow ourselves to work in a less restrictive framework. Therefore we allow women to run for office, but societally we still must overcome generations of influence that tells us that women cannot lead before we will elect one. I am confident that like many other social issues we will eventually get to the point of equality. We tend to be about 50 years behind western Europe on social issues, so we are due for a female leader soon and hopefully it will happen. The day it does it will show that we can escape a history rooted in a philosophy that many of us do not subscribe to, because women are just as capable leaders as men.
Would you approve native Americans starting a nation?
as you may know, there are over 500 native American tribes in America, in reservations, living under the most unlivable condition. many are victims of violence, drugs, and rape; partially due to the fact that America fails to properly handle native American affairs. If native American tribes seceded and became small nation, or if it were under a protectorate system like Puerto Rico, do you think it would work? would you be okay with it? why or why not plz.
Presidents of the United States: Would Americans look weak if they elect a woman (Clinton) to POTUS and Commander in Chief?
The perception of the United States in other countries tends to be more nuanced than you realise and is certainly not dependent upon the gender of your Head of State.What i mean is that no country views the US as either "weak" or "strong" without a range of qualifiers for each one.For instance myself living in Australia I tend to think of the US as...Weak on HealthcareStrong on DefenseStrong on Trade and DiplomacyWeak on Public EducationStrong on University EducationStrong on Tech industry and innovationStrong on Individual LibertyNow people may have different perceptions. People in Australia MAY have different perceptions. And even then it's a fairly broad statement to make. For example I said weak on Healthcare but in actual fact the US is very strong on advanced healthcare, on developing drugs than can save millions, on neuroscience etc... So you see how hard it is to make a judgement call like weak or strong?What I do know is that having female leaders really doesn't seem to change your perception from other countries. Both Australia and New Zealand have recently had female Prime Ministers AND a female Head of State. England in the 1980's had a female Prime Minister and a female Head of State. Germany has one now. Both India and Israel in the 1970's were run by women and there was no perceptable change in how they were viewed. So in short. No.Other countries will not view the United States as weak if you elect a women President. What we might think is "Finally! What took you so bloody long.... ?"
Is the “If women ruled the world, there would be no wars” perception accurate?
If Women ruled the world!Let me put it in a micro setting. In my career up to now, I had two female bosses and two male bosses. Who was tough? My goodness the female bosses I had were tough, so tough that one of them was even feared by some of my colleagues since at the slightest provocation she could just terminate you or embarrass you. Ask yourself who is a tougher boss, Men or Women? I am pretty sure you know the answer if you had both female boss and a male boss in your life as a working man.Historical facts: All the female leaders like Empress Wu and Margaret Thatcher for example were tough leaders waging war on the world. Plus most when provoked most will have tantrums so as not to appear weak and have the male overruled world dominate them. They will be tough.So think about it, if women ruled the world, war will be every where, but only if women rule in this male dominated world, but if the world was dominated by a female from the beginning of time, I would think differently. You see, the reason female leaders are tough is because they have to be so that they are not crowded by privileged male bravado and dominance (May be even Jealousy of that privilege the world bestowed upon the male gender). But if the male domination wasn’t there in the first place well things would have been different. They would have been ignoring each other (Maybe! lol) but nurturing would be present in all forms of life. Have you ever seen a woman nurturing compared to a man. Women are good at nurturing, their hands are blessed with nourishment. Come on, women are the mother of all beings. On the other hand, men, ohhh hands made for tossing things around.So as a conclusion, I think the question really depends on which gender dominated this world from the the beginning. But since historically it is a male dominated world, then “if women ruled the world, there wouldn’t be wars” would be inaccurate.
Why do western cultures always portray the treatment of women in Arab nations as so wrong when we have our own?
problems. In America our women run completely wild, wearing whatever they want with out any shame that they might be disrespecting their fathers. So there are extremes at both ends of the spectrum and what we need to do is find a happy medium rather then thinking any culture knows better then another.
Would our country be better off if women didn't have a right to vote?
Very possibly correct that women in general do not add much rationality or net benefit to the political process, if that is what the so-called ‘right to vote’ implies.I didn’t see the interview, but am familiar with Coulter’s writing and ideas.My view, voting is not nor should be a ‘right’, in the sense for example of the ‘rights’ either enumerated or protected in the Bill of Rights. There is and should not be such thing as a right to vote to conscript someone else to pay for something that directly benefits the voter but allows the voter to escape the obligation to pay for it. Example: California Prop 63 (2004)-General referendum imposing 1% tax on incomes of about 30,000 individuals in California (out of 16 million voters) to raise $800 million for mental health programs. In other words, no one should be allowed to vote on issues that involve taxation and for which the voter will have no liability under the imposed tax.Further, I would suggest that people should have to qualify to vote (and run for office) by demonstrating basic critical thinking and judgment ability as well as fundamental understanding of the US and their state constitutions, taxation systems, and budgets and expenditures.On that basis, many millions of men and women are not qualified to vote and should have limited participation in the political process. One need only watch the plethora of interviews on the old Jay Leno Tonight Show, Jimmy Kimmel, Jesse Waters (O’reilly Factor) et al, of both young and older people who are astonishingly ignorant and uninformed about the political process. Why should their participation and decisions have any weight against or the possibility of nullifying mine?Unfettered majoritarian democracy without proper limitations on voting is no more inherently fair, just or probable to arrive at rational political outcomes than any other form of autocracy, plutocracy, or oligarchy.Coulter is correct, but needs to broaden her argument to include men.