Would we have been better off with Women in charge ?

Rabidlamb

There seems to be sentiment that if women had been running the country back at the height of the celtic tiger we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

Why do people believe this to be the case ?.
Are women more frugal with money ?..... No.
Would women reduce the dependence on the PS ?.... No.
Would women reduce the spending on social welfare ?..... No.

The only defense of this theory is that women may have been less likely to promote the golden circle of bankers, politicians & developers.
I think women get a free ride on this topic as they weren't at the wheel at the time.

Spunge

There would have been no celtic tiger

FatherLen

who is better man? woman? cthulu? who knows...

pragmatic1

Yes. Women tend to be more conservative and would be less likely to risk sending our country up the ****ter. Men should be banned from banking.

u140acro3xs7dm

Wouldnt make a shred of difference if it was a man or woman still would have been fine fail

funk-you

Doubt it.

-Funk

Kimono-Girl

it totally depends on what type of women!

u140acro3xs7dm

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Men should be banned from banking.

As long as we are not banned from **** i dont mind!

Captain Darling

<insert sexist remark here>

Tee hee hee. I said insert...

CokaColumbo

Women are only good at washing dishes and doing the ironing. The only place they belong in the Dáil is behind the bar pulling pints or hoovering the carpets at night.

Seriously though, it doesn't matter which sex you are. It's all about your ideology and whether or not you think that government can centrally plan parts of the economy and not f*ck it up!

TheUsual

Women.

God's last invention.

Rabidlamb

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Yes. Women tend to be more conservative and would be less likely to risk sending our country up the ****ter. Men should be banned from banking.

Yes, but.... Child Benefit would never have been cut.
Early childcare supplement wouldn't have been abolished.
Cuts in social services wouldn't have been entertained.

sollar

Tipp north is a perfect example as to why this country hit the rocks. We do not vote people with real integrity in to office. Male or female if they can pull a stroke for the locality or for a voter the will do well.

There is also far too much blind loyality to the party. They rarely break ranks even for the good of the country imo.

ejmaztec

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Yes, but.... Child Benefit would never have been cut.
Early childcare supplement wouldn't have been abolished.
Cuts in social services wouldn't have been entertained.

There are some power-mad women who would cut all of those, just to make sure that no other women can climb up the ladder to usurp their position.

WallyGUFC

Yeah I wish Mary Coughlan had been Taoiseach instead of Tánaiste and Hanafin the Minister for Finance. Then we'd be sailin' out of the recession!

Logical Fallacy

Rabidlamb wrote: »

There seems to be sentiment that if women had been running the country back at the height of the celtic tiger we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

Why do people believe this to be the case ?.
Are women more frugal with money ?..... No.
Would women reduce the dependence on the PS ?.... No.
Would women reduce the spending on social welfare ?..... No.

The only defense of this theory is that women may have been less likely to promote the golden circle of bankers, politicians & developers.
I think women get a free ride on this topic as they weren't at the wheel at the time.

Women are people and prone to the same mistakes and greeds as men.

Kind of funny that the health service isn't the shining light it should be given there was a woman at the helm for so long.

Gone Drinking

Can you imagine how emotional it would be?

Christ, no.

ejmaztec

Gone Drinking wrote: »

Can you imagine how emotional it would be?

Christ, no.

With the manicured finger hovering over the nuclear button after noticing some other female world leader wearing the same frock.:eek:

ascanbe

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Yes, but.... Child Benefit would never have been cut.
Early childcare supplement wouldn't have been abolished.
Cuts in social services wouldn't have been entertained.

Margaret Thatcher begs to differ.
Anyway, would be better off? We certainly couldn't be worse off.

Lando Griffin

There would have to be more people in advisory roles, and press leaks would probably be increased.

eilo1

Of course it would, women are less likely to take big risks, better looking which is a massive advantage socially, far more organised and can multi task.

Women = biwinning

TheZohanS

eilo1 wrote: »

Of course it would, women are less likely to take big risks, better looking which is a massive advantage socially, far more organised and can multi task.

Women = biwinning

Mary Harney.

hondasam

I doubt It we would probably alienate every other country and cause world war three. on the plus side we can multi task most of the time.

conorhal

ascanbe wrote: »

Margaret Thatcher begs to differ.
Anyway, would be better off? We certainly couldn't be worse off.

That's not really helping your argument......

eilo1

TheZohan wrote: »

Mary Harney.

That's no woman!

Ectoplasm

Rabidlamb wrote: »

There seems to be sentiment that if women had been running the country back at the height of the celtic tiger we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

Why do people believe this to be the case ?

I'm not particularly aware of this sentiment...or when you say sentiment, is this something you heard one person say?

That said your 'evidence' for why this wouldn't be true seems to be fairly vague generalisations like the following.

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Are women more frugal with money ?..... No.
Would women reduce the dependence on the PS ?.... No.
Would women reduce the spending on social welfare ?..... No.?

Also, where are you getting these definitive 'No' answers from? There haven't been any women 'in charge' in terms of as Taoiseach or Minister for Finance - if that's what we're taking 'in charge' to mean.

Rabidlamb wrote: »

The only defense of this theory is that women may have been less likely to promote the golden circle of bankers, politicians & developers.
I think women get a free ride on this topic as they weren't at the wheel at the time.

What you're saying is because women weren't in charge, they're getting a free ride on being responsible for the current mess - well, that actually seems somewhat reasonable.

Of those women who were in positions of power, most of them (like a lot of the men who were in power) paid the price with the loss of their seats at the last election.

Tbh I think this is just a bit of a shítstirring thread. There is no evidence to suggest that we would be better off had women been in charge. There is no evidence to suggest that we wouldn't. It's a bit of a ridiculous argument - we are where we are and we need to get on with things, not focus on silly what ifs.

hal9000

eilo1 wrote: »

That's no woman!

That's no moon!

this is arse

Rabidlamb wrote: »

There seems to be sentiment that if women had been running the country back at the height of the celtic tiger we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

Why do people believe this to be the case ?.
Are women more frugal with money ?..... No.
Would women reduce the dependence on the PS ?.... No.
Would women reduce the spending on social welfare ?..... No.

The only defense of this theory is that women may have been less likely to promote the golden circle of bankers, politicians & developers.
I think women get a free ride on this topic as they weren't at the wheel at the time.

hahahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaaha hah hahaha hahahaha hahaha
hahahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaaha hah hahaha hahahaha hahaha
hahahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaaha hah hahaha hahahaha hahaha
hahahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaaha hah hahaha hahahaha hahaha
hahahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaaha hah hahaha hahahaha hahaha:D

Rabidlamb

EMF2010 wrote: »

Tbh I think this is just a bit of a shítstirring thread. There is no evidence to suggest that we would be better off had women been in charge. There is no evidence to suggest that we wouldn't. It's a bit of a ridiculous argument - we are where we are and we need to get on with things, not focus on silly what ifs.

So, your one of them, eh.
Of course my thread is shítstirring, it's in AH & not in politics.
Now get down off your high horse & return to your embroidery.

J. Marston

And us men would be left making our own sandwiches? Piss off.

eilo1

J. Marston wrote: »

Piss off.

A good blasting might change your tune........................

Annasopra

yes - we would

biko

I don't know. Maybe.

g'em

Dear Rabidlamb,

Rabidlamb wrote: »

So, your one of them, eh.
Of course my thread is shítstirring, it's in AH & not in politics.
Now get down off your high horse & return to your embroidery.

Thank you for taking the time to post in AH. However it seems that you need to reacquaint yourself with the Charter (spec. ref: "Don't be a Dick" and "Blatant sexism will not be tolerated" entries) so please take the next 24 hours as an opportunity to do so.

Yours,

Woman in Charge.