whistler "absent women's legislatures, women, individually, are absolved, in perpetuity, of all blame."

ah so that is one of the differences between men and women, I suppose....

men accept the collective responsibility for legislation enacted by those they have elected to govern, whilste whistler seems to think, unless there is a particular gender representation she is absolved from responsibility.

Women have shared the burden of unbiased gender elections for 100 years or so. Any woman is entitled to standup and try their hand at political leadership equal to men.

Margaret Thatcher ruled the UK Conservative party for 15 years and was the longest serving UK prime-minister in over 150 years.

Her view of gender the sort of trivial politcs which whistler is postulating was to observe

"The battle for women's rights has been largely won. "

and to the maniac feminists

"I owe nothing to Women's Lib."

of course, whistler might well claim Margaret Thatcher was note "representative" of women.

To which I would say, the pre-eminence of a successful woman, who walked the world stage with head up and shoulder to shoulder with other world leaders, might be an inconvenience for the rabic feminists but so what.

She was more a woman than most and she had more character and strength than many men.

And those attributes will never, in any way detract from the clearly observable fact that she not just a "Woman", she was also a Mother.

And Margaret Thatcher did not need separate male versus female assemblies or legislatures or representatives.

Margaret Thatcher was simply "inclusive"

whereas the drivel being promoted here is purely and simply "divisive".

I love it when we can just stamp stupid ideas into the dust.

*absent women's legislatures, women, individually, are absolved, in perpetuity, of all blame.*

hehe, I love this stuff. Perhaps we should call your statement
"female logic" :)

Every member of both houses are on record, as to how they voted
and on what. They are responsible for their actions, no matter
which sexual organs they have or don't have.

But the fact remains that Linda Thompson was the SEC enforcement
director, so had huge powers. She clearly screwed up real bad
and it has cost investors and the world, hundreds of billions.

Now of course she has resigned. Big deal lol.

Was she gullible? Was she stupid? Did she lack the testicles to
enforce the law?

My point is that clearly there are both talented men and talented
women, their talent does not depend on their sexual organs,
but on good judgement.

Whistler you really have a chip on your shoulder about this one,
perhaps its not the whole world that is wrong, it is just you.

> Did she lack the testicles to enforce the law?

no, she lacked legislatures.

That is not so clear at all. What is clear is that she was not
enforcing what she could have and her division was asleep, even
when people were reporting fraud.

If she had testicles, she could have gone over the head of
her boss, if needbe to the public, to the press. She seemingly
chose not to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/business/10sec.html?ref=washington

Rating agencies, flogging off subprimes as AAA, came under SEC
regulation. What did she do about it?

followers of Yabby's link might note that:

"some investor advocates gave Ms. Thomsen the benefit of the doubt, arguing that her task as enforcement chief was especially difficult because she reported to a chairman, Christopher Cox, who had little appetite for regulating."

Actually it was not just Thomson that was the problem, but a
number of women who were at the top.

Alot came out in the Senate hearing, I watched some of it on
Bloomberg. Here is a Reuters report on a bit of it.

Basically the enforcement people at the SEC screwed up and did
not want to know. So Thomson did nothing because one man
was in her way? Sheesh, if I did business that way, I would
fail too.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/UPDATE-3-SEC-pummeled-as-Madoff-whistleblower-test-NXW3Z?OpenDocument&src=srch

.