₦airaland Forum

At this point I don't really care who wins, but if I have to choose I'll put my support behind France.

I, too, have never being able to give blood (although it's not really something I look forward to), but I was never singled out cause I'm Naija. Anyone born out of the US was not allowed to give blood period. I knew peeps that were born in Germany, Russia and a dude in Ireland and they, too, couldn't give blood. This is news to me and I am especially surprised they take blood from South Africans but not Naijas since their excuse was that people born out of the US are at more risk of carrying something (i.e a disease or an infection). (I'm not hating on SF people o). But last time I checked South Africa was still worse than Naija in terms of HIV/AIDS infection rate.

mochafella:
erm, with that weight differential you don't need a slap, just roll over them.

LOL
Chei! see experience talking!
ehn,  mochafella, you be woman beater? Cause, I don't know about you, but this sounds like an encouragement for woman beating o.

I agree with Shine. There's no such thing as a Harmless slap. And claiming that because it's just one slap, it's okay is something I have to disagree with. Imagine if the person being slapped weighs like 100 pounds. And the slapper weighs like 300 Ibs. You can imagine how much more damaging one slap will be to the person being assaulted(100 lb). One person might claim that one slap is no big deal and just let it go, which will only encourage him that it's okay to do it again. But if the next time he slaps someone that's not as physically strong (maybe someone weighing 100 Ibs), one can imagine, that it would be more dangerous for that individual.
Violence is violence and it should not be encouraged.

Like someone said you can only get away with assaulting people if they choose not to press charges. Otherwise, there's penalty when people have enough evidence to press charges for assualt. It's not there just for women, it also protects men who are "assaulted because they're physically weaker" and everyone in between.

I don't think she should quit. She has the ability to help the country wherever she is placed and if my assumption of her strong dedication to her country is correct, I expect her to do her best wherever Obj place her. I, like others, suspect that this move have something to the with the coming election. but for now, na siddon look mode I dey.

This thread is too funny.

I don't think there's anything wrong with farting with your partner or letting him see blood etc and blah, blah so long as it is done with mutual understanding and there's some agreement between the two of you that it's ok. (can't believe I just wrote that to talk about farting, LOL). However, I agree that farting and issues of personal hygiene can be a real turn off for some people. And I can see it being an issue when partners see the matter differently. I personally do not like it, so I wouldn't want my partner to endure it either. Unless it's an emergency. Even then, I usually just try to play it off. ("No, that wasn't a fart you heard. Nuh-hun! I think it came from over there." haha). I don't pretend to be perfect and I don't really see it as a matter of being more or less feminine, but it's just an issue of personal preference. And I wouldn't say it's something that should be breaking up a marriage.

I don't know if I have a "worst fear". But I will say every time I set out to do something "big" or just take on a new challenge, I always think of the possibilty that I might fail and that scares me. It's especially scary and hard when my family members do not support me because--even though we don't always see eye to eye--my siblings know me like a book. It's disturbing, but they always know what I can or cannot do (for the most part)  cause we're so close. And they can predict how I'll feel if this and this happens and so on and so forth.
So when they try to discourage me from doing something, it usually sends up a red flag in my mind.

ddizzle:
You are definitely an intelligent person and a great Gift from God,

LOL. I don't know about all that o.
Thanks though.

Drusilla:
Nia,

What would you tell Forbes to convince them to get rid of the wives category of powerful women?

LOL.
If they want, Forbes can come to nairaland, do a search and find this thread. Maybe they might even decide to advertise on the site. I'm sure Seun will like that. Otherwise, I doubt anyone's losing sleep over the issue.

Drusilla:
Nia,

I went to forbes.

In the list of powerful women.

There is a wives category and that is the category Mrs. Bush is in.

Maybe I should have paid attention to this way earlier.

um, isn't this what we've been debating on? the issue of Title?

Drusilla:
Isn't that the reason Angelina Jolie IS doing it? Because she believes that celebrity's have power? A lot of them seeem to agree that they have power.

The list was about the powerful, not the methods of how they obtained power.

Do you expect the power to be in a gun, where Mrs. Bush can have you shot, if you do not wear prada?

I thought Dr. Kings power was in the form of inspiration?

hmnn, why does this sound like clutching at straws. Like I said earlier, then they should ALL be on the list if this is Forbes definition. I have already addressed the problem of projecting your ideas on Forbes. You continue to make assumptions about what Forbes is thinking and doing and I can't go along with it. Cause it doesn't correlate. It is no secret that designers are always trying to get someone with any amount of popularity to wear their merchandises. If this is Forbes' Definition, I don't know why Gabrielle Union and everyone else is missing from the list. Your idea of power is not Forbes'.
First you claim that being tied to Bush gives you power and makes you deserving to be on the list and that justifies using the title as a marker of power. Then you list these supposed powers in the form of what other people already have, people who have no ties to Bush. These same powers that have effect only when individuals choose to allow them to have effect compared to the deterministic and the magnitude of the power of someone like Bsuh.  When I point out the flaw in that, you jump to the conclusion that that means having a gun at someone's neck is the only way to force or use power to project your view and decisions on others. Clearly, there's something wrong here.    
Unless you can come up with a concrete argument for using the Title to justify putting her on the list, everything else is mute.

Drusilla:
Sure. But your in America. You'll live. Other people got real problems.

LOL. Thanks for your sympathies, dear. But you've missed the point again, which certainly wasn't to garner sympathy or personal opinion.

Earlier you wrote:

Drusilla:
Nia,

Thank you. Let me try to stick as closely as to what you said.

Question:

Why do you disagree with Mrs. Bush being considered powerful because of her title?

For me, that's me, I think each and every person with even half a title around President Bush, has a certain amount of power.

And now you're saying:

Drusilla:
Nia,

Whatever the white house dog is named that this will become a popular name for dogs and maybe kids all over the country.

The name brands the president or the first lady use, are sometimes kept in secrecy or else it could make or break a company's product which they do not use.

That it is said that having a picture of you and the president it is worth 10 million dollars to your company.

How could it be said then that Mrs. Bush is not powerful?

There are designers right now, praying that Mrs. Bush please wear the dress or shoes that they gave her as a gift. They know what it could do for their product around the world.

replace the name Laura Bush with Gabrielle Union, Halle Berry,  Angelina Jolie, Denzel Washington, Brad pitt, input whatever celebrity's name you want. And you will still have the same scenario you described. Maybe they should put every celebrity on that list then if that's the definition for power.

If this is your idea of power, how does this fit into the idea that being tied to Bush makes you powerful and deserving to be on the list when other people already do these things without having any ties to Bush? Again, why don't they put all these celebrities on the list when they too can command those types of attention?
What you're describing is not power. At most, it's inspiration and infatuation. Inspiration you can choose to take or leave. Laura's fashion statements will have no effect on me whatsoever because I doubt we share the same taste in clothes. She likely inspires those within her age range. If laura wears prada, I don't have to wear it. If I choose not to wear prada, nothing is going to happen to me. So exactly, WHERE is this power?  But when Bush assigns an Alito to the Supreme Court, when he sends my friends to Iraq, when an increasing portion of my paycheck is spent on gas, cause the price is so high due to war in Iraq, I feel the gravity of Bush's power.
In any case, I think I've made my points clear enough.
Cheers.

LOL. I just noticed that the topic of this thread said "FASTEST" way to lose weight, in which case what I wrote earlier might not exactly be what you were looking for, LOL, if time is an issue.

I think you should do what makes you comfortable and I don't think there should be any rule that says you SHOULD or you SHOULD NOT forgive. Everyone should decide what makes them comfortable about the situation. However, as long as what he did continues to influence your personal decisions, i.e. not getting married because of him or looking at every man with the same lense in which you see your father, I think there's a problem. He is controlling your life and this is not something you want him to do. 

Personally, I can't say what I'd do, but I'll say it'd be very hard to forgive or develop any respect for him. Regardless of the reason he did what he did, you just can't completely abandon the life you helped create.

Well, unless his life was in direct danger or his presence would have been detrimental to my growth, maybe he had some drug problems, or had child molestation tendencies, etc,  But even then, he could try to get help. If he comes with lots of money and wants to help me financially, I will take it. It's the least he could do after all these years, but i will let him know that he cannot buy my forgiveness or respect. And when I am done needing his finacial help, I may or may not forgive him. Emotional issues are very tricky. And I don't envy those who are forced to make these decisions.

If you're trying to keep the weight off, instead of just losing it temporarily, I would suggest number 4. Losing weight is one thing, but maintaing that reduced weight is also very important and I would advice excersizing and aerobics and getting into a daily routine, so you don't fall back to the old weight. If you try to starve yourself, you take the risk of crashing that diet when hunger hits you.
I would say a good mixture of slowly and gradually reducing and changing what and how much you eat, coupled with some excercising would help. This means, substituting some of what you eat for healthier versions and eventually reducing the amount.
A few things with that:
1. Don't make the mistake that because you're now eating a healthier version of something, you should consume any amount you want. ( I did this, and it wasn't too helpful.)
2. Don't Dramatically reduce the amount you eat, (Like going from three meals a day to one meal a day) instead do it slowly and gradually. When you starve your body for too long, when you finally eat, what you eat will be stored as fat. And sometimes when you start exercising, you get more hungry than before (This happened to me), so you might just be ready to go to bed when you find yourself been struck by the wrath of hunger.
3. Try not to eat close to the time you're going to bed. This is bad because your food will not have time to digest. So I will recommend eating dinner maybe three hours before going to bed and if you get hungry before then, have a light and healthy snack.
4. Aerobics and excersicing will give you more energy throughout the day and help reduce stress, help you think better (it did for me LOL), keep you more active rather than sluggish and tired, etc,  It also helps you turn fat to muscle, which is definitely healthier and in the long run, will prove more beneficial.

I won't say the result will come fast. If you're dedicated, it might take some time, but I believe you'll enjoy the result and for a longer period of time.  (my .02 kobo)


Good Luck.

Mystique:
Since when did 'DECENCY' become a function of how many men u've shagged

Abeg, help me ask am o.

And I still don't know any woman who goes around telling the world how many people she's slept with. That's something between you and your partner, IF you choose to reveal it to them. People should learn to mind their own business. 
That woman is sufferring from a disease that is too common in Naija/African women. Like Seun said, she should deal with her problems (and her husband) and stop putting blame where it doesn't belong.

Drusilla:
Nia,

Thank you. Let me try to stick as closely as to what you said.

Question:

Why do you disagree with Mrs. Bush being considered powerful because of her title?

For me, that's me, I think each and every person with even half a title around President Bush, has a certain amount of power.

Mrs. Bush of course shares in this power that surround her husband and what her life has been dedicated to for the last 30+ years, I'm sure, as a political wife.

She has been doing the same political show for 30+ years along with President Bush.

It's not like she had a singing career and Mr. Bush's dabbling in politics was not that important in her life.

One person did not make it to the whitehouse based on one persons career. This was a team project, politics demands it in America.

She deserves to be on the list and be considered powerful.

I have already explained why I disagree. How does any of the things you listed give her any part of Bush's power/authority?

Drusilla:
Nia,

Your right. I butchered this whole debate. I wish now I had taken the time to learn about feminism. It's not my area.

I apologize again.

However------

You first said:

I think what I find ridiculous is the indication that being married to a leader automatically makes you powerful which seems to be what her being on the list is suggesting.

You now say:

One reason being that Forbes didn't put Laura on that list because they admire her homemaking skills or to promote the traditional family.

hmnn,
I think I see where the misunderstanding is, so I will try again to explain. Laura Bush is married to George Bush. I don't know for a fact whether or not she's a traditional wife or a good mother or a good homemaker. Nor do I care. Why? Because it is irrelevant to the issue. Like I said, that's not what her being on the list means. What I do know for a fact is that she holds the title of MRS. BUSH. She is legally married to Bush. And because she is OFFICIALLY MRS. BUSH, she is considered powerful. She can be a terrible home maker and a bad mother, maybe she smokes weed and shoot up etc, All that is irrelevant. But to be considered powerful because of her title is what I disagree with. Hope that's clearer.

Drusilla:
Nia,

I am sorry. I apologize. You seem unaware that there is a raging argument in America between Feminists and Women.

I may be assuming that you are saying something else, when you seem to desire that Laura Bush's power be kept off the list of the powerful because you do not value her power as First Wife and Mother of America.

Drusilla, throughout this discussion, you have made assumptions and allegations, and jumped to conclusions. I have explained my view over and over again and you either choose to ignore them or choose to not understand so as to justify whatever it is you think I am trying to say. Even now, you assume you know more about Feminism, and America for that matter, more than I do. The attempt to patronize did not go unnoticed. And I will not compare notes on who is more informed about what.
I apologize if this comes across as harsh but I find it interesting how you're twisting and turning my words to justify your accusations. It does nothing for the discussion if everything I'm writing continues to be twisted and misunderstood.

I didn't start the discussion to attack people who choose to be homemakers or live their lives domestically. That's what you want me to do, and I have refused to go along with it.
Why? because it makes little sense. One reason being that Forbes didn't put Laura on that list because they admire her homemaking skills or to promote the traditional family. That's your interpretation and as long as you continue to sing the same song, I see no progress in this discussion.
I have respect for your views and for choosing to continue the discussion and as long as you have, but I find that your approach in projecting your view and to adequately handle something you disagree with leaves much to be desired.

I'm not sure why my words continue to be twisted or where the misunderstanding is.

Drusilla:
You said:

Society MUST push people to be successful and to value leadership. We all benefit from it when we have many competent people competing for leadership.

Yes, because you wrote:

Drusilla:
And in the end, those pieces of paper and jobs and admiring employee's fade away and we cry over mama or our wife or our children more than any of them. Nobody ever dies thinking about a piece of paper or an old job. We all die wishing we would have taken more time to love and care for those we say we love.

My reply to this was that the waves of good leadership is felt among those that are being led and it is not just pieces of paper or an old job like you claimed. Also that good leadership is something that is valued by all, sex notwithstanding, not "just something that men see as accomplishments" like you claim.

Your reply in the above quote would be like me saying that believing that having a family is the ultimate prize and wasting all your energy on that goal will leave you with regret at the end of your days that you never directed your energy to fulfilling your goal of being an influential force among the populace. And I have yet to make such a claim. 

Nowhere have I claimed that one person's position is more important than the other. That is something you're reading into my reply and like I stated earlier, you cannot push a view I never championed on me. If I say that someone who wants to become an influential force and change a particluar populace should not settle for just marrying the real person in power, that's exactly what I mean. If you don't want this and what you want is to be a good wife, then understandably, trying to aim for direct power is not something you value and should not aim for. I have explained this several times and I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.   

Drusilla:
I am saying:

Society MUST push people to be successful mothers and wives and to value a mother/wifes life. We all benefit from it when we have many ---- people to even lead.

Actually, what I read is "Forced, like Africa under colonialism". I have given my opinion on this and why I disagree.

Drusilla:
Can we agree that mothers & housewives, people whom bring us children are just as valuable to a society as leaders of the same society?

I have not said otherwise. What I can't agree with is when one person try to force others to agree with what they see as appropriate. Nowhere have I said that those who don't become leaders outside of the home are detrimental to society and should be forced to do otherwise.
 
The thing is, there are many reasons for changes in the family dynamic. And a fair amount of them are good reasons. (i.e. people becoming better educated,  more awareness for people's individual rights, women having more rights etc, )  Yet you continue to paint a picture of bliss and happy harmony of the past because "we didn't have 50% divorce rates" or "children weren't being born out of wedlock" and so on and so forth. Children WERE being born out of wedlock. But the social stigma associated with it forced people to get married when this occurs. And single mothers would give up their children for adoption to avoid society's wrath. These days, single mothers are more likely to keep and take care of their children. Marriage problems were something you ignored and learned to live with whether or not you were unhappy. Even if you can endure being labeled a divorcee, there was the issue of financial comfort for women. Unless you came from a rich home, you couldn't make it on your own without your husband's financial help. Your husband running around or suddenely telling you he has another family outside was something you were expected to accept if you were a woman.
These same social stigmas also negatively affect society by using fear to force people conform to a particular way of life.  Hence, I'm reluctant to get on a boat that says the past was wonderful and dandy. No, it wasn't.  the past had its good and its bad. And similarly, today's family dynamics also have it's good and its bad. The wonderful thing about it is we can all choose the one that we see fit.

Drusilla:
The list says: Powerful women.
You want it to say: Powerful women outside of the home, who have their own achievements.

I don't see this discussion having any progress if we're going to jump to unfounded allegations or put words in each other's mouth. Again this is your perception of what I've written, they're not mine.

Drusilla:
Even though everybody else seems to agree that Mrs. Bush is powerful and deserves to be on the list -- even though her power is in the home.

hmnn, why does this sound like reaching? If you don't mind, please inform us who "everybody else" is. What amount of the population took part in this poll (if it was a poll), and please tell us the criterias that was used.
And I don't think "because everbody else agrees" is a reason for me to agree to anything. I am an individual and I am entitled to have a different opinion.

Drusilla:
The list and people recognized women in their respective fields (wives & mothers) and (politics, etc) as being powerful.
You have it in mind that the women listed in the wives & mothers category were not really as worthy of being on the list, as the other women.

I didn't know you were a mind reader, LOL. But you don't need to be one to correctly understand my view. I have addressed them over and over again, and for some reason, they continued to be ignored for what you perceive my real view to be.

Drusilla:
Something seems wrong with that idea, even as you claim to think to each their own and do what they want.

Yes, there are many things wrong with the idea. One of them being that they are being misconstrued.

Drusilla:
I guess one of those things we want is to appreciate women's power in their wives & mothers category and the other category as well.

Like I said earlier, everyone's choice on how to live their lives should be respected.

Drusilla, Forbes is not championing your cause. You're the one concluding that forbes is "celebrating women's role in the house" because they put Laura Bush on that list.  That is NOT why Laura Bush is on that list. But because she is married to Bush, a powerful man. (And because of her push for more people being educated and fighting for better women's rights.)
These have nothing to do with being a housewife or a homemaker. Many women already do this. And many ordinary women are wonderful homemakers and if what you're claiming is true, they should ALL be on Forbes list. I stated earlier that she should be commended for using her position for good, but I disagree with her being labeled powerful simply by the act of being married to the powerful one. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand.

Drusilla:
Could you name for me, some of the civilized society's and then name for me the society's that did colonize, oppress and dominate and reduce rights?

hmnn,
Drusilla, although I think the onus is on you to provide what you think we should emulate about colonialism, since you provided the analogy, I will go ahead and answer your request.  Regarding my response: as society improves, the aim is to move towards civility/better respect for human beings' individual choices and rights, including allowing individual nations the right to sovereignty not use force to press a view on them, like you wrote in your post. Carving up continents, invading them, using up their resources et cetera, in disguise of "helping those African savages" as was done in the past in Africa is not akin to civility or respect for human beings. In fact, it's one of the many examples of why no one should be dictating for others what is supposedly good for them without regard to personal preference/individuality, like you stated in your post.
I'm referring to those who played a hand in Africa's PAST colonialism, since that was the geographic region you mentioned in your post when you wrote: 

Drusilla:
Actually you can force them directly and indirectly to adopt any lifestyle you want them to adopt, if your powerful enough. Exhibit A: Africa under Colonialization/Neo-Colonialisation.

Drusilla:
We should allow society to committ suicide, as we do the individual. Gotcha.

LOL,
I admire your unselfish outlook on life. And since many people are too selfish to put society before their personal needs, I think it's only proper that you have 12 children, maybe even 15 to make up for those who are choosing to have none. This will definitely go many ways to help society.

Drusilla:
I watched a french documentary. The guy asked a very serious question that living in the richest country in the world, I have to ask myself.

If 80 percent of the people do not experience life like me, am I really experiencing the world as the majority of humanity does?

I'm not sure that advocating the policy's that benefit the top 20 percent of the world, is all I want to do with my life.

Maybe I am doing the limousine liberal thing. I'll have to think about that one.

Drusilla, the key word is here is CHOICE. You can live however you want. If you want to live like the top 20 percent of society, you can do that. If you prefer to live like the 80 percent, that is YOUR choice. And it is one you should make based on what makes you comfortable. That is the beauty of living in a free society. No where did I say people should be forced. Again, I specifically stated in my earlier post,  "That is, assuming that's what they want." 

Drusilla:
Actually you can force them directly and indirectly to adopt any lifestyle you want them to adopt, if your powerful enough. Exhibit A: Africa under Colonialization/Neo-Colonialisation.

unless you're saying Colonialism was a good thing, I'm confused why you would use this analogy. Oppressing a people and dominating them, and consequentially reducing their rights as human beings is not something a civilized society should emulate.

Drusilla:
And even if you are not that powerful, you can spend years teaching them differently and suddenly, you have people with lots of girls who want to do things that no girl desired before the current education began.

Like I said earlier, there will always be people who support the traditional family. And they deserve to be respected for their choices. But this same respect must be extended to those who choose alternative lifestyles. However people choose to live their lives it does not make them less human or their life less important that we should not respect them until they are forced to conform to certain dogmas. 

Drusilla:
It's not a crime but it does have the effect of killing society as more and more don't feel the pressure to provide the children for the society's future.

Yes, we are a society, but first we are individuals. Individuals who must live a life we feel is best for us. If that means not having children, then that's it. If people don't want to have children, why should they be forced? Some people might think very deeply about their lives and conclude that they lack the ability to properly take care of another human being. Why should we be forcing people who don't want children to have them? Are we to assume that they will suddenely love having children after they give birth to them? Is that not irresponsible and likely to do more damage to society if these people turn out to be terrible parents and raise children that are not adequately cared for? maybe (mentally or physically abused?, et cetera, ) 

Drusilla:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6040427/site/newsweek
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb05.htm
http://news.spirithit.com/index/society/more/japans_population_crisis_from_baby_shortage

I have read the links you provided. Nothing in the articles claim that women looking to leadership outside of the home is the cause for the problems you listed.

Rather, it supported the point I made earlier that there are many factors that contribute to changes in the family dynamics including (but not limited to) people becoming better educated, technology in birth control, absence of the social stigmas that accompanied out-of-wedlock births and the issues of marriage. But nowhere did it attribute women looking to leadership outside of the home as cause for these changes.

I think the "sex sells" message is not just a black problem. Many (white) women in Hollywood have to endure some skin exposure (read nudity) for people to see that "they've arrived". One of the problems with hip-hop, though, is that for so long there hasn't been a balance. Things are becoming too one-sided. The positive messages are being drowned out by sex and ass-shaking, getting rich or die trying, Nigga this, Nigga that. And this appears to be the order of the day. What the women in these videos don't understand is that there are many females out there who have no problem getting on screen and shaking it, so they will never be able to make a reasonable amount of money or not have to sleep with rappers as long as there's that large pool of supply.
I know the CEO of BET is a woman and I am wondering why she hasn't used her influence to at least try to reduce what's going on.
Besides some old-school stuff, these days I rarely listen to mainstream hip-hop or watch the videos.

Drusilla:
Nia,

I think a family is a certain group of people and I think the wife and mother of each family has a considerable influence among them.

I don't see what this has to do with what I wrote. Naturally, a parent would have influence in their family.

Drusilla:
And in the end, those pieces of paper and jobs and admiring employee's fade away and we cry over mama or our wife or our children more than any of them. Nobody ever dies thinking about a piece of paper or an old job. We all die wishing we would have taken more time to love and care for those we say we love.

hmnn, now, we're shifting the goal post. This reads like your personal sentiments, but I must disagree. Not everybody see things this way. Part of what makes the world go round and what allows civilization to continue to improve, the reason why each younger generation have the opportunity to be smarter than the previous ones, one of the reasons we have advanced the way we have as a people is what you're calling pieces of paper or an old job. Society MUST push people to be successful and to value leadership. We all benefit from it when we have many competent people competing for leadership. So, being the CEO of some company or loading your resume with highly respectable positions is not worthless. It puts you in competition with the best people. When we have many people with good leadership skills in our society, society benefits from it. So, no, it's not just worthless pieces of paper or an old job. It's part of life. Good leaders change people's lives and usually prove to be positive forces in the society. Being a good leader is about caring about those you're leading and looking out for their wellbeing.

Moreover, it is harder to maintain a family when you don't have a job with a steady income and if the job you need requires you to be a leader or to have strong leadership skills (and most top paying jobs DO look for these), it would prove difficult to attain such a job.

Drusilla:
Being first lady is not second best. Second best is being the second lady or vice presidents wife.

This is what I wrote.

Nia:
THE ISSUE OF SECOND BEST:
I slightly touched on this earlier but I'll attempt to be clearer. If what you want is to lead a people and to have strong influential force among those people then clearly being a first lady is second best, in that context. You simply cannot have the same impact as having direct power (more or less). This is not saying that being a first lady is useless, Period. (Which seems to be what you're insinuating).  If that's your goal in life, then it CANNOT be second best FOR YOU.  But in the contexts of being an influential force and assuming that's what you want, it greatly pales in comparison to being directly in leadership/power.

I think the poll shows that people have correctly surmised that Mrs. Bush is powerful simply by having the ear of the most powerful person in the world.

I didn't dispute what the poll said. I said I disagreed with it and I explained why. Bush is powerful and if he decides that tonight he must listen to my conversation with my boyfriend in order to further protect Americans from terrorism, I can't stop him. If Laura tries to do this, she won't get away with it.   

Drusilla:
We can't have it both ways. We can not say leadership outside the home is far greater than leadership in the home. Then wonder why people do not want to get married nor stay married. Why are families falling apart etc.

You seem to be forcing some view on me, a view that I never championed. And I'm starting to think you didn't read my replies at all.  Again, this is what I wrote:

Nia:
TO ADDRESS YOUR ASSUMPTION: I included in my post "THAT IS, IF THAT'S REALLY WHAT THEY WANT", specifically to avoid the type of assertion you're making. No one is saying people should be forced to believe that they want to become a powerful leader because it is more commendable than being a homemaker or a first Lady. What I wrote is that those who DO want to be in leadership should not be encouraged to settle for second best.

Drusilla:
As it is now in America, 62 percent of marriages end in divorce and second marriages end in divorce more often and quicker.

We got to stop sending these scitzophrenic messages to women and men and family's.

Then sitting back crying about why they do not want to get married, stay at home and raise good children and be strong in their own position in this world.

Unless you can prove that having the desire to be a leader outside the home directly affects all these, I'm not sure I see your point here. 
You cannot force people to adopt a way of life that you think is right for them. Ultimately, people have to make decisions for themselves because they're the ones that must live their lives.
If a man or women decides never to get married, WHY IS THIS A CRIME? What if like Mother theresa, they decide to travel to developing countries instead and dedicate their time? What if they want to run for a local government in their country and direct their energy at helping people in their town instead of getting married (although I have stated earlier that the two are not mutually exclusive)? Who are we to tell them that that's not the way to live?
There will always be people who believe that having a family is the ultimate prize and that is a choice everyone must respect. But why should we force this choice on all?

Drusilla:
Men of course read the message equally as clear. If outside the home matters more than in the home, they why not get a young trophy wife, the people outside the home will see the beauty in that more than your old tired wife.

LOL, well this is news to me but I don't get the correlation. There are many men out there who have nice homemaking wives and still run after young things in skirt. Kennedy and Clinton comes to mind, just to name a few.

Drusilla:
Children grow up now and don't want   to marry or have children even if they do get married well into their 40's and the parents if they become a problem are shipped immeadiately away to the nursing home.

They have heard the message as well, that it is all about them and what they want in this life, that is the only way to be valued.

I know this is the message that is fed to people in the west. So now the west sits around wringing it's hands that family's are fading, marriage is fading, children are fading.

Back in the 1960's people used to wring their hands about Black people's outrageous baby out of wedlock numbers. It was 25 percent.

Now white people's baby out of wedlocks numbers are 25 percent.

We need to think about the scitzophrenic messages we are sending people. It's a society killer to not value what women do in the capacity that most of them consider pretty important.

Again, unless you can provide concrete research to prove all of these, I can't agree with them.

Yes, the family dynamics have changed over the course of the years, but there are several factors that have affected the changes.

Drusilla:
Nia,

I think it is okay, if little girls grow up dreaming about being First Lady. I do not think at all it is a shabby second best as your post would imply.

I find that being a good wife, a good mother is still respectable for a woman in my eyes.

I do not think we should constantly diminish what women do and place value on women only if they can imitate what men consider to be accomplishments.

I am not sure how you got that from my post. Even though I am not an ardent supporter of traditionalism I do not "diminsh" anyone's choice to live the life they see best. If a woman wants to be a good housewife, or a stay at home mother, good for her.  If a woman wants to take on leadership roles and garner the force to execute considerable influence among a certain group of people, (i.e. be in leadership), good for her. (although the first and second are not mutually exclusive), 

There's no written law that says setting your goal on leading a/your people is something "only a man sees as accomplishment". Leadership is universally acknowledged as a great accomplishment by both members of the sexes. (I specifically remember how being president of "so and so" club and vice president of this and that always bulks up your resume when applying for certain positions not to mention college and universities. So, i can't agree with you that leadership is something only men see as accomplishments. Again, many people like to be leaders, not followers, sex notwithstanding.

TO ADDRESS YOUR ASSUMPTION: I included in my post "THAT IS, IF THAT'S REALLY WHAT THEY WANT", specifically to avoid the type of assertion you're making. No one is saying people should be forced to believe that they want to become a powerful leader because it is more commendable than being a homemaker or a first Lady. What I wrote is that those who DO want to be in leadership should not be encouraged to settle for second best.

THE ISSUE OF SECOND BEST:
I slightly touched on this earlier but I'll attempt to be clearer. If what you want is to lead a people and to have strong influential force among those people then clearly being a first lady is second best, in that context. You simply cannot have the same impact as having direct power (more or less). This is not saying that being a first lady is useless, Period. (Which seems to be what you're insinuating).  If that's your goal in life, then it CANNOT be second best FOR YOU.  But in the contexts of being an influential force and assuming that's what you want, it greatly pales in comparison to being directly in leadership/power.

Drusilla:
Nia,

It's all good. It's just disturbing to think that some young gullible girls might see this list and look up to being married to someone powerful as a good example rather than being encouraged to work at putting themselves in direct power. (That is, if that's really what they want).

Drusilla:
Nia,

I don't think it works like that in America. In America it is all about connections. Mrs. Bush is powerful just for being first lady. The Rich and Powerful do not think that obtaining power is commendable only if you achieve it on your own. That's a middle class value. A Rich and Powerful value is: who you know, who your related to.

Do remember that dear old dad is the reason for every job President Bush ever had in his life, in and out of political office.

So it's a perfect marriage.

Actually, what I gave is my opinion of what determines a "powerful" person. I know that connection is important. This is the case in many places, not just in America. When I say being powerful on their own, I'm not referring to bush using his father's connections to get into position. Many times, we all have to munch off somebody if we want to get on in life.

Being married to the man in countrol does not make you powerful, not in the real sense. Becoming the president of a country makes you powerful. (i.e. Johnson Sirleaf). Why? What's the difference? One of them has the power to control and dictate the order of the day for the people they are leading. Their influence is heavily felt among the populace. That's what having power is about. The other, i.e. a first lady does not garner the same amount of countrol and she either tries to advice or support the real man in power (or something to that effect). So, no, I disagree. Being married to the one in power doesn't make you powerful.