Why do most people assume women are incapable? I am not saying that every Tom, Dick and Harry are like this but there are people who practice this habit, I daresay. Even in English, this gender issue is applicable. For example, like I've mentioned, the phrase 'Tom, Dick and Harry' are clearly all names of men. Why can't it be 'Sally, Molly and Mary' instead? Or if it sounds a bit too feminine; how about Tom, Sally and Harry?



Let's move on to more serious matters-politics. In certain countries, the amount of women involved in politics are rather minimal. This is not because women are not interested or afraid but this problem is, indeed, due to the fact that there is a certain quota for women involvement in politics. Isn't that pathetic?! According to my 'insignificant' common sense, this is clearly unfair! If one is collectively chosen by the nation, then he or she has every right to be the leader. But, to my despair, this ain't the norm, looking at the way politics is being coordinated.



One might even 'enticingly' describe the flaws of women when argued on this matter. Among their arguments are:

# women are not strong enough

# women are emotional

# women are incapable of protecting themselves without the presence of a male

# women have mood swings(PMS) and so their decision-making abilities will deteriorate during

this time

# women are easily influenced

# AND THE LIST GOES ON...



Well, let me present to you my arguments on this matter. Firstly, strength does not determine the effectiveness of a leader but what matters is the mental strength. Women have a surpassing strong mind, I should say. Most people will certainly rebuke my stand and I will tell you why. The society normally assumes on a certain issue based on what they have heard, what they have seen or what they have known. Notice that i have used the past tense to describe these verbs. What I am trying to deduce is that the society looks at women based on what they have known in the past. I would surely not refute the opinion that women in the past are somewhat weak and are not leader-material. But now....that is an understatement!!!! Today's women are not like the ones in the past as they have broken out of the pot that was holding them in. Today, women are not referred to as women anymore but they are referred to as SUPERWOMEN!!!



The second argument, is that, women are emotional. Who in this world is not emotional???? This is clearly a misconception! Both men and women are emotional but women are more expressive about their feelings when compared to that of men. Men are not seen as emotional beings because they normally love to bottle up their emotions than sharing them. Then, there's the opinion about women being helpless without the presence of a male. How absurd!! Today's women are quite skilled when it comes to protecting themselves from danger. Martial arts, pepper spray-you name it and they have it!! Besides that, there is the PMS. This is another misconception that men have. PMS was never and will never be an obstacle for women. PMS is just like a headache to women. Piece of cake! And the argument about women are easily influenced is clearly a 'sweeping statement'! Women nowadays, are rather alert about their lives. They try their level best to go over a certain matter numerous times before deciding on its validity.



All in all, I believe if a woman were to be a nation's leader, the nation would prosper harmoniously. I have a very simple example that will trigger our minds on the thought that women can also prevent war. In your home, if you and your siblings were quarelling over something, your mother will be the best person to settle the fight; am I right?
This is the reality that occurs in 90% of the homes in Malaysia. However, I shall not blanket the fact that men have done surpassingly well to develop our country, Malaysia, but don't we, the women, need a chance and opportunity to shine to?