Women should rule the world... men are screwing it up bigtime!

[WarrenG]

A lot of men have a problem with feminism. They say, "Well, if they want to be equal, let them fight wars, work in mines, and be security guards."

Or something along those lines. And then a debate erupts, where the response is "No it's equal rights/opportunities," etc etc and so on.

But this only serves to detract from the actual problem with feminism - it's not aiming high enough! Equality should not be the goal. The goal should be to reach the dominant position in society.

There's an argument for captialism, usually professed by Ayn Rand fans and Americans/Brits, that goes: "People need to compete." But that's wrong - Men need to compete. Peope in general, don't. But if you create a society with male leader and male values, women suddenly do need to compete.

Girls consistently out-do boys in education. Doesn't that bode better for women as future leaders, all other things being equal?

Men have held the dominant position in human civilization for, well, ever. There's been the odd queen and female prime minister here and there, but they've all had a masculine perspective. I'd argue that they had to, to get where they got to (besides those that got there through blood). And how has that worked out for us?

How many problems with the world today can be traced back to male instincts to compete and dominate? War, terrorism, resource depletion, exploitation, slavery? Certainly, there's a gender skew towards males in terms of violence. With the least violent gender at the head of society, is it not possible that there'd be less violence between societies?

Women consistently score higher in tests of empathy and emotional intelligence as measured by psychologists. Isn't the ability to recognise emotions in others and put yourself in other peoples' positions a valuable trait in a leader?

Any thoughts, agree/disagree?

[mikej]

“If women ran the world we wouldn't have wars, just intense negotiations every 28 days.” - Robin Williams

[supertom]

On the world map, the countries would in arranged in giant circles

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

How many problems with the world today can be traced back to male instincts to compete and dominate? War, terrorism, resource depletion, exploitation, slavery?

I don't think that's male instinct. Those things arise from a disconnection with being a man.

Certainly, there's a gender skew towards males in terms of violence. With the least violent gender at the head of society, is it not possible that there'd be less violence between societies?

Women aren't the least violent gender, if there is such a thing. They may not be as physically violent as men, but as a whole, they can be quite violent in themselves in their communication and in their ways at getting people. It's like a terrorist who strikes out using terrorism because they don't have the power to take on a country's military might. A lot of women don't physically agress people since they can't, but they sure use a lot of violent communication, passive aggression, and button pushing to a level that most men can not. Give those kind of women the power to launch armies, and you'll see their physical violent nature come out.

So, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a women being in charge of a country. There are also a lot of peaceful countries out there led by men. It's not the gender that we put in power that matters, but the actual specific people.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by supertom

On the world map, the countries would in arranged in giant circles

The world needs a dominatrix, right, supertom?

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

The world needs a dominatrix, right, supertom?

A presimatrix

[JSB]

Yes, men have been screwing up bigtime. Let's switch things up and let the women screw up bigtime instead.

[Steel]

I, for one, would like to see a State ruled by women only. Just to see how they fare.

[180]

I've studied women in International politics and historically women have not been docile or more appeasing in policies.

They are are as "beligerent and cruel" as men in policy and execution. In my opinion, that's fine because it's a necessary requisite to become a leader in the first place. Every politician requires ruthlessness to achieve power, if anyone thinks otherwise, they really haven't had any exposure to outside politics.

Google it if you have to, If I could I would scan in the table I have in my International Relations book that shows a list of women in politics and the things they have done. Some of the include use of military force to quell opposition.

Men do compete stronger for resources, but animals are animals and gender doesn't rule out female competition for resources. Men have fought wars for resources, but women have historically encouraged men to fight wars because they are beneficiaries of war. I've read this somewhere but since it's iffy since I can't remember where, I probably shouldn't even cite this as evidence.

In Sparta, women disowned husbands or sons who were too weak or cowardly for battle. The story goes a mother killed her own son who returned from battle without his shield (this can't be verified though).

PS. WarrenG are you a man?

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by 180

I've studied women in International politics and historically women have not been docile or more appeasing in policies.

They are are as "beligerent and cruel" as men in policy and execution. In my opinion, that's fine because it's a necessary requisite to become a leader in the first place. Every politician requires ruthlessness to achieve power, if anyone thinks otherwise, they really haven't had any exposure to outside politics.

Google it if you have to, If I could I would scan in the table I have in my International Relations book that shows a list of women in politics and the things they have done. Some of the include use of military force to quell opposition.

Yeah, in seriousness, this sounds right to me. I don't think either gender is really better suited to lead. There might be different strengths and weaknesses, but placing only one gender at the top leads to imbalance.

However, there is "the girl effect": empowering girls and women leads to better outcomes for society as a whole. (Also known as, how can a society thrive when half its members are oppressed?)

From that I'd say that it probably makes the most sense to let men and women lead together.

[Smartass]

Disagree.

Thoughts:

Society norms cause effects like :

-women do better education-wise (alot of boys think it's cooler to chill and not stress about school etc. & Girls are commended for being able to do be still and quiet and beautiful and do lots of mindnumbing homework)

-Men need to compete (first off this is not true, alot of men need to compete - this is subtle but important. And that is because we are taught that a girl should pick the guy that is the best society-wise, and so they compete)

As for:

-Men screwed up. (I like this world. Well not everything but hey, thats polarity. deal with it. If women pulled the strings the world would most definitely change alot. But it would contain exactly the same amount of sadness and hurt.)

As for all your other points:

I don't feel like answering you because you raise points so ignorant, and points I resist so much, that it bothers me. Maybe someone else is stronger?
I know there are, believes, norms or whatever you call it in this society that are unfair for either of the sexes. But this is not feminism you speak of but something else, something bad. Think about it. How far are you willing to go with these views as too prevent male terrorism? Lock all men up in cages? Have you been hurt by men? Do you believe in LoA? Metaphysics? If you do, think about how you created all this nastiness. Or maybe why it isn't so nasty at all..

[taylor]

Obviously robots are the way to go.

Not that you'll have a choice.

[Brutha]

Every politician requires ruthlessness to achieve power, if anyone thinks otherwise, they really haven't had any exposure to outside politics.

I don't think that's always true. It depends on the environment and which traits get valued by other powerful people.

In Berlin our current major Wowereit would be someone who came to power without relying on ruthlessness power games but by being considered the best person for the job by the fellow politicians in his party (the SPD).
The political culture in Berlin went a bit downhill over the last decade and it doesn't seem like the SPD will choose his successor on the same basis.

US politics is very power based. If you take the photos of two candidates for an office and show them to volunteer you can get a decent prediction on the outcome of the election by asking which candidate appears more powerful.
In Japan it doesn't work when you ask about which candidate appears more powerful. You have to ask which candidate appears more kind/friendly. For a long time consensus was very important in Japanese politics and someone who would be seen as focusing on power games would lose support.

Isn't the ability to recognise emotions in others and put yourself in other peoples' positions a valuable trait in a leader?

No. A political leader should do what he considers right. Politics shouldn't be about reading the emotions in the room and advocating the positions that most popular.

I witnessed a very smart woman who apologized for a position that she took in a debate:
"I'm not really that stupid. I don't really believe in the position that I advocated half an hour ago. I however thought that the position would be popular in this group and get support from other people."
What do I mean when I say she's smart? He finished school as the only person in the year who got the maximum score of 1.0.
Her dad is a public figure with name recognition in the whole country. She knows something about the internal workings of politics.

That isn't the kind of politics that I want. I want to have politicians who argue at least internally for positions in which they believe. Positions that they build through reason instead of adopting them because they read the emotions in the room.

You focus too much on end results instead of the decision making process within political organisations.

[WarrenG]

Le Roi,

Women aren't the least violent gender, if there is such a thing. They may not be as physically violent as men, but as a whole, they can be quite violent in themselves in their communication and in their ways at getting people.

For sure, women have their methods, but my point there was specifically about violoence, in which, there's a clear gender skew towards men - fact.

It's like a terrorist who strikes out using terrorism because they don't have the power to take on a country's military might.

No it isn't, because terrorism is clearly an act of violence.

So, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a women being in charge of a country. There are also a lot of peaceful countries out there led by men. It's not the gender that we put in power that matters, but the actual specific people.

Of course it's the specific people, and a bunch of peaceful men is better than a bunch of warlike women. But if you had to choose one or the other, which would you choose?


180,

I've studied women in International politics and historically women have not been docile or more appeasing in policies.

To what extent do you think this point is hindered by the fact that these are Women leaders in a male dominated world, playing a man's game?

If, for example, men were legally disallowed from entering politics or any other national leadership role for 100 years, do you think they would generally act similarly to the examples you've come across? If so why?


Smartass,

-women do better education-wise (alot of boys think it's cooler to chill and not stress about school etc. & Girls are commended for being able to do be still and quiet and beautiful and do lots of mindnumbing homework)

Yep, that's one possible explanation, that males are socialised into behaviours that aren't condusive to education. But another is that boys' hormones make them rowdier during that period and they haven't learned to channel that into ambition. And when they do, it's time for War!

-Men need to compete (first off this is not true, alot of men need to compete - this is subtle but important.

Of course. But a lot more men than women need to compete.

I don't feel like answering you because you raise points so ignorant, and points I resist so much, that it bothers me. Maybe someone else is stronger?

Fair enough amigo!


taylor,

Obviously robots are the way to go.

Not that you'll have a choice.

Male or female robots?

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

For sure, women have their methods, but my point there was specifically about violoence, in which, there's a clear gender skew towards men - fact.

You seem to equate violence with just physical acts. Violence is much more than just physical act. Women and men both are just as prone to violence, if not just the physical kind.

Furthermore, like another poster wrote, a lot of women do support and encourage the war. A lot of women in the US fully supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the bombings in Libya, Serbia, and a lot of other countries the US has bombed over the years.

In fact, you couldn't have the US carry out all of these wars around the globe without a huge number of women fully supporting it. This is especially true with the way women have a lot of power and influence in the US, even if they don't have that many female representatives.

Furthermore, given that there are slightly more women than men in the US, it's very likely that there are slightly more female voters than there are male voters. So even if the current leaders are mostly male, they need to have the backing of a lot of women.

Thus, if women as a general group were against violence against another country, the US would have being very peaceful for the last 50 years. Sadly, this isn't what has happened.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Warren I have a book recommendation for you. It's called Blood Rites by Barbra Ehrenreich. She's an anthropologist and an excellent author. Blood Rites is basically her criticism of the typical "hunter/gatherer" paradigm that is accepted as true about early prehistory of humanity (men being the 'hunters' and women being the 'gatherers'). She argues that blaming violence on men or asserting that giving women the power will somehow make life more peaceful is irrational and the facts of history do not support it.

She asserts that humanity's obsession for war is not due to any inherent aggressive male prerogative but due to a deep and only somewhat recently escaped trauma of being hunted for millions of years by predators with better natural capabilities than human beings. Archaeological and paleontological evidence supports a history where the first homo sapiens and their distant cousins homo erectus were devoured regularly by a whole host of hungry predators. Human beings were once the middlings of the food chain, huddling in fear around small fires as vicious gargantuan terrors stalked through the foreboding darkness outside their caves (if they were lucky enough to find a cave that is).

She describes the prevalence of human sacrifice in ancient cultures as being a reenactment and dramatization of a not so distant prehistorical moment when one of the tribe would sacrifice themselves by running toward the predator so the rest of the tribe could escape. She points out that all the gods that these sacrifices are made to are anthropomorphized predators and the purpose of sacrifice to the gods has consistently and cross culturally been to feed them so they wouldn't destroy the whole tribe! Indeed, our defenseless ancestors must have seen the sabre tooth tiger as some kind of deity that held the power of life and death in its massive jaws.

Granted, there are multiple factors that lead to war and Ehrenreich acknowledges this in great detail, but the rest of the book carries this same argument with a deft and compelling grace, that we as a species have been trying to remake ourselves as the predators who so terrified us and that this instinct is a deep seated drive behind much of our modern day actions. A trauma that happened not just to men, but to all human beings.

Great book, I recommend it to anyone who wants an interesting perspective on 'why' human beings are almost constantly at war. To put it simply, this is not a man's nor a woman's world we live in. Human beings may seem to be at the top of the food chain, but we still aren't sure of ourselves. Deep down, we know this hasn't always been our world and that the phantom of the Beast still lurks in the shadows, ready to snatch it back if we ever lose our guns, our electricity, if that proverbial campfire ever goes out. There's a sort of Promethean guilt and fear humanity has toward nature, which has so often been characterized as God, a force beyond our control.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Yeah, in seriousness, this sounds right to me. I don't think either gender is really better suited to lead. There might be different strengths and weaknesses, but placing only one gender at the top leads to imbalance.

However, there is "the girl effect": empowering girls and women leads to better outcomes for society as a whole. (Also known as, how can a society thrive when half its members are oppressed?)

From that I'd say that it probably makes the most sense to let men and women lead together.

Yes.

Originally Posted by taylor

Obviously robots are the way to go.

Not that you'll have a choice.

Haha.

Originally Posted by Le Roi

You seem to equate violence with just physical acts. Violence is much more than just physical act. Women and men both are just as prone to violence, if not just the physical kind.

Furthermore, like another poster wrote, a lot of women do support and encourage the war. A lot of women in the US fully supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the bombings in Libya, and Serbia.

In fact, you couldn't have the US carry out all of these wars around the globe without a huge number of women fully supporting it. This is especially true with the way women have a lot of power and influence in the US, even if they don't have that many female representatives.

Furthermore, given that there are slightly more women than men in the US, it's very likely that there are slightly more female voters than there are male voters. So even if the current leaders are mostly male, they need to have the backing of a lot of women.

Thus, if women as a general group were against violence against another country, the US would have being very peaceful for the last 50 years. Sadly, this isn't what has happened.

In the US, if you're not liberal, you're almost always Christian. Conservative Christian women often believe it's their duty to vote with their husband.

You're right, as a whole, but I don't really think you can consider American voting trends and not have Christianity have a fundamental role somewhere.

[Criseyde]

KaleidoscopicVision, that looks great. I've requested it from the library. Thanks for posting!

[ZephyrusX]

Oh, just elect the cat for the World Government. Utter confusion will reign across the land, but the land will revolve around saucers of cream and cuddles. 'Meow'...

I found one point made by Warren interesting: women who end up in positions of power either in politics or business end up playing 'a man's game' and suddenly forget about the plight of less powerful groups. They do so in order to fit into the pervailing culture. May be. It is a view that I have heard expressed before, but I haven't done much research into it.

But then, I don't think taking power away from men is an appropriate solution. Partially because not all women and men share the same attitudes. There are just as many women who are anti-feminists as there are men who are feminists. There are just as many women who are pro war as there are men who are anti-war. But also, the underlying premise is a little insulting towards men. THe underlying idea is that they will never listen or bend to competing discourses. I don't believe this. They are just as capable as anyone else to listen to reason. They only thing is that women ought to actually 'speak' what they believe.

I like Brutha's story:

I witnessed a very smart woman who apologized for a position that she took in a debate:
"I'm not really that stupid. I don't really believe in the position that I advocated half an hour ago. I however thought that the position would be popular in this group and get support from other people."
What do I mean when I say she's smart? He finished school as the only person in the year who got the maximum score of 1.0.
Her dad is a public figure with name recognition in the whole country. She knows something about the internal workings of politics.

That isn't the kind of politics that I want. I want to have politicians who argue at least internally for positions in which they believe. Positions that they build through reason instead of adopting them because they read the emotions in the room.

This is the politics I want as well. If you are really hardcore feminists, don't back down from that perspective when you enter a position of power just because it might alienate you from the culture that you are entering. The same can be said to both men and women though.

[Mariana Trench]

There are just as many women who are anti-feminists as there are men who are feminists. There are just as many women who are pro war as there are men who are anti-war.

That's a good point. Ann Coulter, for instance, is famous for saying she wishes women didn't have the vote so conservatives would always win.

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

In the US, if you're not liberal, you're almost always Christian. Conservative Christian women often believe it's their duty to vote with their husband.

That may be true in your family, but I don't see that. I've lived in the south as well for a decade and I just didn't see that. What I saw thought was a huge diffidence that men had toward their wives, in letting them have a lot of power over decisions that I just didn't see in France. So the whole notion that a huge segment of women vote pro-war just because their husband did doesn't make sense to me.

Furthermore, the pro-war may be mostly a conservative thing for now, but thats a very recent thing. Conservaticed used to be anti-war and the liberals were the pro-war as recently as 10 years ago. Bush W. Ran as president with the pledge to stop all that bombing and war-like behavior that Clinton had done.

[Le Roi]

Furthermore, the only difference between the liberal and conservative groups as a whole this decade is that conservatives were pro Iraq war and the liberals were anti-Iraq war. Both were pro Afganistan war (and Obama tripled the troops in Afganistan) and it seems more liberals were pro-Libya war than conservatives were when it began.

The Vietnam war was started by a liberal administration and it was a Republican (Nixon) who got elected pledging to end the war.

So really both conservatives and liberals are both too pro-war.

[ZephyrusX]

That is pretty screwy. There is an organization in Canada called 'The Real Women of Canada'. They really toned down their website last time I checked it, but it pretty much anti-feminist rhetoric. They blame all of society's 'ills' on feminism and think that women rightfully belong in the household.

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

That's a good point. Ann Coulter, for instance, is famous for saying she wishes women didn't have the vote so conservatives would always win.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Le Roi

That may be true in your family, but I don't see that. I've lived in the south as well for a decade and I just didn't see that. What I saw thought was a huge diffidence that men had toward their wives, in letting them have a lot of power over decisions that I just didn't see in France. So the whole notion that a huge segment of women vote pro-war just because their husband did doesn't make sense to me.

Well that's interesting. This is something I don't see, but I don't really think there can be more to say on that, as it's a personal observation in both cases and can't really be defended or argued against.

Originally Posted by Le Roi

Furthermore, the only difference between the liberal and conservative groups as a whole this decade is that conservatives were pro Iraq war and the liberals were anti-Iraq war. Both were pro Afganistan war (and Obama tripled the troops in Afganistan) and it seems more liberals were pro-Libya war than conservatives were when it began.

The Vietnam war was started by a liberal administration and it was a Republican (Nixon) who got elected pledging to end the war.

So really both conservatives and liberals are both too pro-war.

I strongly agree.

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by Le Roi

You seem to equate violence with just physical acts. Violence is much more than just physical act. Women and men both are just as prone to violence, if not just the physical kind.

No, violence means to use physical force. Maybe you could debate that, but I'm not going to get into a semantical argument - when I said 'violence' I was referring to physical force. I did concede that women have their propensity towards other forms of aggressive behaviour.

Furthermore, given that there are slightly more women than men in the US, it's very likely that there are slightly more female voters than there are male voters. So even if the current leaders are mostly male, they need to have the backing of a lot of women.

Thus, if women as a general group were against violence against another country, the US would have being very peaceful for the last 50 years. Sadly, this isn't what has happened.

I don't think so, because governments don't always do what the people want and/or voted them in to do, and also because not all people base their voting decisions on that. Basically, if you live in the US or Britain, your government will go to war whatever you think. Over here, the majority opposed the Iraq war; they did it anyway. Which I'm arguing would happen less-often with a female-dominated government.

Again - I'm not saying women are perfect angels, or that women would never go to war. Just that they would do it less. For instance, check out these Gallup polls:

Gender Gap Varies on Support for War

Pretty high figures all round, alas, but for the most part, women supported the war less than men.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by Le Roi

You seem to equate violence with just physical acts. Violence is much more than just physical act. Women and men both are just as prone to violence, if not just the physical kind.

I think this is a good point. How would you define violence though? People keep bringing up wars and physical acts of violence (I can't help but think of Thatcher and the Falklands), but what about more mundane forms of control and marginalization? In Canada, Aboriginal colonialism was largely facilitated by residential schools, which were staffed by women. How is destroying someone's cultural identity and planting the seeds of years of generational poverty and abuse any less wrong than physical violence? They did it because they thought their religion was superior. Women are not any more resilient towards destructive ideologies than men.

I think the issue is more about patriarchy and imperialism more so than gender.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

That is pretty screwy. There is an organization in Canada called 'The Real Women of Canada'. They really toned down their website last time I checked it, but it pretty much anti-feminist rhetoric. They blame all of society's 'ills' on feminism and think that women rightfully belong in the household.

Yeah, there are similar groups here. I find it interesting that they choose to use the wording "The Real..." because I see that other places as well: Tea Party-ers calling themselves "the real America", for instance. I have to wonder exactly what they think there is about everyone else that makes them unreal (in both cases).

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Warren I have a book recommendation for you. It's called Blood Rites by Barbra Ehrenreich. She's an anthropologist and an excellent author.

Hmm, thanks for the recommendation, but I've come across Ehrenreich before and I find her really biased and really poor at backing up her arguments. I'll put it on my "to read" list, but no promises!

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

Hmm, thanks for the recommendation, but I've come across Ehrenreich before and I find her really biased and really poor at backing up her arguments. I'll put it on my "to read" list, but no promises!

Well it's the only book I've read by her, so I didn't go into reading it with that bias
I didn't get an impression of her being biased or having poorly backed arguments. But I assure you if you go into the book looking for that, you'll probably find it as thought has such a powerful effect on reality. Try to read it as though someone other than Ehrenreich wrote it if that helps.

[LostMyMap]

Women leaders aren't as competitive? Hmm, you might want to look through history, Boudicca, Cleopatra, Queen Elizabeth I, Joan of Arc, M. Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, to name a few.