Would the world be different if TPTB were all women instead of men?

Originally posted by KatieVA
Thanks, (he's a boy) he was making fart noises out of his face when I took the photo

Aaargh, I'm a dummkopf ! My apologies for calling ''him'' a ''her''.

In my defence, boys and girls are quite similar looking at that age.

If he was making fart noises, then that would explain why he's got such an hilarious expression on his face !

Originally posted by KatieVA
I agree that some women tend to let their emotions rule over everything, but pretty much any personality trait can be applied to each gender.

From my experience, women are perfectly capable of logical thought, it's just that most of them tend to let emotions trump this capacity.

I don't think that this is necessarily a negative personality trait of women ( which is why I put ''flaw'' in inverted commas ), but I think that it needs to be acknowledged, and that this makes most women unsuitable for responsible leadership.

I'm very aware that tarring everyone in one group with a broad brush is not correct, which is why my comments are talking about men and women, on average.

Double post.

Margaret Thatcher was the most vindictive, spiteful, manipulative and hateful leader the UK has ever had who at times let emotion cloud her judgement and ripped this country apart just to prove she had as big a pair of balls as any man.
We are still paying the price and consequences of her policies.

But I don't think she is representative of all women who rise to positions of power and influence.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


And it's my opinion that men aren't cut out for responsible leadership because they let their need to be alpha male and to stroke their own ego get in the way of properly serving their communities.

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

 

And it's my opinion that men aren't cut out for responsible leadership because they let their need to be alpha male and to stroke their own ego get in the way of properly serving their communities.

I agree with this. And I think the examples of women in power are not representative of what women in charge would be like. That is because we live in a patriarchy, and in order for these women to even get to that point, they have to mimic the behaviour of powerful men. If they no longer had to do that, I think things might be different.

I think most of you pro gender folks need a little anthropology lessons. First off the "world" has not always been ruled by tptb. The Americas, parts of Africa, and Asia. Had there own societies for far longer than Europe has been influencing the world. Most domestic scale(tribal) cultures have egalitarianism were there is no ruler just a spokes person for inter tribe relations. Those cultures spanned 10's of thousands of years and are a better example of the "natural" state of gender roles. Tribes very greatly but the power structures are very similar. Many of these arguments are based on societal cultural learning and have nothing to do with gender. For instance there a women warriors, chieftesses, shaman, as well as the more "traditional role" of females. Tibet is a matriarc as is dare I say Israel. In Tibet to get over having a population problem they would marry two men to a women. That is matriarch solution. One women can only have I baby vrs the Mormon approach which is opposite. I am just saying don't be so ethnocentric folks. The world is a big place. The NWO wants us all the same and to have the same views on our selves and history. Try to learn some truth know before it's all gone.

Things would look more tidy and all the buildings would be colour coordinated,
Congress and Parliament would be turned into giant Bathrooms.

Not listening to your wife will become a crime and Football will be Banned!

Nuclear war will threaten humanity with every cycle of the Moon.

Only Kidding


A Woman's Eye sits at the very top. feminine forces are at work

Originally posted by Movescamp
I think most of you pro gender folks need a little anthropology lessons. First off the "world" has not always been ruled by tptb. The Americas, parts of Africa, and Asia. Had there own societies for far longer than Europe has been influencing the world. Most domestic scale(tribal) cultures have egalitarianism were there is no ruler just a spokes person for inter tribe relations. Those cultures spanned 10's of thousands of years and are a better example of the "natural" state of gender roles. Tribes very greatly but the power structures are very similar. Many of these arguments are based on societal cultural learning and have nothing to do with gender. For instance there a women warriors, chieftesses, shaman, as well as the more "traditional role" of females. Tibet is a matriarc as is dare I say Israel. In Tibet to get over having a population problem they would marry two men to a women. That is matriarch solution. One women can only have I baby vrs the Mormon approach which is opposite. I am just saying don't be so ethnocentric folks. The world is a big place. The NWO wants us all the same and to have the same views on our selves and history. Try to learn some truth know before it's all gone.

Have you ever read Daniel Quinn's book on neo tribalism? It's a great read and a great model for egalitarian society, IMO.

I just dont know. Why not male and femal per political position?
Reminds me of A & S smh....

Originally posted by doobydoll
It's just that we seem to be living in a war-ravaged and crime-ridden, unsafe world, no thought for the ecology whatsoever, greedy, corrupt corporations and shaky economies, and it's men running things. Could this be the reason?

Oh no my friend. No bash on women really but if you think women would be immune from the games and corruption of power.....you simply dream.

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

 

And it's my opinion that men aren't cut out for responsible leadership because they let their need to be alpha male and to stroke their own ego get in the way of properly serving their communities.

No more than females toss thier wieght around. How about alpha females? They make to serve off thier own ego same as the men. The diff is that everyone has bought into this idea of male only as ego driven and thus women have the right and duty to walk all over men in the name of this myth? Its just a stupid supposition. Women create more problems in social setting than men do in my opinion.

Females think differently to males by nature, which is why I wonder if/how the world could be different if TPTB were female-dominated and ran things.

Maybe things wouldn't be better, or worse, but different.

We can never know the answer because as someone said, women don't run the world.

After 2012 maybe we will

reply to post by Xavialune


I have not read it but I will now. I actually believe the American structure had some interesting egalitarian principles(in writing). Having states have power as well as regions was a cutting edge philosophy of government. Unfortunately the centralization destroyed any of those philosophies. The idea of personal liberty as well was very egalitarian. But now we are being grouped into socialist racist groups. No longer individuals but groups and classes. Like if I am black or gay I am the same as other blacks or gays. It's gross and the problem is most compassionates are misled to believe in that crap. People should always be treated as individuals, stereo types belong in jokes or personal opinion not government or legislation.

I think that for 1 week of every month in every year that they were in power, we would all be in serious trouble!



Peace.
ALS

reply to post by doobydoll


First off how do you know that? I would say a western women is very different than a Yanomami women. Society and culture have far more to do with how people act than gender. Women have ruled the world look AR a history book. Elizabeth? Cleopatra? The list is bigger than you think especially pre Constantine. Women were just as savage. It's power. It corrupts absolutely. The only way to change that is by changing the power structure not gender.

Originally posted by KatieVA
How very sexist of you.

Why is it sexist to acknowledge and clinically analyse the broad personality differences between men and women ?

It is always wise to view the universe through objective eyes.


My comment about ''mud huts'' was quoting Germaine Greer, the feminazi extraordinaire, who made a similar comment regarding humanity's development - or lack of - if women were in charge.

Someone mentioned that women allow emotion to influence decision. Why is this necessarily a bad thing? Maybe if leaders exercised heart, gut, and mind in political matters things might take a turn for the better.

We've seen what men tend to get up to- cold, calculating, manipulative penis waving. Has this gotten us very far?

In truth, the difference between the ways men and women come to conclusions, react to things and deal with things in general compliment one another. We see things from different angles, and if intelligent and compassionate, are able to understand what drives our counterparts to come to their conclusions; enabling us to see the merits and flaws of each others thought processes.

Sure there are evil people that get into positions of power- but with good, intelligent people also on board, they can be weeded out. Kind of like how interdisciplinary medical teams work.

Anyway- I'm not awake enough for this! Toddling off to the coffee maker....toodles~

Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by doobydoll

 

First off how do you know that? I would say a western women is very different than a Yanomami women. Society and culture have far more to do with how people act than gender. Women have ruled the world look AR a history book. Elizabeth? Cleopatra? The list is bigger than you think especially pre Constantine. Women were just as savage. It's power. It corrupts absolutely. The only way to change that is by changing the power structure not gender.

You're right, I don't know that.

Culture and society might be different if women had been in charge from the beginning.

I thought rulers such as elizabeth and cleopatra were 'advised' by men. If I'm wrong then I apologise.

The problem is leaders. Which emplies followers. Why even argue gender. If you are not in control of your destiny some else is. That is never a good thing. Men and women are both corruptible. Both capable of horrible crimes against humanity (any one remember indira ghandi). The argument is on the wrong topic. A solution based discussion may be on what does it mean to be male or female. Or how do we redistribute power so we all have a responsibility in OUR society.

reply to post by doobydoll


What beginning? Europe? Rome? Like i said women were rulers about equally in domestic scale culture. Until probably 300 years ago there were far more of those than Europa. Women were THE first rulers. Have you ever studied ancient history. There are far more Goddess cultures than God. It was the probably the power of child birth. It wasn't until around the birth of Christ that the sacred feminie was completely eradicated. If you look at ancient Hindu scripture even the fact alone that a female was a god is more than
The west gives credit for. The British and
Muslims severly changed Hinduism and there view of women.
Cleopatra had her own motives as did Elizabeth.
Is Obama any better off having Hillary as an advisor? No way she loves war and "penis waving" almost as much as dick chaney.