It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   



It's just that women aren't really suitable for responsible leadership in a modern-day society.



I wouldnt give a women the big red button.




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Emmeline Pankhurst and the suffragettes, as well.

All of the social change that these women may have instigated, was implemented by men.

I'm not saying that women don't have a valuable contribution to society. It's just that they, as a rule, aren't cut out for responsible leadership.

That is all.


The women pointed the men at the issue, and the men did what men do. Leadership is not implementation. I'll give you an example. The USAF's Officer Training Manual has a question - a leadership question.

Q - You have a 100 ft pole, a flag, a 200 ft length of rope, cement, tools and a Sergeant. How do you erect the flag pole?

A - You order the Sergeant "Sergeant, put up that flag pole."

That's what leadership is. Knowing what you have to do, knowing what you have at hand to do it, and directing those assets to get it done. By your own description, the women were the leaders and the men were the implementers (the people being led). Get the definition of the word leadership right, and the truth of this will become obvious.

edit on 12/17/2010 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   


There is a balance nowadays.

Men and women compliment each other wonderfully.


It's just that women aren't really suitable for responsible leadership in a modern-day society.



How can you say there is balance when you are talking like you are?

On another point, do you really think that of all the women we would out in power why do you think we would put some self-centered, emotionally ignorant, shallow, immature girl, in power. Haven't you ever met any women who are level headed and not as you describe. There are many out there.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by doobydoll
 


And are you so entirely sure some of the most powerful people in charge, and calling shots, are not women?

The Queen is the only non-male EVER to be rumored to have addressed the membership of the Bohemian grove. If things work out right, Sec State Clinton could spent 16 yrs very close to the white house. I notice Mrs clinton is a jet setter these days, going all over the world. I remember In the Clinton Pres days, it was Madaline Allbright who was the one running around europe crushing tender spots, and keeping men in line.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ZELDAR
 


make yourselves a chart of the downfall on humans and the rise of womankind its very steep i know, no problems with women at all but they are too nice you cant help/save everyone people live people die if im one goodbye
edit on 17-12-2010 by nonetruegod because: im a rtard



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

It's about intelligence, character and leadership.
These traits are not gender based.

The one advantage women generally have is that we have more aptitude for subtle communication.
Sometimes being a good communicator can enable one to avoid violent disputes.
However a male leader can get this benefit by luck, practice or by having a good female adviser.



Were are you coming up with these ideas. Do you think all men just shut the doors and start tossing things around the room untill the stronger force wins? There are plenty of men out there that now how to talk to other men without all this other crap. Grow up.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by hybridkate
reply to post by doobydoll
 


For Better me thinks....not sure how much worse men culd muck it up!


A number of women on this thread need to understand that you have an ax to grind. You need to be told that and understand that. Maybe you have been shoved around by males in your life and in that case you have my respects for part of your flow.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Sorry but that is utter Feminist bull#. There is a male and female for a reason but it does not garner supremacy. Not to mention the bigoted ethnocentric view you present. Try some real anthropology it requires an etic and Emic point of view. "society" wasn't only in Mesopotamia. Yet everyone seems to present it that way. China and mesoameric have just as much society that dates back more than 10,000 years.


I appreciate the few men who have the feminine qualities required to not make a mess of governing an entire society. Some men have been particularly talented, and we all know who those men are. Statesmen, we call them. What's made them great is their ability to restrain the biological pre-disposition that causes men to draw in and protect what they have against rivals. The "leaders of men" who've become famous due to their military accomplishments are also to be admired, but generally speaking, putting such men behind a statehouse desk is like hitching a Lamborghini up to a flatbed and hauling freight cross-country. Sure the horsepower is there, but the application of all that power would just be wrong for too many reasons. Being the wrong person for a job is not a slam against that person. Lamborghinis do just fine when they're properly applied.


Are you even aware of the many men that were in fact great military men and also great statesmen? You sound like you are afflicted with a sort of conditional bigotry toward males in general. "feminine qualities required"? Thats like saying we cant use a black person that doesnt act a little white or the best black folk have white qualities.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Sorry but that is utter Feminist bull#. There is a male and female for a reason but it does not garner supremacy. Not to mention the bigoted ethnocentric view you present. Try some real anthropology it requires an etic and Emic point of view. "society" wasn't only in Mesopotamia. Yet everyone seems to present it that way. China and mesoameric have just as much society that dates back more than 10,000 years.


Okay, 70,000 years ago - at least the 1st that we're aware of....

news.bbc.co.uk...


The truth is that all you need to do is look at the nuclear family unit - and especially the extended family unit - to immediately see the natural organizational, leadership structure that always develops. It gets even more obvious as each gender ages. Women never lose their capacity for interpersonal influence and control, whereas men tend to become more and more psychologically isolative as they age. The more "feminine" the culture, the less obvious it is, but the difference between how the male reacts to community and how the female reacts to community is consistent regardless of the culture.

I'm a humanist. I'm not a feminist or a masculinist. We do each have our strengths and weaknesses. If I was a hand, I would be content with being the best hand I could be, and wouldn't resent a foot for being able to do what I'm not designed to do. Maybe, when I was younger I would've been concerned that I couldn't support the entire body in the same manner that the foot can, but I've come to realize that I don't have to be good, or even capable, at everything. I only have to be the best version of what I am, and offer the best of what I am naturally gifted with. Anything else is just me trying to compete with other people, and for what?

I appreciate the few men who have the feminine qualities required to not make a mess of governing an entire society. Some men have been particularly talented, and we all know who those men are. Statesmen, we call them. What's made them great is their ability to restrain the biological pre-disposition that causes men to draw in and protect what they have against rivals. The "leaders of men" who've become famous due to their military accomplishments are also to be admired, but generally speaking, putting such men behind a statehouse desk is like hitching a Lamborghini up to a flatbed and hauling freight cross-country. Sure the horsepower is there, but the application of all that power would just be wrong for too many reasons. Being the wrong person for a job is not a slam against that person. Lamborghinis do just fine when they're properly applied.

Sorry again.


Anthropology is something i have studied for over 10 years I don't need your googled article to show me the oldest known modern man remains are 70,000 years old. I also have read margret Meade which if you had you would understand the family is divided differently every where. For instance the Polynesian islands and atols had a lot of polyamorous cultures. In which case the
Mothers brother would be the father. Not because of sex because nobody knew who the father was but they did know she had a brother. It was a way the family could still be strong. The things you bring up are from modern society which yes is founded by Romanesque philosophy. Christianity ironically erased the sacred feminine which devalued women as gods. It was spread around the world that way and soon women were looked down on. There was a time the opposite was true. You really are speaking with your feelings which is fine and relevant but don't present it as fact. Hell we are finding 12,000 civilizations we assumed were impossible to have been created.

edit on 18-12-2010 by Movescamp because: Wrong spacing



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Someone has already expanded on my Indira Ghandi reference so I won't. I just want to make clear women are no better or worse than men. Until we can look at people as individuals we will always be racist, sexist, bigots. All of the pro gender or gender this gender that are actually part of humanities problems. Discussion is
Good it can help shed or strengthen viewpoints. But we need to evolve or like the great bucky fuller said we are "going to destroy spaceship earth". For all the liberals don't buy into socialism. Keep your compassion but don't get into the habit of making groups of gays, or blacks, or even women and men(unless it's a bathroom). Try to see the individual for what they are.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Double post
edit on 18-12-2010 by Movescamp because: Double post



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Kailassa

It's about intelligence, character and leadership.
These traits are not gender based.

The one advantage women generally have is that we have more aptitude for subtle communication.
Sometimes being a good communicator can enable one to avoid violent disputes.
However a male leader can get this benefit by luck, practice or by having a good female adviser.

Were are you coming up with these ideas. Do you think all men just shut the doors and start tossing things around the room untill the stronger force wins? There are plenty of men out there that now how to talk to other men without all this other crap. Grow up.

What an ignorant temper tantrum of a reply. Are you trying to prove me right?
You do know men and women are different, do you?
Just as our bodies differ, so do our brains.
This means that the average woman has different aptitudes to those of the average man.

This is not prejudice, nor is it feminism. This is science.


Are There Differences between the Brains of Males and Females?

women are better than men in human relations, recognizing emotional
overtones in others and in language, emotional and artistic expressiveness, esthetic appreciation, verbal language and carrying out detailed and pre-planned tasks.
. . . .
human females tend to be higher than males in empathy, verbal skills, social skills
. . . .
"These discernible, measurable differences in behaviour have been imprinted long before external influences have had a chance to get to work. They reflect a basic difference in the newborn brain which we already know about -- the superior male efficiency in spatial ability, the greater female skill in speech."
. . . .
Another previous study by the same group led by Dr. Godfrey Pearlson has shown that two areas in the frontal and temporal lobes related to language (the areas of Broca and Wernicke, named after their discoverers) were significantly larger in women, thus providing a biological reason for women's notorious superiority in language-associated thoughts. Using magnetic resonance imaging, the scientists measured gray matter volumes in several cortical regions in 17 women and 43 men. Women had 23% (in Broca's area, in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) and 13% (in Wernicke's area, in the superior temporal cortex) more volume than men.

These results were later corroborated by another research group from the School of Communication Disorders, University of Sydney, Australia, which was able to prove these anatomical differences in the areas of Wernicke and of Broca. The volume of the Wernicke's area was 18% larger in females compared with males, and the cortical volume the Broca's area in females was 20% larger than in males.
. . . .
the brain of women processes verbal language simultaneously in the two sides (hemispheres) of the frontal brain, while men tend to process it in the left side only.


If that's not proof enough for you of a gender-based difference, you may learn more here.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
It's not proof. It's a study. There are studies on the differences of brain physiology of Tibetan lamas and regular men. Differences in brain waves from people who live in domestic scale culture and modern culture. The only thing you prove is you have feminist beliefs and you can use status quo observations to back it up.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Most women as I see it are more peaceful than men - I could guarantee there would be less wars. Of course that would depend on who the women leaders were.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Are you even aware of the many men that were in fact great military men and also great statesmen? You sound like you are afflicted with a sort of conditional bigotry toward males in general. "feminine qualities required"?


Name five. Just five. And when I call a leader a statesman, I'm not describing an arrogant bully like Teddy Roosevelt or a hands-off caretaker president like Eisenhower. Lincoln was a statesman. Washington wasn't much of a president, and all historians agree that his greatest quality was his disinterest in the job itself. Kept the office from becoming a monarchy position. Washington certainly wasn't a statesman. Jefferson was a statesman and so was Franklin, but neither were military leaders - same with Lincoln. Offhand, I can only think of one man who had prior military fame, who became a statesman and that was Kennedy, but to say that he was a great military leader, is to drink the koolaid they handed out during the 1960 campaign. His military clam to fame was surviving his PT boat's sinking, and finding a way to get him and is guys rescued. Not what the rightwing of this country calls heroism (if the recent freakout over the Medal of Honor winner is any indication of how "real men" view heroism) - at least, not military heroism.

So, go ahead and name five great military leaders who are also famous for being great statesmen. I 'd love to see your list.


Thats like saying we cant use a black person that doesnt act a little white or the best black folk have white qualities.


No it's not. And the reason it's not the same is because the brains of men and women are structurally different, and MRIs have proven it. The data routing is fundamentally different as well, and researchers can immediately identify the gender of a brain scan by examining the firing patterns. This means that when it comes to the way that information is taken in, and generated, the male brain is foundationally different than the female brain.

This is not the case when brain scans are separated out by race.

The way a person receives and generates information is the bottom line when determining their capacity for leadership. Judgement is the highest function of critical thinking, and the core data handling infrastructure radically affects how that highest function manifests when brought to bear on a situation. Men are inherently more "response based" in their thinking and more inclined to act unilaterally (men of action), as opposed to seeking and achieving consensus - taking advantage of a greater wealth of insight and available talent. They're more inherently competitive, which makes them more susceptible to being manipulated and outwitted.

Again, just examine your own family's dynamics (the one you grew up within). Odds are that your mom ruled the house regardless of how scary your dad might've seemed. In most households, the "man of the house" is a paper tiger, who's been allowed a room (or the garage) to express himself, and as the years progress, he's become more and more isolated from the entire household community - either by bonding more with his work, or by bonding more with his personal outrage at issues (like politics and the collapse of society) where he won't be required to actually make a difference. I hate that we're like this, but I see it more and more in my own life as a middle-age guy. I recognize it, as being what I've always seen in guys as they begin to age.

Men aren't leaders. There are leaders who are men, but the primary nature of men is to act - to implement - and leadership is not about implementing. It's about defining, assessing, focusing, and prioritizing. It's about taking care of those who follow you and who trust that you have their best interest at heart. It's being the mother of people, and pushing them to act on their own behalf. Americans have no idea what leadership means.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


You are a bigoted person. I am sorry to be blunt but your arguments are strait off the misogynist playbook even though the content is femenist. I would live for you to address any of my points. For instance a Maori tribal mans brain would most likely show up different on an MRI than
Amazon street banker. Just like pts the mind takes on PHYSICAL differences based on expierance. You should see the study on Tibetan lamas and people who meditate.

Another point is a blind person can play music and learn to "image things" without being able to see. Even though their physiological structure is different than a person who can see. If you believe in the power of the mind it is obvious your argument holds little merit. Human beings like life are self transcending. We are not bound to the things you are trying to exploit.

By the way Hitler tried to use science to promote eugenics and the master race. It's just as gross as your argument. Women and men are capable of anything the other is. When nature and society calls on us to change we evolve.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Movescamp
Sorry again.

Anthropology is something i have studied for over 10 years I don't need your googled article to show me the oldest known modern man remains are 70,000 years old.


That article was about a cataclysmic drought that almost wiped out the human race. There were others and they affected the gender roles within the fledgling societies involved. Fear of existential elimination is what drove the change from matriarchal societies to patriarchal societies, since men were the strongest and generally protected the "herd" from threats. One really good scare, and the leadership roles would be permanently reversed. The oldest carvings ever found are of pregnant female humans. If males - at that period of time - had been in power, the earliest carvings would be of erections. It's as simple as that.


I also have read margret Meade which if you had you would understand the family is divided differently every where. For instance the Polynesian islands and atols had a lot of polyamorous cultures. In which case the
Mothers brother would be the father. Not because of sex because nobody knew who the father was but they did know she had a brother. It was a way the family could still be strong.


This is like the Hebrew lineage, and how it connects through the mothers. More indication that the men were not good at presiding over what was theirs. Men are notorious for not being leaders, since leaders never allow their people to be acquired by others without a real battle. After all, what is a leader who has no followers? What is a father who doesn't even know who is own children are? How can you claim that men are natural leaders, and then offer an example of Polynesian men who walk off on the leadership roles in their own biological families? And give their own children to the mother's brother? Do you know what leadership entails? It's not standing on a rock and making a speech to people. Leading a charge ends as soon as the charge has finished. Leadership is akin to equipment maintenance. It involves the grind of long-term responsibility for the success of others. Any delusional person can lead a charge.


The things you bring up are from modern society which yes is founded by Romanesque philosophy. Christianity ironically erased the sacred feminine which devalued women as gods. It was spread around the world that way and soon women were looked down on. There was a time the opposite was true. You really are speaking with your feelings which is fine and relevant but don't present it as fact. Hell we are finding 12,000 civilizations we assumed were impossible to have been created.

edit on 18-12-2010 by Movescamp because: Wrong spacing


Like I said, even in biblical times, the woman was the anchor of society. The only human being whose DNA was part of Jesus' biological make-up - making this person the only actual relative of Jesus to ever exist - was a woman. According to scripture, the first human being to see or speak to the risen Jesus was a woman. Even in the Old Testament, the woman (Eve) led the man away from God's garden - as she decided to eat the fruit and then led Adam to do the same. In the Christian narrative, men were tag-alongs for the whole thing....well, until Paul (a Roman citizen who'd originally been contracted by the Sanhedrin to destroy the Jesus cult) up-ended everything and redefined what the premise of this new faith would be. Basically reversing the "feminine" nature of the premise, and creating the stern patriarchal disaster we have today.

There have been a lot of attempts at society, and that really isn't the issue here. What is the issue is the broad tendencies of the male mind, as opposed to the broad tendencies of the female mind, and how those broad tendencies each relate to the job of societal leadership. I'm a guy, and I'd rather believe that guys are better at leadership than women. But the evidence is overwhelming that we're not, and I'm swayed by the evidence



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by NorEaster
 


You are a bigoted person. I am sorry to be blunt but your arguments are strait off the misogynist playbook even though the content is femenist. I would live for you to address any of my points. For instance a Maori tribal mans brain would most likely show up different on an MRI than
Amazon street banker. Just like pts the mind takes on PHYSICAL differences based on expierance. You should see the study on Tibetan lamas and people who meditate.

Another point is a blind person can play music and learn to "image things" without being able to see. Even though their physiological structure is different than a person who can see. If you believe in the power of the mind it is obvious your argument holds little merit. Human beings like life are self transcending. We are not bound to the things you are trying to exploit.

By the way Hitler tried to use science to promote eugenics and the master race. It's just as gross as your argument. Women and men are capable of anything the other is. When nature and society calls on us to change we evolve.


You call me a bigot? That ends this exchange. Your ignorance of the point I'm trying to make is no excuse for you to toss insults. People are capable of transcendence, but that was not the discussion underway. Broad tendencies of the human brain - per gender - was the discussion, since the topic involved broad generalities per gender, and how they affect leadership aptitude in general. Your attempt to redefine the debate has failed. I'm not interested in your opinion on this from here.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I am sorry but I completely disagree with you. Your drawing a lot of conclusions from history. I understand your argument and basis for it but you also are drawing on european ethnocentrism which stops it's history with the bible. Tibetans to me are a prime example of an elevated society. Their brains function at a higher rate because of the practice of meditation. Perhaps it is the balance for being savage warriors years ago but "evidence" shows especially lamas(study by the university of wisconsin) use more of their brains. The stuff inside you brain, the jumble or peace of mind causes you to react to the world. It isn't a born set plan by gender.
"What we found is that the longtime practitioners showed brain activation on a scale we have never seen before," said Richard Davidson, a neuroscientist at the university's new $10 million W.M. Keck Laboratory for Functional Brain Imaging and Behavior. "Their mental practice is having an effect on the brain in the same way golf or tennis practice will enhance performance." It demonstrates, he said, that the brain is capable of being trained and physically modified in ways few people can imagine.

Scientists used to believe the opposite -- that connections among brain nerve cells were fixed early in life and did not change in adulthood. But that assumption was disproved over the past decade with the help of advances in brain imaging and other techniques, and in its place, scientists have embraced the concept of ongoing brain development and "neuroplasticity."

Seriously it's time for you to evaluate your premises of gender superiority and try to help us as a human race evolve.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Movescamp
 


A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Yep I did. Your views on society and women are completely cultural. Sorry I hit a nerve but it's my opinion. I come across ones like it all the time. So sure there is an answer to a deep question like this. It has been discussed for centuries by philosophers. Now you have MRI scans to prove it. The answer is deeper and revolves around consciousness. If you want to discredit it with logic go ahead. However logic is catching up with consciousness in all realms of science these days, from quantum physics to neuroscience. Finding out the mind takes on different physical form based on it's input repudiates your argument. History has been written by men for the last 3000 years so obviously yes your findings are such. I would have to say then by your terms that women are incapable of ruling based on societal pressure and jobs(I don't believe it however) They become extremely violent and human history proves this. Ever heard of Amazons?The last couple Margret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, etc. Are pretty good examples of how power goes to anyones head. It's all relative right? A Navaho women would appear manly next to a Brooklyn hipster man.

I really don't care if I got your feathers ruffled. I hate seeing people use gender as a tool for bigotry.


Here is a study from university of Wisconsin again

Equipped with this statistical tool, Janet Hyde of the University of Wisconsin-Madison decided to investigate just how different men and women are. She collected all the important meta-analyses that have been conducted on differences between the sexes. (A meta-analysis combines many studies by treating the result of each as a single piece of data for statistical purposes.) Given that most of the meta-analyses she looked at addressed questions where differences were reputed to be reliable (mathematical performance, verbal ability and aggressive behaviour, in particular) she feels her results were surprising. Of the 124 effect-sizes she calculated, 30% had a value of d close to zero and in a further 48% of cases, d was small. In other words, only 22% of reported behavioural differences between the sexes are worth raising an eyebrow over.
Not surprisingly, on average men were physically more aggressive (d=0.6). But in this case other work shows the danger of jumping too rapidly to a conclusion. A study done in 1994 hints that if women think nobody is watching and judging them, and there are no physical consequences, they might be more aggressive than men.

Violent or not, women have as many angry thoughts as men, if not more. In a study carried out in 2004, Robin Simon, of Florida State University, and Leda Nath, of the University of Wisconsin, found no difference between the sexes in the reported frequency of incidents of feeling angry over a period of time. However, women tended to report anger that was more intense and prolonged.




edit on 18-12-2010 by Movescamp because: Cut and paste error



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join