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.
It's just that women aren't really suitable for responsible leadership in a modern-day society.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by hybridkate
reply to post by doobydoll
For Better me thinks....not sure how much worse men culd muck it up!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
Thats like saying we cant use a black person that doesnt act a little white or the best black folk have white qualities.
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.
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
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.