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

Originally posted by Kailassa

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.

Yea they way Hitler used science to justify the nazi madness so this study and other will be used by the female nazithons to bring in thier new order. Oh and always under the banner of not feminism....but science...as if we should all drop what we are doing at the tolling of that bell. Nobody eats their young like the feminists and the Aphrodites, no body. An entire generation of "its my body women" now want the red button? No thank you.

Originally posted by NorEaster

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.

But these points mean nothing in regards to any foundational effect. They amount to a lot of triva. Eve didnt lead man to anything save for the disaster getting them both tossed out. And this tag-along thing...I dont find this offencive for your certain use of words but becouse it is just false. At the garden the woman was reproved for her lack of faith the same as them men were. She was only there to care for the dead body anyway....nothing really spritiual about that. You just use a bunch of non sequitur points.

You want a good story about women and mad political power out of the bible read up on Jezebel...politics and murder and a weak spineless man...and her daughter Athaliah and how she had the royal line murdered.

I have not read any of the posts so far, and am just answering the question in the title.

We already are.

Originally posted by Movescamp
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.

Two things, and then I'll be done with this topic.

1. Leadership predisposition is not superiority. A silk suit is superior to a fleece jumper, but only in a boardroom. The fleece jumper is superior to the silk suit once the wearer has left the confines of temperature-controlled civilization. Application is what I have been debating. Not superiority.

2. History teaches us broad tendencies. Tibetian monks are atypical males, and exhibit much more feminine character traits than do the average human male. The exception does not prove the rule in any presentation, and certainly doesn't discount centuries of evidence concerning the human male's response to power and leadership.

Men are men and women are women. Men can do women's work, and women can do men's work. That said, this discussion was about broad generalities, and not about carefully defined specifics. I'm comfortable with my assessment.

reply to post by NorEaster


The discussion was as stated it did not state "broad generalizations". Tibetan males are in no way way feminine. They are balanced. That is what the article explains. Complete interaction with each side of the brain. It is my point that it is society that trains and physically builds the mind of each individual. You state people are not individuals but bound by broad generalized gender roles. I argue it is society and not gender. I provide many aspects of science that you require to make judgement. All of the modern scientific data using the best mechanical, statistical, and observational tools support this. As does history if you look globally rather than bible centric. Like I said a Navajo women would seem manly compared to a modern Brookline hipster. It is almost completely about culture and has very little to do with biology. Conciousness changed that and even primitive modern man had that. My dogs show signs of consciousness. They step outside their typical animal roles because of the culture thy are raised with.

Leadership is superiority. One person effecting many. A military officer or leader is called ....a superior. A boss is referred to as a superior. It is in fact almost the definition of.

OF COURSE THE WORLD WOULD BE DIFFERENT!!!

People would actually respect the planetary being we walk on... after all, she has been suppressed the most.

TPTB (the real, ET ones) are the epitome of warriors, with dominant masculine traits and it shows in society. Look at all the wars. Look at the macho and mental compulsions. Look at the reliance of technology. Look at the porn industry.

These are also attempts to distract people from feminine concepts.

It's easy to see the imbalance. In truth, women are much more powerful then men. They are the creators of life, they allow things to be and flow into existence. Great wisdom is stored within feminine ideals, truly universal wisdom. The feminine is also connected to spirituality and psychic senses! If people were aware of more than the 3rd dimensional paradigm, their system would collapse, there would be no fear of death to keep people compliant.

The average person is close minded because of this overbearing, masculine society.

This also comes down to right/left brain concepts. Do some research and meditate on feminine/masculine properties. See how they relate to our world. I can't spell it out for everyone.

reply to post by Mayura


Perhaps you should do the meditation. People who meditate their brains interact more balanced right to left having nothing to do with gender. All of the latest studies show men and women have much more in common than different. Actually that women are just as aggressive when taken outside predescribed western patriarchy. It's balance that provides great leadership. Nothing more nothing less. Balance.

reply to post by Mayura


Do you really believe this, or are you just trying to further the prejudices that have held us all back for so long? As a team the masculine and the feminine are whole.

Either way, on a lighter note, if women ruled the world, i think i would get rather tired of things like "What Not to Wear" and pretty hair (just to be very, very clear, thats a joke)

reply to post by doobydoll


Somebody had to raise those men?



I personally refuse to work any position in with women. Why? Not because I'm sexist, or that I personally have issues with anyone (opposite in fact, I've never personally my self had a problem) ... but my God.. women are the cruelest, most cunning, back stabbing, two faced little devils to work around. Imagine they are running the world???

Russia has a bad month and spreads lies about India, which China gains up on and so does France, and all the little nations not that popular decide they don't like India either, and America pretends but spreads lies about France who spreads lies about Russia who then breaks down and cries and by the next week all the countries in the world launch a devastating war on New Zealand to cover up their internal fighting. Except Peru who will be the "weird girl" no one wants to talk to.

I'm reminded of girl fights I witnessed in high school.. one girl hits another, eventually one girl falls down and 30 girls from the crowd jump in to get their kick in. Women are not just sugar and spice and everything nice. They are just good at pretending they are.. then when your distracted they stab you in the back.

reply to post by doobydoll


Men would've taken up arms and the revolution would've started AAAges ago.

I doubt women would have got that far anyway.
The glass ceiling has been in place since the year dot to stop such a thing happening.
So maybe in an alternative universe.

And I'm quite disappointed with women who although they are generally stooges to the male higher ups, seem to act like men anyway. It seems a pre-requisite that they leave their nurturing feminine side at the door to get ahead. So what's the point if the result is the same?

Originally posted by Flighty
And I'm quite disappointed with women who although they are generally stooges to the male higher ups, seem to act like men anyway. It seems a pre-requisite that they leave their nurturing feminine side at the door to get ahead. So what's the point if the result is the same?

LOL.

Ain't that the truth !

It's hilarious when feminists consider a ''strong, empowered woman'' to be a woman who can equal a man's achievements. Er, isn't that kind of the opposite of a ''strong, empowered woman'' ?

A woman whose achievements are achieved by slavishly following the path of men ?


If truth be told, society may well be a bit more balanced if women were to utilise their femininity and the advantages they were blessed with, instead of pathetically and self-destructively trying to ''out-men'' the men.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Yep, I've never understood it at all.
If it's the case that feminine qualities aren't wanted or NEEDED in the system, then what is the use of just playing tokenism by having pseudo males (women in positions of power as I call them) replace the real deal?
Affirmative Action just for the hell of it always makes things worse. It's been proven time and again.

reply to post by Flighty


I think its because people want to "have their cake and eat it too" you know?

When the same position of inequalities that are negatively imposed are switched, people dont seem to mind so much anymore.. That goes for men and women.

The most hardcore chauvinists (male or female) will still usually want to be the first off that sinking ship.

On another note, anyone know of a better saying for that situation than "have their cake and eat it too?" Seems to me the normal thing to do with cake one has is to eat it

Originally posted by Flighty
Yep, I've never understood it at all.
If it's the case that feminine qualities aren't wanted or NEEDED in the system, then what is the use of just playing tokenism by having pseudo males (women in positions of power as I call them) replace the real deal?
Affirmative Action just for the hell of it always makes things worse. It's been proven time and again.

I think society would be better if there was an equal balance of feminine and masculine qualities, and I think that a lot of tired old male-dominated institutions would benefit from a bit of feminine input.

The sad thing is, that society encourages women to out-do the men ( this attitude was instigated, and is supported, by the deplorable feminists ).

Most people who have worked under female bosses will realise that a lot of them are terrible, because they try to be more ruthless than the men ( no man-management skills ) and that the pre-menopausal ones are extremely volatile, and are not suitable for making logical and well-thought out corporate decisions on a grand scale.

However, I've worked with a couple of really good female bosses, who were feminine to the core, and earned the respect of the staff. Sadly, these ladies would never be able to go on to higher levels, because they didn't display the masculine traits of ruthlessness and ''balls''.

Originally posted by sinohptik
On another note, anyone know of a better saying for that situation than "have their cake and eat it too?" Seems to me the normal thing to do with cake one has is to eat it

Yeah, I never totally understood that one either.

I take it to mean that you made a cake and you didn't want to share it with anyone else, instead eating it all yourself.

Although ''having your cake and eating it'' doesn't really convey that meaning at all well !