should women rule the world?

[atanu]

I think that women already rule. At least in my life that is true.

My reason for preferring women's rule is that they have less hair on body and that means they are less beastly.

More seriously, IMO, women can bring compassion and love more naturally (sometime that may become disadvantageous, though).

 

[Koldo]

I think you'll find that was my original question,...

Hmm...No. :no:
You asked our opinion on how the world would be like.
Yogi said it would be somewhat better.

...to which Rakhel offered the example of Gandhi, after which I requested information on what she had done to put her in that kind of category, after which you and Yogi offered the state of emergency.

Yogi replied directly to the OP.

I'm simply concluding that she was not in the same category as Pol Pot or Kim Jong Un after all, but rather in the category of Stephen Harper.

Are you sure about this?

"Criticism against the Government

Criticism and accusations of the Emergency-era may be grouped as:

• Detention of people by police without charge or notification of families
• Abuse and torture of detainees and political prisoners
• Use of public and private media institutions, like the national television network Doordarshan, for government propaganda
• Forced sterilization.
• Destruction of the slum and low-income housing in the Turkmen Gate and Jama Masjid area of old Delhi.
• Large-scale and illegal enactment of laws (including modifications to the Constitution)."

 

[BSM1]

Pbbfft, women rulers. What's next- a female Pope?

 

[Alceste]

Hmm...No. :no:
You asked our opinion on how the world would be like.
Yogi said it would be somewhat better.



Yogi replied directly to the OP.



Are you sure about this?

"Criticism against the Government

Criticism and accusations of the Emergency-era may be grouped as:

• Detention of people by police without charge or notification of families
• Abuse and torture of detainees and political prisoners
• Use of public and private media institutions, like the national television network Doordarshan, for government propaganda
• Forced sterilization.
• Destruction of the slum and low-income housing in the Turkmen Gate and Jama Masjid area of old Delhi.
• Large-scale and illegal enactment of laws (including modifications to the Constitution)."

Harper arrested a thousand Canadians in Toronto without notifying their families, and there was police brutality involved. The republicans currently have their own propaganda network in Fox news. They also want constitutional amendments, for example one to outlaw abortion and one to mandate a balanced budget. Most governments try to "gentrify" low income areas, displacing the poor people who live there without any plan for housing them elsewhere. Forced sterilization without compensation was common in the US and Canada around the time India was paying poor people to be sterilized.

I'm not saying these are good things. I'm saying they aren't unusually bad, in the way that Pol Pot and Kim Jong Un are unusually bad.

 

[Alex_G]

Just listening to the radio. Jian Ghomeshi said he thinks the world would be a better place if women were in charge. Then he summed up the outraged response he got from angry men on twitter, swearing, calling him names, etc. He and his producer joked that kind of proves the point.

How about you? Do you think it would be better? Worse? How would it be different?

Happy international women's day!

I think it’s the wrong question to ask. The right person for the job is who should be in charge. When that’s the case, things will be good; when it’s not things will be worse. Any system that favours choices based on sex (or any other arbitrary characteristic) is inherently wrong in principle and doomed to cause harm. When your example used the outraged response to 'cleverly' prove their point i think it actually proves the embarrassingly illegitimate nature of their position, as the sexist one it is.


Equality in opportunity is an important freedom, a legitimate way of life. I don’t like 'pro women' views that go too far as to become essentially sexist in the other direction. Given the frankly horrible history that women have had to endure, the struggles and great bravery of the women who fought so hard to change things, I think it’s almost an insult to them to ride that train onwards into a position of reverse sexism. They didn’t do it because women are better than men, but that sex shouldn’t matter. It’s not about 'one upmanship' between the sexists, 'my sex is better than your sex' etc. Its about fairness and justice. Asking the question 'would women be better in charge?' is a very loaded and provocative move, and in my opinion doesn’t represent enlightenment or rising above the squabble, but entrenches it, and demonstrates a lack of appreciation to the core principles of equality.

Asking such questions is a shameful and ignorant continuation of the deep and problematic mind-set that feminism initially rose to challenge. By talking like this it's really damaging to the cause, and ironically represents behaviour that is exactly the sort of thing that was hoped to have been eradicated by the movement.

 

[Alceste]

I think it’s the wrong question to ask. The right person for the job is who should be in charge. When that’s the case, things will be good; when it’s not things will be worse. Any system that favours choices based on sex (or any other arbitrary characteristic) is inherently wrong in principle and doomed to cause harm. When your example used the outraged response to 'cleverly' prove their point i think it actually proves the embarrassingly illegitimate nature of their position, as the sexist one it is.


Equality in opportunity is an important freedom, a legitimate way of life. I don’t like 'pro women' views that go too far as to become essentially sexist in the other direction. Given the frankly horrible history that women have had to endure, the struggles and great bravery of the women who fought so hard to change things, I think it’s almost an insult to them to ride that train onwards into a position of reverse sexism. They didn’t do it because women are better than men, but that sex shouldn’t matter. It’s not about 'one upmanship' between the sexists, 'my sex is better than your sex' etc. Its about fairness and justice. Asking the question 'would women be better in charge?' is a very loaded and provocative move, and in my opinion doesn’t represent enlightenment or rising above the squabble, but entrenches it, and demonstrates a lack of appreciation to the core principles of equality.

Asking such questions is a shameful and ignorant continuation of the deep and problematic mind-set that feminism initially rose to challenge. By talking like this it's really damaging to the cause, and ironically represents behaviour that is exactly the sort of thing that was hoped to have been eradicated by the movement.

I think you're over reacting. This is an exercise in imagination, not advocacy of a particular public policy agenda. We've lived with men in near complete control for thousands of years, so we pretty much know what that is like. The question is, what would it be like if the situation was reversed? How would it be different, if at all?

Approach it like a sci fi writer, not an offended penis custodian.

 

[Alex_G]

I think you're over reacting. This is an exercise in imagination, not advocacy of a particular public policy agenda. We've lived with men in near complete control for thousands of years, so we pretty much know what that is like. The question is, what would it be like if the situation was reversed? How would it be different, if at all?

Approach it like a sci fi writer, not an offended penis custodian.

Little bit penis obsessed arnt we?
I dont think I'm over reacting per say. I strongly worded it because casual sexism actually annoys the hell out of me, whichever direction its in. Its so often guised in a sort of 'tongue in cheek'.

When you say ' We've lived with men in near complete control for thousands of years' thats not really fair. You didnt live through any of that anymore than i did, and i'm a man.
What im getting at is i dont like language and framing things in such a tribal '2 camps' sort of way. Its not good.
I know this isnt a 'public policy agenda' but to be honest the everyday talk that continues a '2 camps' perspective/mindset is the most insidious thus warranting its pointing out.

Why dont we talk about, 'would it be better if gay people were in charge, or if black people were in charge?' Its just not the right way to talk...

(ps im not really lashing out at you btw, just a culture of talk that I object to)

 

[Alceste]

Little bit penis obsessed arnt we?
I dont think I'm over reacting per say. I strongly worded it because casual sexism actually annoys the hell out of me, whichever direction its in. Its so often guised in a sort of 'tongue in cheek'.

When you say ' We've lived with men in near complete control for thousands of years' thats not really fair. You didnt live through any of that anymore than i did, and i'm a man.
What im getting at is i dont like language and framing things in such a tribal '2 camps' sort of way. Its not good.
I know this isnt a 'public policy agenda' but to be honest the everyday talk that continues a '2 camps' perspective/mindset is the most insidious thus warranting its pointing out.

Why dont we talk about, 'would it be better if gay people were in charge, or if black people were in charge?' Its just not the right way to talk...

(ps im not really lashing out at you btw, just a culture of talk that I object to)

As a matter of fact, I think it would be better if gay people were in charge, given that they overwhelmingly tend to be progressive, politically speaking.

Men and women are in two camps, economically, politically, biologically and psychologically. The latter two can not be changed. The question is, what impact will those biological and psychological differences have on the former two, which have been changing rapidly since women began to gain access to political and economic power?

 

[Koldo]

Harper arrested a thousand Canadians in Toronto without notifying their families, and there was police brutality involved.

Did he also arrest the political oposition?

The republicans currently have their own propaganda network in Fox news.

Just propaganda?
Not censorship?

They also want constitutional amendments, for example one to outlaw abortion and one to mandate a balanced budget.

They want to? So, he isn't able to do it right away.
She had the complete power to make constitutional amendments.

Most governments try to "gentrify" low income areas, displacing the poor people who live there without any plan for housing them elsewhere. Forced sterilization without compensation was common in the US and Canada around the time India was paying poor people to be sterilized.

What was Harper doing back then?

I'm not saying these are good things. I'm saying they aren't unusually bad, in the way that Pol Pot and Kim Jong Un are unusually bad.

Sure.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Just listening to the radio. Jian Ghomeshi said he thinks the world would be a better place if women were in charge. Then he summed up the outraged response he got from angry men on twitter, swearing, calling him names, etc. He and his producer joked that kind of proves the point.

How about you? Do you think it would be better? Worse? How would it be different?

Happy international women's day!

The problem with power, is that the type of people who seek it out are the least suitable to have it. In my experience, this plays out the same whether the person is male or female.

 

[chinu]

should women rule the world?

They are already ruling the whole world by using their appealing power

 

[Alceste]

The problem with power, is that the type of people who seek it out are the least suitable to have it. In my experience, this plays out the same whether the person is male or female.

Now that I completely agree with.

 

[Kerr]

Just listening to the radio. Jian Ghomeshi said he thinks the world would be a better place if women were in charge. Then he summed up the outraged response he got from angry men on twitter, swearing, calling him names, etc. He and his producer joked that kind of proves the point.

How about you? Do you think it would be better? Worse? How would it be different?

Happy international women's day!

Probably more or less the same, just with men fighting for equal rights rather then women. I dont think its gender that determines how well someone rules. However, I dont know much about the subject. History tends to be men and men and more men. And when I say that I dont mean that women have had no effect, just that when we think back on the people who has influenced history they tend to be men with a few exceptions, which has more to do with prejudice then the actual impact of women imho.

EDIT:

To be honest, my brain is inclined to think that it would be better, but I think it has more to do with our cultural norms and stereotypes about women. That they are compassionate and caring and all that. Which are very good traits in my opinion, but unfortunately its mostly a stereotype. Woman and men can both be as cold as ice or as warm as a desert.

 

[Alceste]

Probably more or less the same, just with men fighting for equal rights rather then women. I dont think its gender that determines how well someone rules. However, I dont know much about the subject. History tends to be men and men and more men. And when I say that I dont mean that women have had no effect, just that when we think back on the people who has influenced history they tend to be men with a few exceptions, which has more to do with prejudice then the actual impact of women imho.

EDIT:

To be honest, my brain is inclined to think that it would be better, but I think it has more to do with our cultural norms and stereotypes about women. That they are compassionate and caring and all that. Which are very good traits in my opinion, but unfortunately its mostly a stereotype. Woman and men can both be as cold as ice or as warm as a desert.

That is true. Some people are jerks and genitals have nothing to do with it.

For the record, though, there have been very many influential and important women throughout history in every field and pursuit. Public education in our patriarchal societies just doesn't bother to mention them.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That is true. Some people are jerks and genitals have nothing to do with it.

For the record, though, there have been very many influential and important women throughout history in every field and pursuit. Public education in our patriarchal societies just doesn't bother to mention them.

Very very very true. Stephanie Louise Kwolak, chemist. Pioneer in polymer research, and never mentioned throughout ALL of high school. Not once.

 

[Koldo]

For the record, though, there have been very many influential and important women throughout history in every field and pursuit. Public education in our patriarchal societies just doesn't bother to mention them.

In Brazil, it was Princess Isabel who abolished slavery.
( That is well known here though. )

 

[Alceste]

Very very very true. Stephanie Louise Kwolak, chemist. Pioneer in polymer research, and never mentioned throughout ALL of high school. Not once.

In Brazil, it was Princess Isabel who abolished slavery.
( That is well known here though. )

Hildegard von Bingen was Da Vinci-like in her accomplishments and diversity of interests. She wrote the first book of medicine. (Apothecary style, discussing the medical properties of herbs - not leeches and vapors). She was also a cutting edge composer.

One of the most powerful pirates of all time was Madam Ching, who commanded 80,000 pirates and 1800 ships.

Marie Curie is the only person who has ever won Nobel prizes in two different sciences.

Never even heard of any of these people in school.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Very very very true. Stephanie Louise Kwolak, chemist. Pioneer in polymer research, and never mentioned throughout ALL of high school. Not once.

I heard she had a great rack.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Catchy.....n..........surprisingly nice.
[youtube]mEu7le-7N_A[/youtube]
Women Rule Lord Laro - YouTube

 

[Kerr]

That is true. Some people are jerks and genitals have nothing to do with it.

For the record, though, there have been very many influential and important women throughout history in every field and pursuit. Public education in our patriarchal societies just doesn't bother to mention them.

Yeah, one example is Henrietta Leavitt. She may not have been a woman in power, but she made significant contributions to science that actually allowed us to calculate distances to galaxies that we couldnt before. It was even considered to nominate her for the nobel prize... unfortunately, she had died 4 years earlier and the man who considered nominating her was simply not aware of that at that time. That said, it was only when I read a book about the Big Bang that I heard of her. Somehow the schools forgot to mention her, lol.
Henrietta Swan Leavitt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EDIT:

Interestingly enough, when I hear of the word "jerk", I automatically think of a man. Wonder why that is, lol.