If Women Ruled The World

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I said nothing about pschopathy. You seem to be pulling that out of your arse. Nowhere, not in court, not in the reputable press, was Private England branded a psychopath.

Do you even know what pschopathy is? Let me help you out.

"People who are psychopathic prey ruthlessly on others using charm, deceit, sex or other methods that allow them to get away with they want. The symptoms of psychopathy include: lack of a conscience or sense of guilt, lack of empathy, egocentricity, pathological lying, repeated violations of social norms, disregard for the law, shallow emotions, and a history of victimising others."

Lynndie England didn't have a history of abusing others, or offending. She was in the thrall of Private Graner, with whom she was serving and involved, and whose baby she had whilst awaiting trial, and it was he that was deemed to be the dangerous one. She was described by others in warm terms, and a bit of a fool for falling for Graner, at her trial. She fell over herself with remorse, knowing she had fucked right up and was sentenced to three years for her stupidity. She wasn't even that charismatic. Basically, she wasn't a psychopath, you moron, and nowhere is she stated as being one.


I did??? Or are you just pulling that out if your arse as well? Clearly whatever I've said, you take to mean whatever it is you want it to mean.

If you are referring to the GCSE page I quoted, as being juvenile, it's actually written by academics. The history is detailed enough to make my point and I quoted the source to poke fun at you, by showing you even the average teen knows more about what the Nazis expected of their women, than you... but of course you would fail to see that, as you have already proved yourself as failing to see so much.

You might want to look up the words 'juvenile' and 'ridiculous' and then actually tie them to points I've made. Throwing out insults makes you insulting, not correct.


I haven't contradicted myself and you appear to have spent a lot of time saying very little. You throw out unsupported opinions and quite clearly lack the ability to present a supported, well rounded argument.

It's also clear that because you have no counter argument with which to attack, you turn to personal attack. It's not your argument that's weak, as you don't have one. It's you that's weak for having to hurl abuse at someone you cannot rationally debate.

Please, I'd be very grateful if you *do* save your energy and leave responding to those who can actually present a well founded argument or comment.

I have already wasted so much time providing you with information you are too lazy to look up yourself. I get why people here ignore you, for the most part, and now it's time for me to join them.

Ooh, what's that? The wiki definition of 'psychopath'? There are many people who lean towards 'psychopathic' personality type, and they aren't necessarily overtly cruel or criminal. You seem to want to make an 'argument' out of nothing. You said something about women being caring and nurturing and I simply showed you that they can be anything but. What's to argue about? It's not exactly a stretch to imagine that a lot of sadistic psychopathic personality types would be attracted to the military--male or female. There's no draft, so all of those thugs who are in the ME are there because they want to be.

You're missing out the basic principal of gender. We are not the same. Physically, men and women have different hormones, and different bodies. This includes neural pathways. Men are pumped with testosterone, whilst women are with oestrogen. Though there are cases where women have turned out psychopathic, so have men. These are neural anomalies. Not everyone is a damn psychopath, putting that point to rest. If a bunch of oestrogen pansies rules the world, then what would become of buildings and structures. How many female builders do you ever see? Men are physically built for tasks such as heavy lifting and physical labour. If the world was ruled by idiotic feminists such as yourself, a lot less would be produced.

Did you read anything I wrote? Learn a bit of reading comprehension you idiot, and I'm not an 'ist' of any description. I'm so done with people who can't read. I see you only joined a few hours ago, and came straight to this thread.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There would be no difference at all.

Four examples of women leaders; Golda Mayer, Margaret Thatcher, Theresa May and Indira Ghandi.

Same shit different genitalia.

[ForCruxSake]

There'd definitely be fewer people if women ruled the world, especially fewer Africa and Middle Eastern births. Fewer people would make life easier for most.

Agreed. But why would there be fewer people? Women choosing not to give birth? Women imposing restrictions on birth? What's your reasoning?

[ForCruxSake]

I said nothing about pschopathy. You seem to be pulling that out of your arse.

It's not exactly a stretch to imagine that a lot of sadistic psychopathic personality types would be attracted to the military--male or female.

You're missing out the basic principal of gender. We are not the same. Physically, men and women have different hormones, and different bodies. This includes neural pathways. Men are pumped with testosterone, whilst women are with oestrogen. Though there are cases where women have turned out psychopathic, so have men. These are neural anomalies. Not everyone is a damn psychopath, putting that point to rest. If a bunch of oestrogen pansies rules the world, then what would become of buildings and structures. How many female builders do you ever see? Men are physically built for tasks such as heavy lifting and physical labour. If the world was ruled by idiotic feminists such as yourself, a lot less would be produced.

I'll buy the hormones argument and totally agree on the psychopathy argument... It's a psyCOP-OUT (weak, but anything to lighten up the atmosphere here!)

Who are you referring to as the feminist here, Me or VT? What makes whoever it is you are calling a feminist, a feminist? It's supposedly a discussion on how women would rule and little seems to have come up in favour of women ruling.

It's interesting that you see a world ONLY as progressing because there are men to build and manufacture. Women can build, too, or they could get the men to build it, just the same as women get to be the cleaners and baby mums in a man's world. They'd just be running things.

Given that a woman can run a household, look after children, her man and a home, why can't she run a country?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's not exactly a stretch to imagine that a lot of sadistic psychopathic personality types would be attracted to the military--male or female.

You're missing out the basic principal of gender. We are not the same. Physically, men and women have different hormones, and different bodies. This includes neural pathways. Men are pumped with testosterone, whilst women are with oestrogen. Though there are cases where women have turned out psychopathic, so have men. These are neural anomalies. Not everyone is a damn psychopath, putting that point to rest. If a bunch of oestrogen pansies rules the world, then what would become of buildings and structures. How many female builders do you ever see? Men are physically built for tasks such as heavy lifting and physical labour. If the world was ruled by idiotic feminists such as yourself, a lot less would be produced.

I'll buy the hormones argument and totally agree on the psychopathy argument... It's a psyCOP-OUT (weak, but anything to lighten up the atmosphere here!)

Who are you referring to as the feminist here, Me or VT? What makes whoever it is you are calling a feminist, a feminist? It's supposedly a discussion on how women would rule and little seems to have come up in favour of women ruling.

It's interesting that you see a world ONLY as progressing because there are men to build and manufacture. Women can build, too, or they could get the men to build it, just the same as women get to be the cleaners and baby mums in a man's world. They'd just be running things.

Given that a woman can run a household, look after children, her man and a home, why can't she run a country?

What's a 'baby mum'? What's wrong with cleaning? No one is stopping women from building if they want to--it's just that they don't want to There have been plenty of women running countries. Not particularly well for the most part, same as men.
And I wondered about him calling me a 'feminist' too. You are the one who seems to be quoting straight from the feminist manifesto

[Arising_uk]

... How many female builders do you ever see? Men are physically built for tasks such as heavy lifting and physical labour. If the world was ruled by idiotic feminists such as yourself, a lot less would be produced.

Er!? You don't get out much do you. As a large amount of the manual labour in the world is done by the women as they have a lot of stamina and may lift less but can do it for a long time. If it wasn't for them a lot less men would be fed.

[uwot]

There have been plenty of women running countries. Not particularly well for the most part, same as men.

True enough. It's demonstrably a bad idea to leave running a country to people who think they're qualified to do it.

[ForCruxSake]

You're missing out the basic principal of gender. We are not the same. Physically, men and women have different hormones, and different bodies. This includes neural pathways. Men are pumped with testosterone, whilst women are with oestrogen. Though there are cases where women have turned out psychopathic, so have men. These are neural anomalies. Not everyone is a damn psychopath, putting that point to rest. If a bunch of oestrogen pansies rules the world, then what would become of buildings and structures. How many female builders do you ever see? Men are physically built for tasks such as heavy lifting and physical labour. If the world was ruled by idiotic feminists such as yourself, a lot less would be produced.

I'll buy the hormones argument and totally agree on the psychopathy argument... It's a psyCOP-OUT (weak, but anything to lighten up the atmosphere here!)

Who are you referring to as the feminist here, Me or VT? What makes whoever it is you are calling a feminist, a feminist? It's supposedly a discussion on how women would rule and little seems to have come up in favour of women ruling.

It's interesting that you see a world ONLY as progressing because there are men to build and manufacture. Women can build, too, or they could get the men to build it, just the same as women get to be the cleaners and baby mums in a man's world. They'd just be running things.

Given that a woman can run a household, look after children, her man and a home, why can't she run a country?

What's a 'baby mum'? What's wrong with cleaning? No one is stopping women from building if they want to--it's just that they don't want to There have been plenty of women running countries. Not particularly well for the most part, same as men.
And I wondered about him calling me a 'feminist' too. You are the one who seems to be quoting straight from the feminist manifesto

You're inferring I said something, I didn't. I didn't say anything was wrong with cleaners or baby mums (those chosen specifically to bear a man's children, something no man can do). That's what your pugnacious way of seeing words, took it to mean. I think they are as vital as builders, whatever people like you might think others might think of them. I chose cleaners because I wanted a job that is generally taken up more by women, than men.

Yes, women have run countries, working through a structure devised specifically over generations by men. One that seems to encourage, if not greed, then warfare. It could be that that is the restraint on the women who have to date been selected to rule. How a bunch of women in charge, would run the world, having developed a different system, or even if they would develop a different system, is what I was looking to explore. I don't know if it makes a difference, or not, which is why I wanted to know what other clear, rational thinkers thought.

For somebody who was wondering why Kaleon would address you as a feminist, you very quick to jump down his throat about it. You should have asked him if he meant you, then taken the leap, but no, you had to jump to the conclusion, first. He could very well have been referring to me. It wasn't clear, so I asked.

(It's very tiring having to clear up your misdirecting thoughts, knowing that any second you can fly off the handle.)

[ForCruxSake]

There have been plenty of women running countries. Not particularly well for the most part, same as men.

True enough. It's demonstrably a bad idea to leave running a country to people who think they're qualified to do it.

Had you stopped to consider that those women that led, were constrained by a system built over several generations by men, which during the more 'egalitarian' 2Oth century has been slow to change?

Not all of the women who became leaders were power hungry go getters, grasping for power. Some were actually chosen and manoeuvred into power by the true power brokers. Those women may not have thought themselves qualified. Benazir Bhutto at one point admitted she wasn't. She was thrust into power by association, in a country that opted for dynastic rule, when democracy was fighting to be established.

[ForCruxSake]

... How many female builders do you ever see? Men are physically built for tasks such as heavy lifting and physical labour. If the world was ruled by idiotic feminists such as yourself, a lot less would be produced.

Er!? You don't get out much do you. As a large amount of the manual labour in the world is done by the women as they have a lot of stamina and may lift less but can do it for a long time. If it wasn't for them a lot less men would be fed.

Or born!

[uwot]

Had you stopped to consider that those women that led, were constrained by a system built over several generations by men, which during the more 'egalitarian' 2Oth century has been slow to change?

Yup.

Not all of the women who became leaders were power hungry go getters, grasping for power.

No. Nor were all the men.

[ForCruxSake]

Had you stopped to consider that those women that led, were constrained by a system built over several generations by men, which during the more 'egalitarian' 2Oth century has been slow to change?

Yup.

Not all of the women who became leaders were power hungry go getters, grasping for power.

No. Nor were all the men.

So your original point about those wanting power being the least qualified, was relevant how? Seems tautological to me without driving home any particular point about women ruling the world, unless you'd care to qualify.

[Walker]

There have been plenty of women running countries. Not particularly well for the most part, same as men.

True enough. It's demonstrably a bad idea to leave running a country to people who think they're qualified to do it.

Had you stopped to consider that those women that led, were constrained by a system built over several generations by men, which during the more 'egalitarian' 2Oth century has been slow to change?

Not all of the women who became leaders were power hungry go getters, grasping for power. Some were actually chosen and manoeuvred into power by the true power brokers. Those women may not have thought themselves qualified. Benazir Bhutto at one point admitted she wasn't. She was thrust into power by association, in a country that opted for dynastic rule, when democracy was fighting to be established.

Judging by how Merkel has ruled Germany, probably not so good for the world.

- The alpha feminine mind likes meetings, blue-ribbon panels, coffee-klatches, volunteerism, polling, PC, beta males to boss around.
Like Obama.

- The alpha male mind is a Leader, not so much a Kumbaya.
You probably know, when Bill Clinton was president he publically declared that Benazir was "hot." Good ol’ Bill. That’s no problem for the folks who shape public opinion.

- There are philosophical qualities of great leaders that can be researched. Clear vision, inclusive spirit, courage, responsibility, and so on.
All qualities exhibited by President Donald J. Trump, POTUS.



- Here is something that’s missing in the blindspots… President Trump is getting a lot of work done every day, systemically undoing a socialist agenda that was imposed via Obama's abuse of presidential unilateral powers. Trump is simply doing what works in the business world. Nose to the grindstone righting of the ship, while the Dems and the media amp up their irrational hysteria with breathless 24/7 coverage of every fart, making up stuff, doing their best to tear down the country.

[ForCruxSake]

Had you stopped to consider that those women that led, were constrained by a system built over several generations by men, which during the more 'egalitarian' 2Oth century has been slow to change?

Yup.

Care to share?

[ForCruxSake]

True enough. It's demonstrably a bad idea to leave running a country to people who think they're qualified to do it.

Had you stopped to consider that those women that led, were constrained by a system built over several generations by men, which during the more 'egalitarian' 2Oth century has been slow to change?

Not all of the women who became leaders were power hungry go getters, grasping for power. Some were actually chosen and manoeuvred into power by the true power brokers. Those women may not have thought themselves qualified. Benazir Bhutto at one point admitted she wasn't. She was thrust into power by association, in a country that opted for dynastic rule, when democracy was fighting to be established.

Judging by how Merkel has ruled Germany, probably not so good for the world.

- The alpha feminine mind likes meetings, blue-ribbon panels, coffee-klatches, volunteerism, polling, PC, beta males to boss around.
Like Obama.

That's very funny, if a little mean. Merkel could be better, agreed, but so coukd every other world leader. In the rankings of 'Western Leaders Who Could Do Better' she's way down the list, topped by Trump and May.

- The alpha male mind is a Leader, not so much a Kumbaya.
You probably know, when Bill Clinton was president he publically declared that Benazir was "hot." Good ol’ Bill. That’s no problem for the folks who shape public opinion.

I met her twice. If you like your chicken, all skin and bone, she's your bird.

- There are philosophical qualities of great leaders that can be researched. Clear vision, inclusive spirit, courage, responsibility, and so on.
All qualities exhibited by President Donald J. Trump, POTUS.

And when I count to three, you WILL wake up... 1... 2... 3!

Here is something that’s missing in the blindspots… President Trump is getting a lot of work done every day, systemically undoing a socialist agenda that was imposed via Obama's abuse of presidential unilateral powers. Trump is simply doing what works in the business world. Nose to the grindstone righting of the ship, while the Dems and the media amp up their irrational hysteria with breathless 24/7 coverage of every fart, making up stuff, doing their best to tear down the country.

He's also breaking many of the promises he made, to get elected, and padding his presidential nest, on the back of possible conflicts of interest, apparently...
(From yesterday's Independent)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 64826.html