If Women Ruled The World

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Walker
Posts: 4336
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Walker » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:13 pm

ForCruxSake wrote:Now this is being creative! So thank you for that....But...it's reducing the rule of women to a question of sport. That physically, men can 'best' against a woman.

Surely society is about more than the physical force used to create it? Ruling is about being in control of the brute force not actually having to be the brute force?
Women are excellent manipulators but true leadership always comes down to personal power, which is not a matter of brute force but rather, a matter of mind. Weakness and phonies are spotted way off in the distance. The closer one moves to the center stage of power in the world play, the more personal power is required to survive the frequencies of that spotlight. (No doubt an enterprising young person could dig up some studies, find a quotation, or perhaps do some research to make this all, so. :roll:)

This is exactly why Assad gassed civilians after Obama’s tough talk about red lines interwoven with the calculus reference. Assad spotted the phony and it was no skin off his nose to kill a few folks to spotlight the phoniness for the world to see.

In the for instances … in the public threat to Assad, Obama calmly, studiously, and some would even say presidentially, drew a red-line at chemical weapons. He said that if that red line was crossed, then his calculus would be changed. Awesome delivery, it was worthy of Hollywood envy.

A leader does not seek the weasel way out with such lawyerly declarations.

In response, Assad calmly said <Oh really? Well let’s see.>
And then he gassed some folks to death.

Did Obama lie? Technically, no. His calculus was probably changed, just like he said it would be. It was changed like a bucket of ice-water in the face. Because … when results are the objective, bullshit doesn’t work.

The Calculus of the O was changed, and Assad formed a close friendship with his big pal, Russia, part of a growing Axis.

*

What did President Trump accomplish in bombing the airbase?

He put the notion into the world’s mind that he can be baited, and that he will use deadly force even without a stated foreign-relations policy.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10935
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:26 pm

Walker wrote:Women are excellent manipulators but true leadership always comes down to personal power, which is not a matter of brute force but rather, a matter of mind. Weakness and phonies are spotted way off in the distance. The closer one moves to the center stage of power in the world play, the more personal power is required to survive the frequencies of that spotlight. (No doubt an enterprising young person could dig up some studies, find a quotation, or perhaps do some research to make this all, so. :roll:) ...
Since they are 'excellent manipulators' which presumably takes mind and not brute force then women would apparently make true leaders. :roll:
This is exactly why Assad gassed civilians after Obama’s tough talk about red lines interwoven with the calculus reference. Assad spotted the phony and it was no skin off his nose to kill a few folks to spotlight the phoniness for the world to see.

In the for instances … in the public threat to Assad, Obama calmly, studiously, and some would even say presidentially, drew a red-line at chemical weapons. He said that if that red line was crossed, then his calculus would be changed. Awesome delivery, it was worthy of Hollywood envy.

A leader does not seek the weasel way out with such lawyerly declarations.

In response, Assad calmly said <Oh really? Well let’s see.>
And then he gassed some folks to death.

Did Obama lie? Technically, no. His calculus was probably changed, just like he said it would be. It was changed like a bucket of ice-water in the face. Because … when results are the objective, bullshit doesn’t work. ...
I agree with you, Obama was weak but then again he didn't have the Senate or Congress I thought? On top of that the American people appeared unlikely to want to go to war in Syria.
The Calculus of the O was changed, and Assad formed a close friendship with his big pal, Russia, part of a growing Axis. ...
What are you talking about? Russia and Syria have been allies for decades and Syria is of strategic importance to Russia due to it being their East Med port.
What did President Trump accomplish in bombing the airbase?

He put the notion into the world’s mind that he can be baited, and that he will use deadly force even without a stated foreign-relations policy.
A loose cannon eh! Well we'll see how that turns out, although so much for non-interference. But I agree that he should have used a show of force in this instance even if Assad may not have done it as it may well focus Russian minds towards a peace agreement, once they've won their war of course.

What I find interesting is how America will deal with the Russia/Iran tie as it is ironic that Russia supported Iraq against Iran but now sees it as an ally against Sunni fundamentalism and a way to get Sunni jihadists away from Russia.

I'll also be interested if the Trumpette will actually go to war against Assad and Russia in Syria if required and what that will leave behind, as the US's record in the aftermath of such stuff is hardly exemplary.

Walker
Posts: 4336
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Walker » Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:53 pm

Arising_uk wrote:Since they are 'excellent manipulators' which presumably takes mind and not brute force then women would apparently make true leaders. :roll:
So that’s what you think a true leader is.

Interesting.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10935
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:08 am

Walker wrote:So that’s what you think a true leader is.

Interesting.
Is it? Well given that you forgot to say what 'personal power' is other than not being brute force and a matter of mind and that you think women 'excellent manipulators'(puke! You 'yank' men are a sad bunch.) I'd have thought women would have met your criteria of being true-leaders, as demonstrated by the female leaders around the world and throughout history.

Walker
Posts: 4336
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Walker » Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:13 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Walker wrote:So that’s what you think a true leader is.

Interesting.
Is it? Well given that you forgot to say what 'personal power' is other than not being brute force and a matter of mind and that you think women 'excellent manipulators'(puke! You 'yank' men are a sad bunch.) I'd have thought women would have met your criteria of being true-leaders, as demonstrated by the female leaders around the world and throughout history.
Oh really. Well, let me tell you what I just did.

I went on google and used various search terms to find definitions of great leaders.
I looked at quite a few.
Looked at how people defined what a great leader is.

Or maybe I searched true leader. No matter. Same gist.

Not anywhere did I find the definition,
Great Manipulator = Great Leader.

Looks like you’re on own there, uk.

Care to explain?

Or shall you take the out and venture into distinctions between true, and great, via a series of questions whilst diagramming a paragraph?
(sorry, just funnin)

:lol:

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10935
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:38 am

Walker wrote:...
Looks like you’re on own there, uk.

Care to explain? ...
Sure, but you tell me what this 'personal power' is first and I'll be happy to expound on why some of the worlds 'greatest' leaders were also manipulators par excellence. Now of course we could disagree that they were 'great' given what they did but leaders nevertheless.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6680
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:42 am

Walker wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:
Walker wrote:So that’s what you think a true leader is.

Interesting.
Is it? Well given that you forgot to say what 'personal power' is other than not being brute force and a matter of mind and that you think women 'excellent manipulators'(puke! You 'yank' men are a sad bunch.) I'd have thought women would have met your criteria of being true-leaders, as demonstrated by the female leaders around the world and throughout history.
Oh really. Well, let me tell you what I just did.

I went on google and used various search terms to find definitions of great leaders.
I looked at quite a few.
Looked at how people defined what a great leader is.

Or maybe I searched true leader. No matter. Same gist.

Not anywhere did I find the definition,
Great Manipulator = Great Leader.

Looks like you’re on own there, uk.

Care to explain?

Or shall you take the out and venture into distinctions between true, and great, via a series of questions whilst diagramming a paragraph?
(sorry, just funnin)

:lol:
In what sense exactly are you using the word 'great'?? Only the bravest person these days would call Hitler a 'great leader', but he certainly knew how to assert dominance and inspire adulation in those who are inclined to idolise arseholes (eg. you with regard to Trump). As an aside, 'great' leaders are more often than not the most inadequate of human beings. Pathetic specimens who have to bully and intimidate to make themselves feel worthwhile. Typical example: David Miscavige of Scientology, (as (not) seen on the brilliant and oddly hilarious Louis Theroux documentary, 'My Scientology Movie'). 'Great leaders' aren't exactly the kind of people you want to befriend, or even buy a used car from.
In other words 'great' leaders are not 'great' people.

Walker
Posts: 4336
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Walker » Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:36 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:In what sense exactly are you using the word 'great'??
That’s for uk to answer. My comment simply references the following uk comment, so it’s whatever sense uk meant by this, which he evades explaining thus refusing to break form.
uk wrote:Since they are 'excellent manipulators' which presumably takes mind and not brute force then women would apparently make true leaders.
But in a few more postings the attempt to find this answer will be sufficiently blurred with enough questions and distractions so that your question won't be answered, if history is any indication.

Here’s what I had to say on the topic, in fact in this very thread:

Women are excellent manipulators but true leadership always comes down to personal power, which is not a matter of brute force but rather, a matter of mind. Weakness and phonies are spotted way off in the distance. The closer one moves to the center stage of power in the world play, the more personal power is required to survive the frequencies of that spotlight. (No doubt an enterprising young person could dig up some studies, find a quotation, or perhaps do some research to make this all, so. )

Walker
Posts: 4336
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Walker » Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:57 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Walker wrote:...
Looks like you’re on own there, uk.

Care to explain? ...
Sure, but you tell me what this 'personal power' is first and I'll be happy to expound on why some of the worlds 'greatest' leaders were also manipulators par excellence. Now of course we could disagree that they were 'great' given what they did but leaders nevertheless.
Nuh huh. I asked first which means I got dibs, which means you have to answer first, for once in your life.
uk wrote:Since they are 'excellent manipulators' which presumably takes mind and not brute force then women would apparently make true leaders.
So this is what the world has come to, that folks think women are true leaders because they are excellent manipulators.

Care to explain, second request?

:roll:

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10935
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:49 pm

Walker wrote:Nuh huh. I asked first which means I got dibs, which means you have to answer first, for once in your life. ...
Take a look at my posts, unlike you and your ilk I pretty much answer every sentence with a question mark, at least until I get bored that is.

So it boils down to what you mean by 'manipulation' and for you it appears to be something distasteful not to be associated with being a 'leader' but for me it means the ability to get ones way without brute force and there appear to be various ways this can be done. For example, you can manipulate people by playing them off against each other, by offering each one things they want in exchange for concessions, etc. Now I defy you to say that these are not methods used by male leaders since time immemorial.

As to whether women can be leaders I point you towards this bunch -

http://mentalfloss.com/article/59287/9- ... rk-history

and add Elizabeth I, Golda Meir, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Indira Ghandi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Margret Thatcher, et al.

Then there's the Chinese pirates - Ching Shih, Huang P’ei-mei, Lo Hon-cho, et al.

Or how about this lot from your neck of the woods - http://www.businessinsider.com/most-imp ... -of-iraq-1
uk wrote:Since they are 'excellent manipulators' which presumably takes mind and not brute force then women would apparently make true leaders.
So this is what the world has come to, that folks think women are true leaders because they are excellent manipulators. ...
Not what I said though was it. What I said was that since manipulation takes mind and not brute force then by your definitions women should make true leaders(whatever this is when its at home). But like I said it'd depend upon what you mean by 'personal power' and also 'manipulation'?

Over to you.

Walker
Posts: 4336
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Walker » Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:46 pm

Look up just about any definition of the two words that applies to leadership and if you have any doubts, just ask. Glad to help.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10935
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:30 pm

:lol: 'Look up...' this from the 'self-reliant' thinker.

Thanks for so ably demonstrating my point about you and your ilk.

Walker
Posts: 4336
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Walker » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:30 am

?

What the hell are you talking about?

If you don’t know what a word means, look it up.

You're getting lost in your own little game.

Claim of Earth origin continues to erode in the face of such lack.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10935
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Arising_uk » Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:04 am

Still not hearing your replies to my questions sweetie and after I answered all yours, my widdle fweewings are hurt. Nasty big bad brute of a beta man.

Walker
Posts: 4336
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: If Women Ruled The World

Post by Walker » Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:02 am

Clean your ears out. To review the past:

- Rather than fetch the meaning of manipulation and personal power for you, I suggested you look up the meanings for yourself, and then apply those meanings to the term, true leader.

- If you are in doubt about any meanings, speak up. Glad to help.

- If you then can manage to write something that isn’t a total waste of time, do give it a go, and good luck with the effortation.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests