Political Crossfire Forums

[Pareve]

Breasts are mostly body fat, so as female body builders reduce bodyfat, their breasts disappear as well. Many get breast implants to compensate, since femininity is judged in female body building contests for some reason.

Thank you, National Geographic Channel, for teaching me random information while I have the flu!

[ieatfood]

look, you all are misusing generalizations

sure, in general, women are weaker
in general, women are more emotional and less aggressive

but that doesnt mean that any given woman bears these qualities

in general, asians are good at math
but that doesnt mean that any particular asian is good at math

Can women make effective leaders? Sure. There are many examples of terrific women leaders. Will women ever take power from men? I doubt it.

[Mare Tranquillity]

spearsy23 wrote: hillary is much more imposing than dubbya

Smarter too!

[Demonic Spoon]

I don't know.

Bitching "SAVE TEH CHILDREN ZOMG" when the San Andreas Hot Coffee mod came out was pretty damn stupid.


Hillary is just as bad if not worse.

[thundertaker]

Airjorhe23 wrote: Call me sexist, I dont care, the truth is that in today's society, although women have a more active role, men will always overrule them. Imagine a female president in Russia, the US, France, and England. Although, they might be able to make good decisions, there is no denying their weaker presence. A man at the head issues more strenght for the nation he is governing over. if u disagree, please state why

I think the opposite is true, actually. Maggie Thatcher broke Galtieri's balls over the Falkland's issue, and she even dealt with the President of the United States in an assertive, take-no-crap attitude. She said to Reagan 'How DARE you treat us even handedly?' Over the American attitude to the Falklands war when they didn't want to decide between supporting two allies.
In the run up to the Gulf War, Bush Senior was prevaricating over taking a tough line over Iraq and told him 'Don't you go wobbly on me George'.
No way could she have gotten away with it if she was a man, because of all the 'Alpha Male' crap of being the most powerful man in the world.
Contrast this with Tony Blair's cringeworthily servile attitude to Dubya, where his practically begging him for the privilige of kissing his ass every time he meets him.
It's a well known fact that for the most part, big tough men will tolerate assertiveness off a woman more than they would off another man......

[LostSoul3412]

Mare Tranquillity wrote: spearsy23 wrote: hillary is much more imposing than dubbya

Smarter too!

That's really not saying much...

[islandhopper]

Airjorhe23 wrote: Call me sexist, I dont care, the truth is that in today's society, although women have a more active role, men will always overrule them. Imagine a female president in Russia, the US, France, and England. Although, they might be able to make good decisions, there is no denying their weaker presence. A man at the head issues more strenght for the nation he is governing over. if u disagree, please state why

I haven't even read the responses to this, so I may be repeating what several people have already pointed out to you. And the obvious response to this is, England does not have presidents; but it does have prime ministers. Does the name Margaret Thatcher ring a bell?

[Bolshevik]

I agree completely with Airjorhe23. Men are superior, by far, to women, as far as leadership is concerned. It's far more intimidating to talk to a diplomat who looks like an ugly pile of muscle than a spindly, kitchen-grease stained woman. On top of that, women have smaller brains than men. As such, men are more likely to understand a difficult situation and deal with it quickly (most problems can usually be solved with ICBM's or genocide). Men aren't as easily offended as women, and they aren't nearly as weak (generally speaking). I've known some men back in Russia who could hurl most women nearly 20 meters. This ability is just further evidence that men were built to be in a position of power-- women can simply be hurled away.

In Russia we did things the right way: keep men in power, and women in the kitchen.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Airjorhe23 wrote: Call me sexist, I dont care, the truth is that in today's society, although women have a more active role, men will always overrule them. Imagine a female president in Russia, the US, France, and England. Although, they might be able to make good decisions, there is no denying their weaker presence. A man at the head issues more strenght for the nation he is governing over. if u disagree, please state why

Yours is kind of a funny assertion in light of the well established fact that for most of human existence we have lived in matriarchal societies in which lineage was through the mother. It was only when the violent, patriarchal desert religions began slaughtering the more peaceful matriarchal groups that men assumed the reins of power. As long as we organize our culture and civilizations around the rule of: Might is Right we will continue to have men in charge, but maybe we will eventually get tired of incessant war and will return to our roots in matriarchy to find peace.

The post preceding this makes my point painfully clear.

[Protostar]

Bolshevik wrote: I agree completely with Airjorhe23. Men are superior, by far, to women, as far as leadership is concerned. It's far more intimidating to talk to a diplomat who looks like an ugly pile of muscle than a spindly, kitchen-grease stained woman. On top of that, women have smaller brains than men. As such, men are more likely to understand a difficult situation and deal with it quickly (most problems can usually be solved with ICBM's or genocide). Men aren't as easily offended as women, and they aren't nearly as weak (generally speaking). I've known some men back in Russia who could hurl most women nearly 20 meters. This ability is just further evidence that men were built to be in a position of power-- women can simply be hurled away.

In Russia we did things the right way: keep men in power, and women in the kitchen.

:rotf: :rotf: 10/10, Bolshevik!!

[name]

Men and women have the same capacity for anger; generally, women simply internalize it more, whereas in men it comes out as aggression. This could possibly provide an edge of ruthlessness when it comes to tough decision-making. But I don't see how that makes a man so vastly superior to women when it comes to leadership. I think some people have become comfortable with men dominating the positions of power to the point at which they consider men to be generally a million times better at leading than women and justify our history of male-dominated leadership by citing the inferiority of women, while ignoring the fact that there were massive societal obstacles preventing the rise of female leaders that relatively few have managed to overcome until recently. Also, I don't think anyone realizes how similar men and women actually are in aspects such as intelligence that would be factors in the quality of leadership. We are pretty much equal in most respects aside from physical strength and aggression. Maybe we should define 'leadership.' IMO, there aren't many things that men generally have more of that would give them such a ridiculously huge advantage in leadership. It just isn't realistic. There just isn't this massive rift between men and women in ability.

[Muslima]

LostSoul3412 wrote: tman_ndsu08 wrote: Women are physically weaker than men. I don't even think women would protest that.



I think she would have something to say about that...

OH! :shock: That is disgusting, honestly!

It won't make her or any other women as strong as men are physically.
IMO, I think men are dominant in some aspects and women are dominant in others.

[StrawHat]

Mare Tranquillity wrote:
Yours is kind of a funny assertion in light of the well established fact that for most of human existence we have lived in matriarchal societies in which lineage was through the mother. It was only when the violent, patriarchal desert religions began slaughtering the more peaceful matriarchal groups that men assumed the reins of power. As long as we organize our culture and civilizations around the rule of: Might is Right we will continue to have men in charge, but maybe we will eventually get tired of incessant war and will return to our roots in matriarchy to find peace.

Wait, what? As far as I recall, societies have been patriarchies since even before the "desert religions" as you've deemed them. I mean, gosh, if you just look at it from a functional perspective, it would make sense that the men were in charge, because in the ancient world, it was usually the guy with the biggest stick who won out, you know?

ieatfood wrote: look, you all are misusing generalizations

sure, in general, women are weaker
in general, women are more emotional and less aggressive

but that doesnt mean that any given woman bears these qualities

in general, asians are good at math
but that doesnt mean that any particular asian is good at math

Can women make effective leaders? Sure. There are many examples of terrific women leaders. Will women ever take power from men? I doubt it.

Wow, this guy hit it dead on.

[Shady]

Physical strength has little to do with the ability to lead...

[chenmon_1983]

Airjorhe23 wrote: Call me sexist, I dont care, the truth is that in today's society, although women have a more active role, men will always overrule them. Imagine a female president in Russia, the US, France, and England. Although, they might be able to make good decisions, there is no denying their weaker presence. A man at the head issues more strenght for the nation he is governing over. if u disagree, please state why

I'm afraid I can't agree with you .I think the men aren't suitable for some special jobs,nurse for example.
the mens' and womens' status are the same.

[Shady]

chenmon_1983 wrote: Airjorhe23 wrote: Call me sexist, I dont care, the truth is that in today's society, although women have a more active role, men will always overrule them. Imagine a female president in Russia, the US, France, and England. Although, they might be able to make good decisions, there is no denying their weaker presence. A man at the head issues more strenght for the nation he is governing over. if u disagree, please state why

I'm afraid I can't agree with you .I think the men aren't suitable for some special jobs,nurse for example.
the mens' and womens' status are the same.

There are plenty of good male nurses. And many good female doctors.

[toddytodd]

Airjorhe23 wrote: Call me sexist, I dont care, the truth is that in today's society, although women have a more active role, men will always overrule them. Imagine a female president in Russia, the US, France, and England. Although, they might be able to make good decisions, there is no denying their weaker presence. A man at the head issues more strenght for the nation he is governing over. if u disagree, please state why
I actually saw a report that men have a 'male warrior effect'. Here is the link and the article. Perhaps what you say has some merit in truth...?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/09/warrior.effect.reut/index.html

NORWICH, England (Reuters) -- Men may have developed a psychology that makes them particularly able to engage in wars, a scientist said on Friday.

New research has shown that men bond together and cooperate well in the face of adversity to protect their interests more than women, which could explain why war is almost exclusively a male business, according to Professor Mark van Vugt of the University of Kent in southern England.

"Men respond more strongly to outward threats, we've labeled that the 'man warrior effect'," he told the British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting.

"Men are more likely to support a country going to war. Men are more likely sign up for the military and men are more likely to lead groups in more autocratic, militaristic ways than women," he added.

Van Vugt said the finding is consistent with results from different behavioral science disciplines.

In experiments with 300 university men and women students, Van Vugt and his team gave the volunteers small sums of money which they could either keep or invest in a common fund that would be doubled and equally divided. None of the students knew what the others were doing.

Both sexes cooperated in investing in the fund. But when the groups were told they were competing against other universities, the males were more eager to invest rather than keep their money while the number of women contributing remained the same.

"We all know males are more aggressive than females," Van Vugt said, adding that co-operation is needed to establish institutions and governments and to wage wars.

"Male co-operation is a double-edged sword," he added.

[name]

Quote: Although, they might be able to make good decisions, there is no denying their weaker presence. A man at the head issues more strenght for the nation he is governing over. if u disagree, please state why

I agree that men naturally tend to fulfill the role of protecter and will most likely always dominate leadership positions. As long as women have the option of pursuing any leadership role they desire, all is well.
But I cannot ignore your statement about women. Women do not have a 'weaker presence.' You and many others view them this way because of what you have been taught. The truth is that evolution has caused women to respond to threats differently from men because for women, reproduction is more closely involved with safety and survival. Basically, a woman is more likely to respond to a threat in a way that will ensure her own safety, simply because the passing on of a woman's genes requires a far bigger 'investment' in time, food, etc. A women would probably try to escape and hide from a sabertooth tiger or whatever rather than fight it, because if she is badly injured or killed, any offspring she carries is at risk. Whereas for men, it's much simpler; a man can easily pass on his genes to many offspring and still put his life at risk by assuming the role of fighter and protecter. Not to offend, but women are simply less expendable for their own evolutionary sake (and that of the entire human race.) I'm tired of women being viewed as 'weak' and people saying that if women ruled the world, we'd still be looking for the wheel. It's just unrealistic. Humanity would not have gotten very far if half of our species sat around painting their nails while men were concerned with hunting, fighting and reproducing.

[Bolshevik]

name wrote: Quote: Although, they might be able to make good decisions, there is no denying their weaker presence. A man at the head issues more strenght for the nation he is governing over. if u disagree, please state why

I agree that men naturally tend to fulfill the role of protecter and will most likely always dominate leadership positions. As long as women have the option of pursuing any leadership role they desire, all is well.
But I cannot ignore your statement about women. Women do not have a 'weaker presence.' You and many others view them this way because of what you have been taught. The truth is that evolution has caused women to respond to threats differently from men because for women, reproduction is more closely involved with safety and survival. Basically, a woman is more likely to respond to a threat in a way that will ensure her own safety, simply because the passing on of a woman's genes requires a far bigger 'investment' in time, food, etc. A women would probably try to escape and hide from a sabertooth tiger or whatever rather than fight it, because if she is badly injured or killed, any offspring she carries is at risk. Whereas for men, it's much simpler; a man can easily pass on his genes to many offspring and still put his life at risk by assuming the role of fighter and protecter. Not to offend, but women are simply less expendable for their own evolutionary sake (and that of the entire human race.) I'm tired of women being viewed as 'weak' and people saying that if women ruled the world, we'd still be looking for the wheel. It's just unrealistic. Humanity would not have gotten very far if half of our species sat around painting their nails while men were concerned with hunting, fighting and reproducing.

Don't make jokes. If you lived in Lithuania (or any country that has any sense, for that matter) you'd be executed for such blasphemy.

And for your information, if women were in charge of society, the wheel would still be here. Just that it would be in the shape of a square, and would b**** at you if you tried to improve it.

Let's face it. Men come up with all the good inventions. It's proven throughout history. I'm not going to go so far as to say that there aren't any famous/inventive women, but there aren't nearly as many as there are men. The good thing is, the women made sufficient cooks for such great men, and also gave them good targets for anger-related backhands.

[Demonic Spoon]

:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

10/10