PDA

View Full Version : Could the world soon be run by Women?



OneEnglishNorman
Friday, October 27th, 2006, 05:59 PM
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=84238&stc=1&d=1161968306
(graphic by politicalbetting.com)


In just over two years time the leaders of three of the four biggest economies in the West could be women.


Germany got its first ever female Chancellor in the early summer when Angela Merkel's victory saw the end of the Schroeder government.


France might just possibly have a female President for the first time if Segolene Royale becomes the Socialist candidate and goes on to win next year’s Presidential election. Royal at 6/4 to get the job.


The USA has two female possibities - Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and Condoleeza Rice for the Republicans. Hillary is priced at 1.26/1 to secure the nomination and 7/4 win back the White House for the Democrats in 2008. On the Republican side Rice is priced at 10.5/1 to get her party’s nomination.


If the USA and France go for women leaders then three out of the four top western economies would be led by females, with the UK as the odd one out :)

How would this impact on international politics?

Thusnelda
Friday, October 27th, 2006, 06:48 PM
I dont think we women are generally more capable in politics. I dont care what feminists say about that, though. *g* ;)

Just look at the new Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel: If you thought Gerhard Schröder was a bad chancellor...now you see it can even get worse. :~( (She challs herself "conservative", but she is only a "black-dyed socialdemocrat" in a pseudo-conservative multiculturalistic party)

But on the other hand, I have the definitive position that women are not worse than men in politics, too. They just hadnt the opportunities in the past to get into higher position, "thanks" mostly to Christian patriarchical system.

Soooo...making good politics has nothing to do with the genes, but with the brain, the ideology and the political in-view. :)

Zyklop
Friday, October 27th, 2006, 06:57 PM
Soooo...making good politics has nothing to do with the genes, but with the brainDo you see the contradiction?

Taras Bulba
Friday, October 27th, 2006, 07:02 PM
Even if so, much of the major positions of power will still be held by men. So the significance is not as great as many feminists would want us to believe. In fact female rulers have usually had to depend on their male advisors and subordinates far more than male rulers usually do.

As Clinton, even many Liberal anaylsts say that she's too much of a divisive figure within the Democratic party to be a serious candidate. The only she'd have going for her is that she's a woman. Same thing with Condi.



But on the other hand, I have the definitive position that women are not worse than men in politics, too.

Really? I read that the countries most eager to adopt the EU constitution are also the countries with the most female politicans. :P



They just hadnt the opportunities in the past to get into higher position, "thanks" mostly to Christian patriarchical system.


Oh sure, blame it on Christianity. :oanieyes

Nevermind that European Christendom had numerous female rulers, like Queen Isabella of Spain.

In fact the general position of women actually improved under Christianity.

Æmeric
Friday, October 27th, 2006, 08:33 PM
The USA has two female possibities - Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and Condoleeza Rice for the Republicans. Hillary is priced at 1.26/1 to secure the nomination and 7/4 win back the White House for the Democrats in 2008. On the Republican side Rice is priced at 10.5/1 to get her party’s nomination.


This is my nightmare. Bush is a complete idiot & I would'nt put it pass him to secure the Republican nomination for his mistress Condoleeza. If this happens I think it is likely Hillary will win. In either case I will have to give serious consideration to immigrating. Canada does'nt look so bad compared to a US lead by Hillary or Condi.

OneEnglishNorman
Friday, October 27th, 2006, 09:03 PM
Even if so, much of the major positions of power will still be held by men.

Yes, but the PC feminists would have a field day if Rice/Clinton won. Basically lots of news stories about moving into a brave new age of calmer consensus politics, men are bad, blah blah blah.

Pervitinist
Friday, October 27th, 2006, 09:07 PM
What about Britain? No second Iron Lady on the horizon?:D

Taras Bulba
Friday, October 27th, 2006, 09:22 PM
Basically lots of news stories about moving into a brave new age of calmer consensus politics, men are bad, blah blah blah.
In other words, it'd be just another day in modern America!

cosmocreator
Saturday, October 28th, 2006, 12:17 AM
The western world is run by women. Or men with female brains. :|

János Hunyadi
Saturday, October 28th, 2006, 12:22 AM
Female rulers are just a sign of weak men.

Gil
Saturday, October 28th, 2006, 12:25 AM
I hope so. Men fight battles, women are good to keep things tidy and working nicely, Vikings knew that (they left their domains under the rule of their wife, not the neighbour), Romans did the same (the Domina) why shouldn't we?

On a more serious note, I find nothing bad about having female rulers as long as we don't start questioning if society should be patriarchal or matriarchal.

It worries me much more to know one can, in our days, actually have rulers who aren't even of your ethnic group...

Thusnelda
Saturday, October 28th, 2006, 02:45 AM
Do you see the contradiction?
Sad to hear such a opinion from you. :|

Zyklop
Saturday, October 28th, 2006, 08:03 AM
Sad to hear such a opinion from you. :|
Why this? Don´t you believe the brain is a direct result of the genes and "the ideology and the political in-view" are direct results of the brain?
Male and female brains work completely different. Is it so hard to imagine that we are 'programmed' different due to the different biological tasks nature has assigned to us?

You probably think it´s a consequence of role-specific upbringing or maybe a coincidence that women feel more drawn towards socialism, democracy, charity or other ideologies that preach human equality. But you thereby exclude the biochemical basis of the psyche and I´m sure you won´t deny that men and women differ greatly in their ammount of testosterone and estrogens. Marginal exceptions aside, women are more group-oriented, social and empathetic due to their genetical programming as mothers and it has been this way since million years. Humans can´t subdue nature and it would be naive to think that this doesn´t influence their political orientation. Even you can´t overcome your equality instincts and reflexes, although you surely are intelligent enough to see that democracy is the same fraud as christianity.

Regardless of male or female rulers, effeminate politics has brought us in the mess we´re in right now. As long as the human equality ghost spooks around in the heads of otherwise intelligent people we won´t make any progress.

Thusnelda
Saturday, October 28th, 2006, 12:51 PM
Why this? Don´t you believe the brain is a direct result of the genes and "the ideology and the political in-view" are direct results of the brain?
Male and female brains work completely different.
That is true and Ive said nothing against this, since it is a proven fact.


You probably think it´s a consequence of role-specific upbringing or maybe a coincidence that women feel more drawn towards socialism, democracy, charity or other ideologies that preach human equality.
This may be also some kind of true, but you miss a very important point in my opinion: Your opinion is a generalization.

Not all women feel, whatever the reasons may be, drawn to socialism or specific ideologies. Besides the fact that I think that charity, empathy and human equality are good things that should be very important in a "Volkskörper" to gain a common national feeling all people share ("Schicksalsgemeinschaft", "Vaterlandsliebe", "Gemeinschaftssinn für die Nation/das Volk" ), its not true that women are generally more "leftist". I think some women are just more apolitical and not so interested in politics than men, but its just wrong to say: "All women are incompetent to lead a country because they are generally not so capable and their brain is not made for this". :| Sorry Zyklop, but that is a sad mistake. Women have proven very capable in the past, just look back to the old Germanic times.


But you thereby exclude the biochemical basis of the psyche and I´m sure you won´t deny that men and women differ greatly in their ammount of testosterone and estrogens.
No, I dont deny that.

Marginal exceptions aside, women are more group-oriented, social and empathetic due to their genetical programming as mothers and it has been this way since million years.
This is also a generalization. I know female outsiders and lonewolfes, too. And if men are sitting in their Wirtshaus for hours and hours, I think they arent too less group-orietated, hm!? *g*

Humans can´t subdue nature and it would be naive to think that this doesn´t influence their political orientation.
The political orientation of an individual is not programmed in the brain of an individual by birth. The political orientation is the sum of the experiences and influences an individual has. Thats what I think.

Even you can´t overcome your equality instincts and reflexes, although you surely are intelligent enough to see that democracy is the same fraud as christianity.
I think we shouldnt talk about Democrazy in general here, because we wont find a compromiss. ;) I respect people who think that other systems as democrazy are better (in opposition to most of the people of our countries, who demonisize all non-democrats), but Im a democrat who just thinks that the democrazy per se has been lead ad absurdum in Europe and in the western world. We have a Lobbycrazy or a Plutocrazy, but no true Democrazy. We need a real big reform made by the people. But as I said, I think this is not a matter of this thread!?


Regardless of male or female rulers, effeminate politics has brought us in the mess we´re in right now. As long as the human equality ghost spooks around in the heads of otherwise intelligent people we won´t make any progress.
"Human equality" is a matter of context in my opinion. ;) Every race or sub-race is superior by evolution in their ancient home territory. I think Negroes are fitting, by nature and evolution, better into hot climates than Whites, and vice versa. I love Ethnopluralism, but no general "Übermenschen"-racism.

Zyklop
Saturday, October 28th, 2006, 04:38 PM
This may be also some kind of true, but you miss a very important point in my opinion: Your opinion is a generalization.
Not all women feel, whatever the reasons may be, drawn to socialism or specific ideologies.
Of course it´s a generalization. I see the big picture and derive conclusions from it, you see exceptions and reject generalizations. It´s the basic difference between male and female reasoning. Women always care more about details than the big picture and more about the present than the future. But if you want to make politics this is useless and looking at every single exception to the rule will only lead to inefficiency and chaos.


Besides the fact that I think that charity, empathy and human equality are good things that should be very important in a "Volkskörper" to gain a common national feeling all people share ("Schicksalsgemeinschaft", "Vaterlandsliebe", "Gemeinschaftssinn für die Nation/das Volk" ), With the exception of 'human equality', these are important things to some degree as long as they are kept inside a folkish community. But they are a handicap for everything that deals with outside issues (immigrants, foreign policy, etc.), where rational decisions have to be made on a regular basis. Unfortunately the female empathy doesn´t stop at national or ethnic borders and therefore it´s not really smart to assign women or men with effeminate mindsets (like most men today) to these areas.


its not true that women are generally more "leftist". If "leftist" means buying into equality bullsh*t then they generally are.


I think some women are just more apolitical and not so interested in politics than men, but its just wrong to say: "All women are incompetent to lead a country because they are generally not so capable and their brain is not made for this". :| Sorry Zyklop, but that is a sad mistake. Women have proven very capable in the past, just look back to the old Germanic times. Capable for sure, but capable of what? Being the core of the family or being leaders of countries?


This is also a generalization. I know female outsiders and lonewolfes, too.Again you are concluding from details to the big picture.

And if men are sitting in their Wirtshaus for hours and hours, I think they arent too less group-orietated, hm!? *g*If I would be cynical I would say they are trying to get away from the matriarchy at home, but thankfully I´m not. ;)


The political orientation of an individual is not programmed in the brain of an individual by birth. The political orientation is the sum of the experiences and influences an individual has. Thats what I think.The political orientation is just a result of thoughts and emotions which, for the most part, are affected by genes and so is the processing of experiences and enviromental impressions. Genes set the frame of the personality, only a small part is influenced by the enviroment. I think there are several dozen threads about the Nurture vs. Nature debate at Skadi.


I think we shouldnt talk about Democrazy in general here, because we wont find a compromiss. ;) On a side note, I find your spelling of 'democracy' absolutely cute! :D


I respect people who think that other systems as democrazy are better (in opposition to most of the people of our countries, who demonisize all non-democrats), but Im a democrat who just thinks that the democrazy per se has been lead ad absurdum in Europe and in the western world. We have a Lobbycrazy or a Plutocrazy, but no true Democrazy. We need a real big reform made by the people. But as I said, I think this is not a matter of this thread!?I already tried to nail you down in another thread but again you try to escape. Sooner or later we will have to slug it out somewhere. I remember you wrote that you generally are against use of force and I think that´s the main reason why you (or women in general) are clinging to democracy: the fear of hurting someone. I hope one day you will drop that attitude and join the dark side. The lady in your signature surely doesn´t have her spear only to tickle her enemies either. ;)


"Human equality" is a matter of context in my opinion. ;) Every race or sub-race is superior by evolution in their ancient home territory.
I think Negroes are fitting, by nature and evolution, better into hot climates than Whites, and vice versa.Well, I think the climate in Africa can be called quite hot and still Africa is a underdeveloped, primitive continent - with exception of the places that were settled by Whites. Isn´t that something to think about?

I love Ethnopluralism, but no general "Übermenschen"-racism.Ethnopluralism is the racism of well-situated people. I wonder how you would react to a bunch of Gypsies settling down in your garden or a horde of Negroes burning down your car.

GoyFire
Monday, October 30th, 2006, 09:45 PM
To paraphrase an ancient saying: "Women are elected leaders when tyrannts rule".

Bridie
Tuesday, October 31st, 2006, 03:45 PM
I dont think we women are generally more capable in politics.Within the context of the patriarchal societies that we all live in, I personally agree. Our talents would be wasted there. ;) :thumbup But women have always held a more indirect power... through influencing their men. Good thing for a woman to do ---> find a man who can best represent her views and ambitions, then support him, using all of her will and, if need be, her powers of manipulation and deception ( :D ) to make sure that he becomes powerful. I think this is the way it has long been... women's power in unseen and indirect, enforced through others. But we don't tend to have the same thirst for recognition and ego-boosts that men do... so we don't generally feel the need to take credit for our achievements. Don't you reckon Valkyrie? :)

For those women who don't find a worthy man, and/or who are inclined to be more actively involved in such things, becoming a politician herself is a second option. :D :thumbup




In fact female rulers have usually had to depend on their male advisors and subordinates far more than male rulers usually do.
Really? Where did you read that then Taras? :chinrub Oohh... come on, admit it now... you just made that up! ;)


I'm personally very happy to see so many women active in politics now. :thumbup As long as they don't attempt to be men.

OneEnglishNorman
Tuesday, October 31st, 2006, 06:24 PM
Within the context of the patriarchal societies that we all live in, I personally agree. Our talents would be wasted there. ;) :thumbup But women have always held a more indirect power... through influencing their men. Good thing for a woman to do ---> find a man who can best represent her views and ambitions, then support him, using all of her will and, if need be, her powers of manipulation and deception ( :D ) to make sure that he becomes powerful. I think this is the way it has long been... women's power in unseen and indirect, enforced through others. But we don't tend to have the same thirst for recognition and ego-boosts that men do... so we don't generally feel the need to take credit for our achievements. :)

This is all true. Women are like talent scouts, they try to identify men with the most drive and ambition. In the kind of societies we are wired up for (hunter/gatherer primarily) this makes perfect sense.

cosmocreator
Tuesday, October 31st, 2006, 06:59 PM
Politics is a system. The male brain is better at analyzing and creating systems. There are a small number of females with a male brain, they'd probably be good at politics too.

Matts
Thursday, November 2nd, 2006, 05:23 PM
In two words: Gender Darwinism.

Bhreac
Wednesday, November 8th, 2006, 05:37 AM
AS a bit of unexpected humor as well as a chance to peruse the deeper side of unbiased non race or culture thought, lets suppose we could place a female minded male - and an equally male minded female in the same room and see if this brings us any closer to the theory of gender darwanisms supposed findings! ok ok on the real side of things...I being a self recognized and nonopologetic for it alpha male-would find no offense at any deserving female holding political office, I feel this lack of reprisal or fear mainly because as far as modern examples are concerned, we have yet to see a female that acts any differently in office than any of her male counter parts...so perhaps it is the system after all not the tiny inaffective players in its maelstrom after all! our "leaders" will play whatever roll we allow them to play wether male or female...so in closing will they rule the world? sure why not? this does not mean however that they will do any better or worse unless we see to it that those in seats of power understand that its not your crotch that rules but your mind, and that is swayed by those ruled!

ladybright
Wednesday, November 8th, 2006, 08:44 PM
In just over two years time the leaders of three of the four biggest economies in the West could be women.

The USA has two female possibities - Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and Condoleeza Rice for the Republicans. Hillary is priced at 1.26/1 to secure the nomination and 7/4 win back the White House for the Democrats in 2008. On the Republican side Rice is priced at 10.5/1 to get her party’s nomination.


If the USA and France go for women leaders then three out of the four top western economies would be led by females, with the UK as the odd one out :)

How would this impact on international politics?

The USA has a third option now. The Speaker of the House of Representitive will be female. That makes her third in line for the Presadency. I just wish she was a woman I could stand.

Taras Bulba
Saturday, November 11th, 2006, 05:34 PM
Really? Where did you read that then Taras? :chinrub

Martin Van Creveld's Men, Women & War: Do Women Belong in the Front Line? (http://www.amazon.com/Men-Women-War-Belong-Front/dp/0304359599) was the first source that brought this to my attention and further readings into the biographies of several female rulers have further confirmed this point.

Slå ring om Norge
Saturday, November 11th, 2006, 06:21 PM
Is it not?

In Norway the females seems to already rule. Often with a male puppet as frontfigure.

I believe that their motherinstinct may be one of the reasons all kind of failure wares are allowed to move freely here?

But definitively one of the reasons we have a lawwork that favorizes criminals and active takes part in punishing their victims.

Socialist female politicans have had a dominating role in ruining our lawwork, that is no doubt about it, Inge Louise Valle started, Gro Harlem Brundtland continued, and Kristin Halvorsen are still working on tearing our nation to pieces.

Cowardice Norwegian politicians have never shown any balls to resist the "rehabilization" hystery, but of fear taken part in this sick theatre.

Actually I do not think they are neither worse or better, but they priorizes different than men, also when in powerpositions.

"- Norway is a free country, populated by unfree people..." Ibsen

Bridie
Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 07:55 AM
Politics is a system. The male brain is better at analyzing and creating systems. There are a small number of females with a male brain, they'd probably be good at politics too.
I disagree there. Women have evolved, in my opinion, to be naturally adept at creating order and "systems" in a domestic environment, as this is a very necessary skill needed to create a workable and efficient household, childcare routine and and general order at the most fundamental levels of human need. Women, due to having to be good multi-taskers, are generally good at prioritising too, which requires analytical ability. Good social skills require reflection and analytical skills also... and it's well known that females are generally wired to develop social skills with relative ease.

Haven't you ever noticed that women do very well in positions where great order and organisational abilities are imperative? Nursing, teaching, secretarial work etc??

I think women could do well in politics if it ever became necessary for them to enter this arena (in the case of an extreme disaster or something where all of the capable men in a nation were all but wiped out), but I don't think that it should generally be encouraged for them to do so, nor should women feel pressured to take on that sort of responsibility in the public sphere. I don't think it comes naturally to women. Women are needed elsewhere. And any effort by women to be leaders on a large scale would be like swimming against the current for them...


I don't think women will ever rule the world... nor do they already, as some here have suggested. Male leaders these days are just becoming too effeminate and need to grow some balls.

cosmocreator
Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 10:07 PM
Actually psychological studies have shown women to be more empathic than men and men better at systems than women. That's why men do better at math and physics.

Bridie
Monday, November 13th, 2006, 01:48 AM
Actually psychological studies have shown women to be more empathic than men and men better at systems than women. That's why men do better at math and physics.
No, males are thought to be better at grasping spatial concepts, this is why they generally excell at maths (relative to most females). And being empathetic does not rule out being good with organisation and "systems".