Here's the cold hard truth.
Men are better leader objectively speaking. They have better strategies, better determination and better conviction towards achieving a goal they have set, regardless of it being a good or bad one. Leadership skills have nothing to do with morality. A leader must put the interests of his followers and his group at the top priority, even if it means doing immoral things. The alpha wolf would attack wolves outside of his pack, yet he wouldn't do so to those in his pack unless they opposed him. He'd do something evil if it means achieving his top priority goal. And that is why he is the alpha, the leader, as well as why he is responsible for anything bad that happens to the pack.
Women are unable to do that. They are unable to sacrifice something in order to attain something else. In case of a war, most women would lose the moment something gruesome takes place, like kidnapping and torture of a squad. They'd be willing to forfeit a war if it meant the safety of the squad of men. They also wouldn't be able to be the ones to be someone's executioner. I've never heard a good-hearted person say they'd kill someone. Yet there are good-hearted men who would kill people if it meant protecting what they want to protect. This is why men are leaders. Men are able to be cold, brutal and ruthless towards those who try to oppose them and their goals. Women aren't like that. Women want compromises and want everyone to be happy and good. But sadly, bad people will always exist and such people are only warded off by fear. All countries are afraid of the USA because trump is a loose cannon. They know that he can wipe them off the face of the Earth and is prepared to do so if he has to in order to protect his country. That's what keeps maniacs such as Kim Jong Un at bay. If the USA had a president who talked to him with a tone saying "we don't want any trouble, so let's just find a way to be friends", Un would've already nuked the USA.
Why do you think no one wants to stand up to the jacked asshole guy in the pub? It's because they're scared of him, and they're scared of him because he gives off the air that he'll murder you if you even look at him the wrong way. And I'm sorry, but women just don't have that air around them. Do you think people would be afraid to attack the USA if they thought the USA was weaker than them and wouldn't retaliate? And sure, a very small number of women would retaliate as leaders, but would they be able to commit acts which strike terror in the opposing side? Would they be able to see it through? You might say we can't say for sure since it never happened, but we can actually say for sure. You have women these days who stand up to men and even physically attack them, but they always resort to crying and giving up after getting hit back. Men fight until one of them is clearly beaten. Women give up the moment they get hit for real because they get scared and feel powerless.
That's why women will never be objectively better leaders than men. They may be better morally, wanting only good for all, but that's being foolish. Someone will always want more power and unless you're ready to do whatever it takes to ensure the safety of your interests and people, you'll lose. And if you do something bad, you'll just be a hypocrite. This is why it's impossible to be a leader while thinking of both your group's interests and interests of everyone else. And that's what a vast majority, more than 99.9% of women, want to be as leaders and think good leaders should be. They all scream out "men have started so many wars", but they don't realize that each one of those wars had a purpose. It's those same men who gave you your own country and freedom because they started a war. Otherwise every single one of you living in the USA would still be living in British colonies and not the USA. The law of nature is to kill or be killed, and it always holds true, only changing its form.
Most Helpful Opinions
The future is female and this is a good thing.
I think men should take most of the political roles because that involves more responsibility - leaders are supposed to prioritize the interests of their people even before their own needs, to the point of sacrificing their lives if necessary (Matthew 20:25-28). God didn't intend for women to have to take that responsibility, which is why Biblical military drafts only included men (see Numbers 1, Neh 4:14, Joshua 1:14, etc).
Women still have a considerable amount of power within their families, though. Women are expected to "guide the home." The original Greek word used in this passage is a combination of the words "home" and "ruler"/ "Lord". https://biblehub.com/greek/3616.htm
Also, women are allowed to have jobs. The woman in Prov 31 ran a business. They're simply not obligated to have a job because husbands are commanded to provide for them (Exodus 21:10, Eph 5:28-29).
Being the primary person to influence and raise the next generation of leaders is incredibly powerful. for that reason, I actually think women have more power as stay-at-home mothers than as career-women.
The past was Male... if the future really is Female, at least history will have some sort of balance. I think it’s the product of karma, not necessarily good or bad. It’s just that everything needs to have a sense of duality.
I personally do not give a shit about women being in politics or whatever else. I don’t even care about men. I’m only concerned with the youth expanding their minds and being more creative than the generations that came before them. I care about them making a change for the greater good. The way in which they carry out these tasks doesn’t matter to me as long as it’s positive and bringing peace among all types of people.
I think the message behind it is good but the phrase itself doesn’t really make sense. If it just means that in the future women are going to catch up to where men already are, then the future isn’t really female, the future is male and female. Anyway I do think it’s great for women to branch out into areas that normally don’t have many of them but at the same time we need to remember that there are certain professions that are better suited for males and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We can’t have everything and women and men are different.
Men have started literal wars... Men have caused all the bad things tht have happened in the world. it’s time for woman to be in charge. the future is female.
I'm a freakin genius leader superstar
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
91Opinion
The future isn't female. In order to understand why that is you have to look through our history as humans because you'll see patterns. These ideas aren't new, they've been tried before countless times and they've failed. It's also easy to understand when you look at human nature without any ideological bias which you tend to have.
In his book "Sex And Culture", an anthropologist named J. D. Unwin studied thousands of past cultures. All of them went the same way.
He noticed thay at the beginning of any culture, those cultures tended to be patriarchal. They tend to be highly focused on family values, monogamy, conservative sexual morals. As a result they had high birthrates, strong social cohesion. Since the men all had children this gave them more of an incentive to contribute to the betterment of society and to work harder than they'd have to if they only had themselves to support.
This would eventually propell that society toward success. These cultures would get what he called "expansive energy". They'd grow in sizr and power. Often they'd outbreed less successful cultures or they'd invade and conquer them instead.
At a certain point thess cultures became highly successful, and they'd relax on those old rules. They'd start to move more towards matriarchy. They'd let go of those family values belieiving that they were no longer needed. Traditional gender roles would be enforced much less. People would have less children, low birthrates. Sexual morals would relax and people would start to sleep around more, not bother with marrying, divorce more often. Social trust and cohesion would decrease. They'd lose the expansive energy they had before as a result of all of this.
Eventually these cultures would be outbred by other cultures and replaced, or they'd be invaded and conquered.
History works in cycles and it repeats itself because people don't learn from it. This is why there are no successful matriarchal cultures. It's not because it hasn't been tried before, they just fail. Some exist today - tiny insignificant places that nobody but hardcore feminist fanatics have ever heard of, and are only tolerated because they'd so tiny.
I think we are moving more towards a matriarchal, feminised culture. It's not sustainable though. For a culture to survive it needs strong men to protect it, not emasculated weaklings who bow to women.Well, to get some idea of what said 'Female Future' would look like, here's a list of the requested attributes, traits and terms which are now being deliberately phased out of any and all job listings and interviews here in the UK. In order to make them "gender neutral", on account of these "masculine words" being "inherently gender biased and patriarchal, leading to less belongingness and job interest among women, and perpetuating gender inequality in male-dominated fields, along with the gender pay gap", with "the mere presence of these masculine words dissuading women from applying to the area because they cue that women do not belong". And any British employers who continue to use this "masculine wording" in their job adverts will now be liable to face gender discrimination charges, and potentially criminal prosecution, for doing so:
Hazard, Hazardous
Brave, Bravery
Athlete, Athletic, Athleticism
Drive, Driven
Outspoken, Outgoing
Active, Activity
Analyze, Analytical
Scrutinize, Scrutiny
Determine/d, Determination
Lead, Leader, Leading, Leadership
Manage, Manager, Management
Execute, Executive
Qualify, Qualified, Qualification/s
Power, Powerful, Empower, Empowering, Empowerment
Strong, Strength
Proud, Pride
Dominate, Dominant, Dominance
Competitive, Competition
Challenge, Challenging
Ambition, Ambitious
Persist, Persistence
Courage, Courageous
Intellect, Intellectual, Intelligence
Adventure, Adventurous
Autonomy, Autonomous
Persevere, Perseverance
Tackle, Tackling
Unique, Uniqueness
Confident, Confidence
Special, Speciality/ies
Important, Importance
Super, Superior, Supreme
Assert, Assertion, Assertive
Critical, Criticism
Individual, Individualistic
Facilitate, Facility
Acquire, Acquisition
Oriented, Orientation
Decide, Decisive, Decision/s
Principle/s, Principled
Learn, Learning
Deliver, Delivery, Delivering
Expert, Expertise
Logic, Logically
Impress, Impressive, Impression
Independent, Independence
Intervene, Intervening, Intervention/s
Associate, Association
Excel, Excelling, Excellence
Opinion, Opinionated
Force, Forceful
Object, Objective, Objection/s
Able, Ability, Abilities, Capable, Capability, Capabilities
Individual, Individuality, Individualism, Individualized
Self-reliant, Self-esteem, Self-confident, Self-sufficient
Man, Mankind, Human, Humanity, Humanism
So, what do you think? If all of the above are allegedly "masculine words"; with these words, and all of the associated traits, qualities and attributes, all currently being actively purged from the working population by the feminist lobby RIGHT NOW- what sort of world do you think we'll be left with, after/if they achieve their proclaimed goal, and eliminate all of these from the population?
Does getting rid of all these things, demanding that all of the words on this list no longer be used, and advocating that anyone who continues to do so face criminal charges for doing so, on the grounds of "perpetrating institutional gender inequality, and male dominance", and "blocking the progressive betterment through 'feminization' of our 'nurturing', 'interpersonal', , 'submissive', 'quiet', 'warm', 'yielding', 'child-like', 'communal' and 'cooperative' society of 'gentle' 'dependents' (all words which were cited as 'inherently feminine', according to themselves, and thus should be used, empathized and valued in the place of the 'masculine' ones)", strike you as a good thing, or a bad thing? And do you think that this will/would change things for the better, or for the worse?The future is not female, because we need both genders to have a balanced society and a good future. Women should obviously be able to choose what they want to do with their lives, which in most countries they can, but most women simply don’t have such ambitions. Me included. And I’m not traditional by any means I want a job and to be a functioning part of society, but I’m just not that passionate to sacrifice most of my years to invest into a company or business. A lot of guys however do that. Either is fine. what I would rather see is women in third world countries being liberated and free.
I think saying the future belongs to any certain group is sending a bad message. Whether saying the future belongs to white people, people of color, men, women, rich, poor or even martians, it sends a message that seems like a certain group is going to take full control and that's not what I want.
"The future is unity" how about that? Instead of one group claiming the future for themselves, how about we instead achieve unity despite our different opinions so the future would belong to everyone.Those who think it will be peaceful have not been to Going out of business sales, Black Friday, Bridal Shop Sales, etc... Women get VIOLENT when it fits their NEEDS!!!
I don't think it would be a Good or Bad thing. Why can't a Man and Woman Lead their Household Together if its the "Traditional" Household? I think as with anything lean too far in any direction the foundation will Crumble. Rather than turn this into a Woman's Rule the World Society (Remember we think and feel based on our hormonal cycle which fluctuates all month long, we need men to say hey let's wait a day or two or five and revisit this...).C. I think this is an utterly stupid thing to say. All that we have been fighting for to achieve equality between genders will be destroyed by such wordings, because it shows bias.
The future will be a cooperation between the genders, in which everyone is equal. Not male, not female.I don't think so. It's just a temporary misandrist society which will end eventually because more people will become unhappy and realize that modern feminism is a very very bad thing. I don't mind having more women working as long as they don't totally dominate everything. What will the men do? Just die from lack of money and support? No man wants to get married out of fear of losing money and going to jail. Men will starve and die. So I doubt the future is female. It's just a temporary thing. Gender roles exist for biological reasons. I do agree that they were too strict in the past, but they must exist to some extent. If not, forget about humanity. We will have to turn into robots.
If the future is primarily female, then that means inequality just reversed which I'm not sure is a good thing. That aside, I'm not too concerned whether more females get into leadership roles or not. I'm concerned whether we get decent in power or not, because if we don't, regardless of if it's female or male or a mix of both, it's not gonna be a good future.
This is just some feel good buzz phrase like many more before it. There might be a ring of truth if I started seeing women glood the "trades" market". However, in seeimg 100% men sweating their asses off or standing around while sweating their asses off while building or repairing out surrounding infastructure... well, it is just a buzz phrase.
What strikes me as interesting is that women lament about fairtales being misleading as there in no prince in theif futures. Yet they eat up all these lead rolls by women that Hollywood is sble to makd out as indestructibly strong and stoic which isn't even true for most men who have the reputations as being emotionless.
Ignore it. I do. It will go away faster when it is ignored - or loses media appeal. Whichever first.The future isn't female, the future is grim. Less and less competent people in the world, less and less responsibility is being taken for your own actions, we are slowly turning into fleshy robots that chase after money and cheap pleasures. It doesn't matter who is at the top of the tower if tower's foundation is slipping and the tower is tilting.
The past hasn't been female and neither will the future its always been male males built the civilizations with women's help I might add we each have our roles and men are builders protectors providers why do you think men are naturally stronger more aggressive and better at physical things like building fighting etc. Its biology we are supposed to be the leaders its mans purpose on earth hence why females are naturally attracted to strong men leaders providers because its biology and neither gender is less significant than the other one cannot exist without the other we need each other and we both have a part to play so sorry to tell you the future is not female the future is male and always will be
I dont believe in this saying. I still believe in traditions of the man working and woman being a housewife. But to each their own i guess
Definitely see the future being female driven but it’s a neutral (not bad at the same time not good )
The future is not female. Women will take on what roles they wish and are capable of fulfilling. That in no way means that everything is going to be 50/50 across the board. Gender roles will still appeal to them and their sexuality won't just change overnight.
Having women who are capable of filling these roles is fine. The issue with "the future is female" crowd is that they thrust women into those roles. They worship women as superior creatures and see men as toxic. That attitude in itself is toxic. That progressivism is toxic. What we need is more liberalism, not more progressivism. We need liberal people who actually stand for freedom, liberty and letting people be individuals, not this toxic bullshit.I think that's just a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that the chair I'm looking st right now is male, neither are gendered. The future is neither male or female, it's just the time after the present (which doesn't have a gender either, by the way).
when they start growing testicles, it's all over for us. Actually, they kinda are if one looks at the hormonal charts... men's testosterone declining... relatively, they are gaining strength.
Well... if you believe the Bible... ahemm... the woman lead us into this mess by selecting good and evil, so she should lead us out of it. So they may be right. I'm not saying it is her fault.
I don't know, I've had good experiences with women leaders mostly, and some awful.It's a very bad message, and an extremely hypocritical one. Feminists claim to be for equality, yet they wear that type of paraphernalia. How can you claim to want equality when you're calling for a future where women are above men?
What kind of message are you sending to little girls? It's arrogant and sexist.
This is one of those cases where it's easy to know if it's right or wrong: change the gender and answer the question. The answer should be the same for both cases.I mean women are already leading in some areas like more women are going to college than men especially in the Middle East. More women in Middle Eastern countries hold Phd's than men. That said the phrase sort of bothers me. I think male and female we are in it together.
All guys ever, "Just get in the kitchen and make me food then clean the house, clean up after me, lastly satisfy my every sexual desire. This is all you are here for. You are meant to be below men."
I literally don't care. I personally won't be influenced either way.
I think the future is neither female nor male... But we'll be dealing with a steadily decreasing economical state. The future is filled with increasing poverty and rising debts and it is now already. So I'm bracing myself.
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions