lol, no. Women are far less empathetic and compassionate in social affairs: this is exacerbated by the fact that it's taboo to point at any of a woman's moral deficits or hypocrisy.
When unaccountability and immaturity, caused by female privelage, mean that there are on average, far fewer women than men that are capable of qualifying as wholesome leadership-material, even this fact is recycled as a sign of toxic masculinity, instead of an inditement against the self-pitying self-entitlement of misanthropic matriarchal borderline disordered cultural indoctrination. This probably has a lot to do with the asymmetrical pressures and expectations that women are used to enjoying in the sexual-market place: where women are used to dictating, as a block-faction, the terms of the rules of engagement and setters of the price to entry for engagement, where men are expected to out-bid each other, in order to deserve and afford the affection of women who deigns to settle for their bid, and measuring all these factors by sense of self-entitlement as befitting the female identity, while all of these standards are reflexively projected against the opposite sex, and nature of the sexual market place, as being governed by social constructors that are principlely 'passive' women, who wait to judge and to choose, to be bestowed status and catering according to whatever is culturally decreed, and part of this charade, is that women can extract from men, ideological commitments, which is how culture and morality has degenerated like it has: because young men will agree to anything if it might make them more pleasing to female. This is the traditional sexual pact, and its shadow is the immature and undeveloped characters' of many women, who are drunk on the power of this traditional sexual pact.
Much of the progress of the 90's has been undone by feminist identitarian ideology, that has successfully destroyed the non-sexist drive and dream of a common human identity: demolished through intersectional identity politics that now empowers women to supplement for their failings, by projective systemic oppression and group-guilt on anyone who is ethically or technically more gifted than their frankly insane levels of imaged virtue and self-importance.
0|3
0|0
Is this still revelant?
Most Helpful Guy
Anonymous
9 d
I’m going to say this in a unbiased perspective. I have an honours degree in political science and I’m pursuing my masters in international policy. I could have selected the career path of being a lawyer but I chose not to. I believe the judicial system today is corrupt in many parts of the world. People have told me that they could see me a politician but I have no desire to be a politician because majority of them whether it’s the Democrats or republicans are corrupt as well. I don’t buy into the whole women are more nurturing and soft.
Anyone who is capable of initiating power on to someone else will do so. I look Ivanka Trump, she’s not a leader but she has a fairly large say in matters related to Israel which disgusts me because it’s stripping other rights of people in the Middle East. I used to think Hilary Clinton is an honest noble woman but she is corrupt as well with her involvement with the Saudi regime and funding ISIS. I’m not sure if Joe Biden can live for 2 terms. If he passes away and Kamala Harris is sworn in as president I don’t trust her either.
People today assume that your popularity and the smile on your face equates to how honest and respectable you will be others whether that is domestically and internationally. That’s not the case in today’s world. That’s why I gave the example that I could pursue a career in law or politics but I’m going against many evil tyrants who would not like my views if I called out things. I would uncover things and expose the evil of many countries and I know people online will talk shit about me, people will want to kill me but this is the world we live in if you truly want to fight for justice. I am awaiting the reappearance of Imam Mahdi (the imam from Prophet Muhammad’s progeny) and Jesus.
They are mentioned in the Bible but people tend not to highlight them. Once God gives the green light they will provide justice, unity, goodness and a socially system. The imam of our time will have noble women willing to be righteous and good. People can roll their roll their eyes and give my comment a thumbs down but this is the truth whether people believe me or not. The events of today have been prophesied and they will get worse before that time comes. There will be social anarchy like never before and people will lose faith in the governments. Many people (male or female) want power, it’s how you use that power that matters.
lilyanony1 | 75 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Xper 6
9 d
No frigging idea, all the women I meet that make it to a position of power all have this really nasty crushing streak. Theyre nice, find your weaknesses then start playing dumb fugging mind games, Then give some speech about me being too nice. Fugg off! What makes women beautiful is their compassion empathy and ability to love.
The fight for equality is a waste if women think its necessary to be a man to obtain power.
I understand that wgen a woman tries to obtain certain roles or be a leader she will be disrespected or have people try and take the Michael but that's them.
The saying great power great responsibility, its essential to push for whats right, not replicating the past otherwise whats the point?
0|3
0|0
Is this still revelant?
menina | 3.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Master
11 d
Absolutely! And I'm not saying this because I'm a woman, I'm saying this because women usually think carefully before making an important decision. Women are usually more empathetic and against wars. The world would definitely be more peaceful and fair.
4|2
0|22
Is this still revelant?
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!
What Girls & Guys Said
41117
OlderAndWiser | 4.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
@Inbox Look at the track record for countries that have had female rulers and see how often they go to war when their is a female at the helm. What people fail to realize is that the kind of women who aspire to political power tend to have more masculine-like traits, especially with respect to assertiveness/aggressiveness and the use of force.
Anonymous
6 d
No, no, no.
I know it's a stereotype, but women on average are more driven by emotions than men. It's very important that men are responsible for things like control of nuclear launch codes and such. Otherwise, the world might end during a woman's period.
That said, I am not sure I agree with the assumption. Who says men control the world, and women don't already control it.
Women are experts at "soft power". And I think there's more than a little truth to the old saying, "Behind every power man is a strong woman." Women definitely know how to get what they want from men, nearly all the time.
I think the way the world works is that men are officially in control, with some notable exceptions (Oprah, Angela Merkel, the Queen of England, etc.). But regardless of whoever officially rules, women have a lot of influence behind the scenes. They are pulling the strings more often than not.
But of course, if the woman asks for something too unreasonable, the man can still put his foot down and say no. Men have the final say, and that's the way it should be, because men are far more likely to defend rationality.
But 90% of the time men will go along with women even when it makes no sense to them, so long as the demands aren't too crazy.
0|0
0|0
ShortCircuit | 1.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Guru
11 d
Well the question suggests that men currently run the world. That's not really the case. The world is run by a small elite, usually in the form of the government of a nation state, and in most cases those governments happen to be comprised of more men than women, yes, but that doesn't change the amount of power the vast majority of men have over world. The average man has no more power over the world than the average woman does.
But if you want to speculate what the world would be like if these governments were made up of a woman majority, then the world would be better in some ways, but worse in other ways. There would probably be fewer wars and international conflicts. However, there would probably be infinitely more market regulations (for the nations that are lucky enough to keep private property at all), as well as huge bureaucratic welfare states, meaning much less wealth, and as a result the whole world would look like Venezuela. Oh, and it would probably be illegal to use mean words in most places.
Refusing sex with a woman would be a severely punishable crime.
allaboutyou2 | 133 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Xper 6
10 d
Not necessarily, gender has nothing to do with it. The most critical thing that would make this world better, if we had leaders that did what was best for the people and if they were honest. Also we the people have a say in making this world a better place by our actions and words, instead of blaming everyone else for our problems take responsibility ourselves, it makes me think of the words of the Michael Jackson song Man in the Mirror... If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change.
Well, in some ways, maybe. It would have to depend on the number of generations that women have ran in the past rather than if they all took over right now, in which case nothing would change.
While we can't necessarily say it would be better overall, we can definitely say things would be quite different, particularly when it comes to laws on abortion among other controversial subjects
0|0
0|0
Adam1978 | 318 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Yoda
10 d
No current political conditions says that clearly women cannot run a civilization without ruining it. They are not ready for the responsibility and have been totally spoiled. They need some serious rough time before they can even learn what it actually takes to run the world. And I don't want the world to go under to prove that they couldn't manage it.
No. Men are generally more capable of leading a group, have more of a protective instinct when it comes to the group (while women usually have that instict with their offspring) and a more rational mind in order to analyse and solve the problems that a nation may face. This doesn't mean that certain women can't have some political roles, but it comes naturally from the essence of both genders that men are in the majority of cases more suited to lead and therefore it creates a natural distribution of genders regarding political leadership (if they're in actual freedom and not under laws that unfairly promote gender-equality and such things that just go against reality).
There has also been some cases in which women had more power in leadership through history, but those cases usually happened at the end of that society/nation/civilization, which futhermore supports the argument that a majority of women leading is not natural and precedes crisis for that population.
0|0
1|0
Bananaman177 | 1.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Guru
9 d
1488The kind of women who say, "women make better leaders" are not the kind of women who ever become leaders. The kind of women who become leaders are sociopaths like Cersei Lannister.
I'm from Britain so I've grown up with powerful women leaders and had to learn about others in school and yes most were extremely successful and actually achieved something's better than any male leaders have but at the end of the day gender doesn't make a great leader it's who they are inside what makes a great leader.
@Puppystarfish23 If you're referring to Theresa May and Margaret Thatcher as "extremely successful", you're delusional. Elizabeth I on the other hand, was one of the most if not the most successful monarch in English history. I think the question was more referring to the society being matriarchal though. As in women leading households, being socially superior to men, etc.
Margaret Thatcher was a racist woman, who had demented views about islam or women who wore the hijab. I’m pretty sure that woman is burning in hell or being tortured in her grave for the atrocities she’s done to others. Just because her emphasis was on neoliberal policies benefitting the UK, US and Canada what about the others who suffered? We led to believe what we support is something that is socially just when it’s not. I mean people disbelieve in God or refuse to care about previous prophets that walked on this earth who were pious, smart, socially-just human beings but people pushed that aside. By the enlightenment period the focus was self thought. I really don’t get why we are forced to believe that capitalism or communism is good? I’m not a fan of either ideology. Karl Marx was a communist and someone who not religious, he was an atheist. Funny thing is Marx advocated for workers rights and less on companies exploiting those rights. Well how is America under capitalism any different then China under communism? It’s not both countries oppress its people with absurd working conditions. If life was so great then is suicide and violence on the rise more then ever? I know my response doesn’t entirely focus on “female” leaders and I’m not saying every female who was or is a politician is bad. However, misusing power is a scary thing, especially when people look the other way with ignorance or worse, praising it.
FatherJack | 565 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Guru
9 d
No , not really , psychopathy / narcissistic trait ratios are quite even in both genders , women are not necessarily any more empathic / caring than men. The vast majority of mainsteam party politicians worldwide are banker / corporate puppets , that are in it for themselves anyway , lining their pockets at the expense of those they are supposed to represent
0|0
0|0
Cherokeehp | 628 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Guru
10 d
Welp, we’ve seen how fantastically the men can fuck it up. We’re just out here doing drone strikes on innocent civilians in other countries for oil, and jumping into pointless wars, and exploiting our own citizens to maintain the one percent. So it’d definitely be interesting to see how women in power would fare.
@__inkRat then perhaps we wouldn’t be living in the midst of an impending environmental crisis and wouldn’t have demolished the natural habitats of a variety of other species.
Yee we wouldn't, but nature would try to kill us on every given chance. You usualy would not live longer than 28 in fact death at 20 would not be so out of place. Nea, I will take my chances now, even thought I could survive in such enviroment to. I dont think you fully understand what life would be in trees. Non Of our comforts including sop, teeth brush, shampoon would exist.
@__inkRat The fact that you think that society would lack all innovation in technology and infrastructure is a sexist and ridiculous idea. But on top of that there are tons of groups and societies that coexisted with nature and have had life expectancies longer than 28.
@Inbox As a person who has only ever lived in the U. S. I can only speak for my experience here. There’s certainly some good things about our country, but there’s also a shit ton of bad and black women get an even shittier end of the stick. We’ve seen where male leadership goes. What’s so crazy about wanting to try a new option?
@Shuttlebus78 I also think that people make wild assumptions without getting to know more -- that includes you.
@Cherokeehp I have no issue with diversity - I think we can agree that diversity is a good thing. I don't agree with blanketing the entire male race as a failure. No systems, technology, etc are ever 100% perfect. Are you watching too much CNN?
@Cherokeehp because woman are not risk driven. In early days of humanity it was pick plants and not evolve or hunt and evolve. So what is so sexist about basic biology? In order to fuel bigger more capable brains early humans needed more protein/ energy. Its way more productive to hunt/ risk and eat meat than eat plants all day. Yes there are primitive cultures where people live longer, but its average life expectancy, back then kids died young, and people did not have medicine. In fact throw modern human in same enviroment starting from scratch and his live expectancy will drop a lot. In order to create new tehnology yo need energy, relative peace and resources. With not taking risk at best you will have one of them for any amount of time.
But yee lets scream sexism just because we can, and lets not look into why.
Ps. I would not be so proud of living only in USA.
@__inkRat well for starters I’m not proud at all that I live in the U. S. I was just born here and I haven’t left because I’m only 20 and don’t have the finances to pack up and leave and move to another country.
Second, there were female hunters. Researchers have discovered bones of prehistoric women along side their hunting tools and bones of their prey. Women can hunt, women can innovate, and women can lead. We wouldn’t still be braving the wilderness just because we were being led by women.
In neolithic period I would agree with you, but not in paleolithic period, nor before it. And even from neolithic period it would be hard to tell how biface was used, as they were made and with time remade into arrows. Also I do find your claim of buried with weapons and prey as ood, because in paleothic period early humans did burry there dead with primitive stone tools and animal bones (animal cults). There are no reasons to think that those animals were killed by said person or said person was hunter.
Yes woman can do all those things, but I gues you dont have idea how hard life was for early humans. Woman are believed to have done: child raising, gathered berries, and other easy food and food making.
@__inkRat I’m not saying women should have abandoned all their roles. I’m saying It’d be nice to see women in leadership roles. The U. S. has never had a single woman president.
@Cherokeehp You're not proud to be born here? My girl, you have no idea just how lucky you are to be American. I understand you're young and probably have NOT traveled, but the access to food, water, shelter, opportunities, - including the ability to have the freedom to do it, America is one of the few places that allows all this.
I say this to you whose family were immigrants and came with $18 in their pocket in 1990 and rose to the upper class through extreme hard work - we are living examples of the American dream. We've seen horrific things. It's amazing how Westerners complain about so many insignificant things like gender roles or equality nonsense, then proceed not to take the advantages that the West has the LUXURY of.
@Inbox well for starters what, exactly am I supposed to be proud of. I appreciate the freedoms I do have, but I was just born here. I don’t think it’s an achievement just to be born in a specific place. Also my family didn’t immigrate here. My ancestors were dragged here against their will on slave ships. The U. S. has good things, but it also has a lot of bad things, and it’s up to its citizens to be critical of it so we can improve. The U. S. is not perfect. It’s not some fantastical utopia where everybody’s dreams come true.
The fact that you're using the "slave" argument tells me all I need to know - you have a backward mindset, rather than a forward looking one. I don't know what kind of experiences you've had, but I'll entertain your argument. First, access to clean water and food on a 24/7 basis - even the homeless have better access to welfare than most countries - I won't go any further than this because if you cannot infer from this, than I cannot help you. Second, you have only a 4.2% chance of being born an American.
Thirdly, if you're that concerned about how your ancestors were dragged against their will and how it is somehow keeping you down, I suggest you go travel to another country (when you have the money) where you barely speak the language AND only have $18 in your pocket and try to survive. Additionally, the advantage you have is that you speak the language and I'm pretty sure you have more than $18 to your name. Lastly, we need to criticize our country to improve it, but not ignorant racist or sexist ones. For the record, I agree that discrimination does exist against the African American community, but I also think some it is manufactured. Constantly being reminded of the past and that the world is against you is extremely demoralizing and discourages many from achieving their goals, aka creates a backward mindset. The US may not perfect, but it's far better than most.
007kingifrit | 997 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
It would undoublty be better if there were more women in office (especially poc), BUT having only women would just bring up a whole new set of issues and even more problems. Having a straight patricarchy or matriarchy are both terrible ideals, just like everything in life we need balance
0|0
0|0
Anonymous
10 d
I've worked in an office that was all female except for me. Nothing ever got done, the buck was passed around. They gossiped about each other constantly. They spent all their time talking. They spent more time having meetings about what they were going to do than they did doing it.
0|0
0|0
The_unknown_memer | 189 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Xper 5
10 d
Technically yes because due to culture and gender roles , women were taught to be more caring and empathetic.
But I wouldn't put too much faith on that.
With that being said the America needs a female president. Come on guys other countries have already done this , it's embarrassing for America to be the only one without at least one female president.
0|0
0|0
pajamasam | 159 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Explorer
9 d
In some places, absolutely. I think the best government would be a government that is a mirror reflection of the people they serve. If half the population are women, half the government should be women.
It would be a better place if people became mature and stopped throwing gender and race into everything.
If someone is qualified to take a position, they should take it, regardless of their gender or race.
0|0
0|0
Andres77 | 59 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Xper 6
11 d
Ghandi did well in India before she was assassinated (my opinion). Margaret Thatcher kicked ass in the UK (my opinion). Angela Merkel is a blithering idiot in Germany.
It all depends on the individual. Each one on their own merit.
0|0
0|0
MrNameless | 173 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Guru
9 d
No. I think its best we have more equal representation of everyone, including minority groups. That way we have all view points that can weigh in. Not all/most men or all/most women etc
0|0
0|0
ZackBan | 232 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Yoda
10 d
I think the world would be a better place if all who enter into a political race of any kind have their voices changed and faces and bodies covered. No one gets to know who's a man and who's a woman until the winner is decided that's when a reveal happens.
No political bias in where people vote for someone unqualified simply because... (same party, same gendre, same race...) Just educational qualifications. Clear well defined plans and natural ability to lead.
0|0
0|1
MCheetah | 516 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Yoda
11 d
They wouldn't last one day without catfighting each other and society collapsing. A woman answering this question has to either be HYPER insecure with herself (a feminist) or extremely disingenuous to agree with this wacky idea.
And for the record, I just want someone smart, strong, and morally good to run the world. I would've voted for Tulsi Gabbard in the 2020 election if I could. But because she wasn't an option, that only left Trump to vote for.
0|0
1|0
Anonymous
10 d
Definitely there will be no violence against women and strict actions will be taken against rapists and criminal men whose fragile masculinity was broken after getting rejected. There will be more empathy. Women aren't safe anywhere so it's about time the world shall be dominated by women.
1|2
1|10
Opinion Owner
10 d
Bloody rapist disliked. Please die.
ninaneedshelp | 59 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Xper 5
11 d
Absolutely not! Look at Hillary and Kamala. Women are petty and make decisions based on emotion before logic therefore it would be terrible if that were to happen.
AdithyaR | 256 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Xper 7
10 d
Any one group dominating everything is never gonna work. Men and women should be working together, not against each other. So only a balanced system would work the best.
Most probably, yes. It used to be the case in the larger part of the world, and it still is the case in some. But I have no doubt there would be less wars, and more HUMANE solutions to most problems.
0|0
0|0
Anonymous
12 d
It would be better if smart people ran the country. Tulsi would have been 10 times better than Joe.
No , because not all women are good and not all men are bad. If that is true we would not find any woman committing a crime. What really makes a better world is raising kids to be good people
0|0
0|0
snowboarder720 | 423 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Guru
10 d
I definitely think the world would be a better place if more women help run it. Sexism and racism plays a serious problem.
0|0
0|0
cnhinton | 137 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Xper 4
11 d
Yes I do.
Our closest ancestors Bonobos and chimpanzees are good examples.
Bonobo societies are controlled by females and they are more peaceful and cooperative.
Chimpanzees are male dominated and they kill each other all the time and are extremely aggressive and territorial.
Unit1 | 1.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Master
11 d
Their first challenge would be to prove how they survive stranded on an island. I admit i myself wouldn't survive because of some permanent restrictions in my diet but men did it already.
however there have been a few great female leaders like Ekaterina the great or something like that.
It would probably be the same. I don’t think that this is issue based on sex/gender but about power.
Also I believe historically female rulers tend to go to war more often than their male counterparts.
0|0
0|0
Ultimate_Gohan | 340 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Yoda
9 d
Letting moody and self absorbed people run the world would disturb the balance. Letting men alone would ruin it too. There has to be a balance
0|0
0|0
TwoToTooTutu2 | 829 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Xper 7
11 d
Men may run the world, but women run men. Historically women rulers waged more wars than men. If there is one thing I've noticed in girls (even the youngest), they love making men do things for them.
But most of this comes from the wisdom of older women. I love to learn from them. Many girls I know don't look at each other fondly.
0|1
0|0
Anonymous
12 d
I don't, it would be different, doesn't mean it would be better or worse.
I don't have a better guess than everyone. I just know that men and women are different, which, logically should mean that a world run by women would be different
behnam1999 | 428 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Xper 6
11 d
Evil and good, greed, jelousy, arrogance, mercilessness and etc. have nothing to do with gender.
Interesting, I always hear that female competition can be fierce. Personally, I think it's because women tend to spend their whole lives sharpening their emotional and social intelligence, thus making it more competitive to get the best guys on a romantic level, but it seems you think politically or in general as well?
@Inbox you just said females are competitive for male attention. i'm saying females are just competitive, not just for male attention.
Aiko_E_Lara | 1.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Guru
10 d
What difference would it make if women are the ones with testosterone, making weapons, government systems and more? They'd just be men with pussies but named women regardless.
Not necessarily. But having a world that saw more women around half perhaps in the political world likely would make our lives more attuned to women’s needs. It’s not about having women rule the world. It’s about having a world that includes women.
You really think that it is possible to oppresse 1.4 billion people? In China you are busy with enforcing traffic law and at the same time they build a 400 metres building without construction petmits cus shit is so hectic and it is just physically not possible to control so many things at the same time.
@J2ohhhhh Dude, don't even try. I've read up on China closely, I'm a student of Political Science soon with a Master's Degree and I've written essays on China. I know all about the the secret police of Gouanbou who kidnap dissidents, how Internet is completely censored and how much propaganda the CCP under Xi Jinping spew out, they even cut out the parts of the Presidential debates this election that concerned China for all Chinese citizens.
The countries with the best COVID response are countries with more authoritarian governments. Democratic Republics struggle due to the decentralized control of government which leads to longer control times
And you think it's *solely* due to female presidents and not also other factors like geographical positions, the patterns of the covid spread in the rest of the world, and the fact that countries like Denmark, Iceland and Norway have a very low population compared to other nations, thus it is far easier to control outbreaks and spreads?
Germany's case is quite easy to explain: They isolated the minute the virus broke out and only allowed for a maximum of 2 people meeting for a long while. And given that Germany is a federal state, regulations vary from different states or "Länder".
So apparently, the countries you're comparing to the USA or countries led by men are of only around 10 million vs 330 million? Apples aren't oranges. Moreover, you're assuming that success in one issue automatically means superiority? SMH
Economic growth is higher than in western countries. There are 3 rape cases /100000 people while in uk for example it's 96. China is number one in pisa rankings, so education is much better than in the west (or we are superior who knows) I don't know how you measure the effecincy of a government but everything that can be measured is improving and better than in the west, it isn't propaganda it is just a fact. My father didn't have a proper pair of trousers when he left China and I was raised to eat the last pice of rice from the plate and when I went to China people were wasting food like there were no tomorrow. US has 10.5% poverty rate, China has 0.3. When Deng Xiaoping came into power he was like "I won't gonna be bitching on Mao and his cultural revolution, just wanna fix shit" and he lifted more people from powerty than anyone in history. EU has 65% tariffs on Chinese made wheels 55% on bicycles and god knows the rest but they cry about China's protectionist trade policies. Just look at the numbers and it will tell you how incompetent western politicians are so they need to blame it on someone, like China. Why take responsibility for the shity covid measures when you can just call it the Chinese virus? When things are going well in a country people are following and no oppression is needed. "Fill their belly, empty their mind." If you look at murder statistics, evil people do a very small percentage, it is usually careless drivers and work accidents. Being such a wanker as western politicians causes way more trouble than being oppressive or even evil.
@J2ohhhhh Alright, let us break down these claims you've made.
Yes, China is rapidly growing economically; but this is relative. You're arguing from an assumption of Asian superiority, but then what would you say about the 60's and 70's when the US were at the very top of the world both economically and militarily? The Saudi Arabian Oil embargo against the US wherein they cut of oil exports to hurt the American economy, but the US was so filthy rich that it was like a fart in space, barely even noticeable. What was the truth then? That white leaders were superior? Or by all means, some decades before that at the height of the British Empire, the largest and wealthiest empire in world history that controlled 23% of the world population. Up until now the US have dominated the world economy and still have the most powerful and influential military. And yet because China is experience growth because of outsourcing of African nations you call that superiority?
Point is: The fortunes and downfalls of countries are ever changing, it isn't an argument for superiority.
And then you go on about rape statistics and make only one comparison with China and the UK, but fail to mention that the safest country on earth is Iceland, and after them all the other Nordic countries.
And as for education: You're making a strawman. What China has ranked top place in regarding PISA is science, as in one category, they aren't in the top with regards to other areas such as reading and equal opportunities with regards to sex and socio-economic backgrounds. China is doing very much below average there.
PISA is also only one measuring site, others have ranked Finland on first place regarding quality of education overall.
"Everything that can be measured is improving and better than in the west", source on that please.
What your father taught you about food has nothing to do with anything.
And as for poverty rates that is also true regarding China's fast growth but is still connected to my point on relativity, and you once more make but one comparison as if the West is only the US or the UK, but take Ukraine for example, they only have 1.3%, and Belarus only 5.6%, these statistics can change very much and quite quickly, and poverty rates aren't the only measurements by which to identify welfare.
The wealthiest countries by GDP for instance, remains as the US, Luxemburg, Switzerland, all the Nordic countries, Ireland, Germany etc. According to this list for instance, China numbers on place 89. www.worldatlas.com/.../...ntries-in-the-world.html
And as for murder statistics; Iceland has you beat with only 0.30%.
So in conclusion: Your very disarranged wall of text is barely the shadow of an argument for Asian superiority. And I'll say this and only say it once: Only heavily insecure people feel the need to deal in notions of superiority. It's a pathetic doctrine to follow.
@J2ohhhhh And people call the virus the Chinese virus because it was China that spread it. As simple as that. You people were experimenting with a beta-version of Covid-19 in some remote laboratory and then you lost control, we've all seen the reports. If you did loose control that is; it does strike me as suspicious that just as China is clawing to shift geopolitics, a deadly virus just happens to spread from Asia to weaken all western economies.
That's correlation, not causation. Those countries have female prime ministers because those are some of the most developed countries and they have dealt well with COVID for the same reason.
China was numero uno economy through most of human history. Without once invading any other country. It was peacefully trading with anyone than it was England who tried to hook people on opium then semi-colonised China and that's where China's defensive realist approach to international relations is from.
The US got wealthy because of one good opportunitist decision, by supporting western european countries after world war two with a condition of purchasing its products. Credit belongs to the US for that, it was a smart and win-win thing but it isn't really a recent example. Luxembourg was a country blessed with natural resources such as iron and coal and made a relatively wise decision to turn it's economy to tirtiary sector when Europe started to turn away from coal and China's steel industry was growing. Northern countries were in a lucky situation with their geographics and they were being able to avoid wars. Same decision making what Hungary had, but because being in the middle of Europe it was not really an option, it isn't about better decision making, but their given position on the map.
While Europe had it all. It had the colonies the wealth the technology and they managed to fight eachother and lose the bettet portion of it. And what is the west still doing today? Bitching on China, bitching on eachother bitching on EU bitching on brexit, bitching on immigration, bitching and bitching and bitching. China don't even care about colonisation, it happened because of the lack of security power. Now China military is fixed and thats it no need for bitching, because when China needs salty water it goes to the ocean instead of crying. China was invaded for more than 100 years, Mao managed really well in war time, just like Churchill, or Che Guevara but he was not the best leader for peace time (just like Churchill and Guevara, I think they were the same archetype of leaders). So basically it was since Deng Xiaoping when China's economy grown from 150 billion to almost 15trillion. Without invading one single country or having any natural resources abundance or starting from an advantageous position and last but not least bitching on anything.
This isn't because China is superior this is just the nature of democracy. Hafl of the population will always be complaining while the other half will be complaining about the ones who are complaining and don't respect democratic votes just look at the shit show around brexit or US election. In China everyone takes their portion of discomfort and that's it, no bitching for inequality. You can have double figure economic growths and there will always be people with 0 experience and even less knowledge telling that they could do better and your only job is to oppose the ones who lifted 500 million people from extreme poverty. The main reason for that uplift is that China opened it's market to the foreigners and implied western policies to it's economy. And this is why Chinese decision making is better, because they don't care where things coming from they don't have this idea pioneering ego, they just judge things for their utility. The internet isn't censored because they want you to read little redbook, it is censored because they see the amount of bullshit and lies on western media. Most people in China doesn't even care about politics, this is what happens when things are improving.
Fucking people shouldn't study politics without understanding globalisation, history, sociology, economics and the rest. Must regret not to go for international relations, would be more useful of a degree. I'm done here though.
uhhh aaaactually they all have more in common than that, like being islands, being economically irrelevant to the world (thus no travel) and having low population density
Well what will it hurt? We keep choosing the most selfish of individuals to run things and pretend everything is fine. Don't see any harm in women running things for a bit.
0|0
0|0
WesBrewer | 147 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Explorer
10 d
Nope, part of me wants to say it would, but really it wouldn't because women are led too much by their emotions and not enough by what needs to be done.
0|1
1|0
oddwaffle | 988 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Yoda
11 d
Cat fights. Suspicious of everyone. Jealousy running rampart. Judge the book by its cover. Talk and talk but nobody follows the order.
Those are women's problems. I would prefer having a couple guys to actually have order.
0|0
1|0
guesswhoseback | 91 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Xper 5
10 d
You are using the squad as an example of good leadership? Really?
0|0
0|0
Anonymous
10 d
Absolutely not! Women are much more incompetent than men are on average scale. Queen Elizabeth was a good example.
If I ever live to start up a company, I will not hire any women. I simply cannot trust them enough to rely on their contributions.
0|1
2|0
loveslongnails | 1.9K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Guru
11 d
Difficult to imagine it would be much worse than this, though I never like to challenge worse.
0|0
0|0
R3DthatDude | 378 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Explorer
11 d
It would be the same nothing would change, that’s just the way it is.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
G@G Community 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
How Do I Look? 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel & Leisure 
Trending & News 
Anonymous9 dI’m going to say this in a unbiased perspective. I have an honours degree in political science and I’m pursuing my masters in international policy. I could have selected the career path of being a lawyer but I chose not to. I believe the judicial system today is corrupt in many parts of the world. People have told me that they could see me a politician but I have no desire to be a politician because majority of them whether it’s the Democrats or republicans are corrupt as well. I don’t buy into the whole women are more nurturing and soft.
Anonymous10 dDefinitely there will be no violence against women and strict actions will be taken against rapists and criminal men whose fragile masculinity was broken after getting rejected.
AI Bot Choice
Superb Opinion