Aren’t you grateful? this is so heartbreaking & inhumane.
Updates
+1 y
the pics are current, do research first. I wish i could post a link but oh well.
Updates
+1 y
we hear stereotypes about men and women but MOST of them tend to be true to SOME people, we experience & see it and research shows. this is why i wonder if we had more female leaders, not just any females who’s materialistic and crazy but things would be somewhat better. the kings and queens of england are catholic but definitely don’t live up to their religion.. i dont count them as catholic parents at all.. lol
Wouldn’t things be handled differently if there were more women in charge?
Your post exactly demonstrates why they shouldn't run sht. The past few days have honestly blown my mind:
-Fake footage (i'm talking literal CoD footage being passed off a war footage by "News" outlets) -Crying children (footage from an entirely different country 8 years ago) -Sobbing interpreters -Banning anyone from hearing Russia's side of the story -Literally backing Russia into a corner, where China and Iran are gleefully awaiting a new ally -Anti-war leftists, suddenly becoming pro-war because their tv told them to be
"Do your research" is not an argument. In a court of law thats akin to telling the judge to just believe your side of the story. You have to actually present something eg. evidence, in order to participate in a disagreement.
Then again being a woman: This is as good as eye witness testimony, video footage and 3 sworn affidavits from bystanders.
"... women are often too stupid, lazy, or emotional to navigate it properly..." < I'm obviously on to something.
We will never know, because women will never rule the world. Why? Because there are not enough women capable of all the things needed to do that.
It's easy to look at the actions of the few horrible men like Putin and think things would be better if women were in charge. But you ignore too many realities when you do that. It's a fact that men are responsible for most of the worst atrocities in the world, but they are also responsible for most of the amazing accomplishments of mankind and all the good things that most women are simply not capable of.
Case in point, the world will be a much more dangerous and less free place if Putin gets Ukraine. Of that there is no question. The first meme you posted shows a boy saying he and his family left their father behind in Kyiv. The reason for that, of course, is that all the children and WOMEN are leaving Ukraine while all the MEN are staying behind to fight and protect their homeland, thereby putting their lives on the line to protect the world from what will inevitably happen if Putin gets his way.
There will always be bad men, but there will always be millions of good men to protect your sorry ungrateful ass despite your ignorance and lack of vision. You are a great example of the ignorant and divisive gynocentric of modern feminism
2
2 Reply
Opinion Owner
+1 y
I will add that the last meme you posted shows an astounding degree of ignorance. You obviously have no clue about why Putin wants Ukraine, yet that information is freely available to anyone who cares to educate themselves. It has nothing to do with arguments and everything to do with the greed and hunger for power by a single man. The vast majority of the Russian men invading Ukraine don't want to be doing it and don't support the war. They were lied to by Putin about what they were doing, and now they find themselves in an impossible position they never wanted.
honestly, i think women would be less emotional and aggressive, and they would be less likely to do stupid things that men might do due to their ego (in general). New Zealand has a leader who is a woman and she’s great, my country has a woman as a leader and she’s good too. but there hasn’t really been enough women in power for us to be able to base it off of anything unfortunately. and no matter if you’re a man or a woman, power can get to you or you can just be a shit person. margaret thatcher was shit, theresa may was shit, but most women that i’ve seen in these roles do a really great job!
People love to point to New Zealand as some miracle country that everything should be an example of and compare it to. New Zealand has an extremely small population and it’s an extremely small country and it’s extremely expensive to live there. If it really were a haven and remarkable example of countries to follow, everyone would be rushing to live there. Wrong, the country with the highest migration with people fighting and dying to live in is America. People hate America but it is without a doubt the greatest country in the world, even though the leadership is trying their hardest to destroy it.
@GlassTop that was one example, because unfortunately there isn’t a lot of examples of women in power. america is absolutely not the greatest country in the world, i would NEVER live there, my life would be a lot worse. there’s a number of reasons why it has the highest migration other than being the best country. norway, sweden, Canada, uk, etc. are much better places to live and i would much rather have my free health care and no school shootings :)
“Free healthcare” = poor healthcare and long wait times. There is a reason every country goes to American schools to learn medicine. It’s because we have the highest standards. We pay the most. If i’m not mistaken, New Zealand had shootings as well and guns are banned. Canada routinely has muslim decapitations. Must feel good being ignorant of the real world.
@GlassTop nowhere near the same level that America has though, and people here also have the option of private healthcare if they want it 🤷🏼♀️ I’ve never had long wait times or poor care from the NHS (although I know it can be a problem in some areas), but even so, at least anyone can access healthcare and not be in debt for life
If people want free healthcare, and it was such a huge deal for them, they could just migrate to those countries that offer it. But they won’t, because the “free healthcare” of those other countries is complete trash. Most people who live in those countries understand it, and the American government knows exactly what will happen to the quality of healthcare if it goes free. Right to the trash.
I think it’s really not about the gender of the person in charge. There is a stereotype that women make bad leaders. It’s not true at all. I have seen great female managers and very poor male managers. It really depends on the individual rather than the gender. Females are generally stricter as supervisors which is a good thing. Men tend to be less adept at communication in a team setting compared to women.
Assuming that women are naturally more peaceful, this would only work if every leader was a woman. If all were women except for one, the man would just bully his way through the world while the women asked for negotiations while he bombed them.
I don't believe the premise though. Men often wage war for ego, pride, entitlement, and privilege, but these motives come from years of learning to discount the experiences of everyone else and to "be a man". If we had about 3 generations of female leadership, those nasty human instincts would come out. We see it now in relatively egalitarian countries where women are fronting nationalist or quasi-fascist parties.
If we had Hillary Clinton right now instead of Biden, we would have the no-fly zones in Syria instead of Ukraine, so we would have skipped the last few years and gone straight to the WWIII scenario. Getting to war faster is better, right?
Corruption doesn't know genitalia. Marjorie Taylor Greene is a peer of Donald Trump spitting psycho nonsense. Nancy Pelosi is a peer of Chuck Schumer towing the same party line. Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin are pretty much interchangable in blocking congress from doing anything.
The only reason we don't have a long history of women waging wars is because women didn't historically have the power to wage wars.
2
0 Reply
Anonymous
(45 Plus)
+1 y
So I feel for a lot of the people who are actually going through things in Ukraine. But understand that the news media is posting a lot of fake videos as they have always done. All one needs to do is research these pics/videos to find out that a lot of them are from previous years. As for your question on whether things would be better if women we’re in charge, that’s hard to say. I’ve worked in women’s prisons w women who were completely unhinged. I think if she was able to think more rationally than emotionally she would do pretty well. I think if it was Hillary Clinton she’d try to throw out the fact that she’s a female so she can do e everything men can do w out just doing what’s best for everyone. She’s a straight up snake. A lot of the women we see in politics seem to be just as corrupt as the men. Women like AOC, Pelosi, acamala, etc. I don’t know. I hope when that day does come she does a great job.
Lol, no it would be far worse. Ever see women getting into petulant arguments over nothing? Or how about women making mountains out of mole holes? Well guess what, that's what it would be like but with nuclear weapons. In fact we can look at history when kingdoms were run by the queens, that's when we had the most brutal drawn out wars because queens were never expected to be on the battle field see people get slaughtered. Also, because of this, the queens eventually destroyed kingdoms by driving them into massive debt making them vulnerable, not only to foreign invasion, but collapse from within.
I don´t think there would be much difference because power corrupts people. People don´t tell you the truth if that meant they have to take personal risks. The reason why Russia the Ukraine is because they feel intimated by the perspective that US could place their military close to the Russian border. It´s similar to the Cuba crisis in 1960s. Plus the Ukraine has the biggest atomic plant in Europe. They have 15 other atom plants, who says they haven´t thought of using that to build atomic bombs of their own. Russia sees a threat similar to the US that saw a threat in the possibility that Iran could build an atomic bomb. Power hunger is in our nature, I think peace is the exception and war is the normal state of humans. The hunger for more, is part of every human otherwise no women would claim they don´t have anything to wear and therefore need to go shopping. Our consume of goods would come to an end, if there wasn´t a wish for more in humans.
Generally speaking, this kind of subject comes up from time to time. However, Sally Field really went on this that night in the clip below. I'm trying to not be stereotypical. However, I have had my car keyed three times. Every time it was a female that did it. I have come close to being hit by a moving car driven by a female before. If a male has an issue with me he will come face to face and we will work it out. It just seems that the backstabbing vengeance comes from females. So, in all honesty, I don't think it would make a damn bit of difference what sex was running things.
There are more women in the world than men. So why don’t you already? Women are just as strong as men. Take it by force.
God made man first. Then woman. You know why it hurts when women have a baby? God did that because it was Eve who took the fruit from the tree. That on itself says men have more self control and discipline. Guys- can you Imagine being at the mercy of a woman at that time of the month? Emotions running wild.
How about women front line in the military? Any women want to do the tough jobs in society? Landscaping? Construction? Warehouse work? Plumber?
Honestly have no idea , when i had asked the question what happens if men would disappear from face of earth for a day. The best thing they came up is that they would wear short clothes and roam around naked and at midnight.
I also asked how would the world be if women ruled it.
Again same answers all they wanna do is have more many and less dress to wear i tried to give so many hints to get something else out of them but nope they just want to wear small clothes and walk alone In midnight.
Wait i will search for link and put it here , i had asked more than 200 questions lol And the pic that is coming as click bait is from my question 😂
Then that would also mean there would be less trades, less creations, less development and more chances for nature and other predators to doom us all from the start.
Im actually referring to your statement saying there would be less violence. So you see, if thats what it meant for you if women are in charge, therefore i talk about the other side of the story. I can also ask you how does women being in charge mean less violence?
Less testosterone. We’re less aggressive or competitive in general thanks to that. We’re less bothered about power, we care more about nurturing and would prioritise that.
Woman can hunt just fine. And I still doing knots hours negotiating, developing or building societies would differ between males and females, I was talking about war and international conflict, not the things you brought up.
Like what I said, war has anything to do with how humans changed through the years. If there's no war, it would also mean no trades, no development, no society and people would just be living under a rock until they go extinct due to some other predators or maybe nature itself. Caused by people just getting comfortable that they don't have to develop. But really it's nature that challenges us humans that's why you have to be brave and strong to show them who's boss. If men weren't aggressive, we'd all be defeated from the very beginning.
It kinda seems like you’re insinuating that humanity is built on violence, which is a very pessimistic outlook. Women can be strong, show people who’s boss just fine, and having female world leaders now wouldn’t affect our survival in the primordial age. I personally disagree and am not too fond of the sentiment that “All Progress is derivative of war” so let’s just agree to disagree on this.
It plays a major role. I'm not saying it's the only role. Im not saying women can't be strong either. It's like this, we all see violence as a bad thing so you imply, there'd be less of that "bad thing" if men weren't to rule but women. So there for i told you the side effects of that speculation of yours. It's kinda like you speculate less bad things would happen if women rules without even analyzing the situations. Why do you think women didn't rule? Your answer would be "because men" i know that's an obvious answer but why would women let men rule them is the real question? You say women can be stronger but why isn't that the case? If it's men they have to face in order for them to rule, what more if they have to face nature and the whole tribe/society?
Your claim doesn’t stand though, I’m just trying to avoid extra debate lol. Chalking progress up to being “a product of violence” is pretty dang silly. Hunting is the circle of life and doesn’t apply in that sense, there’s nothing violent about trading or creation.
While you're just simply "Agreeing to disagreeing" that doesn't exactly invalidate what i said. By avoiding extra debates, you don't prove anything. Circle of life or not, it's still an act of aggression to kill something for food. Even to defend yourself, you have to be violent to intimidate predators. If you don't call it violence, why do you think animal documentaries are rated PG? Because those are something kids can misinterpret and can follow. But still a useful source of info. The point is just because it's violence, it doesn't mean it's bad influence. Also talking about what it has to do with trades. It's like this "i'll trade you for the meat i hunt while you make me the tools" that's the trade. Because it still involves hunting and killing, it still has violence in it. Without violence, there's no way for you to make something for a good trade. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzCO0G8AGLU Skip at 16:04 Sure look at how these women found pigs despite being so hungry for weeks but look at how they befriend it instead. If you were violent, you would've killed it for food and have fed your family or have their meat for trade for something else important. But no. See what happens.
The fact you’re resulting to some Internet edgy satire is just another reason I find it difficult to take you seriously. Not only do you continue with the nonsensical narrative that “all progress comes from violence” without providing evidence, but you’re quoting the most stupid stuff like that YouTube video lmao
“I’ll trade this Pokémon card with you” doesn’t scream “violence” to me. Also, woman are of course capable of stuff like hunting, course, but we don’t get into fights every two seconds about who has the bigger nuke lol, that was the point I was trying to initially make. I still think your “all progress is a product of violence” thing is stupid until proven not, but I’ll wait for you to prove that.
It's so easy to deny things when debunks your whole agenda. Like when one show's evidence, it's so easy to say "that's not evidence" while you yourself have no proof about your claim saying it's not an evidence. Well guess what? You're not the only one who can do that. I can easily say the same thing about your "Pretty sure if we ruled the world there’d be a lot less violence lmao" from the start being satire and just dismiss everything like you do. However that's not how studies and facts work
You did miss the part where is said "indirectly" so what do you have to trade if you don't be violent enough to hunt for more goods? So lets see, you're just gonna dodge this question again. But really tho, you're more like disagreeing. You're not agreeing to disagreeing. That's why you keep looking for more loopholes
You’re really defending a misogynistic piece of joke media as being “vital evidence” lmao, you’re in denial. There’s a time when you’ve gotta look at what you have written and just think about it for a moment. You referring to what I said as satire doesn’t make sense either, since it wasn’t.
Bringing up the topics about nukes, what makes you so sure that women don't start making nukes if they were to be ruling for centuries? You see how hypocritical you sound? You also have no evidence what so ever
I don’t dismiss everything, you don’t provide a concrete argument. In fact, you do the opposite. Your “violence/progress” ideology is deeply flawed, your rejection of primal instincts such as hunting being coded in our system is just straight up ignoring science, and let’s just forget about that video you sent, imma pretend you didn’t try to use that as scientific proof to back up your false narrative.
If it's so misogynistic, then where's the hate in those videos? Where's your evidence of him being misogynistic? All he's saying were facts tho. The fact that they did had a harder time compared to men and is just what he's saying and more people agreed. Also did I call you sexist for assuming there'd be less violence? No? But it's only sexist if i make my own projection right? I see double standards
I didn’t call you sexist, I called the video sexist lmao I still don’t get why you’re defending that trash. Want me to write a list of everything wrong with it?
I'm defending it because I don't think it's sexist but he proves a lot of good point many people even agreed. And it's not different if that video were to be written as an article found at the very last page of google people can barely find where feminists get their sources. And it's not different if I say it either.
I’m not a man hater. For example, I believe in this day and age men’s mental health for example isn’t cared for enough, and is pushed to the side when it should be treated more seriously. I also believe that fathers have it tough if they lose custody of their kids. But I think it’d be pretty nice if world leaders stopped acting on testosterone instinct, something that wouldn’t be an issue if women were in charge. I never said women wouldn’t be able to defend themselves, and hunting is part of our genetic coding as animals, but I’d bet there would not be all the conflict if a woman were in charge.
Then i can easily say that video nor i am not about women hating. There's nothing in that video saying "women are weak and men are better" he did say both genders were struggling in that survival. He also did talk about men's conflict in there but in conclusion, it is in fact that women had been closer to dying and been in more crisis compared to men.
If you wanna bet your statement is true, then i can also bet my statement is true only if you continue assuming that women wouldn't evolve to be stronger than men to rule. However, strength and testosterone plays a major factor of ruling as what i said. So if women were to rule, you can't assume they won't get stronger than men which can also result into wars like today. Like what i said in my comments here
"Men would almost be completely useless and women will just be men but with vaginas. It's not like men are celebrated for being men who have a dick to impregnate and given rights like women have because they have pussy and the power to give birth which is indeed really valuable. If it also means safeguarding men and letting women do all the hard work dying and being disposed, you cannot expect the world to pre-populate as fast if the ratio is more men than women."
I never meant to insinuate that you hate women, I’m sure you’re an ally, us having different ideological stances doesn’t mean we hate each other, but Insinuating that women aren’t capable of stuff such as hunting also confirms to negative gender stereotypes, almost as if you’re saying it’s not “ladylike” enough for women to kill. While we would adopt a nurturing role over a country rather than an aggressive one, that doesn’t mean a woman in charge can’t deal with violent threats - women are perfectly capable of that.
Once again, implying that testosterone is vital for progress/survival supports the idea of a world that strives off violence, and like you said, “needs it to grow”, which is the stance you’ve taken before, but if that’s so true does that mean that every single major disaster/terrible event turned out good in the end? The ones that left economies, cities, countries shaken? If violence is so integral to our structure, then surely you mean to say all these wars are a good thing right?
If that's the case then you also shouldn't have called that video sexist and stupid because it's not much different if i say it. Nobody is saying that women don't hunt. Also because nobody is saying that women aren't violent but if men are more violent than men are better at hunting it's simple. Which also means they're better at defending anyone from bigger predators. That doesn't necessarily mean women are better at something because they're also better at gathering materials like what the experiment shows.
Also saying violence is so integral to hour structure doesn't mean it's all about war. As i have said violence is not all about bad influence. If you asked me if wars are a good thing, i would say i am neutral to it because it's not necessarily good nor bad. Maybe in modern society, it would be bad if the war is unreasonable. But back then, tribal/medieval wars were about who can rule this land as people are still in survival mode and they do it to live and so that their women and children can eat. There is no war like that in today's world anymore. But you know there are also were also wars that was a blessing in disguise for today's generation. For example, if Japan never started the pacific war, the pacific and where i live would have been a communist countries which i'm not a fan of. If revolutionary war never happened, then you wouldn't have USA.
Then if wars back then are a good thing but you don’t count it for now, then we’re not discussing all time periods. The tv show is a reality show - it’s all staged. It would be bad for assets if it wasn’t. If we’re saying violence was integral back then but not now, then women leading would work now by that standard. War’s a bad thing now, women leading right now = less war now as I’ve said.
If you're not discussing about time period, that is why i say overall i'm pretty neutral with it. Yes there are some tv shows that are staged but that doesn't mean that studies are staged nor doesn't mean all of reality tv shows are. That guy explaining the situation, if you say it is sexilst then why do you think majority of people who viewed that video agreed? That video but even more likes than dislikes. I have that "remove YouTube dislikes" extension in my chrome to see the dislikes and there are only 5% who disagree. But sure you would rather get your source in a really obscured place in the internet where people can barely reach.
If you are talking about wars now, sure there would be less wars but other think that men are better at i like what i said, negotiation for better trades www.pon.harvard.edu/.../ they are more firm and stricker at work. It has anything to do with feeling less compassion compared to women. also because less compassionate also means more violent which is already obvious enough. So just by comparison there could be more lawbreakers because women are more sympathetic, economic crash because men are better at negotiating and there could be more civil wars going on. Again just by comparison. You can say there may be less wars in different countries now but you cannot say no other issues will more likely occur. But here's the reason why men are more likely to get promoted and it has nothing to do with gender discrimination. hbr.org/.../why-men-still-get-more-promotions-than-womenhttps://youtu.be/5nmX3R0qHUg but because of how much men are really willing to get on top. You can argue that because men don't let them but if that's what's stopping them, it kind of prove that they just give up that easily. When other man had also been told off that theyre no leader matterial that's why you can also see many males being at the bottom.
Likes and dislikes isn’t really a very good indicator as to the validity of something, but that’s besides the point.
Thank you for clarifying your stance on the matter, I didn’t realise you were somewhat neutral and I do understand it more, and the reason for not enough female leaders in the world, as you said, is subjective. The idea that women give up easily is silly, since we literally had to go through hell just to be able to vote, but that’s not where our discussion lies. “Why” isn’t what we’re talking about, it’s “if”.
Quite a large amount of the article you sent actually proves some of my points as to gender discrimination and sexism in workplaces. And actually some of the article does prove that women are less likely to get promoted in some cases due to discrimination, I’m not sure if you read it entirely. Also, we’re not talking about the gender pay gap, and even then, the video you sent explains situations that of course, would not apply to every working woman, those women being influenced by the pay gap is pretty damn unfair in my opinion. But alas, let’s not get into that, we’d be talking for years lol. Implying that men are stricter in some ways, thus being better at negotiating and trading, doesn’t really make sense, since strictness and composure are (for the most part) influenced by testosterone.
I can’t access the first article for some reason, sorry about that, it’s out of my control.
Still though, it helps that you clarified your stance more in your most recent reply.
Then why don't you explain instead of just saying so? Because i literally explained how. The fact that it is in a website that can easily be reached by anyone means anyone can easily brainstorm in that website but it turns out the result is is actually in favor of the video. Because there are also videos that are stupid and reasonable enough for people to dislike it and hate it.
I'm not saying that women give up so easily but i am saying those who actually give the excuse "because men" because those who don't really give that excuse usually are the ones who are not interested in taking the position. If you want to bring the topic about voting then back then voting wasn't really easy compared of voting today. The reason why men were able to vote because they were drafted and those who fought and wars were suffragists. Did women even want to be drafted? I'm pretty sure majority of them don't like to be drafted just like majority of people would refuse to be drafted if they have the choice. Men didn't have the rights to refuse so that is what made them suffragists and made them vote despite vote being not so easy back then because the world and the government system is not so developed compared to today's government. The development of our society is also what made women vote. You can say the feminist are what made women vote but you cannot say all women were feminist however i can say in order for men to be a citizen, they have to sign up for selective service while women didn't have to. You can say you work so hard to vote but so does men. When you should have consider yourself lucky you're given the chance to vote without getting drafted. Here is how to change made women "independent" nothing to do with that "hard work" you're talking about like what feminists always say https://youtu.be/In8jWBlc8xo
Luckily enough they talk about gender discrimination for women but what they don't we talked about is also the discrimination of men despite getting it from superior men ir even female bosses. What you still don't see is how many men are also at the bottom and what you don't see if how many men being homeless compared to women. As there is no men shelter why women have their own homeless shelter funded by society and companies. I cannot link you the pdf but i can link you first result of google www.google.com/search
you can see that there are more men getting fired compared to women and even if some of the cases are caused by discrimination, no one talks about it. But if this has nothing to do with discrimination then therefore it has nothing to do with gender discrimination is to why women are getting promoted less compared to men. Also what's the video talking about the wage gap is talking about.
If stricter and better at negotiating make someone a better leader doesn't make sense to you then it doesn't take a genius. What you don't realize is you can gain from negotiating and you can control from being strict and get things in order. Leaders should be feared and if you are more compassionate than being strict to your people then you can easily be abused. It's not rocket science.
I even forgot to say that gender discrimination in the workplace is actually illegal me to set also illegal for women to get paid less just for being women. Because if it were legal then there would have been more women promoted because company can save money by paying women less. But do you seriously think that companies are such boys clubs that focuses on putting disadvantage on women instead of gaining profit?
Firstly: like to dislike ratio Videos are watched by people who want to watch them. E. g I wouldn’t click on a video I’m not interested in. Along with that, YouTube doesn’t recommend videos to people who wouldn’t watch them usually, so the likes in the video are largely consistent of people who had a view going in - and left feeling it was gratified.
Your second point: Men were drafted because, for war, at the time people thought women would be useless at it. Yes, biologically men are physically stronger than us, which is a reason people didn’t draft us, not because we didn’t want to (plus, pretty sure no one wants to be drafted, no matter their gender or sex).
Thirdly: chalking it up to “progression of society” as the reason women can vote diminishes the work we put in to be able to vote. Some of us literally died for that cause.
Fourth: “gender discrimination in the work place is illegal “ it’s a subconscious thing often. That’s not gonna stop people doing it lmao it’s a fact that gender discrimination in the work place, and everywhere, is prominent throughout the world currently.
Fifth: women have their own homeless shelter because a large proportion of homeless women have experienced sexual violence on the street, it’s for their own comfort that those women need a place where they can feel completely safe and closed off. Here is a scholarly article from a website that not only covers women’s problems but men’s too: vawnet. org/material/no-safe-place-sexual-assault-lives-homeless-women
Sixth: leaders don’t have to be feared to be successful, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, St. Francis, Theodore Roosevelt, Queen Victoria and Obama are all fantastic examples of great leaders that used compassion to push their ideologies and assertions, with some of them being literal presidents that ruled with compassion. PS: you chalking being abused up to being “not strict enough” is the craziest thing I’ve seen all day. I hope that was a typo from your end.
If that's the case then why are there also heavily disliked videos if people only like to watch videos they like to see? Weather if you are interested or not, that doesn't make something more invalid. There is no way for you to know how it actually works if you just chose to be ignorant like not being interested because you believe in your own theory. https://youtu.be/y8FZRpHOEqo
Which is also a reason why they are more likely to get elected as a leader because people fear men more than women. And are you sure it's not because you don't want to? If you take a look at polls right now saying if women should be drafted, you can see majority of women say no. If that's the case then majority wins for that time. It was also seen that time that it was unfair for men that only men are the ones who get drafted so they got the rights to vote.
Nobody saying some of you didn't die. But that's not comparable to the amount of men who died in war.
But it is still illegal meaning to say you don't have the rights to pay women less. Meaning to say just because it is subconscious you think doesn't make it justifiable. Like what i said, if women were paid less then companies would have only hire women to save money. And that would have been also subjective.
Yet you may be wondering why men refuse to get married it's because men also get a lot of abuses from their wives. The only difference is that it is not addressed as much compared to women being abused. Guys defending themselves in an abusive relationship, are alway seen as the perpetrators and the statistics talking about how much women are abused, there are chances are those men in the statistics being the perpetrator are actually innocent. https://youtu.be/m4hrHUo70nYhttps://youtu.be/zO9nUBazWEg
Actually they do have to be feared and even if you say you're don't fear them, you subconsciously are because you don't wanna lose your job. It may seem like they don't fear those leaders but they actually do because her job is whats keeping them alive and every leaders have the right to fire them any time. Yes they can be fun, they can joke around the clock doesn't mean they are not strict about their jobs because literally the whole company or the whole country is at their. Anything happens they are liable to it and there's no time to be thinking emotionally when that happens. You what else is crazy? The fact that you have no idea who protocol works in just called it crazy.
Like I said, nobody wants to be drafted. Forced to go to war, it’s not something people want. Like I said. And as I already said, authority and fear are different things. Leaders that are synonymous with compassion are far better than feared ones. Feared leaders include Putin, Kim Jong Un, Stalin, Lenin and Thatcher. Nobody likes those guys, and they weren’t very good leaders, as their respective countries under their leadership waned during it.
The claim you’ve made about domestic abuse is just straight up wrong, According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) year ending March 2019: an estimated 7.5% of women (1.6 million) and 3.8% of men (786,000) experienced.
Women being payed less is often because people believe their work to be worth less, because they’re women. They believe that womens work is worth less, then stops employers from hiring more women. That’s the simple answer.
Comparing women’s struggles with achieving the right to vote with that of international wars is highly unfair. That’s like saying “you don’t have the right to be depressed when people are dying” or is like saying “men’s mental health being low isn’t a problem compared to war” like, they’re two different variants of suffering, one doesn’t invalidate the other. They’re both important.
And which is why I also said they got to vote in exchange for getting drafted. Because they didn’t like to do it, they got forced so they also are given the rights to votes in return. You’re talking about those people who abuse their power just because they can fear people. However, people who have the authority can fear people without abusing their power. They involve the same principles. You can say those leaders are disliked but it’s usually those people who aren’t working for them who’d say that.
The video explained many articles so it’s not so different if I link them instead of that video covering for all. Just like what you keep doing, I can easily say your statistics is wrong and mine is correct like that easy.
The studies are talking about “on average” because on average, women are less likely to take the high paying death risky jobs, take more leaves, retire early and so on as the video debunking it already explained. It has anything to do with how they really work less compared to men not because they’re women. It’s easier to bring up that gender victim card than to prove it truly is gender discrimination. There had also been cases where men get paid less than women, I also did mention something about men getting fired more often, men getting demoted more often and so on but your reasoning is basically like it’s their fault. Just like blaming it on men for women being able to have their homeless shelter. The guess what? I can do the same thing is to why women get paid less.
They’re not downplayed. Isn’t it why the world keeps developing so that entitled women and children can eat and for men to finally not work as much? “That’s like saying “you don’t have the right to be depressed when people are dying”” what you also missed is the fact that men didn’t had the rights to refuse. If that’s the case, wouldn’t you sound like saying “you don’t have the rights to be dead when people are depressed” as if they had a choice.
You got your stats from a YouTube video. I got my statistics from a Harvard article. I’d link it, but I don’t have the sufficient xp level to do so.
Your point quoting “you don’t have the right to be dead when people are depressed” makes no sense, as I’m comparing suffering. You just switched it around to try and articulate a point, but it ended up not making sense. I’m saying two different pains are not to be compared, as they diminish one another. Cmon you surely know that, I wouldn’t tell you if you were crying “stop crying, people are dying, you don’t have the right to be crying.” Men not having the right to refuse didn’t change my point whatsoever, and it still doesn’t make it ok to compare.
“Men to keep working so that entitled women and children can eat” women work too, we’re not confined to the kitchens. This isn’t the 18th century.
Again, we’ll just argue about this for hours upon hours, can we just agree to disagree? Both our opinions will still be valid, would just mean we don’t have to keep dragging each other through the mud lol.
And that youtube video got the stats from different sources published by different publishers. So what difference would it make if that youtube video itself was written in an article form? The difference would be less people are gonna view it.
It's just like saying "you don't have the rights to be strong and look for solutions because people are depressed" You didn't see the correction i made shortly after making that long comment and it doesn't take a genius but if you like to keep pretending it doesn't make sense, then so can i. Your comparison to being depressed and not being able to vote doesn't make any sense.
And no one is saying women don't have work today. I was referring to developing society which involves dying in work places so that it will be easier for women to work unlike doing things manually like how people do it before. I gave a video about how change made women "independent" but if you don't like it because it's just a youtube video, then don't expect me to take you seriously because it just came from you and your articles. I don't even see people and forums agreeing with your article. You can't even explain why there are also heavily disliked videos if youtube videos are only for people who search for it. You can't even explain why those videos debunking feminism agenda didn't fall under those "stupid youtube video" category.
I don't care how long this would take however im not forcing you to believe in anything. You can agree to disagree with what i said, but that doesn't mean i will not disagree with what you said.
I disagree with you, you disagree with me. We could throw stuff at each other all day, but we’ve got lives, we’ve both got stuff to do. Lets end it here. Was a good debate though, unironically, I do hope you have a nice day.
i don't use excuses saying "it's a waste of time and I have a life" because anyone can simply develop their time management skills. You can say this is a waste of time but you may also be wasting your time doing something else no one cares about. However i'm not complaining. Because i can always leave this then come back after doing my life priorities.
If women were in charge of everything, society would completely collapse in under a day. When war breaks out and your car gets a flat tire, where are all the women at? Seriously; answer me that question. Where are all the women at around the world to sign up to go fight for Ukraine? Women have soft skin for a reason. And men love women for that. But women are NOT meant to handle hard sh*t in life. The ones who do mentally "become men." What does that tell you about life?
@Sophxoxo I said what I said and there's nothing to question about it. "When war breaks out and your car gets a flat tire, where are all the women at? Where are all the women at around the world to sign up to go fight for Ukraine?" Put up or STFU.
What about the women who’ve been through stuff? The ones who tank through pain? The metaphorical, and literal soldiers? The female war veterans? The single mothers? Does that make them “men”? If, by your standards, to be women we have to sit in a kitchen all day, count me out.
@Sophxoxo Don't put words in my mouth. And the exceptions to the rule, like female soldiers, don't discount the rule. Women want equality in modern times, except for anything that involved difficulty and suffering, like going to war or being treated as disposable pawns by society, like most non-wealthy men are. And single mothers don't get sympathy for using their pussy irresponsibly and choosing bad partners, so screw that!
I never even said "women who suffer are men." I said women aren't meant to suffer and the few who do have masculine mindsets, EXACTLY like all the examples you brought up. You can't have it both ways: Wanting to be feminine yet also wanting to be "tough and strong." That's the problem with modern women: they try to be both tough and feminine at once, and end up failing at both of them. But if someone points it out, they'll whine about "sexism and misogyny" as if anyone still takes those terms seriously in 2022.
And because I know stupid people might make this mistake, I do not hate women. I merely speak the truth because I have no reason to lie to women or anyone else anymore. Most men lie to women to get laid or get in their good graces. The truth has set me free!
So single mothers don’t get your sympathy because they’re “irresponsible”… it’s not their fault the man left them on their own, how on Earth are they irresponsible in that sense?
The phrases “feminine” and “masculine” in this day and age are highly subjective. I don’t see how strength or hardship is integral to either phrases, neither do many, but I can at least say why some people would, because it’s all subjective. But you implying sexism and misogyny in this day and age aren’t serious problems is laughable.
@Sophxoxo Yes. Women have agency. They don't then get to discard all of that agency when THEY choose sh*tty men to sleep with, they CHOOSE to not use birth control, they CHOOSE not to get abortions, and they CHOOSE to be mothers. They deserve zero sympathy for their own bad life choices, assuming they aren't doing fine as single mothers. So no, they deserve zero sympathy for having a pussy and being reckless enough to accidentally create kids with men who aren't father material.
And yes, you can give some women literally every f*cking thing on Earth and they'll still find reasons to whine, complain, and cry "the whole world is full of misogyny!" while men in Ukraine are getting their sh*t blown up. Never mind them though, some women somewhere in the First World had a man disagree with her or call her dress "cute" in the hallway! THOSE are the real problems society face!
So now it’s the women’s fault for sleeping with the bad guys, rather than the guys’ faults for being terrible people? That’s messed up. You’re victim blaming.
Plus, women die every day due to gender or sex based targeted violence, but even if they didn’t, other people’s suffering doesn’t invalidate other people’s suffering. Comparing the two isn’t ok. That’s like saying “oh racism isn’t a problem because people are dying on the frontlines” or “homophobia ain’t a problem since countries are facing severe socioeconomic crisis”No form of prejudice is ok, and every form is equally as valid as the other for critique. By your own mentality you don’t have the right to complain about any of this, since people are dying as you speak. By that mentality, nobody has the right to complain about anything other than a massive international crisis. It’s similar to telling a depressed person they don’t have the right to be depressed cause there are wars going on. So to quote your own words; “quit whining”.
@Sophxoxo I'm well of aware of women using S. I. G. N. Language = Shaming, Insulting, Guilting, and Never Being Wrong. It won't work on me, honey. I wipe my ass with what you call "victim blaming."
I also literally said "men who aren't father material." Learn to pay attention if you're going to argue nonsense so at least I don't have to keep repeating things.
"other people’s suffering doesn’t invalidate other people’s suffering."
Uh, it actually does. If you put an actual rape victim next to some idiotic feminist who cries "rape" every time a man makes eye contact with her, it invalidates the suffering of the actual rape victim. You couldn't be more incorrect here. Do you think people give infinite time and attention to every so-called misjustice and slight in society?
"That’s like saying 'oh racism isn’t a problem because people are dying on the frontlines' or 'homophobia ain’t a problem since countries are facing severe socioeconomic crisis.'"
Okay, you're young, naïve, ignorant, and clearly don't know how the world works. You just proved it with those last few lines. Maybe one day you'll understand what priorities are and stop comparing the deaths of innocent civilians to someone misgendering a mentally ill person on Twitter.
"By your own mentality you don’t have the right to complain about any of this, since people are dying as you speak. By that mentality, nobody has the right to complain about anything other than a massive international crisis."
People have the right to complain all they want. That's called therapy. No one has the right to listen to you complain. That's why therapy ain't free. People's problems are subjective, and how important they are, are determined by how society responds to them. You sound like the most over-privileged First World white woman in existence. Trying to justify your non-problems to make yourself feel more important than you really are. Which is ironic, considering the post itself implies women would be more compassionate and less selfish, although many men already know this clearly isn't what's displayed in reality. You're comparing microaggressions to literal death and war casualties and expecting people to take you seriously after that? God DAMN I wish I had the "problems" of a woman! I'd never complain about a single thing in my life!
So yeah. Wise words from a pampered 19 year old, First World, probably-white woman. You've said nothing of value. We're done talking now. Thank you, come again!
Firstly: you’re blaming the women for the men leaving them to care for the child themselves. That’s quite literally victim blaming, blaming the victim.
Secondly: what you described is someone comparing their suffering to someone else’s themselves, which is very different from what I said. The woman who would be wrongfully accusing someone of rape, yes, would invalidate real rape victims. But that’s because she’s comparing her experiences to that of rape victims. You’re comparing womens’ suffering to that of wars, both, valid topics. So no, it doesn’t diminish the other.
Dude I’m scared to walk alone at night, that “my” problem for not being a black belt in karate and opening a gun? Or is it the rapists I’m scared of’s problem for being goddamn rapists!
I don’t lack self worth, don’t twist this into me “wanting to feel important”. I care for other women, just because I’m also a women doesn’t make that less of value. And you’re the one comparing sexism to war, not me. I’m saying it’s unfair to compare the too as they’re both very different.
Keep living by your delusional ideologies, choosing to ignore problems. I couldn’t care less.
You’re literally accusing me of things you’re doing, I’m not gonna call you a hypocrite because maybe you’re doing it unintentionally, but don’t gaslight me.
All problems are problems, I’m just going to reiterate that. Many women are still treated as second class citizens in many countries, domestic violence and abuse towards women is shockingly prevalent.
In a 2020 survey done by WHO in 2018, 1 in 6 women have experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner, while for men it is 1 in 16. 75% of victims of domestic violence reported the perpetrator as male, while 25% reported the perpetrator as female, let’s not forget that 90% of rape victims are female, not to invalidate the men that have experienced rape or domestic violence, I feel for them equally, but the stats show just how common violence against women is in this day and age.
So is this just a microaggression to you? Something to be sidestepped? Ignored?
(PS: pls don’t bring the lgbtq+ community in to this, they’re not out discussion. No need to drop some side comment showcasing your opinions on the matter, you’ve got your point across. I know your stance on them.)
This is international politics we are talking about. Being a man or woman does not matter here, as your decision is not truly yours. You are just the person saying it. And potential scape goat if things go south.
No. Have you seen Liz Truss? She’s practically begging for war with Russia. And Ursula von der Leyen? Very hawkish. Madeleine Albright: “What good are the bombs and missiles for if you don’t use them?” And Hillary Clinton took out Ghaddafi for her banker friends? No, women in charge would not lead to peace.
Studying anthropology, the most violent societies are ruled by women. In fact a female leader is more likely to go to war. Researchers found that over the past 500 years, queens have been more likely to wage war than male rulers – and were more likely to win new territory. A team of researchers from the University of Chicago studied the European rulers between 1480 and 1913.
@asker in medieval times the ruler had more power than presidents or prime minister today. No parliaments, senates and other democratic instances. The only person who had power above a king or queen was the pope as far as their kingdom was catholic.
@asker you could say the same about men who were kings then. People don’t really change over time much and history has shown that. If someone has too much power it can corrupt and we see that with dictators still to this day.
Things would definitely be handled a lot differently. But as in equal to better than men right now? Not sure, but I don't think it would be. Not sure if it would be any worse than men, but I definitely don't think it would be any better. We've got women in positions of power right now who aren't doing things with flying colors, even when some of these women power structures are in groups.
Yeah, `cause Angela Merkle's doing a FANTASTIC job of fucking over Germany!! Then there's AOC, Camel Hairs, mad Maxine Waters, nutty Nancy Pelosi, Hitlary Clinton! If having a cunt is all it takes to be better at running the country, take Joe out and give him a sex change and then sit back and watch how much better things will get!
Wow, are you seriously implying the war in Ukraine is because "men bad"? Even the MALE president of Ukraine stayed on the front lines to defend his homeland. Show me a single female leader in the last 100 years or so who can claim to have done as much?
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
Like it's the 1900s? Is she not aware that wars are going on for decades as well in the 2000s as well? Maybe you don't count wars in Africa and Asia to be worth talking about? Also how's this a gender thing? Women can be just as shit as men in politics, we're equals you see.
Well yeah. Men would almost be completely useless and women will just be men but with vaginas. It's not like men are celebrated for being men who have a dick to impregnate and given rights like women have because they have pussy and the power to give birth which is indeed really valuable. If it also means safeguarding men and letting women do all the hard work dying and being disposed, you cannot expect the world to pre-populate as fast if the ratio is more men than women.
Things would be far more violent and inhumane if women were more in charge. You could argue that the influence of women is largely to blame for this war. Just because more men are in power, a good number of these men are pussywhipped cuck men not fit to lead.
I don't know I think it would take a pretty special woman. Whenever women get power in almost any sense of the word, they seem to feel the need to show that they have equal or greater capacity for brutality than men.
I tend to think more logical then emotional but a lot of other women would think more emotionally. So no i dint think it would help much bt a fair number of men and women working together seems fine
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
I don't think gender matters. Each individual being in charge would be different anyways. A conflict between 2 countries is a lot more complicated then just blaming it on men being violent. Also speaking of that, you realize how many men die for their countries in war protecting their country full of women, kids, etc?
I’m sure it would be different since it would be a different person but I do know some pretty evil women out there as well. I read somewhere a while ago about Kim Jung Un sister being more ruthless than he is.
Nobody knows the true answer to that I avoid said in order to understand something you need to experience it you can't just read about it you can't put people against people you have to experience it
There's no evidence to support that. Studies that have analyzed female leaders throughout time have concluded that female ruler's reigns were more brutal and resulted in more death and subjugation than the their male counterparts. For example, two queens of England, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth, took more territory and conquered and subjugated more people than all the kings of England combined.
Why are these women making it a gender thing? Some bimbo calls herself his mother and someone makes it a gender war You think women politicians get into power cause they want to save lives and stuff? Smh
3
8 Reply
Asker
+1 y
you can be a politician & still have common good values. &also you know the main differences between women & men so you know why
You think Putin is doing this cause he's a man or cause some women rejected him or cause he got mommy issues? He is like a dictator. This is what he does. I am not defending him. But stop associating his psychopathic tendencies with his gender. Also have you never heard of Kim Yo Jung? You think if she ruled N Korea, she's gonna get on her knees and suck some US dicks and then bring peace and glory to N Korea?
It's kinda disappointing people think that women are not strong or capable enough for war
never said that just saying as a leader most caring women would put innocent lives in risk. stop trying to be like one of the guys you’re trying very hard with your lady like words lol
I am stating my opinion. No one gender is better than the other. Both you and that woman in the pic need to research more about why Putin is waging war instead of blaming his testosterone But feel free to delete my "one of the guys" opinion
@Hangry06 The fact that the Asker and that woman in the pic thinks you can just "talk things out" with bad people is so naïve and stupid, it hurts. It's so stupid, it literally hurts their own argument and makes women look like worse leaders by example. It's like the idiots who thought you could defend the police and just use sweet words to rid society of criminals. There's so many failures of academics here, from psychology, to sociology, to history, to political science, to gender-based science, I don't even know where to begin.
Best thing I can say about it is, these women supporting these arguments aren't even capable of enough to care of a houseplant, let alone a nation. While leadership doesn't necessarily have to be better with one gender or another, MOST of the time, men are forced to step up and be leaders, while women can sit back and relax, because society doesn't put as much pressure on women for things like this THIS is why men tend to make better leaders. If society didn't coddle and baby women as much as they do, the strong and capable women could probably step up and rise to the challenge as well. But society worships women and treats men as workhorses at best, and disposable at worse, which usually breeds strength because of it.
I think she’s insinuating that we need more female leaders and that if two morally good women were both leaders they would be able to at least work it out or have war but not in a way that includes hurting innocent lives silly.
When the same thing happens for the Middle East, why aren't people so sensitive? Russia, america and Turkey are bombing the middle east. really you are hypocrites
Its the gas reserves and nato deterrance. Not excusing russias actions one bit. But thats their goal. loot ukraines natural reserves and keeping nato at bay.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
Nothing like a question like this to get all the men to respond so emotionally despite their claims that women are soooo emotional. It’s hilarious.
Many people tend to think women are more emotional. Some women say that themselves too. Reality is something else. Women are no more or less emotional than men. That is a human trait.
Men might even be more emotional depending on the man though. Because there are mental and life issues that I hear exclusively only from men. For instance... suicide due to never having a girlfriend, angry or cry when watching beautiful women, less attention in general, male-shaming, other narratives, double-standards and perspectives, etc. But I could be wrong. Life's hard and I feel sorry for those men.
... meaning, we are all born the same. Then life happens, and we become different emotionally (person, gender, race, body type, etc.). Then we all die lol.
I would tend to think that since males and females brains are wired differently given the situation in the world today that their would be two different opinions in any given situation. Once again just my humble opinion.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
I would say we would be worse off. I'm sorry but every single female boss I have ever had has been a terrible, back stabbing tyrant.. I don't see that being any different if they get real power. Especially if they are leftists.
the human race would be extinct by now. If women were really good leaders, people would vote for them more often. 50% of voters are female
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
Wouldn’t be a society. Or buildings. Or food. Or power. Or running water. Plumbing, cars, alcohol, an functioning economy. Roads, governments, families. Banks
Maybe, maybe not. Most rich people are a-holes. Rich people should never run any country. Educated , wide people should be running countries. 1% ruin the world for the rest of us.
Wouldn't be any different. In fact it'd be worse since women wouldn't know how to handle the confrontation from other leaders. They'd curl in a ball & wait for someone to assist them. Likely a man
12.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Listen to SJW Feminist "Karens" speak. At best, nothing would change.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
I think if women were in power the nukes would have been launched a long time ago since they think emotionally instead of logically. So if there was a catfight between two female powers, bye world.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
I don't believe women resort to throwing their toys as easily as men do when things don't go their way. Also, many men let their egos get in the way of rational thinking and behavior.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
This is as good as eye witness testimony, video footage and 3 sworn affidavits from bystanders. 
