Should women take over the world?

[Deja Q]

[lonelysoul2020]

1. yes thay should

but only if im the first man thay beat up :)

[Skittles]

2. no

ideally, women and men would have equal power and draw off each other's strengths

[mvd]

29. Sounds good

The United States is due for a woman President, certainly. I'd like to see more females in general in leadership positions. Would the world be more peaceful with all women in power? Well, we'd still have fundamentalist countries and problems because of them. Equality sounds like a good compromise. :hi:

[redqueen]

80. Shazam!

Soon, I hope... soon.

[Longgrain]

3. Sure why not, should be interesting to live in a world

where men aren't expected to be the aggressors...

(I mean that on an intimate, dating level).

[Deja Q]

10. That's fair! Most men wouldn't say 'no', that's for sure!

:D

Most... :D

[Speck Tater]

4. A new war every 28 days? I don't think so. (nt)

[Left Is Write]

6. Mmmhmmm.

Because all women are horomonal nutcases who go berserk once a month.

[JVS]

7. Did you miss the gender based generalizations of the OP?

Or do you only object to them when it's a crack at your own gender?

[Left Is Write]

11. I took his "generalizations" to be sarcasm.

But for what it's worth, I really hate the stereotypical idea that women can't control themselves due to monthly hormone shifts. I also hate it when women themselves use that as an excuse for poor behavior.

Also for what it's worth, I assume the post I was replying to was intended to be a joke, but I'm finding myself in the mindset of redqueen's "throw like a girl" thread.

[all.of.me]

9. unless they are older!

then those monthly tendencies to kill everyone are gone!

so... get older women to rule the world. we'll take counsel from the younger, pms-y ones, though!

[CBHagman]

You're going about this all wrong.

Susan Jane Gilman suggests that women use their PMS as an engine to drive their political activism (Yes, she's a progressive). Basically, she counsels women against confining and restraining themselves.

We've all heard the old saw about how a man in Hollywood isn't regarded as ruthless unless he ruins your career, whereas all a woman has to do to be called ruthless is put you on hold. Bush is busy sending people to their death and also micromanaging everyone's access to contraceptives, and he's a "nice guy" because some pundit said so. Meanwhile, major clowns are bloviating about Hillary's reelection campaign and Clinton body counts. See what I mean? It's all phoney.

Everybody into the pundit and politics pool, girls -- the ones with PMS and hot flashes. We'll just call it the new version of packing heat.

[Longgrain]

14. I'd probably have had a lot more girlfriends in my life if we took the

Sadie Hawking's approach...

A great many of them I probably wouldn't have liked, but they could have been interesting.

[notadmblnd]

15. Just buy us chocolate and there will be peace.

But remember, never get between the woman and the box.

[Deja Q]

16. You just said a mouthful!

:wow: :D

[imenja]

19. as opposed to the testosterone driven rage than infects our polity today

not a difficult choice.

[Jamastiene]

41. Ahem.

I guarantee you it wouldn't take as damn long to get it over with if we ahd an army of pms'ing women to do it. Do you really think anything we ever do ever escalatess to the point of all out war? We get over ourselves in a few days and move on. It takes unchecked testosterone to start a war.

BTW, are you jealous of the mighty warriors we become *this* time of the month? Hint. Hint. :P

All kidding aside. You and I disagree on a new war every 28 days. That wouldn't happen. I wouldn't have war. See my "plan".

[JVS]

5. After they each get me a beer and a sandwich. Then they can do whatever

[Dogmudgeon]

8. You mean they haven't already?

So I'm kitty-whipped for nothing?

--p!

[sparky_in_ma]

12. Hello

They've controlled it for years.:D

[BlueJazz]

13. They can run the world and that's cool but if they try to run Me....

..they'll get slapped down.

Nooo..not physically..

[imenja]

20. that easily threatened?

[BlueJazz]

21. No..I expect a 50/50 percent relationship

..although I may be a little paranoid since 2 of my 3 friends (that are married) have to ask their wife if they can take a piss.

(Ok..it's not that bad but,,you get the idea..)

[imenja]

22. then I might just tell a person I wasn't interested

if they tried to control me, rather than "beat them down," even metaphorically. Less drama and more effective.

[BlueJazz]

28. What you say is true but the old adage>>

"slowly they turn..step by step..",
applies to both men and women. Both sexes can be quite charming when searching for a mate.
I don't necessarily fault them for doing it...I mean, I've been guilty of it but sometimes it's hard to be yourself when you are trying desperately to "Be Yourself".
I guess I'm trying to say that my Friend's Wives were probably not showing outward signs of being a control freak when they were a-courting.. :)

[imenja]

31. some women just don't know how to stay in their place

Strong men don't fear strong women.

This was a poll about political power, not male-female relationships. Your comments make your views on both quite clear.

[BlueJazz]

77. You said>>>

"Your comments make your views on both quite clear"

Apparently not.
I'm just not naive enough to think that there are 2 kinds of people:
1. Bad Men
2. Good Women
And No..I don't think you feel that way...
I just feel that it's not the Gender that has screwed up "Our" planet..it's the pricks in power.
If women did control the World, we would probably wind up with the same mess because the term....No good Power-hungry-egomaniac-SOB... applies to anybody worthy of the Label..Plus the fact that the usual voting-Idiots would repeat their idiotic voting patterns. As much as I wish it were true, Men don't have the Patent of being lousy leaders.

Geez..imenja..why am I telling you this?...I feel like I'm preaching to the choir...

[imenja]

89. I agree

but I'm not sure what your reference to voting idiots means. You do realize that women vote Democratic? If we were to count only the votes of women, John Kerry would have won the 2004 election and Bush would not have run close in 2000. Principles of equal rights make invalid any assertion that women or any other group should control the franchise, government, or any other mechanisms of power.
One can't help but wonder, however, if we wouldn't do a better job.
Gender per se has not screwed up our planet, but patriarchy is part of what has done so. The power egomaniacs you refer to are part of a power structure fortified through class, race, and gender domination.


The question of personal relations is a different matter. No one needs to accept gender relations or patterns with which they are uncomfortable. You might let your friends deal with their wives and worry about your own relationships. There is no reason you should ever be dominated by anyone. One simply makes clear he finds that behavior unacceptable. If a man has children, however, he shares in the responsibility of caring for those children. Married women have every right to demand that men share in the work of raising those children.

[BlueJazz]

94. Rats...I was hoping that you would post something that I didn't

completely agree with.
I re-read my first post and it was probably suppose to be satiric. (I seldom drink and it was a friends anniversary and blah, blah, blah)
You know...when you dig yourself in a hole, you can't blame people for wanting to cover you up..

[Nevernose]

17. Why the hell not? Couldn't do any worse, right?

Besides, I'm tired of all this oppresion-of-women thing; it's time consuming.

[erinlough]

73. You took the answer right out of my mouth

I think we have adequately tested this paternal system thing and it doesn't look successful. Time to try another approach!!!!!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

18. Sure, it'd be good for a change n/t

[maveric]

23. As a man I say yes. Men have fucked this world up beyond repair.

And maybe us guys can stay home and eat bon bons.

[Deja Q]

25. AND

whine "AAAAAAAAAAAAALice!" when they want to do the nasty! :D

[catzies]

27. We have a deal. You can have the remote, and all the beer you want

sports, p0rn, whatever you want as much as you want: but stay home, and we get to run the world.

;)

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

54. deal

but i doubt women per se would do better. you have to be an asshole to get up. i don't think that will change with different gender dominance.

but hey go ahead. patriarchy hasn't worked out to well in the past (but still they crushed the matriarchal amazon tribes in the caspian region)

[LostInAnomie]

24. Who would cook my dinner?

Well?!

[Redstone]

26. Yes. I've long said that we need a female President...

Actually, we need a black, lesbian president who is disabled and gets around in a wheelchair. It would do wonders for this country.

Those of you who know me, know that this is not a statement intended to pander to anyone, because I never make statements just to pander to anyone.

I do believe this.

Redstone

[Swede]

30. Why not give them the chance?

They sure as hell can't screw it up any worse than we did.

[khashka]

32. Why not?

They can't do a worse job than the guys have been doing. I say give 'em a chance.

Just so long as they don't do some weird "Consider Her Ways" or "Gate To Women's Country" thang. That's just creepy.


Khash.

[cleofus1]

33. like these great women?

Lynn Cheney?
laura Ingram?
Margaret Thatcher?
Ann Coulter?
Beverly Lahaye?
Phyllis Schlafly?
DR. LAURA SCHLESSINGER?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice?
Michelle Malkin?

don't like the idea of any one gender dominating the other...can't we all just work together...c'mon c'mon lets work together...now now people...........

[imenja]

34. Let's all just get along?

Like they all get along in the Air force academy? Like they all get along in congress and in corporate America?

[cleofus1]

35. what's your point?

you'd rather be dominated by women? I don't want to be dominated by anyone...

[imenja]

36. the very notion of being dominated by women is absurd

We live in a patriarchal world. There is no equality. Men rule the world, and they have proved themselves poorly equipped to do so.

[cleofus1]

37. right...

fantasy land eh? you seem to view the world as a very black and white place...must be a very angry place to live eh?

I'm a man...yet I don't dominate a damn thing...

and in this fantasy world in which you exist...who would rule?
if it's conservative women...I don't see the upside...

I want equality...giving any one gender the right to dominate is a bad idea...

your premise that only men rule the world is a genralization...if men rule the world...then it is only with the cooperation of women...

not you of course...

[imenja]

40. And I suppose racism is a myth too?

I did not say I believe women should rule by virtue of their sex. I merely pointed out that fears of female domination are absurd. That you could look at this world and pretend it is not one in which patriarchy and racism prevails tells me that you approve of these structures of inequality.


Your point: "if men rule the world...then it is only with the cooperation of women..." Does it also hold that if whites rule, it is with the full cooperation of blacks? Slavery was thus a mutually agreed upon institution?

Patriarchy is a societal phenomenon, not an individual one. That you personally do not feel yourself to have economic and political power does not mean that the dominant structures of society don't promote rule by men.

Let's do the math. Women finally won the vote in 1920. An Equal Rights Amendment was deemed too radical to pass. The United States refused to codify the principle that women are legally equal to men. Men have done everything possible to keep themselves safe from competition of well over half of the human race. We have had no woman as president in this country. Any post on DU suggesting we not succumb to sexism and racism in choosing political candidates is denounced as a losing proposition by those who pretend to be progressives. Large numbers of American across the political spectrum work assiduously to make sure that women are not allowed to share in political power.

"if men rule the world...then it is only with the cooperation of women..." Well over half of women who enter the Air Force Academy or West Point are raped. Men in those institutions use rape to terrorize women and to force them out of fields they believe should rightly belong to men. Do you also believe these women are willing accomplices in their own sexual violation? Twenty-five percent of women in this country are victims of domestic violence. If men beat women, it must be with their full cooperation. The number one cause of death for pregnant women is death at the hands of the baby's father. "if men rule the world...then it is only with the cooperation of women..."

Violence is part of a patriarchal cultural that seeks to reduce women to powerlessness by whatever means necessary, including death. Yet you say "if men rule the world...then it is only with the cooperation of women..." Is is an integral part of the patriarchal rule that you refuse to acknowledge.


One of the most pernicious forms of bigotry is a refusal to recognize it. It is dangerous, because the most effective way of maintaining power is to pretend no inequality exists. When people refuse to acknowledge a problem, they obviously can do nothing to correct it.


I'm tired of the world being dominated by weak, insecure men who do their best to exclude women and men of color from political and economic participation because they simply cannot compete on a level playing field. That is the status of the world as it exists today. If we want to make this the best society possible, all people must have full opportunity. That is far from what exists today. When you deny that reality, you advocate on behalf of continued inequality.

[cleofus1]

42. no

you're not supposed to believe racism is a myth...

i do recognize bigotry...just don't accept your hysterical reaction as a valid way to approach it...

and if your tired...that's not my problem...

I do agree that all people must have full opportunity...

do you think any of the women i listed above would guarantee that?

your little fantasy does not include the fact that women are human too and prone to all the frailties that that entails...

you little plan makes too many assumptions...

[imenja]

43. You have addressed none of my points

Patriarchy, like racism, is a systemic problem. Your repeated use of conservative women is a canard and tells me you did not bother thinking about what I said. I certainly did not, nor would I, make an essentialist argument equating fitness to rule with ovaries.

"your little fantasy does not include the fact that women are human too and prone to all the frailties that that entails..." What fantasy would that be? Can you disprove any of the evidence of patriarchy that I laid out? And what did I say that in any way suggests than women do not have shortcomings? Relying on sexist language like "hysterical" does not substitute for thoughtful analysis or evidence to counter my points about sociological and historical structures. The points you raise above in no way relate to any of the points I raised in my previous post.

I find especially revealing your comment above: " you're not supposed to believe racism is a myth..." Somehow you've gotten the message that it's not okay to think racism is a myth, but you feel entitled to deny another form of inequality, sexism. Hardly surprising.

[cleofus1]

44. you don't accept my points?

that woman are human and that conservative woman ruling over me is not in my best interest? your language is also offensive to men...but i suppose you just don't see that...you are myopic and you frame the argument according to what you want the result to be...

and i do accept that sexism exists and i support womens rights...the right to live free and happy lives as they see fit...the right to do with their bodies as they see fit...

that doesn't mean i want to be dominated by anyone...man or woman...

just becouse i don't put women on some sort of pedestal does not mean that i do not respect them...

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sir_captain]

70. Your argument is hypocritical

Coming from a man of color, I think you're full of it.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Racism, sexism, and all forms of bigotry are all real and horrible, terrible problems. I experienced a fun taste of this just the other day. On the other hand, to use this reality as an excuse for some sort of women or minority controlled society is ridiculous nonsense.

You yourself said that "all people must have full opportunity" yet when Cleofus opined this very concept, you self-righteously jumped all over him.

[imenja]

72. show we where I have done this?

No where have I advocated that society should be run by women. I challenge you to find one place where I have done so. That I would dare to challenge patriarchy makes you assume that I advocate domination by women? If I do not support rule by men, I must therefore be advocating their subordination?

I confronted the poster because his words rang hollow following his insistence that men rule in full complicity with women. And even more so because he invoked sexist language to make his points.
You may see one form of domination as more justified than other, I do not. All forms of oppression are wrong. What is particularly absurd, however, is that there is nothing approaching domination of women in any society, while the world remains firmly under patriarchal control. A hypothetical poll does not equate with the reality of the society we actually live under.

[sir_captain]

74. Sure, no problem

Cleofus: "don't like the idea of any one gender dominating the other...can't we all just work together...c'mon c'mon lets work together...now now people..........."

A perfectly reasonable point of view, echoed later by yourself, no?

Your *very first* reply to him: "Let's all just get along? Like they all get along in the Air force academy? Like they all get along in congress and in corporate America?"

Completely ignoring the rest of your conversation with him, you jumped down his throat for his mere suggestion that we'd all be best off if everyone got along with each other and cooperated. To me, that's kind of nuts.

And more to the point--confusing--where does this disagree with the rest of your "argument?" The only way I can see to interpret it is that you disagreed with Cleofus' original premise--that a matriarchal society is not a particularly good idea either.

Ok, let's continue: "You may see one form of domination as more justified than other, I do not." You pulled this out of your ass, and frankly, I don't appreciate it.

Moving on, I don't really understand your last sentence: "What is particularly absurd, however, is that there is nothing approaching domination of women in any society, while the world remains firmly under patriarchal control." Did you mean domination BY women? And if so, is that what you're advocating? Let's be clear on the issue...

edit: i think the fact that one of your posts was deleted is decent evidence that you haven't been pure as snow during this conversation.

[imenja]

81. whether or not you consider me nuts is entirely irrelevant

none of the quotes you produce in anyway suggest I advocate domination by women. What they reveal is that I object to the idea that the world we live in now is based on equality. There is simply no evidence to support that it is.

What I advocate is equality. But before equality can be possible, we must take a look at the ways in which our society perpetrates inequality. Rape and violence against women are dangerous manifestations of patriarchy. They are not "fantasies" as the other poster insisted. He made very clear that he does not believe ours--or seemingly any--society to be patriarchal. He insisted that I imagined such references.

That you object to the fact that I dare even discuss these phenomenon tell me that you yourself may not recognize it as a problem. I am at fault because I challenge male domination? You assume that when I do so I advocate for rule by women. I have not and I do not. It seems that you interpret the absence of patriarchy to mean male subordination.

I assumed since you identified yourself as a man of color, racism was something that you would object to. Perhaps I was mistaken to make that assumption. But the conclusions you draw from my discussion of patriarchy make it quite clear that you do not recognize the manifestations of sexism. Rather, women who challenge patriarchy are the problem. Hence my reference: "You may see one form of domination as more justified that another." I do not know your views on race, so that was an assumption. But when you assume that my attack on patriarchy means I support domination by women, that tells me a great deal about your views on that subject.

[sir_captain]

83. I didn't say you were nuts

I said: "you jumped down his throat for his mere suggestion that we'd all be best off if everyone got along with each other and cooperated." And said that response was "kind of nuts" -- because it was. You seem like a well educated person, and I hope you can understand the difference between these two statements.

Cleofus did not say in his initial post that we live in an equal society. Not in the least--he said that we *ought* to. You attacked him for this view. Read the damn posts again if you disagree with this. You are not at fault because you object to male domination--you are at fault because you objected to Cleofus's reasonable assertion that we'd be best off in a society where the genders cooperated.

*This* is what I object to--I never objected to you discussing problems that obviously exist and that we agree about. I don't think *anyone* on this board would object to discussing the existence of racism, or sexism, or any other sort of bigotry.

"I assumed since you identified yourself as a man of color, racism was something that you would object to. Perhaps I was mistaken to make that assumption." I hope saying that made you feel good about yourself. It made me feel things about you that would break the rules here, and unlike you (who has had a post deleted) I'm not going to do that, except to say, how dare you. Again, your assertion that I see women who challenge patriarchy the problem." is spurious, and in fact, another violation of the rules.


Edit: since i can see that your style of argument is to accuse whoever you're arguing with of being a bigot, I'm done with you.

[imenja]

87. You said I argued that men should be dominated by women

when I made no such assertion. You accused me of opposing equal opportunity. I have advocated the contrary.

My first point to Cleofus was intended only to point out that the world as it exists today is not one in which "we all get along."
Now if you feel a need to defend another poster, that is your prerogative. I would think he could do so himself. If you read his response, you will note he defended himself by calling me "hysterical" and referred to my points about violence against women as "fantasies." I take objection to that, and I have every right to do so.

I made the comment about racism in an effort to explain why I included the previous reference to seeing one form of domination as acceptable and not others. I still do not understand why or how you would interpret my denunciation of patriarchy as advocating female supremacy. There is no correlation between the two, unless one assumes that the absence of male domination means male subordination.

[imenja]

92. and I most certainly did not accuse you of being a bigot

What I said is that I find it odd you took such objection to my denunciation of patriarchy and assumed that in doing so, I advocated matriarchal rule. I made no such statements. Why assume the absence of patriarchy means male subordination?

[Deja Q]

69. A valid point. Which is why we're supposed to have checks and balances,

and a populace not intimidated when people in power dare to pervert the process.

Our own citizens killed America as much as the corporate swine or political unmentionables had. We are all to blame, each to some extent but the perpetrators of the crimes are still the worst offenders.

Conartist Rice is a Doctor? Only if she played Doctor...

[Jamastiene]

38. Ooh. Me. Me. Pick me.

I wanna go first. My first ideas for rule reconstruction.

1. No more war. Everything must be settled by a cook off or by a video game. No one dies and compromise must be reached before settling.

2. Thou shalt keep the weekend free for personal time. No more working on weekends, dammit.

3. Reagan never goes on Mt. Rushmore. As a matter of fact, no one is added to Mt. Rushmore. Period. It will be maintained, but not changed.

4. Charging $5.00 for a QTip at the doctor's office or the hospital will be no more. That bullshit is out the window. Even Wal Mart is cheaper than that.

5. Bush must find bin Laden himself. I will strap him with one of those heavy military backpacks and drop his ass off to wander in the desert for the rest of his life or until he finds bin Laden, whichever comes first. It may be a fun reality show, but Fox will be

6. Off the air. The propoganda machine is now defunct. All current employees of Fox News will be sent to work in textiles mills and sewage handling plants in China for $.10 an hour never to return to the U.S. Good riddance. Don't let the door hit them in the ass on the way out...

7. Repug senators and congressmen and women and their rabid shiteating supporters will be the new form of entertainment. They will be given the opportunity to redeem themselves if they appear in reality shows trying to prove they are worthy of living free in society at large again. They must spend season after season doing the most humiliating things I can think of and as many as many of you can think of as well. We will have our own ratings system based on what we find we enjoy the most.

8. Unless you invite me personally, my government will stay out of your bedroom. Have fun. Sex is no longer allowed to be considered evil as long as it is consenting. :P

9. Ann Coulter will be strapped to the next space shuttle and her ties cut lose as soon as she leaves the Earth's gravity. Bye bye now. Don't come back now, you hear? Stick figure bullshit eating bitch spawned from the bowels of Barbara Olson's same Frankenstein mad scientist creator. Oh yeah, and we all get to :puke: on her before we send her ass packing.

10. Earth. We will try our damnedest to heal the damage done by the fuckwads who know how to fix it but haven't because they are too damned greedy to do anything about it. Inventors will be encouraged in my administration. We haven't invented everything yet, folks.


Those are just a few ideas. One more would be that laws would be written so that *most* everyone can understand what they fuck they are saying. Education required. Racism is against the law. Sexism and homophobia are too. Hmm. I can go on all night with this.

Okay, can I rule for just one week? Please??? Don't make me get down on my knees and beg. I will. I'll embarrass myself to get a chance to straighten some shit out and have a national party, the fun kind. I would declare one day of the year ( at least) National Party Day. My economic advisor will be Bill Clinton and he will pick the rest of his team. My health advisor will be Hillary. Lemme see... My environmentalist will be Al Gore and his hands won't be tied like they have in the past. I'd ask Skinner to be my speech writer so he can maybe clean my language up a little and make it a little more palatable. Everyone on DU would be given a budget to try your ideas to fix your most important issues. All ideas could be tried that way. Why our government thinks only one idea can be tried to fix something I'll never understand. Since when do you tackle a project with one action or step only. Even clothes washing takes more than one step if you think about it. And there's more than one way to do it. Several people trying several different ways working on the same problem can do tons more good than everyone arguing over one way that might or might not flop by itself. We can worry about coordinating later. We have an emergency on our hands fixing this shitty ass mess the village idiot (Damien from the Omen) and his protectors (who know where the 666 is located on his scalp) have made.

Look at me. I'm writing a book again. Thanks for asking this question. I love dreaming. In the words of the great Deborah Harry, "Dreaming is free."

[cleofus1]

39. damn it to hell woman!

you got my vote ;-)

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

58. i'd vote you too

i'd add a few suggestions though

Corporations are not legal persons! you own it - you are responsible for it. no more shareholder legal buffer.

No more executions after the public hanging of Bushco at the torch of miss liberty for treason and capital crimes against humanity and nature.

defining maximum taxfree heir. all surplus is 100% taxed and goes to common good.

2nd amendment (guns) is repealed.

the all voluntary military is turned to a citizens army. you vote war- you gonna fight and die for it.

mandatory garbage separation for recycling purposes.

mandatory turn-in carbon/oil fuelled cars for hydrogen cars.

ban on non-state controlled militias


can i get an advisor post? any?

[Jamastiene]

99. Environmental Protection Agency wants you.

You have good ideas there. You'd make a great watchdog for that position. Is that good?

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

102. i'm stand at your command Misses President

if he weren't allready taken for department of/for peace i'd pick Kucinic as my deputy.



(just for the etiquette protocol would your husband be first lord btw?)

[johnnie]

45. It would be good for a while

Ultimately the desire for more power will take over and the world would be just as screwed as it is now.
I agree with Skittles, let both men and women fuck it up together.

[cleofus1]

46. UNCLE! or ahem...AUNT!

does it count that i would gladly vote for Hillary when she runs?

[freebird1]

47. considering what man has done ~ It's about time to let a woman do it right

don't ya think :applause: :applause: :applause:

[cleofus1]

48. hell put me in charge...

not all men are evil...just the republican ones...

and when you say, "a woman"...I can buy that...I just don't want to live in a matriarchy or patriarchy...

seems like either way i lose...

[freebird1]

50. I agree with you ~ not ALL men are evil !

My bumper sticker says so.

We need a lot more equality in this world. True love and respect not only for mankind but for the planet and everything about it.

How does this sound ~ A female president with a male vice-president ~ for a balance of energy.

We are all equal and it's about time to learn to work together without bashing the opposite sex.

[cleofus1]

51. watch out...

you're starting to make sense...

perhaps you were always sensible and i just didn't notice...

[freebird1]

52. Thank you, cleofus1

After so many years of my own form of hibernation while recovering from a serious injury - I've decided that I'm tired of *not being heard* so I need to speak out and speak up a little more loudly and more often it seems.

[cleofus1]

53. s'ok

Glad your feeling better and talking freely...it's the only way to be!

[freebird1]

56. if you're not part of the solution ~ you're part of the problem

That is the way my generation spoke many years ago.

Well ~ I'm back and since I'm *retired* ... on my good days ... my voice is going to count for everything good that I believe in - every change I get.

My Democratic Underground tee-shirt is opening conversations with many people and I intend to keep it that way!

[entanglement]

57. You're so reasonable

that I had to rub my eyes and pinch myself to make sure I wasn't dreaming
:P

[freebird1]

59. Thank you, entanglement

as I have always said "We need peace and we need it now !"

My generation said "If you don't like this country - leave it". I have always loved my country and I still do ! It makes me very sad to see mindless bickering that only makes things worse.

We have the answers, the technology to make a positive change for the future of our planet. Yet we continue to pillage the very things we should hold sacred.

Perhaps "The Fifth Sacred Thing" by Starhawk should be on required reading list.

[entanglement]

49. I wouldn't expect anything to change

Nations / groups will always have competing interests, class divisions are probably eternal, and wars will break out no matter what. Sorry, but I just don't buy this "If women ran the place, everything would be fine" theory.

[disgruntledloner]

55. Yes, so we can live in a peacable, fair society- like Thatcher's Britain!

:evilgrin:

[deutsey]

60. Women, not girls, they rule mah world

I said they rule mah world.

[Speck Tater]

62. World leader: Vote for one: [] Dalai Lama or [] Paris Hilton.

Generalizations like "men" vs "Women" don't make any sense. Which man, which woman?

[Lilith Velkor]

97. Well, the Dalai Lama *is* sexier...

but I'll have to go with Paris on this one. The world is so unused to leaders who are not sociopaths that the resulting chaos would end civilization.

But that may not be a bad thing. Hm...

[jandrok]

63. Wait a damn minute. They haven't already? (n/t)

[zyzxx]

64. As anyone who watched "The Apprentice" knows...

the world would be a bigger mess than ever if women were running the show.

[jpgray]

65. First step--stop voting dudes into power

Women around the world can grab hold of this concept--get with the program, US ladies! Sheesh.

:eyes:

[erinlough]

75. I have long voted in the following manor:

1. Democratic Woman
2. if no choice, Democratic man
3. for non-party positions always the women
4. for non-party positions no women/ no vote....that's a song isn't it?

[MrScorpio]

66. The question should be, do women want to rule the world?

That, I don't know

[Spider Jerusalem]

67. So far, forty-two people are totally nuts.

Women are equally capable of vileness and fuckery. Things wouldn't be any better, just different...have none of you people heard of Margaret Thatcher? Catherine the Great? "Bloody" Mary? The idea that either sex is better suited than the other, or that women would do a better job than men, is as inherently sexist as the idea that men ought to run everything. And no matter who's in charge, society will STILL be fucked up, there'll STILL be conflict, because human nature doesn't change.

[imenja]

68. true in some respects

Women are as capable of men as committing ill acts. The very idea of the poll is absurd. Yet despite the fact that women can behave as badly as men, they rarely do. The overwhelming majority of violent felons in this country, and indeed across the globe, are men. Only a very small percentage of sexual predators are women. Women do not use rape as a tool of war. Women, in fact, rarely engage in war and use violence far less frequently than men do. Most women vote Democratic in elections, while more men vote Republican. If only women had voted in 2004, Kerry would be president. If only women had voted in 2000, Bush would have never become president. I of course do not advocate revoking male suffrage. Nor do I suggest that the world should be run by women, since it violates basic principles of equality, just as our current patriarchal system does. But to argue that women in the aggregate are as bad as men simply does not hold up to empirical examination.

Edit: One result, unintended I'm sure, of this poll is that it has given a forum for men to express their insecurities about women in their private lives. I find that interesting.

[sir_captain]

71. And on the flip side

it seems to have given some posters a forum to express their feelings about men in general.

[redqueen]

79. IMO, the reason for this is not nature, but nurture.

Males are raised to see every interaction as an interaction between the powerful and the weak. Females are far more likely to see interaction as what it is, instead of a power struggle, hence the lack of violence, aggression, etc.

If we'd stop impressing on our boys that every situation is a contest, and that they need to worry about being the 'winner' all the time and never even appaearing to be anything resembling waek... I think things would change for the better.

[imenja]

91. I'm sure that is true

at least I hope so. I hate to think much of it is actually genetic.

[Spider Jerusalem]

96. That's NOT "nurture", that's nature.

Human social organisation is basically the same as that of lower primates; packs, with group hierarchies. Humans aren't that different from chimpanzees in this regard. The alphas of the group establish their dominance and enforce it, and there's inter-group AND intragroup conflict. I don't really think that's going to change much. Not unless we evolve out of it.

[redqueen]

106. To me, that's nurture.

Take away the socialized attitude about power, and you have someone who can communicate with someone else without feeling threatened if they're criticized.

We NEED to evolve out of it, already.

[redqueen]

78. Well, it is the Lounge. Interestingly... IMO, it's the people

who don't crave power who would likely do the best job of running the world. Precisely because they don't crave power, which is also preciesely why that will never happen.

Ah, life...

[erinlough]

82. How would we know if it would change or not?

We have been in a paternalistic society for thousands of years. I don't want only a change in leadership...hell, look at condoleza.....I want a change in focus. Think about a maternal perspective. How would the "Great Mother" handle a situation. You could have a man in charge in a maternal society however he would solve problems from a feminine perspective. Human Nature is a male thing. The "human nature" I think exists doesn't look anything like violence and competition and war or greed, getting ahead regardless of what it does to others.

What I want to see looks like cooperation, helping each other, trying to understand each other, nurturing, working for the best for all. We have had men like that who were in power, we have had women in power who have adopted a competitive viewpoint. When I talk about women in power I say yes because more of the women I know have that viewpoint.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

104. such stuff pisses me off

cooperation, helping each other, working for the best for all, shall be "feminine" aspects? no wonder patriarchy has remained until today.

it makes my day when i can put a smile on somebody elses face, when problems arise i try to find win-win solutions that are as ok as possible for everyone. But i am a guy and i actually like beeing one and i don't want to be a woman. i might be leaning out the fence here but i assume most guys prefer beeing guys and don't want that line blurred.

if you want the qualities spread further don't label it "feminine". Beeing feminine is not something most men/boys want to achieve.


On the other hand labeling qualities you don't want so spread anymore "masculin" gives them the excuse of beeing abusive, primitive, violent etc.

just my 2CHR

[Dogmudgeon]

100. You forgot one

Elizabeth Bathory.

Very popular with the Goth chicks.

--p!

[Book Lover]

76. How about nobody takes over

and we live in non-federated nations with movable borders and free trade instead?

[Bok_Tukalo]

84. Wasn't the 19th Amendment supposed to effectively end war?

Didn't quite work out, did it?

[mogster]

85. Yep.

:woohoo:

[retread]

86. The question is, why have they not already? n/t

[leftofthedial]

88. Oh lord jesus NO!

My world is in chaos right now thanks to a bunch of insane, wacked-out women.

I used to think they'd run a more peaceful place, but now, I think it would rapidly become a chaotic maelstrom of emotional bullshit.

What we need is a world run by good, smart people, irrespective of gender.

[EstimatedProphet]

90. No-Progressives should rule the world

That will give you the results you are looking for.
IMO power corrupts, and anyone who thinks women would be inherently better should pay attention to Kathleen Harris.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

93. You mean they haven't already?

[Nikia]

95. Not sure

Patriarchy has been the dominant culture in recorded history. We don't know how a matriarchal society would operate. What some of you forget is that most historical and modern female leaders in politics and business are honorary males. In most ways, they act as other rising male leaders, have male mentors, and follow the patriarchal status quo. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with these women. I am a big proponent of being who you are, not a gender role, and that is who they may be comfortable with being. Women who follow closer to the female gender roles, even the roles and talents supposedly valued by society, don't get very far in politics or business. The way to power, in anything larger than a small group of people who all know each other, is aggression and competition. That paridym has to change if there will be world peace, no matter which gender dominates or if we go to a fairer gender egalitarian system.

[NNadir]

98. Wait...before I answer, do I have to include Brittany Spears...

in this calculation?

[One_Life_To_Give]

101. Only if

men have to stay home, take care of all domestic chores. Raise the kids, prepare dinner and be waiting for their wives to get home, wearing a string of pearls, heels and a pretty dress.

[GreenPartyVoter]

103. Golda Meir and Queen Bess I.. two examples on how women running

the show won't necessarily lead to good times.

[GOPBasher]

105. As a man, I'm totally offended...

that 12% of people are voting the wrong way. Of course women should take over the world! Hello? Don't you watch the news, people? Look what's happening with mostly men in charge?

Duh!!!! :banghead: