What If Women Ran This Village Called Earth?

FinsburyParkCarrots

blondieblue227

ha! what's the latest on that? i haven't been following? have they checked her yet?
Nevermind a penis, check for steroids.

decides2dream

blackredyellow wrote:

One thing that I was thinking today is that it probably wouldn't change much if women were our leaders, because of the type of person (male or female) who wants to be a leader, and is good at it.

Most of our leaders (in the political sense) have the same traits... competitiveness, a drive to succeed, an ego, etc... I don't think that it matters what sex a leader is, they pretty much have the same psychological/character make up.

this pretty much sums it up for me. also, we as a society would have to have a pretty fundamental shift in our collective desires and expectations of leadership, and of living life in general, for any substantive change to occur in how the various countries of the world are run...and that is way beyond merely what gender our leaders are.

Random_Wookie

can I ask what do we look for in a leader? answering that will help you define the qualities in a person that we look for to elect into office! then you need to ask you is the person willing to do it!

Random_Wookie

BhagavadGita wrote:

Concessions?

....how can humanity not make peace our number one goal?

How sad to perpetuate the idea that peace isn't possible, not even on this thread. It's mostly men against woman.

peace is not possible due to own nature, someone some where will be suffering due to some one else. this suffering my be physical,mental,emotional, etc.

Lauri

soulsinging wrote:

The flipside is that we probably wouldn't have survived the Cold War. It's easy for women to think they'd be a softening influence on things, but ask any man who's lived with one how peaceful things are around the house for those few days at the end of the month... you can't blow up on a nuclear armed enemy because you can't control your hormones and are feeling "bloated and emotional." I can see more wars because women in charge were feeling super sensitive one day and Russia was being a total bitch and who the hell does Russia think it is?

As someone who has a lot of major medical problems related to female hormones, I think I can argue that this scenario would never happen, and is a very silly excuse men use as to why it's a good thing women aren't these positions. I would never underestimate the power of female hormones in changing one's behavior or personality, and rationality at that-I have experienced the absolute worst of it. However, most commonly, the aggression is generally taken out on the self- the woman in question would not want to blow up the world, rather, she would probably get very anxious and experience deep self-loathing. Her "irrational" act would probably be to demand she be taken out of her position of power because she doesn't deserve it.

Luckily we also have medication that can help with these things now, so it shouldn't even really be an issue. The problem continues with ignorance about women's health issues, and lagging of the medical community to devote resources to exploring these issues. I almost can't tell if the post I quoted is joking or is just displaying some ignorance on the issue, but from what I've gone through, I just find it to be a very difficult thing to joke about.

More importantly, the question is: would we even HAVE nuclear weapons if women were in charge? You really have to wonder. I don't know many women who chose to work in weapons fields, and there are less women in the military than men. I don't think we care as much for war, I honestly don't. And I'm not one to really stress a difference in the sexes- I never buy into the whole men are from mars women are...thing. But I think there are some broader issues that...maybe.

Lauri

soulsinging wrote:

if a woman doesn't have a job or family, it's going to hurt her candidacy by leaving her vulnerable to accusations of inexperience or the dreaded "mannish woman" accusations (because a woman that isn't obsessed with kids is too weird for middle America).

This is really a huge point. People often accuse single female politicians of "not having lives." It doesn't matter if you live a full, happy life full of friends and family and ambition and accomplishments- if you are not married with children, you don't have "a life." On the flip side, if a female politician DOES have a husband and kids, she will be accused of not having enough time to devote to the position.

Men sometimes get this too, however, I don't think it's as bad. They are expected to be married and have families, but since the women are at home picking up their dry cleaning, it's ok.

On a personal note, yes being a woman who is not obsessed with kids is a really weird position to be in. People assume that you are; employers STILL tend to assume that you are just waiting for the right man to come along, and as soon as does, bam, you're out of there. I got into some conversation with my boss about not being interested in getting married and having kids (he made the assumption that I was waiting for both, and I needed to correct him just to point out that it's not a safe assumption to make about every woman you meet), and I know he thinks much less of me after that.

blondieblue227

It’s funny. At times it seems like the women’s movement in the sixties never happened at all.

catefrances

dunkman wrote:

BhagavadGita wrote:

found this on the net...

"It is getting harder to escape the sense that most of the trouble in the world – whether it's coming out of the Senate, a mortgage lender, or a tank turret – can be traced to one overriding problem: too many men steering. Had our economic, domestic, and foreign policy been more informed by women, we might be enjoying a safer ride?"

Would the world be a softer place with more woman at the wheel? In tribal cultures, women ran the village while the man were away doing the physical work, obtaining food.

I think women have much to bring to the table....

and in these tribal villages the women have to walk 6 miles every day for clean water... and yet its never occurred to them to relocate 5.9 miles further towards the water source?

has it never occurred to you that the water source is in a flood plain or some other place not compatible with building a village???

fife

BhagavadGita wrote:

fife wrote:

i don't really believe that the world would be that different if women ran it compared to men. alot of people have been saying how women would not do the things that men do but i think that this is not fair to say. the reason is that we don't know what women would have done if they were in power. one can easily say that the reason that women are not in power is because they don't act like men.

Act like men how?

How many female loggers have you met?

Woman are not in power because men are physically stronger than woman. Period.

i don't think you can say that women are not in power becuase men are physically stronger than them. i know soem women who are stronger than men. i believe that people who get into government have a strong desire to succeed and will do anything to succeed. alot of people in society still believe in teh old sterotypes that say that men are the hunters and women are the cooks. i believe that this is fully entrenched in our mindsight. for a women to get into power, she must act as the sterotypical man. of course that doesn't work either, i think Hillary can be a good example o fthat. she doesn't act like the sterotypical women and people saying she is a bitch and when she crys and people ask if she could handle being the president.

dunkman

catefrances wrote:

dunkman wrote:

BhagavadGita wrote:

found this on the net...

"It is getting harder to escape the sense that most of the trouble in the world – whether it's coming out of the Senate, a mortgage lender, or a tank turret – can be traced to one overriding problem: too many men steering. Had our economic, domestic, and foreign policy been more informed by women, we might be enjoying a safer ride?"

Would the world be a softer place with more woman at the wheel? In tribal cultures, women ran the village while the man were away doing the physical work, obtaining food.

I think women have much to bring to the table....

and in these tribal villages the women have to walk 6 miles every day for clean water... and yet its never occurred to them to relocate 5.9 miles further towards the water source?

has it never occurred to you that the water source is in a flood plain or some other place not compatible with building a village???

vast majority of african water is sourced from wells... not flood plains... flood plains would contaminate the water.

catefrances

dunkman wrote:

catefrances wrote:

dunkman wrote:

and in these tribal villages the women have to walk 6 miles every day for clean water... and yet its never occurred to them to relocate 5.9 miles further towards the water source?

has it never occurred to you that the water source is in a flood plain or some other place not compatible with building a village???

vast majority of african water is sourced from wells... not flood plains... flood plains would contaminate the water.

oh i see... so all tribes are from africa????... how stupid of me... what was i thinking.

dunkman

catefrances wrote:

dunkman wrote:

catefrances wrote:

has it never occurred to you that the water source is in a flood plain or some other place not compatible with building a village???

vast majority of african water is sourced from wells... not flood plains... flood plains would contaminate the water.

oh i see... so all tribes are from africa????... how stupid of me... what was i thinking.

everyone is from Africa

BhagavadGita

blondieblue227 wrote:

It’s funny. At times it seems like the women’s movement in the sixties never happened at all.

.........................

catefrances

dunkman wrote:

catefrances wrote:

dunkman wrote:

vast majority of african water is sourced from wells... not flood plains... flood plains would contaminate the water.

oh i see... so all tribes are from africa????... how stupid of me... what was i thinking.

everyone is from Africa

well yes of course we are. in origin... but at this particular juncture in mans history we are quite
widely dispersed.

dunkman

catefrances wrote:

dunkman wrote:

catefrances wrote:

oh i see... so all tribes are from africa????... how stupid of me... what was i thinking.

everyone is from Africa

well yes of course we are. in origin... but at this particular juncture in mans history we are quite
widely dispersed.

this is true. my point that all water sources from flood plains would most likely be contaminated still stands.

my other point is that the wee winking fucker at the end of a sentence normally means i'm joking... so i dont genuinely believe that those women who walk 6 miles per day for clean water are doing it for the sheer fun of it...

oh if women did indeed rule this village called earth it would be less funny... put it that way

i did the winking guy there... christians have free will... i have the winking fucker

catefrances

dunkman wrote:

this is true. my point that all water sources from flood plains would most likely be contaminated still stands.

my other point is that the wee winking fucker at the end of a sentence normally means i'm joking... so i dont genuinely believe that those women who walk 6 miles per day for clean water are doing it for the sheer fun of it...

oh if women did indeed rule this village called earth it would be less funny... put it that way

i did the winking guy there... christians have free will... i have the winking fucker

what the fuck are you on about scotsman???

in regards to the thread. and for the sake of integrity... i am of the opinion that given time women would resort to the same ways as men. you can not fuck with my children and expect to get away with it. same goes with women ruling the world. when push comes to shove we will defend it with all the violence that men have thus far. anyone that thinks otherwise is deluded.

BhagavadGita

"early hunter-gatherer societies were essentially egalitarian, with men and women fulfilling distinct, complementary roles of equal perceived value and worshipping goddesses as representative of women's reproductive power. With the shift to agriculture seemingly came increased male control over the public sphere and ultimately the subordination of female deities: typically they were recast as the consorts or mothers of male gods, then absorbed into a coed but male-controlled pantheon."

again, as I said in another thread....'our culture is killing us.'

The fact that no one can even visualize peace on this planet, is sad indeed. :?

fife

BhagavadGita wrote:

"early hunter-gatherer societies were essentially egalitarian, with men and women fulfilling distinct, complementary roles of equal perceived value and worshipping goddesses as representative of women's reproductive power. With the shift to agriculture seemingly came increased male control over the public sphere and ultimately the subordination of female deities: typically they were recast as the consorts or mothers of male gods, then absorbed into a coed but male-controlled pantheon."

again, as I said in another thread....'our culture is killing us.'

The fact that no one can even visualize peace on this planet, is sad indeed. :?

i agree that it is our culture that is kiling us.

BTW, i can visualize peace on the planet, i just don't it is as simple as saying that the world would be better if women were running it. what we need is a code of ethics not a code of morals.

decides2dream

fife wrote:

BhagavadGita wrote:

"early hunter-gatherer societies were essentially egalitarian, with men and women fulfilling distinct, complementary roles of equal perceived value and worshipping goddesses as representative of women's reproductive power. With the shift to agriculture seemingly came increased male control over the public sphere and ultimately the subordination of female deities: typically they were recast as the consorts or mothers of male gods, then absorbed into a coed but male-controlled pantheon."

again, as I said in another thread....'our culture is killing us.'

The fact that no one can even visualize peace on this planet, is sad indeed. :?

i agree that it is our culture that is kiling us.

BTW, i can visualize peace on the planet, i just don't it is as simple as saying that the world would be better if women were running it. what we need is a code of ethics not a code of morals.

too true.
i do think it is possible, though more than likely...improbable. the history of humanity does not seem to be entirely 'peaceful'....and just like many other animals on this planet, we fight over territories and resources, the best of everything. it's got nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with humankind, overall.