Originally posted by Scribble
Why 'for now'? If there's an overseas fight you can just send in drones or threaten nukes. Pointless sending group troops over, it creates quagmires like Vietnam and Afghanistan/Iraq.
I can't predict the future. We don't know what will happen. Things people thought would NEVER happen have happened lol. Trump and Brexit.
Anything is possible.
Originally posted by Raisen
we need to accept that men were given the bodies and the mind to lead. feminisim has done nothing but increase crime by glamorizing single mother hood and make women even more miserable by forcing them to feel in a way that is outside their biological imperative. women were happier in the yesteryears. much happier. if they are so much more free. why are so many reporting such misery and taking so many phucking anitdepressants.i blame men for this. men that lost their god damn sense
Not true, imo.
If men were such great leaders, the our society wouldn't be the mess it is.
I'd argue some great leaders are men. Buf not that all (or even most) men are great leaders.
But then, I have an odd view that humanity is more hive like then we're willing to admit, with the vast vast majority existing as "human beasts of burdon" to be exploited.
I mean, the "halo effect" by itself proves we're hard wired to advantage a very few at the expense of the many..
At 35 seconds in Karen Straughan owns.
Originally posted by cdtm
Not true, imo.If men were such great leaders, the our society wouldn't be the mess it is.
I'd argue some great leaders are men. Buf not that all (or even most) men are great leaders.
But then, I have an odd view that humanity is more hive like then we're willing to admit, with the vast vast majority existing as "human beasts of burdon" to be exploited.
I mean, the "halo effect" by itself proves we're hard wired to advantage a very few at the expense of the many..
Or one could look at it as without men as leaders the world would be a lot worse.
Originally posted by Scribble
We have no evidence of that really though. Unless we do. Do we?
Well my point was that it seemed to imply because of the world being the way it is men aren't great leaders. Or it could be they are great for at least having gotten us this far. It's a glass half full vs half empty type shit.
Originally posted by SurturMen can be great leaders, except they often end up being uncaring leaders, leaving most people in poverty and many more dead.
Well my point was that it seemed to imply because of the world being the way it is men aren't great leaders. Or it could be they are great for at least having gotten us this far. It's a glass half full vs half empty type shit.
Originally posted by Scribble
Men can be great leaders, except they often end up being uncaring leaders, leaving most people in poverty and many more dead.
Nobody said they were perfect, we're talking about if things would be better if females were leaders.
I see no evidence.
I see this as an either or. It can be men are horrible leaders and that is why we are where we are. It could be human nature is not like leftists believe, inherently innocent, and men have made the best out of that fact.
Originally posted by SurturSure, they made the best out of it for themselves, anyway.
Nobody said they were perfect, we're talking about if things would be better if females were leaders.I see no evidence.
I see this as an either or. It can be men are horrible leaders and that is why we are where we are. It could be human nature is not like leftists believe, inherently innocent, and men have made the best out of that fact.
Originally posted by Scribble
We have no evidence of that really though. Unless we do. Do we?
What kind of evidence would satisfy the question?
Seems a lot of assumpions are made as is. If you see a disparity of, say, black men in professional basketball, you can see it in two ways:
1. Something intrinsic to blacks accounts for their success.
2. They are unfairly overrepresented.
Or for another example, look to jewish overrepresentation in Hollywood, or asian overrepresentation in higher education.
You can prove a disparity, but nailing down the cause is tricky, if not impossible. Politics/assumptions inevitably follow.
Unfortunately, for "white people", that assumpion is that white's are oppressive. The only one's who say otherwise are other white's, and who's going to listen to them?
And for men, it's pretty much the same when comparing to women..
Speaking of diversity:
http://quillette.com/2016/03/10/the-great-diversity-scam/
In recent years, Diversity in STEM has dominated debate in the media. STEM fields are an “old boys club,” we are assured, and we must take measures to bring equality and fairness to them. In particular, great focus has been put on achieving a “gender balance,” despite the fact that women actually make up a majority in four out of eight STEM fields. Academics will spend hours collecting data and analysing gender ratios at different levels of education, and a lot of research grants are now contingent on an institution attaining a particular type of award, such as the Athena SWAN in the UK.Many jobs have been created to tackle these “issues.” Most large organisations—certainly universities—now have Diversity Officers, Diversity Consultants and Women’s Officers. Many of these Officers and Consultants and the like have academic backgrounds in gender or women’s studies.
The point is, Diversity is just another industry now. And these people are rent-seekers who have a vested interest in solving nothing.
This isn’t an argument against diversity as such. By all means, Diversity can be valuable, but forced diversity implores us to see people by their status as member of a group, rather than their merits as individuals. Take, for instance, this recent article in the New York Post where it was declared that “Gay white guys are not diversity hires.” My response to this (myself, a “gay white guy”) is “Good, thank you,” though I will add, the idea that simply having more diversity adds value to an organisation is a baseless tautology.
Of course, this all came from gender and women’s studies departments in the late ’90s. Perhaps this is why diversity bosses have chosen to focus on the four areas in STEM where men still make up the majority, rather than education, where men make up less than 25% of undergraduate and post-graduate students. This is a much more alarming statistic, given that only one-in-four British primary schools have a single male teacher, and there are over a million children in the UK growing up without a father. With the possible detrimental effects of not having positive male role-models, this is a much more pressing issue than the concerns of middle-class academic women seeking special privileges in their career.
Nothing — other than a desire for work-life balance — is keeping women out of STEM industries. Recent evidence indicates that women applying for positions in STEM are now favoured over men when all else is held equal. There is certainly no problem with equality of opportunity for women. But there are a number of social factors actively keeping men out of teaching, particularly the fear of being falsely accused of abuse and social attitudes to male gender roles. Decades of Institutional Feminism, right up to government level, has done nothing to encourage more men to become teachers. If anything, Institutional Feminism has reinforced problematic social attitudes about male gender roles. Today’s Feminism, the movement that claims to be about equality, is actually just a gynocentric lobby group preoccupied with the first-world concerns of a very small number of women.
Another field where women make up over 75% of the studentship is psychology. Most psychologists in the future will be women. What effect is this going to have when men seek mental health services? What effect is it going to have on the output of research? Given that men are three to seven times more likely to commit suicide, this seems like a real issue.
Curiously, I don’t ever recall seeing much concern about any of these “gender gaps.”
If the Diversity whingers were interested in solving problems, they’d have focused on these issues long ago. It’s time to kick the axe-grinding gynocentrism out of our societal institutions and bring forth a more egalitarian approach.
Stephen Beard is a freelance writer based in Liverpool. Follow him on Twitter @SMABSO
Originally posted by Raisen
hopefully youre speaking for yourself. I do agree. very few authentic people now.
Male femminist: Wants go get in her pants.
Femminist: Rants about male dominance. Likes to be controlled in bed.
Mens rights activist: Leech's off mother.
SJW group: Publically denounces mra's/bigotry. Various members include closet homophobe, guy who talks about "fitties" like they're pieces of meat, guy who bullies at every opportunity..
More or less examples based on people. The only thing that truely seperates the "tea baggers" from the "sjw's" in my experience, is tea baggers are openly douchbags, while sjw's simply save that for private cliques and keep on a careful public face for their diverse "friends" while they all go after the righties.