Women as a civilizing influence (stats, pregnant, female, world)

[manquaman]

Originally Posted by RangerDuke08

It is well unfortunately the inevitable nature of mankind (or womankind), albeit even if there was world peace, it would create a "cheater effect" where ultimately one man or woman would come up of the brilliant idea to take over the world, as if it hasn't been tried and failed miserably before.

I believe you are 100% correct. I also wonder often if this is beautiful and should be celebrated, or is it tragic and something to continue to contemplate?

Richard Dawkins relates the power scenario as one of "hawks" and "doves". Shouldn't an overwhelming awareness and an incresing level of intelligence one day be able to create an irreversable outcome? Murder is bad; the percentage of people who understand this is much greater than thoses who do not. Are we making progress and can it continue? Will there come a time when murder is a rarity? Will there come a time when people embrace the ideals that we know we should because we can identify what they are?

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by RangerDuke08

albeit even if there was world peace, it would create a "cheater effect" where ultimately one man or woman would come up of the brilliant idea to take over the world

I guess that as long as there are people who’re convinced that they (or an idea) can take over the world, humankind will be stuck in their caves (read: living rooms) and the shadows on the wall (read: TV/PC)?

[manquaman]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by RangerDuke08 I guess that as long as there are people who’re convinced that they (or an idea) can take over the world, humankind will be stuck in their caves (read: living rooms) and the shadows on the wall (read: TV/PC)?

One nutball with an ego problem should not be able to influence sensible people who know that not only is it not possible to 'take over the world', but it is a very difficult thing to get ten people in a room to agree completely on something. Can an increased level of literacy around the world reduce the appearance of these nutballs?

[thotful1]

Whether it be a man (men) or woman (women), we seem to be destined to suffer the inevitable influences of hubris, greed and lust. Sooner or later, whether it be Hitler, Stalin, some African despot who first promised his people the world (Idi Amin), or or world socialist superiority (Pol Pot, or that wacked North Korean Dear One Kim Jong Il, or Castro), it always ends up the same: total chaos. Almost all of it driven by men's lusting. Sometimes with a sleazy female standing or hiding behind him, whispering in his ear.

Perhaps in the future, when we've all been downsized and humbled by a global pandemic, future wars or whatever, we can sensibly design small locally governed societies without fantasies about taking over the next small community down the road.

To that end, a woman's influence on the scheming by our typical but politically dominant warlike males (Rumsfeldt, Putin, the P. Republic Of China Defence Ministry) would be a good thing. Even overlooking our fantasized Amazon Women, I think we women CAN also be goaded into more aggressive thinking but in general I'm confident it's not the norm for us.

My husband say that long as I still keep making him dinner and cleaning the toilets he says to let us have a go at politics as well!!!! He's so generous, right?

[texdav]

Its really the same flaws in humans that cause so miuch of the crime in every country that have always been there. The police look to these same things when looking for movitive for any crime.

[SCGranny]

Hey!
Whatever happened to "the female is the more deadly of the species"?

I do not think that women are a stabilizing influence. Women lust as much for power, money, longevity, fame, and all of the other 'male' drives. SOME women. Just as some men have no need or desire for power, but simply want to be left alone, some women are the same way. The only difference is that men like to pretend that a woman with these drives is stunted sexually, and 'wants to be a man' - no she doesn't, she wants to be herself. And sometimes herself is a hard-driving, power- and money-driven, hard-cold-and-driving-straight-from-the-shoulder human being.

Women who allow themselves to be thought of as 'the weaker sex' or "the softer sex" are simply using manipulation instead of force to get what they want. Does that make them better than men at political machinations? Yes - until the gloves come off.

I know women who can do any and everything a man can do - and do it all day. They like doing it. They like being welders, politicians, cowgirls, sharpshooters, Drill Instructors, wranglers, firefighters, and cops. Some like the physical more than the mental challenges. And some decide to be soft and made-up and cuddly simply because they have no skills to match a man in their world. Still others decide to be wives and mothers to hide from the world rather than to daily challenge it. Still others espouse religious convictions of 'hearth and home' because they realize that, in their society, it is the only 'approved' way to get what they want. Still others decide to be childlike and dependent - again to get what they want.

There are as many types of women as there are men. What is a stabilizing influence is - common sense. The ability to get what one wants without harming others or oneself. And that is not a trait specifically found in men - or women - or the educated.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

There are as many types of women as there are men.

The main difference between the sexes is that women are geared to think of their children 1st (they have to be emphatic with their children), while this might not be the case with men.
Because women only have a limited period of time to become pregnant, while men can 'theoretically' stay fertile all his life.


Originally Posted by manquaman

One nutball with an ego problem should not be able to influence sensible people who know that not only is it not possible to 'take over the world', but it is a very difficult thing to get ten people in a room to agree completely on something.

It all has to do with seducing the other's ego, which eventually will result in the me-me-me generation.

[thotful1]

Mr Obama, for which I and many others hold a near-fanatical hope for change, may succeed where so many other old-fashioned thinkers have failed. You can't really distainfully hold George "W"'s thinking against him; it is a very real result of his traditional and traditional-politics upbringing. I've heard a lot lately from, strangely, NPR, about just how "nice" a man he really is. How he doesn't make friends with shallow people, and is quite genuine. Not a drinker now, not a cheater on his wife, not one to spend our taxes frivolously (as Billy Clinton surely did...) on dining out in Washington, DC (he and Laura apparently went out exactly 3 times during his 8 years! Wow!). He supported AIDS research with billions in foreign aid dollars, and was very keen on Laura's interests in early childhood education.

These sorts of things would perhaps position him as having a more soft, discussional feminine perspective. Rumsfeldt was quite the opposite, wouldn't you say? Maybe George's soft "fem" perspective just can't work in this hard-core nasty world (probably it's that way because the vast majority of rulers, despots, monarchs and oligarchs are male!).

Under most male's outward polite cultural skin there lurks a cave-man, ready to pick up a stick, a club, a spear, a knife or a 44 Magnum and then fight for his turf against the persistant attacks by other less controlled or polite male aggressors.

We need a global change in perspectives, respect for others and required female participation in all future government affairs!

Band together, sisters! The NewAge Amazon Club (but no androgynous femo-males or femi-nazis please!). Do we get to carry nice threatening sidearms? Spears? Or a nice Angelfood cake?

[jimboburnsy]

Originally Posted by Book Lover 21

Okay, I understand this thread is going to be asking for trouble, but I can take it, I'm tough!

What separates countries that engage in genocide and other atrocities from countries that do not? Yes, you could say that almost every country has been guilty of this at some time in its history, but what changes a country from a scene of horrors to a benevolent force for good and vice versa?

My thought is that it may be the civilizing influence of women. Of course, women are present in all countries, but in which countries do they actually have an influence? Have there been countries that engaged in dispicable practices that had women in positions of power? In the US, it is generally agreed that women getting the right to vote was a major factor in the advances in civil rights and women's rights movements.

I've read books that discuss genocide, but the authors could never pinpoint a common link between all of the countries that allowed this behavior. Could it be a lack of women as a civilizing influence?

I doubt it. If you need your lofty opinion of the civility of women lowered a notch or three, just click here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0bTwA1GopA

or here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk1D-Lt73Uc

or here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STDaJKbDrxE

[jimboburnsy]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

The main difference between the sexes is that women are geared to think of their children 1st (they have to be emphatic with their children), while this might not be the case with men.
Because women only have a limited period of time to become pregnant, while men can 'theoretically' stay fertile all his life.

I must be misunderstanding your intention, because this sounds like the most ridiculous effluence to ever spew forth from the mouth of a childless fool.