The Real Problem--Women in Leadership

Wiring suggests programming. Yes, if someone is wired a certain way, they can't change or decide their way out of it without significant intervention.

Here is a more appropriate use of the word:

Human females are wired to start a cycle around the age of puberty. ​

There is no "less likely" or "more likely" involved. They are wired this way and there is no deciding or changing this without some significant factor changing this. You cannot say the same for how a woman will react in certain situations because those reactions are made independently and with considerations. Moreover, a woman can change her mind at any time and behave or react differently.

 

Your statement makes no sense.

A woman can't DECIDE whether or not to have her period.

You are trying to compare a set biological function with decision making.

Being wired toward violence simply means you are more likely to choose violence and better prepared to do violence when it's needed.

Thus the superiority of men in decision-making when violence is required.

Women......less prone to violence and even repelled by violence......may delay when quick action is required.

Look at this.......Hillary is having second thoughts and is repelled.......the men are enthusiastic about the killing.

 

One picture ......hilarious

 

Now you're getting it. A woman can't decide on a cycle because she's programmed, or wired, to have one. A reaction is totally different from something you can't control because a reaction is how you decide to react and this is individually based not sex-based.

Another thing, a single instance is just that. A single instance. One image isn't something I would say is scientifically based. Sorry 'bout your luck on that.

Your read on the image is subjective. You are assuming the reactions of the other men in the room. You also ignore the woman in the back who seems wholly unaffected by what is going on.

 

Sounds like , according to your "evaluation", women are far superior to men in every way....you sure make men look bad....

 

I wish I could say the same about you.

Well, keep reading.

 

I'm quite aware of the superiority of women in many areas......but this thread is not about that.

Note what I said:

Women are simply not genetically wired to be trusted to make logical and tough decisions on some issues.

And I said that I realize there are exceptions.......but for the most part--when it comes to killing people......you can't fight the genetics of gender and the programming of women by our culture.

 

MEN are simply not genetically wired to be trusted to make logical and tough decisions on some issues....as you have shown here



Fear of women is an ugly thing...

 

Except.......I haven't shown that and I don't fear women......other than those two points your post is totally accurate.

What I have shown is that women in general are less prone to violence and therefore may well show weakness, uncertainty and potentially damaging hesitation in taking violent action.

This has implications for the military and the police........thus all of America.

 

How utterly egotistical and arrogant does one need to be to think they are saving America with a sexist diatribe on an internet message board?

 

Last thoughts on the subject:

• When presented with economic and educational opportunities, many women will delay or forego being nurturers and sacrificing themselves for the next generation. Case in point: Many first world countries are experiencing drastic drops in fertility rates as women become more educated and economically independent. The supposed tendency towards nurture and self sacrifice seems to reverse when women have options. This should not happen if women are wired the way the OP suggests.
  
  
• Women have no issues aborting children even at industrial levels (e.g. 1 child (pro-male) policy in China) when it is the best economic option for them. While abortion is a drastic measure to take for birth control, imho, it suggests that many women are able to logically see the financial implications of having children they cannot afford versus having them.
  
  
• The last thing I see when I look at Hillary R Clinton is a relaxed and nurturing person with compassion. I find it pretty ironic she's used as an example for how the OP wants to paint women.
  
  
• Women are relegated to certain roles in society so their ability to exercise logic and tough decision making at major levels are limited. This suggests that women are forced into certain behaviors, not that they are wired for them.

 

If women were NOT wired the way the OP suggests there would be no need to "reverse."

 

Reword this if you don't mind.

 

That picture is powerful because it shows that even a mean and selfish bitch is still repelled by killing people.

No matter that she's dangerous in other ways......she still shows her programming gives her trouble when it comes to down and dirty murder.

 

This is definitely what the Republicans should put at the center of their platform.

 

Remember it's not just going on now......it's been going on for thousands of years.

Whether you choose to call it programmed or wired.......women end up with deficits when it comes to making choices to kill people.

It's obviously both nature and nurture.......just as I've been saying.

 

Republicans DO seem more aware of the problem than Democrats.

 

Indeed. Please please please make open misogyny a central tenet of your party’s platform.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
MEN are simply not genetically wired to be trusted to make logical and tough decisions on some issues....as you have shown here
Fear of women is an ugly thing...

Yes, making the statements about women that you have does indicate fear of women..


....making excuses to take power away from women is FEARING women.

Segregating women in any way is showing fear of women.


Putting one's head firmly in the sand and ignoring what women have done throughout history IS fearing women.



YOU: """that women in general are less prone to violence and therefore may well show weakness, uncertainty and potentially damaging hesitation in taking violent action. ""

So you want more violent people to rule.


You equate "being less prone to violence" as a weakness!


You are CLAIMING that men have NEVER ever shown weakness, uncertainty and potentially damaging hesitation in taking violent action...

AND consider charging ahead without thought to do violence is a good thing !!???

I guess if one worships and encourages violence you'd agree...

 

So I guess the Republicans will be having a panty twisting party after Kirsten Gillibrand wins the presidency in 2020.

 

You haven't been around the block enough times, there are some bad a** bi+***s out there, that wouldn't hesitate to plug you. I've seen a few vindictive women, who, if given enough power, would be just as ruthless as any man.

 

Isn't it though, with their anti-feminist, anti-abortion, anti-metoo stance.

 

You posted a list of concerns. Have you seen Angela Merkel demonstrate any of them? How about Joni Ernst or Marsha Blackburn?

 

THANK YOU!! You show that the current hype about "more women in congress" is BS, and the real concern is not women, but the class stand one takes. I do agree, however, that more women with the desired class stand would be an improvement.

 

Since men have been the ones controlling things for the last several hundred years, and if their judgement is so great, why is the world so messed up?