No.

Maybe.

Only in lingerie.

I don't want to see Hillary Clinton in lingerie.

http://www.prevention.com/health/emotional-health/both-women-and-men-display-attitudes-benevolent-sexism

No shit. ^

Only in lingerie and preapproved by a High Commitee of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
#draugbo2013 #17andmostlynaked #fuckthucy

My mother once said if women ruled the world, there would be no war. women do not fight wars. My response:

Golda Meir - War of Attrition, 1969-70; Yom Kippur War, 1973
Indira Gandhi - Pakistani Civil War, 1971; Siachen War, 1984
Margaret Thatcher - Falklands, 1982, IRA Long War, 1980's

If women ran the world, there would never be any wars...just every 28 days some intense negotiations.

@nudge..

Now let's list all the wars fought by men, shall we?

@nudge - in Maggie's defence, the IRA were 'at war' with the British when Thatcher took power. (if you count it as a war at all... but that's just a failure of our language to be specific)

And secondly... do i need to bother explaining that Margaret Thatcher was the least womanly woman known? nah, that's too complex an issue...

Margaret Thatcher would take most guys in a fight.

@Bo Sox: Problem with that is that 99.99% of leaders in history have been me, so of course 99.99% of wars would have been started by men.

Lol, I know, Fasces. I'm just assuming nudge is screwing with people so I'm taking a stab at it too o_O

That's schizophrenia on an entirely different level. Which of your personas did you like the most? Wasn't it boring to fight against your other selves all the time? Where did you draw your motivation from?

"do i need to bother explaining that Margaret Thatcher was the least womanly woman known?"

Try telling that to her balls.

Anyone else ever read Egalia's Daughters?

If women were running the banks would we have had the international banking crisis?
If the USA had a female President would they be fighting as many wars overseas, would they need to?

Margaret Thatcher wasn't an 'unwomanly' woman. She was what a woman with great political power looks like. I get extremely frustrated with arguments along the lines of 'women are forced to act like men when they take positions of power'. It's utter tosh. Most men don't act like politicians or senior board members either. Women who take those positions aren't therefore acting like men. They're acting like people with power.

If Thatcher had chosen a career as a brick layer I dare say she would have come across as a completely different person, despite both professions being traditionally male dominated.

Some time ago I read a book about this topic (women ruling the nation/s), and author made some interesting points based on history and psychology of the man/woman behavior. The conclusion was that women would behave far more aggressively than man could if they have power in their hands. Besides, genetically speaking women are superior beings than man are, having 46 chromosomes capable of carrying information (44 autosomes and 2 sex chromosomes ), while man only have 45 chromosomes capable of carrying inforamtions (Y chromosome being only sex determent and with no gene base ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons

Man beware, beware! ;)

If we replaced the men in senior positions with women, we'd see nothing short of wide-scale corruption, social and economic collapse, and perhaps the destruction of world civilization.

Why? Because 'replacing' all those men would require nothing short of a Communist-style centralized government. And we all know how well that bullshit turns out every single time. Can't be having all these male pigs and their private companies oppressing womankind now can we? No way, gotta fold all that shit into the Bureau of Gender Privilege and start giving a little 'diversity training' if you catch my drift.

If women ruled the world men would take it over.

I'm 47 and since I was born I've learnt some very basic general differences about men and woman.
In very simple terms here are a few:-
1) Man are great at going to war, not so smart at winning the peace
2) Men handle success well, not so cute with failure.
3) Men are good literal thinkers, not so good at lateral thinking
4) Men see success in monetary terms, i.e. how much they can earn. Women are more concerned about what they can get with the money they have.
5) Men get fixated about solving problems, not so much about understanding them, this can and has lead to disasterous govt foreign policies.
6) Many men believe they are superior to women, that is a big mistake. The man who learns to drive from the back seat can have everything he wants, women have mastered this art with egotistical males.
7) Men are great at shaking hands, not so good at hugging. Women by default then are better at building rapport. Rapport is very important in making friends and influencing people, good skill for ambassadors and diplomats. How many women are in these positions, probably not enough.
Please feel free to add .....

I second everything NigeeBaby said.

@Commander Cool
Few hundred years ago, Tatars came to my country and burned everything to the ground(1/4 of the population was killed in the process). Because of that custom emerged, so parents or grandparents told to bad children that if they do not behave good, Tatars will get them at night and take them away. I think in USA you have your own Tatars, you just call them Communists. Few people understand what communism really is. In one age people burnt witches, in other communists, and who knows who would be burn in the next.

I did live in communist country, and personally I do not like communism at all, but much things said about communism today is total science fiction, that is very far from anything that really happened during that time. The same worth for Tatars. :)

I have to take issue with some of those points. Women in their traditional role were given a household budget and had to get the most out of it. Men in their traditional role were the main breadwinners and had to maximise the amount of bread they won. That people get good at what they do every day is no great surprise.

As far as the other points go, in my experience I don't recognise the female ability to cope well with failure, nor at winning the peace (family feuds are often fronted by the men of the household but lovingly kept alive by the women women).
3 I don't see any evidence for.
5 is true, but I don't think women are much better.
As far as 6 goes men and women are equal in knowing they're superior.
As for 7... my instincts suggest otherwise but i don't know one way or the other.

“If you think that women would run the world better, then you've forgotten high school.” -Madeleine Albright

If women ruled the world, then we would not have Ford, Chrysler, General Motors etc. We would have The Red Car Store, The Blue Car Store, The Yellow Car Store etc. "Honey, we're going to look at Blue Cars today!"

"Do they have this car in yellow?"

If women could rule the world....wouldn't they already be doing so? Assuming most of you believe in evolution, wouldn't you say that because men pretty much across the board rule in societies, and given that for the most part males and females assume predictably different roles in the animal kingdom in general, then isn't it obvious that, via the evolutionary process, women are not "meant" to rule, or are incapable of ruling, or else they would?

Not incapable as in "physically" incapable -- but incapable as in, "I don't want to/my mental drives do not push me to because as a woman I have other objectives - either consciously or unconsciously".

You can't believe in evolution and then say the outcomes are wrong...therefore, woman can't rule the world, or else they would...would have somewhere at some time, other than a few isolated incidents.

Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it. I'll bow out now and let the troll-bait simmer...

Hey Dejan, great to see you're back! Are you coming back to play with us soon?

I have a small remark to make on your statement about communism and how very few people understand how it is. You most probably know better than me what living in a communism country is, but I'd say the biggest problem with communism is how humans in control of the system use it. In theory, a pure state of communism is what most people on this planet fight for: equal rights, equal freedom, equal everything for everyone in the country where the split of goods is done equally to the citizens. So in theory everything's sound like a damn great utopia. But what changes everything is what happens for real. There will always be people in command or even within the population that will want to have an edge over others. They will want to have a bigger slice of what is given to them and the most dangerous part is about those that are actually responsible of making that split amongst the population and it can lead to very dangerous results. The only communist country I went to is Cuba two years ago to La Havane to see the historic part of it and the culture and how was I surprised to see how life was out there. Pictures of The Che, Fidel Castro and their 3rd wingman just everywhere in the city, and everyone was only talking about "la revolución de Fidel Castro", but that happened in the early 1900s! And still it is what people are only allowed to discuss of and how great their leader is. When meeting locals out there they didn't even want to speak about the politics of the country because they were afraid some other citizen might report them to the government and face jail for being against the system. I once saw what totalitarian policies were and actually live them. Of course travelers are free out there because they bring the money in the country, so we have a free pass. But since everyone wants a bigger slice of what they're given, they will try everyday to gain money on the black market or by working in the tourism industry. It leads to a lot of internal problems. How come someone working in the tourism industry makes more money than a Doctor? And I'm not even talking about the high prostitution rate.

I used to idealize communism when I was younger but when seeing how it actually worked practically, I just couldn't stand it. I guess it's like every religion. In theory, it is supposed to be a message of love and peace and how to love your fellows, but practically it's how people interpret the message given by it that leads to extremism.