If women ruled the world there would be world peace

[Schizophonia]

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Bro you're literally me from 10 years ago; viewing everything through the lens of pharmacology/physiology 

Of course, biology is not a signifiant factor in people's behavior and political opinions, its EVERYTHING.

Put a lot of clomid in your town's running water and watch it become the satanic town of Outlast 2, lol. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by Schizophonia

[An young being]

56 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Of course, biology is not a signifiant factor in people's behavior and political opinions, its EVERYTHING.

Put a lot of clomid in your town's running water and watch it become the satanic town of Outlast 2, lol. 

Biology can be everything, but physics is the thing.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, An young being said:

Biology can be everything, but physics is the thing.

???

[Danioover9000]

@An young being

6 hours ago, An young being said:

Biology can be everything, but physics is the thing.

   Please elaborate.

[An young being]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

???

 

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

@An young being

   Please elaborate.

Just a fun fight between different fields of science! Simply means physics is more fundamental than biology.

Edited October 10, 2023 by An young being

[Danioover9000]

@BlueOak

22 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I think so far it was a wide split of perspectives. 

   I still think that if women ruled the world there would be more chaos, because if feminism ruled the world, they'd defund and destroy the patriarchy and cut down on enforcement arms.

[An young being]

To stir this up further, what is called Love in the other section is biology, whereas what is called absolute or nothing is physics.

16 minutes ago, An young being said:

 

Just a fun fight between different fields of science! Simply means physics is more fundamental than biology.

 

[An young being]

1 minute ago, Danioover9000 said:

@BlueOak

   I still think that if women ruled the world there would be more chaos, because if feminism ruled the world, they'd defund and destroy the patriarchy and cut down on enforcement arms.

Lol, but fortunately or unfortunately all women are not feminists.

[StarStruck]

This is the reason why there are no great chess players 

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@BlueOak

   I still think that if women ruled the world there would be more chaos, because if feminism ruled the world, they'd defund and destroy the patriarchy and cut down on enforcement arms.

This forms several generalized assumptions about such a wide range of countries, conditions or challenges, as well as individuals and personalities that I can't agree, disagree or really answer effectively. Answering: Some people are better suited to different situations is about the best I can do. Further to form this conclusion you've assumed the woman running the show is a feminist, and a specific type of militant feminist as well. 

As a more simple counterpoint, when you step into a career or position, you inherently have to adjust your personality to that role to do it effectively. You are what you do, is true, on many levels.

Edited October 10, 2023 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, StarStruck said:

This is the reason why there are no great chess players 

I would like to see a woman playing five chess games at once. I think then you'd see the scales tip the opposite way. 

Women tend toward being better at multi-tasking, while men often tend toward being better at a singular focus. I do watch a fair amount of chess and conversation during the game tends to help women quite a lot.

Apparently, biologically this is down to the different roles we evolved within. Multi-tasking being very useful for keeping track of children, and in early communities being very useful for managing food, or assigning resources and tasks. While the man's singular focus was a bonus in hunting, handling threats, or combat. I would assume the people who were better at these roles were more successful, and so had more children and so on.

[StarStruck]

@BlueOak humans can’t multitask. We can only focus on one thing. 
https://www.thoughtco.com/can-people-really-multitask-1206398#:~:text=Multitasking is a myth.,"think" about are considered.

[BlueOak]

6 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

@BlueOak humans can’t multitask. We can only focus on one thing. 
https://www.thoughtco.com/can-people-really-multitask-1206398#:~:text=Multitasking is a myth.,"think" about are considered.

'Handling many tasks concurrently' or 'Focusing on one task'  If you prefer.

Edited October 10, 2023 by BlueOak

[Danioover9000]

@BlueOak

41 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

This forms several generalized assumptions about such a wide range of countries, conditions or challenges, as well as individuals and personalities that I can't agree, disagree or really answer effectively. Answering: Some people are better suited to different situations is about the best I can do. Further to form this conclusion you've assumed the woman running the show is a feminist, and a specific type of militant feminist as well. 

As a more simple counterpoint, when you step into a career or position, you inherently have to adjust your personality to that role to do it effectively. You are what you do, is true, on many levels.

   So, 'if women ruled the world there would be world peace' is a false statement by OP?

   Where in my post did I assume the women are feminists or militant? I stated 'feminism' meaning not just women, but men, children, ghosts, robots, or aliens that have feminism ideology, the ideology itself is what I refer to not the person. The person is being used as a proxy for the ideology.

   When I step into a career or position, I inherently have to adjust my personality to the role to be effective? So, as a female, stepping into a career of a politician, into a position of a passionate public speaker, adjusting my personality into a masculine gender role to suit the image of a strong leader, wearing the trench coats, leading the third Reich, with feminism style, due to how beautiful I am, is this the most effective for world peace?

[BlueOak]

24 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@BlueOak

   So, 'if women ruled the world there would be world peace' is a false statement by OP?

   Where in my post did I assume the women are feminists or militant? I stated 'feminism' meaning not just women, but men, children, ghosts, robots, or aliens that have feminism ideology, the ideology itself is what I refer to not the person. The person is being used as a proxy for the ideology.

   When I step into a career or position, I inherently have to adjust my personality to the role to be effective? So, as a female, stepping into a career of a politician, into a position of a passionate public speaker, adjusting my personality into a masculine gender role to suit the image of a strong leader, wearing the trench coats, leading the third Reich, with feminism style, due to how beautiful I am, is this the most effective for world peace?

How are you expecting me, you or any single individual to accurately conceptualize or model 8.1 billion people into this kind of question? 

Quote

I still think that if women ruled the world there would be more chaos, because if feminism ruled the world, they'd defund and destroy the patriarchy and cut down on enforcement arms.

You said female leaders would cause chaos because of feminism destroying patriarchy. So I said this would only apply to militant feminists. I could go further and say militant feminists who encounter a defined enough patriarchy to oppose, and who have enough people that also share this view. Reducing the number of leaders you are referring to further. Especially given the backlash against overt feminism, meaning they would have trouble getting into a position of leadership with a strong following.

Most people are not militant extremists, despite what modern media would have us believe. Even politicians who act that way in the public spotlight are often not ideologically driven, many do it these days because it gets them noticed, funded, or a certain amount of external power or anger to use.

Have you never seen a feminine public speaker? I certainly have. Do you believe only men can display passion publicly? Yes, we do benefit from adjusting ourselves to the roles we fulfill in life, for any number of reasons. I've never considered it defined gender, but I can see the perception you could have of that if you believe that job or personality = gender. I see it as the role, and when you are doing that job that's how you are day to day.

Your bizarre examples of the Third Reich are odd stereotypes to say the least. When I next see a career advertised for some cartoonish trenchcoat-wearing third Reich extremists looking to achieve world piece, i'll let you know

Edited October 10, 2023 by BlueOak

[Danioover9000]

@BlueOak

24 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

How are you expecting me, you or any single individual to accurately conceptualize or model 8.1 billion people into this kind of question? 

You said female leaders would cause chaos because of feminism destroying patriarchy. So I said this would only apply to militant feminists. I could go further and say militant feminists who encounter a defined enough patriarchy to oppose, and who have enough people that also share this view. Reducing the number of leaders you are referring to further. Especially given the backlash against overt feminism, meaning they would have trouble getting into a position of leadership with a strong following.

Most people are not militant extremists, despite what modern media would have us believe. Even politicians who act that way in the public spotlight are often not ideologically driven, many do it these days because it gets them noticed, funded, or a certain amount of external power or anger to use.

Have you never seen a feminine public speaker? I certainly have. Do you believe only men can display passion publicly? Yes, we do benefit from adjusting ourselves to the roles we fulfill in life, for any number of reasons. I've never considered it defined gender, but I can see the perception you could have of that if you believe that job or personality = gender. I see it as the role, and when you are doing that job that's how you are day to day.

Your bizarre examples of the Third Reich are odd stereotypes to say the least. When I next see a career advertised for some cartoonish trenchcoat-wearing third Reich extremists looking to achieve world piece i'll let you know

   By the powers of logic and imagination.

   Unless I'm charismatic, persuasive, and attractive enough to gather blind support for my ideology to be the leader of a new world peace order?

   Yes I've seen a feminine public speakers few times. To clarify on my post, when I said I as a female, it's sex biology female, when male/female is used it's referring to penis and vagina, the human adult female/male body. When I say gender roles, it's a social construct, like traditional gender roles, woman rules the kitchen, man serves the army, woman cook meals, man fix roofs, that social construct. When I said stepping into a masculine gender role, I've seen so far the average public speaker of passion were males, mostly in motivational speeches, or galvanizing the army, so I admit my sex biology first, then assume I'm changing my personality to fit a leadership role, AKA Margaret Thatcher or Queen Elizabeth, but because I'm leading a new world order, and historically speaking Nazi Germany came close to winning WW2 if it made more strategic decisions in the war, and it's mostly traditional/conservative society and country, that I imagine myself as a super strong yet beautiful trench coat wearing feminist. That's why I chose this example to portray to you, that despite how extreme this hypothetical is, it's possible with right contexts and conditions.

   Also, we've seen the majority of history, especially military history, that most enforcement arms for society were men, and that if women did lead, with the Feminism ideology, they'd probably reduce the enforcement arms of society.

   I see you're getting upset, so I'll clarify my position in this thread and the above example further.

   I saw @StarStruck's title, and took his logical construction. I assumed an arguer for anti feminism, of whatever role he's in. I constructed an argument from Star's view in a stronger exaggerated position. When you replied to my post, I decided to present this argument to you and see how you'd take it, seemed like you took it too personally, so I'll let you deal with @StarStruck and he'll pick up on the sexy Feminazi leading the world order hypothetical, okay @StarStruck?

Edited October 10, 2023 by Danioover9000

[BlueOak]

@Danioover9000

The emotion I experienced was curiosity, interest, and a bit of laughter at the end. Just me being me, sorry if I came across as too intense. Thank you for the discussion and your clarification.

Charisma goes a long way yes, at least in setting you up as a leader.

Margaret Thatcher isn't the average feminine leader, she wasn't called the Iron Lady for nothing. There are plenty of good feminine speakers that I listen to daily on youtube, maybe they just excel in different topics to personal development.

I still can't get my head around the nazi example. Maybe you just mean good leadership not world peace? So putting aside their horrific ambitions, they were terrible leaders. They fought two opponents at once, ran purely on ideology over substance, overextended themselves in winter, tried to rush things, and didn't listen to the experts they had in the field. Fascism as a whole is a losing strategy for everyone, as it constantly needs a war and external threat to continue itself. That and it relies on a cult of personality which elevates one man to the point he ignores everyone around him who doesn't fit this pinpoint narrow vision he has, eventually turning everyone else into an opponent as fuel for the fire.

[Carl-Richard]

20 hours ago, An young being said:

Just a fun fight between different fields of science! Simply means physics is more fundamental than biology.

Ironically, you rarely ever use physics to describe human behavior.

[Buck Edwards]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ironically, you rarely ever use physics to describe human behavior.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. 

[Danioover9000]

@Buck Edwards @Carl-Richard

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ironically, you rarely ever use physics to describe human behavior.

 

4 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. 

   I got one, using science to describe human stuff: by the principle of dilution, fill one school camp with water particles to decrease the concentrated others particles. This is how we deal with too much concentrate homogenous mixtures in boarding schools, we increase more water.