Why Women Wouldn't Make Better Leaders Than Men.
October 17th 2006 01:33
I am often in arguments with women I talk to about this. "If women ruled the world there’d be no war. If Women ruled the world, there’d be no hunger. If Women ruled the world, it’d be sunshine and blowjobs all year round, and we’d all live happily amongst the pretty flowers and bunnies and everyone would be happy… blah, blah, fuckin' blah", presumably because they possess vaginas and have some mysterious nurturing superpower that men don’t get.
What a bunch of shit. Women would NOT make better leaders; they would be exactly as bad as the men we currently have in charge. There would still be world hunger, there would still be war - women are just as violent as men; sometimes more so. For instance, research has shown that domestic violence rates in lesbian relationships are usually just as high, and sometimes even higher than in hetero relationships. Of course, all that really proves is that you can find numbers to back up anything you want, if you look hard enough.
Back in the day, in ancient Matriarchal societies where women DID rule, things were pretty bloodthirsty. Studies of the religious rites and cultural practices showed some pretty gruesome behaviour. The Queen, for example, would take a king for one to four years, depending on the local religion. At the end of his tenure, the king was ritually murdered, usually in a fairly grisly manner; for example, a ritual crashing of his chariot and being dragged to death by the terrified horses, or being drained of blood until he died, or just being plain-old decapitated. Often, the queen and her acolytes would eat some of the king, raw. These practices were usually fertility rites, to ensure the fertility of crops and what-not. That’s some pretty fucked-up shit, in anyone’s book, and as I’m sure many people could understand, the men got jack of this, and began the practice of having a stand-in take the hit for the team, so to speak.
Now, I’m not saying that life would have been any worse under the rule of these women, I am saying that it wouldn’t have been any better. That’s all. There’s a simple reason for this: Women have all the same prejudices, vices, hang-ups, dislikes, likes, and desires as men, they’re HUMAN, just like men, and accordingly, equally fallible.
This is not to say that women shouldn’t be in positions of power, just don’t try to sell me that "earth mother" bullshit that you’re any less fucked-up than I am. You’re just as bad as me in every single way.
Now, get your damn hands off the T.V. remote and leave it to us. If there’s one thing that women certainly can’t do, it’s use a television remote control with any kind understanding and respect for the importance of correct channel monitoring.
What a bunch of shit. Women would NOT make better leaders; they would be exactly as bad as the men we currently have in charge. There would still be world hunger, there would still be war - women are just as violent as men; sometimes more so. For instance, research has shown that domestic violence rates in lesbian relationships are usually just as high, and sometimes even higher than in hetero relationships. Of course, all that really proves is that you can find numbers to back up anything you want, if you look hard enough.
Back in the day, in ancient Matriarchal societies where women DID rule, things were pretty bloodthirsty. Studies of the religious rites and cultural practices showed some pretty gruesome behaviour. The Queen, for example, would take a king for one to four years, depending on the local religion. At the end of his tenure, the king was ritually murdered, usually in a fairly grisly manner; for example, a ritual crashing of his chariot and being dragged to death by the terrified horses, or being drained of blood until he died, or just being plain-old decapitated. Often, the queen and her acolytes would eat some of the king, raw. These practices were usually fertility rites, to ensure the fertility of crops and what-not. That’s some pretty fucked-up shit, in anyone’s book, and as I’m sure many people could understand, the men got jack of this, and began the practice of having a stand-in take the hit for the team, so to speak.
Now, I’m not saying that life would have been any worse under the rule of these women, I am saying that it wouldn’t have been any better. That’s all. There’s a simple reason for this: Women have all the same prejudices, vices, hang-ups, dislikes, likes, and desires as men, they’re HUMAN, just like men, and accordingly, equally fallible.
This is not to say that women shouldn’t be in positions of power, just don’t try to sell me that "earth mother" bullshit that you’re any less fucked-up than I am. You’re just as bad as me in every single way.
Now, get your damn hands off the T.V. remote and leave it to us. If there’s one thing that women certainly can’t do, it’s use a television remote control with any kind understanding and respect for the importance of correct channel monitoring.
| 110 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Samuel
Barely Legal Alien
Comment by Anonymous
Maybe you should have a good think about your retarded views before you vomit them into cyberspace.
Comment by Samuel
Barely Legal Alien
they seem pretty straightforward and even-handed to me...
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
(oh and I am a woman)
If women ruled the world there would still be war
If women ruled the world there would still be hunger
If women ruled the world there would still be small minded idiots
But unlike men who don't understand anything beyond how to use a remote control, we - the weaker sex - would use war, famine, and the small minded idiots to better the world and to create rather then destroy!
It was a man who invented a gun, but a woman who invented the bullet proof vest!