If women were in charge
Heather Wilhem rightly skewers an idea that has long seemed to me absurd on its face (and that many women, and even some men, seem to believe): that if women were in charge of the world, it would somehow be a better place.
Nothing in my experience or my observation of human beings indicates that this would be so. I’m not speaking of individual men and women, who have a broad range of characteristics with a great deal of overlap. But in the aggregate, there is nothing “better” about the way women operate, either in terms of the way they treat other people, the policies they advocate, or the degree of their propensity for tyranny.
The world wouldn’t be better, although it would probably be different. The tyranny of women in charge would probably resemble something like the world Sarah Conly envisions; they don’t call it the nanny state for nothing.
I’m glad you feel that way. Now shut up and bring me a beer.
In 1998, the TV show “The Outer Limits” “Lithia” episode was about an all-female commune in the future. The opening narration was, “Evolution teaches that the failure of a species to adapt will result in extinction. But could an entire gender fall victim to the same immutable loss?”
A war and plague had wiped out all of the men in the world. Some soldiers had been cryogenically frozen before the war and one was revived. This one man brought instability and violence to the commune so he had to be frozen again.
The closing narration was, “The differences between men and women have been debated among philosophers since recorded history began. If indeed males are, by their nature the aggressor, it is this quality that may one day be their undoing.”
This entire episode states that the male is aggressive while females aren’t. Women can live without any problems. I have a few female relatives that prove this incorrect.
Has anyone studied middle and high school girls in cliques?
Feminism itself is a huge power grab for women who want to manipulate others and gain fame and money. They don’t want to empower anyone but themselves, just like some of the tyrants of history. So the headline should be: If Anna Wintour, Gloria Steinem, Maxine Waters, Christina Kirchner, and Valerie Jarrett Ruled the World.
I think I’d be booking a trip to Mars.
No offense, but if women were in charge we would still be living in thatched huts.
rickl: but they’d be complaining about them :-).
(Not me, of course).
expat: I’m not so sure Valerie Jarrett doesn’t already rule the world.
Or at least this country.
My sister, the nurse, has commented to me on numerous occasions that she loves nursing (which is why she’s done it for 30+ years), but dislikes working with mostly women. Apparently, there’s something to H.L. Mencken’s definition of a misogynist, namely, a man who hates women as much as they hate each other.
I, for one, have never believed the feminist b.s. that the world would be a better place if women ran it. As with men, it would depend entirely upon the women who ended up in charge. The late Baroness Thatcher, any time. Nancy Pelosi or Hillary, not so much.
Oh that difference feminism gives me the heebie-jeebies. The sheer “reasonableness” of it all.
It’s also part of the reason why Thatcher was so upsetting to the Left. Here was a woman in power and she was just so “un womanly”.
The underlying arrogance of Sarah Conly, and other elitists of her ilk, is simply breath taking. It is certainly not a new phenomenon. It is a little frustrating, however, that they persist in believing in, and trying to foist on us–what? Philosopher Queens?
It is equally frustrating that there is not a mighty chorus of derision whenever they open their mouths and bray such nonsense.
Thank you Sarah, but no thanks. I will muddle through life on my own. Moreover, I am content to let you muddle through yours.
Imagine never being free from the apron strings !
The best mom,s in the world are the ones that give you wings and let you fly!
As my favorite historian, Francis Parkman, noted, when the braves of the Northeast wanted to inflict a particularly fiendish torture on one of their captives, they consulted with the squaws first.
We live in a world of immense wealth and comfort today, a world that was almost unimaginable even when I was growing up, and beyond the wildest dreams of someone from 1900 and earlier. Women have made only the most miniscule contributions to the science and technology that has made it possible. Even in music, painting, and literature their contributions are overwelmed by men’s contributions, which is surprising with the wealth and leisure time that came available starting in the Industrial Revolution.
What would happen to all this if women ran things?
“When women have fought in revolutions they have generally shown that it was not natural to them, by their hysterical cruelty and insolence; it was the men who fought in the Revolution; it was the women who tortured the prisoners and mutilated the dead.”
– G K Chesterton
Charles Dickens also knew this about women. Madame Théré¨se Defarge is one of the creepiest female villains ever — or do we blame it on being French?
…I will keep my mouth shut on this.
…I will keep my mouth shut on this.
…I will keep my mouth shut on this.
…I will keep my mouth shut on this.
…I will keep my mouth shut on this.
SLAP!
???
Whew. I thought I was going to break me there at the last.
The execrable president of Argentina is a woman. So was the late, great Margaret Thatcher. Either way, human nature has no exception clause for gender.
When I first heard Thatcher had died I wondered what would be said about her by the right and the left. What I didn’t expect to hear was that she was the first woman to lead a nation. What about Golda Mier and Indira Ghandi? And I hate to mention it but the dictator Eva Peron?
Sam L. said: “Has anyone studied middle and high school girls in cliques?”
Actually, it starts before then–in childhood–but it doesn’t end then.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323884304578328271526080496.html?KEYWORDS=queen+bee
The root of all evil in this world is an untempered male or female ego.
You guys that a “wondering” about the paucity of female contribution to science and technology need to chill.
Males are their mother’s sons.
Women have 2 X chromosones (sp?) what may be lacking on one X can be made up for on the other X, No such lucky break for you guys, the Y chromosone is a piddly little thing that has nothing on it but natues blueprint to make you male. You get your great big one & only X courtesy of Mom, might that be where talent for tech & science comes from ???
Women are a blend of mom & dad but men are their mother’s sons. Just ask Mary of nazareth.
I ll never forget this gem by Golda Meir.
There were many rapes & sex assaults going on in Israel, during part of her tenure. Law makers proposed a curfew on women requring them to be at home by 8pm.
Golda offered “the men are the ones doing the assaulting they need to be confined to home after 8 pm.”
Paul, Paul, rhymes with Neanderthal.
(Don t mind me just thinking out loud)
The tyranny of women in charge would probably resemble something like the world Sarah Conly envisions; they don’t call it the nanny state for nothing.
nope… thats not what matriarchies end up as or how they turn out… Ms Conly only pays attention to the less than 50% that are cooperative worker drones who please their ladies by working hard and earning, and having peaceful lives… and so you can nanny them.
so matriarchies are not nanny states… nanny state is the process by which they convince free people to get into the cage lined with perks and safety… once they are in the cage, that nonsense stops…
matriarchies devolve into factoins of men trying to acquire more for their group of women. bloods, crips, bikers, bankers… people who die in war, tend to not want to start them more than people who dont participate. its easy to send disposable people, and favor your own.
so they go through a changing pattern.. they force their mates to change society… the mates do so to try to have favor, but they are less happy now than when we changed it. they liked the happy gulag better. (kind of like having to put the furniture back after a whole day of moving it and realizing it was best the way it was)
the bribing gets power at the top, to which the behavior of the factions on the bottom seal the deal as to having to do more and more to lock things down. the men now have a purpose again..
since women have to work through cooperative men, this eventually changes into a despotic state with the men at the top, and the women pushed aside… (and those mens wifes saying, thanks for the help! we could never have gotten your mates to give up all that power without you)
unless completely destitute, matriarchies don’t last.
the strong men the women create to have power, are stronger than the women who imbue them with the power needed.
even in the states that have the political systems they want to make and are happy with, they dont do what these people say they want… only here, and only for a short while longer!!!
i should point out that Elizabeth, and even Catherine the great were not queens of matriarchies, nor did they change there state to one… they ruled at the top of the mens hierarchy, so the men below them were their army and did not unseat them (not that some didn’t try)
their societies had the proper cohesion for them to lead
not like whats happening now…
Well at least one woman tried to unseat Elizabeth too, her sister…
I assume you’re referring to Elizabeth I of England, whose sister was dead when she inherited the throne. In fact, it was because her sister, Mary, died that she became queen in the first place.
Women dems with leadership positions: Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, and Janet Napolitano. I don’t recall the name of the EPA head or the labor secretary. Are there any that are not corrupt or incompetent?
billm99uk
betsybounds
In addition to her sister Mary, who preceded her as Queen, Elizabeth had another relative named Mary. Mary, Queen of Scots, who was a cousin to Elizabeth, was executed by Elizabeth for involvement in a plot to assassinate Elizabeth.
You had to be an Iron Lady to keep the throne in those days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_Queen_of_Scots
James I of England, who succeeded Elizabeth as Sovereign of England, was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots.
Who needs soap operas? Just read history!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I
The advent of far more women in senior leadership roles in the workplace will result in a significant drop-off in productivity and profits, with subsequent decline in overall national economic well-being. Why? Women are motivated and animated by the age-old, enduring female characteristics of jealousy, status envy, and resentment of other women–most often because they are better looking or more popular. Such personality traits create a toxic, non-team player work environment that can’t possibly achieve the phenomenal success of the historically male-dominated business world of the past. In competition, men are about winning, women are about spite and getting even. With more women at the helm, the economic domination of American business during the past century will continue to founder. But don’t expect anyone on the Left, or any women, to make the connection.
“The world wouldn’t be better, although it would probably be different. The tyranny of women in charge…”
If feminists ran the world it would certainly be worse. Tyranny and cruelty would be not only approved, they would be sanctified (perhaps by the Goddess.)
One thing to remember — men aren’t “in charge” right now except in their own minds. When they say they want “women in charge” what they really mean is that they want men to be powerless, which is a much different thing. Women aren’t currently powerless, but they want men to be in a much weaker position than women are in now.
This is misandry, pure and simple, as straight forward and blatant as a southern slavemaster’s hatred of negros.