Comments on: If women were in charge

By: Phelps

Phelps — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:27:03 +0000

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.

By: pst314

pst314 — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:36:40 +0000

“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.)

By: FrancisChalk

FrancisChalk — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:37:38 +0000

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.

By: Gringo

Gringo — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 17:30:51 +0000

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

By: Gringo

Gringo — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 17:27:07 +0000

billm99uk

Well at least one woman tried to unseat Elizabeth too, her sister…

betsybounds

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.

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

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:21:03 +0000

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?

By: betsybounds

betsybounds — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 23:33:42 +0000

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.

By: billm99uk

billm99uk — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:25:16 +0000

Well at least one woman tried to unseat Elizabeth too, her sister…

By: Artfldgr

Artfldgr — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:19:19 +0000

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…

By: Artfldgr

Artfldgr — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:16:51 +0000

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!!!