Want war. Let the men negotiate. Want peace, let the women at it.

I've been in some pretty good girl fights. Used to be quite the scrapper.

 

War will cause a cut down on gas stations and car pooling. Perhaps there could be daily car leasing companies for the downtown. We'll tell them Ruskies how they were supposed to do it.

 

If men vanished from Earth tomorrow, most women would discover that among their midst are some very violent women. Not just violent, but also cruel and psychopathic. Think of the Manson followers who murdered in cruel fashion; many or most were women.

As men and women have a symbiotic relationship, I think it wrong to attribute anything to either, solely. Similarly to how the nature versus nurture debate is kinda moot, as it is a little of both.

 

Look around at all the women who are attracted to belligerent men. Everyone knows that nice guys don't get laid as much as narcissistic buffoons. In evolutionary terms, women go for these type men because they mistakenly think them alpha males. Women mistake their swagger for true confidence. Humorously, many women leave relationships with Mr. Abuse, and then hate all men, claiming all men are like their last boyfriend. In reality, these women fail to take responsibility for their own bad experience.

 

This is my favorite go-to for a clear picture on why women AND men are both vile, disgusting, evil creatures.

http://www.psychohistory.com/originsofwar/08_infanticide.html

Both genders are capable of cruelty and atrocity.

This is the sort of man-woman DL is talking about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0h9oQu5tU8"]Matilda: Yes, Ms. Trunchbull... SIR! - YouTube

This is the sort of woman who should rule and lead the world .. Miss Honey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC8LwhCylcU"]Matilda and miss honey tribute - YouTube

 

You guys are talking absolutes which is the wrong way to go about discussing such a topic because neither are going to net a correct result.

---
We're talking averages here in the way each gender thinks or approaches a political issue, in this case war.


Political scientists do note that there is significant difference in the deliberation when war as a topic or political action is floated to bodies of legislation both in the USA, and in Europe.


What is discovered is that women aren't pacifists but the kinds of questions they ask are different from men.


Men ask questions in terms of directness such as "winning/losing, and the cost/benefit in terms of monetary budgets for a war effort".



But women ask questions that their male counterparts fail to ask such as:

"How many refugees will be created by such a military action, and were thoses monetary costs accounted for in the initial cost/benefit ratio given to their colleagues?"

----

So women certainly offer a perspective not seen or given voice to in bodies of legislation when Congress or Parliament was mainly a 99%-100% male dominated body.


---

Men have also learned to ask how each war action of effort influences the culture in the surrounding areas of where a hypothetical action were to take place.

But women were some of the first to really gauge or broaden the discussion, and so it's important to have both genders views here.


But I wouldn't say either gender is a pacifist or needs to be an extreme example like in the videos linked above.

Not all women are like the one seen in that Matilda clip shown above, although they certainly exist.

---
Also personally she isn't attractive in either personality or physique.


But people with chips on their shoulder rarely are and that goes for "nice guys" as well.
But this isn't he love and sex or relation forums so I'll debate and discuss that topic elsewhere.

 

I couldn't resist but..

Some women seek out dysfunctional boyfriends because they come from broken homes and have a messed up mind when it comes to "what is attractive".

So woman/girl a can't always Compare to women/girl b.

 

That's EXACTLY like saying check the jail records for black people. If you were a cracker-ass racist making the argument that black people are more violent, you'd use YOUR very statement.

Did it ever occur to you that the justice system might be more favoring towards different types of humans?

 

Attractive? What? It isn't about attractiveness. jeez.

DL mentioned "women that have been made into men" and I agreed with that .. see post #15

I then showed two basic examples of the difference between a man-woman and a woman. It isn't about "attractiveness" but the STARK DIFFERENCE in qualities and traits of the two exampled females.

Attractive, omg. I think the point went over your head, sorry to say it.

 

If you are trying a women who run with the poodles are going to be less viscious, deceitful and greedy than women who run with the wolves - I would never buy that. I get somewhat lost in these "woman that have been made into men" terms, I think they're imaginative terms.
Most people in congress are fugly. But when that stupid and gross look goes with fugly I agree.

"U-G-L-Y you ain't got no alibi!.." ahahaha!

 

Do we really want or need someONE, man or woman, to rule or even lead the world?

 

We need to let the world run itself - no hope of that, but still....

 

This forum has moderators, right? And that's for good reason, right?

The serious answer to your question is YES .. there should always be competent, qualified, capable, responsible people in positions of authority / leadership.

Think of it in simple terms. You have a nice garden. If you don't *constantly* groom and maintain it, will it eventually lose its form and in losing its form .. won't it lose its value? Of course it will. A very well groomed property will have a higher value than a dilapidated, neglected one. Without form and structure (guides, guidance, leadership, authorities, etc.) we're lost. No matter if we're old or young, male or female.

Think of it this way: say you or somebody you know has just found out they have diabetes or cancer. They'll need help. And they'll need guidance on how to handle their illness. You'll want a knowledgeable, competent, careful person to trust and rely on. Don't want the blind leading the blind in an instance like that, and we certainly don't want incompetent authorities.

Peter Principal comes to mind...

 

Maybe not so clear cut. I don't think history provides such correlation. If you're haggling to be the first in a group to do something, it seems you're a model but when it becomes commonplace, you get all manner of characters from the group

 

I'd agree it should be.

That's not the same as what I responded to. You seemed to imply that "a person" should be the authority making decisions applied world wide.

Nearly everyone around me farms, and some do a better job than others, but without anyone having authority over all, each learns from the others as to what works best and without the force of government adapts to what produces the best results, and quite often there is no one answer which works best for everyone.

I would consult a Doctor, or maybe even several different Doctors, or others I know and trust for their opinions, not a world ruler or leader, or any politician for that matter.

Yes, that often comes to my mind as well when thinking about those who achieve positions of power in government.

 

Read it within the context of the conversation, please.

The topic of this thread is: Want war. Let the men negotiate. Want peace, let the women at it.

Again, DL said something that I agree with: post #15

My response was to show the difference between two types of females: a man-woman and a woman.

I agree that the man-woman is NOT the sort of woman for the job and that if there was to be a woman in a position of leadership (in this case, for the goal of peace) .. a woman like Miss Honey is the better option.

I don't like to debate or argue, you know. It's possible to hook me in for a while but not too long.

 

You seemed to have missed the part where I wrote "think of it in simple terms".

The *simple* examples are meant to illustrate the value, worth and righteousness of having form & structure and superiors (leaders, authorities, etc.).

 

The naive are those who see 3,000 years of men at war and are not thinking that a change may be in order.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Regards
DL

 

How about 3,000 years of male failure?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Regards
DL

 

Good to see an intelligent answer after a few that were not. Thanks.

Regards
DL