Ok /pol/, this may be a hard question, but why can't women run leadership positions and civilizations as good as men do?
the patriarchy
little bit of biology little bit of how we spoil them in our culture
>>72068695
>>72068633
Could you go a little more into detail on this?
they lack
creativity
ambition
drive
wit
judgement skills
all things needed to be a successful leader
>>72068846
Could you go a little more into detail?
>>72068795
So you're just going to blame the patriarchy for all of the women's problems and not explain it?
>>72068584
I'd hire a Mabel for a Leadership role.
And Waddles.
>Women run on emotions
>Men run on logic
Of course there are exceptions but the exception is not the rule
>>72068584
Because woman aren't as smart as men, thats why they all have longer hair, hairs made up of dead brain cells and woman lose more than man, thats why women will never make good leadres
Menstruation & associated mood fluctuations
Females are objectively, biologically, irrefutably, less intelligent than men from an evolutionary standpoint.
Women have never once built a civilization, what makes you think they are capable of maintaining one?
Women, by nature, only care about themselves. Even their children are an extension of this. You notice the first second women don't need men for everything, what do they do? Stop having kids.
Women are dumb. Sure, they can memorize things. They can be trained but they don't actually learn and they don't actually create.
Women are sociopaths who would treat men and other women in horrible ways if they were stronger.
Women are shit at everything besides childbirth.
>>72068739
well women think more differently then men, mainly due to horomones, in fact masculine features will sometimes determine who we vote for.
>for my political science class this semester we were given images of different candidates from the 2012 elections and we were asked on who would we vote for based on looks. and the majority of the class voted for the most masculine looking men and women.
So biologically speaking we think that the more manly a leader looks the better they may do. If you think about this from an anthrologcial stand point it makes sense. In 10,000 B.C. if you lived in a tribe you would want the tribal leader to be the biggest strongest looking bastard (maybe the smartest?)
As for culture based, women typically are hollow. I don't mean to be a dick but if try to hit on girls at the local bar and try to act interested in what they are into it is a fucking challenge. Most of them are pretty basic with maybe 1 or 2 interesting hobbies, but women think that they can get anywhere by being pretty and this is what we (our fault and society's fault) have been teaching girls. Thus we have the majority of women being empty and not having basic leadership traits
>think about it like this, how different would my personality be if i was born a pretty girl? would i be as smart? would i be more popular? or funny? etc.
because of all these factors we rarely find women who are good leaders compared to men
>>72068956
women lack creativity- a driving force to innovate lacking or outdated systems such as personnel, a need to have the very best tech so that the creative juices that can either make a company top of the line or mediocre
women lack ambition, oh THEY WILL bitch alot, but they wont do a single goddamn thing about it; well maybe sucking cock up the corporate ladder as far as they can do. Otherwise they get outcompeted by men and in certain countries like Cucksewden they had to institute laws REQUIRING corporations to have a certain amount of directors/chairman on boards to be woman cause MUH DIVERSITY QOUTAS
Women lack drive- http://www.returnofkings.com/32053/this-accidental-experiment-shows-the-superiority-of-patriarchy
>men: hmm were on this island, better find food, build shelters, purify water, etc etc
>women: LAWL BEACH TIME!
wit- cmon, i dont need to explain this one
judgement skills - muh feelings > mug logic and reasoning, nuff said
>>72068739
Estrogen versus Testosterone.
Most of the Psychologists that are pushing the whole "no difference between the brains across genders!" basically ignore behavioral effects of hormones. It's like saying "drugs are just a placebo!"
Because God wills it
>>72068584
Part genetics, part culture. I think /pol/ overstates the genetic part actually at least as far as pure management goes. Mostly influenced by just how fucking mad women are in the US.
I don't think they ever really have the drive towards legacy and building something of value men have. For pure managerial roles I think they can be suited though in a sane society.
>>72069604
I have no idea what the difference between them are. Are they both specific to one gender?
>>72069668
Are you a Martian or something?
No, the hormones are not mutually exclusive; the levels, however are. Males will have higher levels of testosterone and lower levels of estrogen. Females will have higher levels of estrogen and lower levels of testosterone as a consequence of the body's natural state of homeostasis dictated by the chromosomes.
>>72068584
They can, but they don't do it well.
>>72069668
He's basically saying the people who take drugs and let drugs rule their lives just don't make good presidents for obvious reasons.
>>72068956
>>72068739
Are you shit posting? You can't really be this serious.
>>72068584
God didn't create women to be leaders. Women are nurturing mother figures, not leaders, and there is nothing wrong with that.
>>72069915
Except your wrong as that only applies to within marriage.
>>72069915
>god
*tips fedora bait*
>>72069010
>Men run on logic
Horseshit. We run on different emotions. Go read Greek myths.
>>72069331
As to the fact that most people will look up to people who are more masculine, how would you respond when people say it's because of "muh patriarchy"
>>72069995
It's too bad women don't get married anymore.
>>72069331
>(our fault and societies fault)
[Citation needed]
>>72068584
Here's a novel argument you probably won't hear anyone else say.
Nobody wants female leaders. Therefore the only female leaders we'll get are the ones who manage to sleaze so hard that they overcome that handicap with the power of corruption and dirty politics.
This then feeds back into nobody wanting female leaders and completes the vicious cycle.
>>72068584
Women cannot create without man. This is seen literally in nature. Men are the spear, the phallus of society. Men go out and create, women use the society to remain stable. The governments of the west have single handedly replaced husbandry with state husbrandry - completely loosing all bonding between the sexes and mitigating emotional perceptions in all setting of life.
Take for example an RN (registered nurse) who is a male in a predominantly female workplace. As the man is tutored by school to help all women, go out of his way for women and even die for women, he begins doing many favors for his staff. Eventually the male becomes frustrated, tired of working extra for women. Women notice his sexual energy is diminished and simultaneously begin to whinge in a subconscious attempt to make the man in the literal sense "man up".
You see evolutionarily, men are supposed to keep a cool in order to ground women in security, When a man is showing weakness, it creates women to respond in tune of the man. This is known in many mammals. Eventually the male shrivels up, hides within himself and dies - or, the man uses the energy of the females to better or redirect his efforts.
In this case our RN could get mad, stay mad and eventually leave the facility - or, he can simply change his methods to only include his job titles and with a smile politely decline women.
The entire alpha/beta monologue many people cling to is not too far off. It's just manly men are shunned in a globalized society, crafted by men for the use of women. Women thus own the internet, being on the receiving end that the internet is. It is nature, even the internet cannot escape the yin and yang of societies. So remember when they test you, and they will test you - they don't want a leader. In fact they don't "want" anything. They NEED men to lead THEM. Otherwise their cries for love of the receiving end turns into a collective outcry of forced acceptance i.e feminism, leftism.
Ultimately what it all boils down to is sex.
Consider the following... Think of the women who are really successful in male dominated fields. Now ask yourself, are they hot? And don't throw some fucking "I know a smart hot girl" thing at me here. The big, successful women. No, they have not been hot.
Sex, the desire for human companionship, but more importantly the denial of that desire is at the core of all human motivation, ambition, and rationality.
Women, straight out of the gate deal with the denial of that need far less than men do. It is not a source of motivation for them for anything other than "look good." And I think we can all agree that women are really fucking good at looking good.
The lack of this deep, primal motivation in life means that their cost benefit analysis is different than mens. Long term planning is deeply affected by this, especially when it comes to putting yourself through difficult or unpleasant situations.
Try using a number scale for this. Let's say my contentment levels are at 65 out of a possible 100. Would subjecting myself to more discontentment and decreasing that number to around a 45 for a year or so be worth it if I thought that meant my overall contentment level would go up to an 80? I think I would, that's a pretty short time for a good return.
But what if my contentment level was around a 70. Would I subject myself to that same level of suffering, down to 45, if that meant my level would go up to an 80? Probably not. Or at least I would be far less likely to do so.
This is the heart of the problem, ignoring all the other biological reasons for possible superiority.
An "easy" life does not inspire one to change or innovate or struggle.
>>72070306
Bad is a matter of perspective in this case isn't it?
>>72070011
That sandwich is missing some beef or pork.
I think an orange - pork - BBQ sandwich would actually taste decent if prepared right
>>72070378
So you're saying the only way we can end this is to promote female leaders?
>>72070214
men run on he need for pussy and female validation
its why we build great civilizations
women bitch housework is too hard
we invent washing machines and dishwashers, rice cookers and gas ovens
>>72070540
A few good points here. I would also factor in that women require security more than anything else. Sexual securty, security of mind, security of the household and even birthing. For men, it varies largely. Men tend to be influenced a lot by women, however.
>>72070664
It did happen legitimately, but failed due to pressure and competition. A good example is Julia Gillard, a former Australian prime minister that short-lived her stay due to misogyny and uncontrolled power that she was forced to step down.
>>72068584
They haven't got experience with those things since since the beggining of culture, men were the ones that aimed to preserve their current civ. Women were protected.
Can they be better or equal than men? I don't think so. They use "muh feeeelus" to take decitions and won't take responsability for their actions because men have been doing it since the beggining.
they are inclined to consensus and meetings, even with people who don't know what the fuck they are talking about.
They lack the authoritas to get shit done.
t. a dude who recently had a female boss
>>72070944
So it happened once, but failed because men had pressured her through misogyny? What if that misogyny would have not been placed and she was given the freedom to do so?
>>72070664
I think awareness of the full extent of the problem is the only way to attack vicious cycle type problems.
Otherwise people will just keep targeting one aspect of the problem and end up exacerbating the cycle. Like radicalizing muslims by bombing terrorists. Or driving hatred of the police in black communities by stepping up police presence in an effort to curb black crime rates.
>>72068633
FPBP
>>72068584
Well, in the case of the shitty bitch that is currently the president of my country that is getting impeachment up her ass is because she can't grasp the idea that if you print more money it devalues your currency, she just went on to print money thinking that was free money she was making to pay the bills.
Fucking Merkel on Germany on the other hand went on to import millions of rapefugees and ruin not only her country but the entire european continent!
Women are just not good at making decisions.
>>72071295
She could have simply brushed it off, and she was fully aware that it would happen.
If there was no misogamy placed in such scenario, which would have been possible if she didn't step down, it would have gone decently. But since she was in the Labor party it was essentially plowing more shit into more shit.
>>72068584
They refuse to be held accountable and have to make a decision with a group coming to a general consensus.
>>72070508
>The governments of the west have single handedly replaced husbandry with state husbrandry
This is the truth, its probably one of the core reasons women vote the way they do, they want to be independent so instead of leaning on a man they lean on the state
>>72068584
Women go for policies against the best interests of their posterity, only thinking in the short term.
I read somewhere that women are more likely to vote for things like socialism and letting in more refugees, they cannot be trusted with power.
>>72071479
Everyone wants to keep a 'tradition' because of the past, which has always made progess.
So by the logic:
Tradition = Success
Experimentation = 50/50 chance of failure
>>72071677
So you're saying that had that woman not been held under pressure AND was not a part of the labor party it would have acted went well?
>>72068584
They are not Hillary.
>>72068584
>why can't women run leadership positions and civilizations as good as men do?
The biggest difference in the simplest terms:
Q: What is a Woman?
A: Think of a Man, and take away reason and accountability.
>>72070540
But of course this doesn't explain why, when women are handed a position of leadership they completely fuck it up.
That is more of a mystery to me. I can only assume that it has to do with their manner of thinking and the emotional filters through which they see the world. Leading people requires a certain emotional distance, or at least a detachment. Men have a way to compartmentalize this kind of thing. We can fight, and go back to being friends. It isn't black or white.
Women on the other hand are one way or the other. Look at MMA for example. Dudes will put on a good show for the cameras pre-fight act like they hate each other, then literally kick the shit out of each other and shake hands after the fight.
The Women actually hate each other. There is no respect behind their words. They don't touch gloves. They cannot compartmentalize the fight, or separate the motivation to hurt the other person from their emotions.
Every female manager I've ever had has been one of two things: they are either your friend or a total bitch, and neither method of management commands respect from employees or the group they're managing.
I suspect this is rooted in emotions.
>>72068584
I've had the misfortune of working for a female dominated company in the past, and I'd argue women are fine strategists who fail miserably as leaders on two critical issues: innovation and accountability.
The very best of women will fall back on vagina privilege when one of these is necessary. They will not fire the trash. They will not admit when they are wrong. And they certainly don't feel the need to come up with creative solutions to imminent problems.
I've come to believe having a vagina means never having to deal with such ugly challenges when White Knights are a dime a dozen.
>>72072095
>I suspect this is rooted in emotions.
You mean biology.
>>72068584
Because they're women, being inferior to men is what they do
>>72072288
>Passing off responsibility to 'vagina privilige'
I think we found ourselves a woman here.
>>72071955
Like what >>72071893 said regarding what women go for in politics, she went with the political party that never focused on benefiting the country whatsoever. If she, or a different woman in politics, would be in a political side that focused on benefiting the country based on logic instead of feelings than it wouldn't be any different if a man was running it. Regardless, it's human nature to shit on a political figure anyway.
>>72072395
No, biology determines psychological boundaries on how one can view the world. Women are always thus on the receiving end, men are on the giving (or creative) end.
see
>>72070508
Societies are fundamentally structured on violence.
>>72068584
*Well
FTFY, you stupid boyyy
>>72070508
Humans cannot create without food. This is seen literally in nature. I've been chugging down for weeks on McDonalds triple cheesburgers in preparation for a novel I plan to write under the assumption that the more I create of me, my creativity overall will increase.
Take for example your average manlet who is a male in a predominantly masculine workplace. As the man is tries to keep up with his larger workmates he starts to fall behind due to his poorer creativity. Other people notice this energy is diminished and simultaneously begin to whinge in a subconscious attempt to make the man in the literal sense "beef up".
You see evolutionarily, the fatter people are, the more success they have with people. Obesity used to be a sign of prosperity, drawing many admirerers and flatterers. This is known in many mammals. The queen ant is the largest in the colony. Eventually the manlet shrivels up, hides within himself and dies - or, the man uses the energy of hamburgers to better or redirect his efforts.
In this case the manlet (or womanlet) could get mad, stay mad and eventually leave the facility - or, he can simply start making up for his height by gaining muscle mass or weight gain.
The entire alpha/beta monologue many people cling to is not too far off. It's just manly small people are shunned in a globalized society, crafted by the fat asses of the rich and bountiful. Manlets/womanlets thus own the internet, being shunned by society and with nowhere else to go. It is nature, even the internet cannot escape the yin and yang of societies. So remember when they test you, and they will test you - they don't want a leader. In fact they don't "want" anything. They NEED mass to LEAD them. Otherwise their cries for love of the receiving end turns into a collective outcry of forced acceptance i.e meminism, dwarf-fortress
>>72072288
Apples, tree fruit.
Men still have emotions, they just don't steer with them.
>>72068584
Read "why women can't lead", or something similar to that title, by Jim Webb, which was written in 1980 iirc. Fantastic fucking article about this exact question
>>72073723
Fucking summarize it bro I don't have that much time to devote to what is ultimately a useless question anyway.
>>72069331
maybe to a point. you wouldn't elect someone who looks like a caveman.
>>72073790
>what is ultimately a useless question
Everything is meaningless.
t. Ecclesiastes
>>72074065
yeah so being meaningless in a meaningless system is ultra epic meaningless. Thus feminism and its never ending quest to give meaning to women.
Helen Clark desu senpai.
The ugly, masculine women make the strongest female leaders.
>>72068584
Because women can't act on anything without also believing in it with fanatical zeal. Even the ones that seem rational are actually just fanatics about rationality, the difference being they will attack anyone that questions their rationality instead of giving it fair consideration before accepting or dismissing criticism.
And, as Merkel demonstrated, as soon as someone waves a picture of a dead baby in their faces, they go bonkers and start doing insane, counterproductive shit no sane man would do.
