Lol, you’re probably right.’
If I did, would you read it?
And what do you mean by causation does not equal correlation?
Correlation does not equal causation means that just because two things go together doesn’t mean one causes the other.
Fer example
Old people tend to wear glasses. But it does not follow that wearing glasses makes one old.
Well, Der Trihs actually I agree with you, violence is violence.
However, according to you I guess were just F’d? I don’t think that’s case.
Well, I would say there’s plenty causation then, from the anger and fear in a man. And there’s far more evidence to point towards him and not her.
Shouldn’t we judge by the numbers?
If women ruled the world, I see no reason why things would function exactly as they are now. Women and men do have some structural and relational differences. How much of those things are related to culture and how much is biological, I don’t know. But I can’t imagine the world being the same.
People can point to women in power and say, “See? They’re just as bad as men!” But if the standard is set by men (all your predecessors have been male, most of your underlings and advisors are male, most of your global contemporaries are male, most of the people trying to kick you out of office are male), then maybe you can’t afford to depart from the script. Imagine if Hillary Clinton was the president and she said, “Look, I’m not about to send troops into Libya, and I’m pulling the plug on the Afghanistan thing too. I’m so sick of wars and the people who lust after them. We need to either get our diplomacy house in order or not even bother playing the game anymore.” People would be giving her SO much shit. So I imagine that if Hillary were the prez, she’d go at the war thing with even more zesto than Bush did, just to prove she ain’t no little girl.
Also, for every Joan of Arc, there’s a Harriet Tubman. Yeah, she walked around with a shotgun like some 19th century Rambo, but she never killed anyone. Contrast her style of subversion with Nat Turner’s. Harriet Tubman could have led a much more violent insurrection than Turner did, but she did not. I guess she liked surviving? I don’t know. But who was more successful in achieving their goals?
Do I think society would be better? I don’t know that either. I’ve worked in predominately female environments and predominately male environments. Both had their good and bad qualities. Likewise, male and female bosses tend to cancel each other out with their good and bad qualities…though I will say they tend to manage differently. I think we would be a more family-friendly society, perhaps less individualistic, and I don’t think we’d be quite so homophobic, at least against gays. But I don’t see lollipops and rainbows, though. I wish we could try it out for a few decades, just to see.
Then, let’s see it. Show me the evidence.
Now THAT, I can get behind, monstro. It’s not that I think there are no differences, speaking in generalities and averages, between men and women. Certainly there are, some, as you say, culturally determined, but I also believe the research that shows some neurological and hormonal differences that affect behavior. I can certainly believe that, were women given unimpeded power for a generation, things might look different.
What I don’t believe, didn’t believe in the OP, and don’t believe **Scotty ****Mo **has made a good argument for in this thread, is the idea that women in power would eliminate war and violence. Not only do I think they could never, absent a police state, control individual people well enough to prevent small-scale violence, I also don’t think they would eschew war between nations.
Think about it: if Scotty Mo’s vision of the virtues of womanhood is correct, what will we do about genocide, rape and the systematic slaughter of infants like has/is happening in The Democratic Republic of Congo, or Sudan? Wouldn’t we be *more *likely to intervene than the men? Wouldn’t that involve violence?
While I would be interested in what would happen if women ruled, I think we’d be better off if good rulers ruled, no matter what’s between their legs.
Guess I really fell into that one didn’t I?
Still, it’s a basic fact. Turn on the news every night and there are more men out committing the most crimes. I don’t see why I should have to prove something so obvious.
Then it should be easy to prove.
Not that I’ve noticed.
Because while it may seem obvious to you, it isn’t to the rest of us. Further, this is Great Debates. You made an assertion. You should be able to back it up.
Well, there wouldn’t be any problems like that. I don’t see women raping, controlling and killing groups of men anytime soon.
Men are more likely to be investigated and arrested for crimes, and are punished more severely. The system is biased.
And at any rate, what does that have to do for anything? This is about women being in charge, not gender differences between criminals. Putting women in charge won’t make criminals spontaneously vaporize.
I also think it would be better if we just let the good rulers rule. It shouldn’t matter what gender they are. Gender is not dependent on being a good ruler. I’ve always been skeptical of people saying men are more likely to do this or women are more likely to do that. I think vague generalizations are dangerous to make especially without references to support them.
They usually have men do the raping for them. As for the other, as has been said again and again women in power have been just as brutal as men..
Heck, how are they going to handle the “police state” part? If they really are nonviolent utopians who wouldn’t act like Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir in okaying physical force, then never mind their presumed reluctance to use force overseas; how will they stop an internal takeover as soon as me and the boys feel like getting rough?
DocCathode, turn on your news tonight and if there are more female suspects on tonight than male, I’ll send you 5 bucks.
I don’t want to presume too much from the OP, but I’m thinking he would say perhaps genocides wouldn’t happen if women were globally dominant. That only men would do something like that. So in that case, women leaders elsewhere wouldn’t have to start a war to stop the genocides. Maybe they would start them over other matters, but genocide wouldn’t exist in a female-dominated world, perhaps.
Have there been genocides started by women? I can see women shooting some guys with a high-powered rifle from yards away, but raping people? Or killing babies? I can’t see it happening on a regular basis.
I don’t think things like female circumcision were a woman’s idea. Or that women came up with the ideas of foot-binding and wearing burkhas. Even though women re-enforce and perpetrate these cultural monstrosities, I don’t see them being hatched out of a mind of a woman. Likewise, I can’t see a woman thinking, “Hmm, those X-people over there are REALLY working my nerves! Let’s torture and kill all of them, especially the babies! Let’s get our rape on, ya’ll! Woohoo!” I just can’t.
ETA: I prophesized correctly!
OK, but if they’re not “controlling” groups of men, then how are they going to prevent all this male perpetrated crime and violence?
=
The number of suspects on one evening’s news broadcast is proof of nothing.
Can you see a woman looking at her starving children, and looking at the neighboring country with well fed babies and thinking, “We’ve got to get our babies some food, by force if necessary!”? I can, easily.
Unless you think diplomacy can magically make more food that your neighbors will be willing to share with you rather than save to protect themselves against famine, or sell to buy medicine and cell phones, I think *some *wars are inevitable. Not the wars the US is fighting, true, but it seems most of the genocides occurring today began over resources - herdsmen vs. farmers, water rights, etc.