Agreed. There would be no difference. The average person in developed countries doesn’t even think in these terms when looking at society as a whole. It’s a stupid distinction that extremists are pushing for and I highly suspect that the smarter ones are really baiting people into saying they don’t agree with a matriachy just so they can say, “Aha! So you don’t believe ANY woman should be in power!”.
Shit, off the top of my head I can even name you 3 3rd Wold countries that have had female presidents - The Philippines, Myanmar and Indonesia. People weren’t expecting a matriachy and there aren’t large feminist movements there. They just liked the candidates. These women proved to be colossal fuckups just like the male ones before and after them.
What I see trending through your posts is that there is little difference between men and women , psychologically and cognitively, collectively speaking (eg, few women are in high positions but also few men, “it’s a human thing”). But I could be wrong.
Despite the variation amongst us, women and men are profoundly different. And I don’t understand why someone would want it another way.
I do think there are differences. I just don’ think that they are that great when you take away the aspect of social conditioning. All I’ve been saying for years in various threads is that:
Girls being brought up should know they have opportunities and gender doesn’t put as much constraints on them as once thought because the nature of society has changed so much.
Everyone, men or women, should have autonomy on how they wish to live their lives. If certain things like birth rates fall, so be it.
The “high positions” part was added because the thread is titled “More Women in Power?” lol. We’d have to look at them as in individuals instead of a collective, just like men. If you asked me "should more men be in power?, I’d still ask you “what kind of men?” and further ask if we’re talking about a meritocracy since such a questions would inevitably exclude women.
Hell, I even acknowledged that I have a problem employing women in higher positions where I live because the probability of them leaving after giving birth is too high for my liking.
Then we differ in our understanding and outlook. You say we are different by social conditioning. I say we are different, including how we are different emotionally and cognitively, and have different inclinations by nature. Many wise men throughout history have written on this.
I think that you fear that the agenda is to create a world in which all women are like some men. I don’t see that as a worry (in trying to see things from your perspective) because not even all men are ambitious powerhouses, or even competent.
What of the men who are effete or passive, who at 40 still aren’t sure what they want to do with their lives? What of the impulsive, reckless men who pair with the strong women who work to keep the family on course? Maybe she’s even a SAHM and he’s the breadwinner, but if she were not in charge, there would be no food money at the end of the pay period.
You can’t speak collectively because in terms of leadership, even men are so varied. For every type of man, there would seem to be a matching woman. That could be viewed from the angle of similar or complimenting.
If a woman matches a man in terms of similarity, she is alike to him in ambition, capability, and merit (could be in the boardroom, on the athletic field, or as with Jay-Z and Beyonce, stardom). She should be allowed to pursue her dreams. The reverse similars would be the bums and the sluts and the people who can’t hold a job. There are men and women equally in this category, as well.
If she is a complimentary match she is aligned with his goals, or vice versa, and they together pursue a greater common goal, which is generally simply keeping family (which includes income and housekeeping) on track. The dream is less ambitious and is shared. I think this is the vast majority of people.
Pat’s
Certainly exist, but the men seem to be right there, matching or complimenting them. Through work I meet a lot of women on disability who have men pursuing them for their steady $850/mo checks. There’s a lid for every jar.
Considering much of how the world works, especially today, is by ambitious and aggressive (and annoying and offensive) people imposing their will on others, this is impossible. That is, much of how many people live autonomously is an offense and violation to others. Hence why they use force to do so.
I spoke collectively while recognizing the individuality amongst all of us.
I understand that nearly all T-mag posters are individualists, which is why we will never see eye-to-eye, so I simply treat this as friendly debate at this point. Well, actually they’re individualists who only see and judge individuals except:
Entire nations (that include their peoples) called “s—holes.”
Russia (the Russian people, not Russian individuals, that is).
China (the Chinese people)
Muslims
Christians
Trump supporters/Fox News watchers/“MAGAtards”(as if there is no variation amongst them either)
Have you thought about the effects of such a demographic winter?
Yes. I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind (having utterly failed to do so for lo these many years). The discussions are beneficial because they help me understand others’ minds, and obviously that is where “the collective” comes into play. You represent people who think differently than I do. @pat has a similar desired outcome to yours, but comes at if from a different place. @dt79 seem to see a similar desired outcome to mine, but again we come from different places. @JKil116, who has not come to my attention in the debates until now, seems spot-on in his take on things, which is of course to say that I agree with him.
The benefit to me is that when the collective “anti-women’s movement” is in play, I can have a better understanding of the individuals involved, and their motivations. I hope that when you are dealing with the collective “more women in power” movement, you’ll understand better why some people are for this. Not to replace men or to stamp out traditional femininity, but to let capable individuals live as they wish, hopefully to the benefit of the collective.
I understand what you’ve said but I’m not anti-women.
My sentiment comes from common sense, observation, looking at ramifications, human nature, and on top of that, a religious view, which involves what is natural law.
No, of course not. I realize that. I’m only saying that I think I’m a better person for understanding the background and motives of some few of the people in that large and diverse group, the group I think of as being against the women’s movement as it continues to move forward. I didn’t know what to call it. I’m fine with whatever, I didn’t mean it as a judgment. Traditionally-minded? Anti-feminism?
I honestly don’t know what to call my group, either. I’m against radical feminism (“radical” meaning “whatever is too far for me, personally”) and quotas. I’m for self-actualization, whatever that means to any given person.
A problem I have with the for-traditional-roles men is that they tend to rail against two things, and I find these incompatible as common goals. One is the desire that men not be pushed out of their traditional breadwinner role by women who are now not available for traditional homemaking and childcare roles, leaving a hole in the modern home and too large a crowd in competition for top jobs. The second issue I see over and over again is the unfair advantage given to women in family court, which causes both emotional and financial hardship to men. But in wishing for a society that rewards traditional roles, you have to also create a society willing to care for the people negatively impacted by these traditional roles. So either there is a redistribution of the male’s wealth should the relationship tank or opportunities for women to earn substantially.
It’s like the abortion debate. I’m pro-choice despite it making me uncomfortable because pro-life seems only to be pro-birth. After that these babies largely go into the system, which I know is badly broken because it is so underfunded.
If we want to encourage the creation of vulnerable peoples (women with no trade and/or impoverished babies) then we have to have a means to support them when the people meant to support them (husbands, parents) don’t.
Personally speaking, I agree with you, but the econ models suggest that here are some pretty big issues
@BrickHead I agree with a LOT of what you say. I just wish I wouldn’t get judged (not necessarily by you) for wanting a career over wanting a family life
The thing is we’re talking about a small segment of a population. IME the differences between men and women get smaller as their positions get higher. Some call this “women adopting more masculine traits”. I think it’s just humans being humans and using the appropriate leadership styles and tools their subordinates respond to.
Even personally, and as a male, I don’t manage my remote tech guys the same way I manage locals in different positions. They respond differently because they’re from different countries and industries. I have to adopt more “feminine traits” (if we want to be consistent with such vernacular) when dealing with them.
EDIT:
Sorry, @BrickHead I had to delete my first reply above because I gave away too much personal stuff. I think we very share similar values, but have a different outlook on how society ought to be governed.
Haha, sorry, I sometimes start ranting without thinking when I think of dumb shit people do. But since you read the post:
To sum up what I was previously saying, this is pretty low on my list when it comes to stupid shit (not saying this is stupid) humans do and it is something that isn’t hard to rectify through letting in more immigrants with good qualifications with a proper vetting process.
I think the belief is that there would be much less need for family courts in such a society.
Edit: Who would be “the people negatively impacted by these traditional roles” to the extent that a court is necessary? I don’t think traditional roles involve getting married and divorcing the way a high school couple breaks up and gets back together.