Would the World be more Peaceful if Women Ruled It?

[Lote-Tree]

Would the world be more peaceful if women ruled the world?

[Niamh]

:lol: good god lote! Another thread about women! you really have it bad for the female of the species!

[Lote-Tree]

:lol: good god lote! Another thread about women! you really have it bad for the female of the species!

Hey I voted that it will be a more peaceful world if women ruled it :-)
So don't worry :-)

[Demona]

sure it will be more peaceful!! even if they chat--it's better than starting/joining a war, isn't it? Besides, negotiations always did the trick! :D

[BibliophileTRJ]

There would be world-wide war for three days to a week out of every month.
Chocolate would become the Unified Global Currency.

[Niamh]

There would be world-wide war for three days to a week out of every month.
Chocolate would become the Unified Global Currency.

:lol: :lol: stitches in my side!:lol: :bawling:

[Video Drone]

I would never want to live in a woman world. Women are hysterical, unbalanced... At least men are more or less calm.

[Niamh]

I would never want to live in a woman world. Women are hysterical, unbalanced... At least men are more or less calm.

men calm? *scoffs*

[Bii]

I would never want to live in a woman world. Women are hysterical, unbalanced... At least men are more or less calm.

He he he, yep 'cos it's women who start wars, run the army, invent weapons of mass destruction (both literally and figuratively).

Who says women don't rule the world already? If there was a mass withholding of sex for say, oh, two weeks men'd be on their knees :lol:

[kathycf]

Would the world be more peaceful if women ruled the world?

Someone commented this to me, and now I shall pass it to you. Are you bored out of your hat Lote? :-)

[Lote-Tree]

Someone commented this to me, and now I shall pass it to you. Are you bored out of your hat Lote? :-)

LOL :-) Kath is the poll not amusing :-)

If not then I have failed in my attempt to amuse you :-(

As for boredom - nay I am not that easily bored.

Though the poll is amusing it is has some debating potential :-)

[kilted exile]

I voted for the Margaret Thatcher Option - if it is a negative involving the most evil woman the world has ever seen it is hard not to vote for it.

[kathycf]

As for boredom - nay I am not that easily bored.
Yet you assumed I was bored, didn't you...


Though the poll is amusing it is has some debating potential :-)
So what?

[Lote-Tree]

Yet you assumed I was bored, didn't you...


It was an amusing way to engage in a debate..



So what?

What did you vote for?

[kathycf]

What did you vote for?
Clearly, I am not voting. If I was you would see my response by viewing the poll results. This is not a subject I care to debate about. By boredom I was referring to your comment to me the other day. :) So, bye bye.

[Lote-Tree]

Clearly, I am not voting. If I was you would see my response by viewing the poll results. This is not a subject I care to debate about. By boredom I was referring to your comment to me the other day. :) So, bye bye.

Go in peace.

Shalom, Salaam, Shantih and Peace
Regards,
Lote

[Stanislaw]

heh, I gues they couldn't do a worse job then the men...:D

[motherhubbard]

Who says women don't rule the world already? If there was a mass withholding of sex for say, oh, two weeks men'd be on their knees :lol:

Two weeks is a long time, I'd be on my knees!

I voted yes because I’m genderless, even though I’m just a girl all over. I didn’t like the other two yes options. I think there would be more peace because I think that women as a whole are more inclined to take care of people rather than strive for power. Women want the children fed and the elderly cared for and medicine taken and are more inclined to be diplomatic and even manipulative to insure that everyone’s needs are met. I think when men see the big picture all they really see is their own bottom line. I think things often come back to self for men, but women tend to be more selfless.

And I resent the notion that women are emotionally unstable. We consider emotions and I think that is a strength. While there have been some Remarkably hysterical women, you can’t generalize like that. All but maybe 2-4 serial killers have been men, should we make a generalization there?

[GrayFoxDown]

Women withholding sex? (Now that sounds like my first wife....never mind.) That happened in Aristophanes' LYSISTRATA: an amusing little tale from those wild and crazy ancient times; talk about "hitting below the belt!"

However, I believe that conditions of war and peace aren't determined by rulers (regardless of their gender) but by those they rule and how they submit to being ruled...we, the common people of the world (again, regardless of gender). Greed, envy, lust for power, etc., all those "sweet" elements of contention, afflict both sexes; with the billions upon billions that inhabit this planet, that's a lot of affliction.

[Video Drone]

He he he, yep 'cos it's women who start wars, run the army, invent weapons of mass destruction (both literally and figuratively).People start wars, run the army, and invent weapons of mass destruction.

men calm? *scoffs*A lot calmer than women.

[Virgil]

I've thought about this a little bit, mainly because women are rising at the place I work. I've helped along a couple of female engineers and now one is at the same level as me. As I've watched them and other women at work make decisions I've come to the conclusion that it would not change one iota whether women ruled the world. Woman based decisions are essentially the same as male based decisions. Just a bit of my experience.

[Moira]

I voted - No! Power corrupts even the female sex.

Because we are not that different..... and i agree with Virgil here.

Lote, i can barely keep up with all your threads ...... but i enjoy myself a lot reading people's replys and it's fun.:thumbs_up

[Lote-Tree]

Lote, i can barely keep up with all your threads ...... but i enjoy myself a lot reading people's replys and it's fun.:thumbs_up

Thanks Moira. It is meant to be fun :-)

[Reccura]

People start wars, run the army, and invent weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, you're right, Video Drone. and this one too.


A lot calmer than women.

Men can be so calm I can't believe it. Really, just take a look at my dad. I've never seen him angry in my whole living life. Well, never angry on us, but he can get fierce when he wants to.


I've thought about this a little bit, mainly because women are rising at the place I work. I've helped along a couple of female engineers and now one is at the same level as me. As I've watched them and other women at work make decisions I've come to the conclusion that it would not change one iota whether women ruled the world. Woman based decisions are essentially the same as male based decisions. Just a bit of my experience.

Quite right, Uncle Virg. I just have to add that some women thinks better than men, because sometimes men would rush at some things, and not think first. But people here on LitNet (the men and the boys) seem to think before they post.

[SleepyWitch]

haven't voted yet... I'm still undecided between these two and possibly also a third option:I voted - No! Power corrupts even the female sex.)

Yes! Because they will chat more than make war
No! Because they will just behave like men eg Maggie Thatcher :-)


... even if we assume women would not become corropted by power or go Maggie, maybe they would start wars for slightly different reasons than men.
even if women in power stayed "caring, selfless" etc, maybe they'd make war to protect their family or see their whole country as their family and start wars to protect it???



Men can be so calm I can't believe it. Really, just take a look at my dad. I've never seen him angry in my whole living life. Well, never angry on us, but he can get fierce when he wants to.


haha, take a look at my dad. I've never seen him anything but grumpy, angry, petulant, whining etc in my whole life :lol:

[Haven]

... even if we assume women would not become corropted by power or go Maggie, maybe they would start wars for slightly different reasons than men.


I voted No/Margaret Thatcher . Has anyone seen the violence of the clashes in 1984 [hmm, how apt..] between the English Miners and the Police in the TV footage of the time? The Police were to put it bluntly vicious, they had of course the government's backing. Whilst Thatcher was in power, Britain experienced one of the most disruptive and socially damaging eras. However, it also has to be noted, and in observing an even-handed approach, that Thatcher set out to destroy the Unions who had in fact been holding the country to ransom [See 3 day working week under the Prime Ministership of Edward Heath who predated Thatcher]. She achieved her goals. And we musn't forget that little fiasco that she conjured up: The Faulklands War. People lost their lives over a lump of rock with a few penguins and a handful of ex-pats on it.

Nonetheless, is it power that corrupts, or is it the corrupt who seek out power?

[Virgil]

May i ask what was wrong with Margret Thatcher? She was part of the international leadership that brought down the Soviet Union and won the cold war. And from what I gather the British economy before and after is remarkably better from her reforms. If the rest of Eyope would enact her reforms, I think they would be doing much better, and that is what that new Prime Minister of France is attempting to do. Immitation is the best form of flattery.


She achieved her goals. And we musn't forget that little fiasco that she conjured up: The Faulklands War. People lost their lives over a lump of rock with a few penguins and a handful of ex-pats on it.


Well, why do you blame her? If it was only a piece of rock why did the Argentinians want it so bad? They were the ones who started it. They were the aggressors. Defending national pride and what's yours counts for something and shows leadership. Next time someone takes something that belongs to you Haven I assume you're going to welcome him in and offer him more.

[Niamh]

I come from a country were for almost twenty years a woman has been in the main seat of power, the presidency. She is the one who is in charge of our army. And where are they? They are on peacekeeping missions in the Lebanon and have only recently returned form Liberia. They go to war and famine struck countries, and help the locals, dipatching food and medicine. We wouldnt even know how to fight a war.

so yeah, i think women might do a better job.

Ps Lote...I still think you are obsessed.:p :brow:

[kilted exile]

May i ask what was wrong with Margret Thatcher? She was part of the international leadership that brought down the Soviet Union and won the cold war. And from what I gather the British economy before and after is remarkably better from her reforms. If the rest of Eyope would enact her reforms, I think they would be doing much better, and that is what that new Prime Minister of France is attempting to do. Immitation is the best form of flattery.


Virg, to explain this would go far too into politics. She destroyed the industry of the country, created mass unemployment, turned the only prospect for many where I grew up into working in call centres (there used to be pride in Glasgow especially in the phrase "clyde built" but that is no more) the rampant selling off of council housing during her watch is still causing problems, she ended the practice of giving free milk to school age children. Yes, small business and the self employed got richer - everyone else got screwed. Her reign can best be summed up in one of her quotes "there's no such thing as society", well after she was done with it there certainly wasnt......

[Lote-Tree]

Ps Lote...I still think you are obsessed.:p :brow:

If you mean women?

It is a very healthy obsession ;-) :-)
So don't worry :-)

[hockeychick8792]

:brow: :rolleyes: :ladysman: It is very possible that you are obsessed... from what i've seen

[Virgil]

Virg, to explain this would go far too into politics. She destroyed the industry of the country, created mass unemployment, turned the only prospect for many where I grew up into working in call centres (there used to be pride in Glasgow especially in the phrase "clyde built" but that is no more) the rampant selling off of council housing during her watch is still causing problems, she ended the practice of giving free milk to school age children. Yes, small business and the self employed got richer - everyone else got screwed. Her reign can best be summed up in one of her quotes "there's no such thing as society", well after she was done with it there certainly wasnt......

I don't want to talk politics nor do i know the nuances of British politics and economics, but three things strike me: (1) Out of the major European countries, Britain has the best economy and it started with her reforms, (2) in any modern economy there are evolving dislocations that are happening all the time, but the question is whether the economy as a whole is better off, (3) has any of her successors overturned what she did, and while I am no expert i would surmise by what i read that the answer is no; Tony Blair, a member of her opposite party, ran substantiating the core of her reforms. Coupled with her international achievements, that is a lasting legacy.

[kilted exile]

I don't want to talk politics nor do i know the nuances of British politics and economics, but three things strike me: (1) Out of the major European countries, Britain has the best economy and it started with her reforms, (2) in any modern economy there are evolving dislocations that are happening all the time, but the question is whether the economy as a whole is better off, (3) has any of her successors overturned what she did, and while I am no expert i would surmise by what i read that the answer is no; Tony Blair, a member of her opposite party, ran substantiating the core of her reforms. Coupled with her international achievements, that is a lasting legacy.

Ok, will just respond quickly to this:
1) I give credit to Gordon Brown for the strength of the British economy currently. The impact of Thatchers reforms on the economy were wiped out by "black wednesday". After which the economy had to be totally rebuilt.

2) This may be the defining point in our difference of opinion on her usefullness - to me the question is: "Is the society any better off?"

3) Well, Blair is really capitalism under a red flag so I am not surprised he did not overturn her policies. Yes, she definitely has a legacy, just not one I think people should be particularly proud of....

[Haven]

And from what I gather the British economy before and after is remarkably better from her reforms.

Defending national pride and what's yours counts for something and shows leadership. Next time someone takes something that belongs to you Haven I assume you're going to welcome him in and offer him more.

Hmm, see what you mean, seems like the British economy was all sunshine and roses: read on.

In June 1987, Margaret Thatcher won yet another General Election.
This should, in theory, have strengthened her position as Tory leader.
Although her public standing seemed assured, there was by then a major split in the Cabinet.
Furthermore, the government was under pressure to abandon plans to phase in an alternative to the local rating system - the community charge, or the Poll Tax as many continued to call the local tax.
As if to forecast political storms ahead, in October 1987, Britain, and more especially, the south east of England, suffered the worst storm of the century.
On the heels of the storm, came Black Monday, another Stock Market crash.
In London 10 per cent of the total share value disappeared.
The value of publicly quoted companies fell by £50 billion.
Where, Black Monday had only claimed fortunes, an event the following month claimed lives.
At Enniskillen the IRA bombed the Remembrance Day Parade killing 11 and injuring 63. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/sceptred_isle/page/250.shtml?question=250

And not forgetting the original question posted

Would the world be more peaceful if women ruled the world?

You don't think Thatcher had a political agenda in her engagement in the Falklands War? Yes, the Argentinians were the agressors, however is Britain not supposed to be the nation of the great diplomats? Thatcher was in a very poor position both within her own party and with the nation as a whole. A war excellent idea, just what was needed a diversion.
Here's a clip from the Telegraph's 25 year retrospective on that War dated Thursday March 20th 2002.

The campaign after the Argentine surrender marked the transformation of Margaret Thatcher from a deeply unpopular Prime Minister embattled even within her own party to an unassailable national leader, says Philip Johnston

So, to conclude, and in response to the original question, it is my opinion that rule by women would not make the world a more peaceful place.

[Virgil]

I'm not getting into politics. I've made my point and anything further would go against the rules here. Let it be said that history will judge.

[Lote-Tree]

:brow: :rolleyes: :ladysman: It is very possible that you are obsessed... from what i've seen

It is a healthy obsession - it is better than smoking cigs :-)

[dbowen73]

Women already rule the world! They might not be in the power positions but they control the men who are. Think about it who gets a job easier? who gets better tips? who can make a man do something they do not want to do? who can train a man with out trying to at all. women already control the world

[kiobe]

Canada has been run by a woman for a long time. Ya can't get any more calm than Canada. In a really unscientific study that I just did in my pea-brain-size-of-a-head, men seem to want to fight, women cast the illusion of a fight and then get over it. I say, give it a try, they can't possibly do worse that the men.

[Niamh]

Canada has been run by a woman for a long time. Ya can't get any more calm than Canada. In a really unscientific study that I just did in my pea-brain-size-of-a-head, men seem to want to fight, women cast the illusion of a fight and then get over it. I say, give it a try, they can't possibly do worse that the men.


I come from a country were for almost twenty years a woman has been in the main seat of power, the presidency. She is the one who is in charge of our army. And where are they? They are on peacekeeping missions in the Lebanon and have only recently returned form Liberia. They go to war and famine struck countries, and help the locals, dipatching food and medicine.

See! Women could make a difference.

[GrayFoxDown]

(PS: Post #19)

I've come to the conclusion that governments no longer govern their citizenry but rather rule them. (I used the verb forms of "rule" quite intentionally in my earlier post.)

The difference between one politician and the other (be he or she on the right or left of the political spectrum) is like the difference between two brands of soap or toothpaste. A discussion as to whether a man or woman would be a more effective leader for a peaceful world only serves to kill some time in discussing it...the Androgynous Powers That Be will carry on as always, despite millions of these threads.

[SleepyWitch]

I don't want to talk politics nor do i know the nuances of British politics and economics, but three things strike me: (1) Out of the major European countries, Britain has the best economy and it started with her reforms, (2) in any modern economy there are evolving dislocations that are happening all the time, but the question is whether the economy as a whole is better off, (3) has any of her successors overturned what she did, and while I am no expert i would surmise by what i read that the answer is no; Tony Blair, a member of her opposite party, ran substantiating the core of her reforms. Coupled with her international achievements, that is a lasting legacy.

erhem,,,, out of ALL European countries the UK has the highest incidence of child poverty. compared to some of the poorest countries in the world, the UK has a higher rate of child poverty (in relative terms and to some extent even in absolute terms) At least that's what the sociologist (?) Peter Townsend says

[Logos]

erhem,,,, out of ALL European countries the UK has the highest incidence of child poverty.
And 'quality of life' in general for younger people/children. There are many people who are talking about the state of England today including Canadian newsmagazine Maclean's (recent front cover pic of Queen and lengthy article) and this: "Why England is rotting"--England leads Europe in illiteracy, obesity, divorce, drug use, crime and STDs. Bloody hell:

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070611_106150_106150
no I didn't read the whole article yet :)

[Lote-Tree]

"Why England is rotting"--[i]England leads Europe in illiteracy, obesity, divorce, drug use, crime and STDs. Bloody hell

I blame the chavy parents :-)

But despite all that it is still England green and pleasant land :-)

[Fen]

I voted for power corrupts the female sex. Women do not have a mechanism which stops them from being as greedy,bloodthirsty and ambitious as men we are all human beings saying being female will make you nicer or peaceful is just defining someone by their sex and not who they actually are.

[SleepyWitch]

And 'quality of life' in general for younger people/children. There are many people who are talking about the state of England today including Canadian newsmagazine Maclean's (recent front cover pic of Queen and lengthy article) and this: "Why England is rotting"--England leads Europe in illiteracy, obesity, divorce, drug use, crime and STDs. Bloody hell:

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070611_106150_106150
no I didn't read the whole article yet :)

interesting article :)
I've read half of it. will read the rest later

[kilted exile]

I believe the economy part being referred to is that the UK's average annual growth rate from 1996-2005 was the highest in europe. Something which makes the situation even more appalling as we could fix the problems if the govts actually wanted to. However, thats enough politics from me for the day.

[Bii]

And 'quality of life' in general for younger people/children. There are many people who are talking about the state of England today including Canadian newsmagazine Maclean's (recent front cover pic of Queen and lengthy article) and this: "Why England is rotting"--England leads Europe in illiteracy, obesity, divorce, drug use, crime and STDs. Bloody hell:

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070611_106150_106150
no I didn't read the whole article yet :)

This is because Britain is now run by the media and the media is run by Rupert Murdoch, an Australian living in America. It's a sneaky way of getting back over colonisation.

[Lote-Tree]

This is because Britain is now run by the media and the media is run by Rupert Murdoch, an Australian living in America. It's a sneaky way of getting back over colonisation.

or to get back over his ancestors being sent there as convicts? (allegedly :-))? :-)

Summary



Yes! Definately because I am a women 2 9.09%
Yes! Definately because I am a man 1 4.55%
Yes! Definiately because I am Genderless 2 9.09%
Yes! Because they will chat more than make war 3 13.64%
No! Because they will just behave like men eg Maggie Thatcher :-) 2 9.09%
No! Power courrpts even the female sex 7 31.82%
No! Hell hath no fury when a women is scorned - it will make it worse 5 22.73%


Well it looks like majority of the people that have voted believe that it would not make a difference at all since power corrupts both men and women.

Winston Churchill wrote - History of man is the history of War.

I wonder if this history would have been any different if women were always in power.

I believe that Feminine Power is nurturing while Masculine Power tends to be possessive and destructive. Anthropologists suggest that early human societies were matriachal where women were prized for their fertility. It was the advent of patriachy that relegated women to a secondary role, a role from which they are now begining to recover and I hope this continues...

the last option on the poll was a joke and I hope people have taken it as such :-)

[Logos]

This is because Britain is now run by the media and the media is run by Rupert Murdoch, an Australian living in America. It's a sneaky way of getting back over colonisation.
woah :goof: ok!....

[kiz_paws]

Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, president of Iceland from 1980 to 1996, is a shining example that the female gender can do a commendable and capable job of 'ruling' things beside homes and wayward husbands.

Fortunately, I think that this thread is a bit of a lark, and serious debating over whether or not women would make better leaders is somewhat inane, but amusing at any rate. In my humble opinion, (and in a serious vein), the best PERSON for a given job should be in that given job. Gender really should not have a bearing (unless we are talking about the ability to bear children, but again, it would be inane to argue about that, now, wouldn't it?).

Thanks for the survey, nonetheless, and interesting thread, Lote!

[Virgil]

erhem,,,, out of ALL European countries the UK has the highest incidence of child poverty. compared to some of the poorest countries in the world, the UK has a higher rate of child poverty (in relative terms and to some extent even in absolute terms) At least that's what the sociologist (?) Peter Townsend says
Don't know if that is true or not, but child poverty is usually linked with high single mother homes. See Logos's post below.


And 'quality of life' in general for younger people/children. There are many people who are talking about the state of England today including Canadian newsmagazine Maclean's (recent front cover pic of Queen and lengthy article) and this: "Why England is rotting"--England leads Europe in illiteracy, obesity, divorce, drug use, crime and STDs. Bloody hell:

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070611_106150_106150
no I didn't read the whole article yet :)
Logos, those are disfunctions linked to values. They have nothing to do with the economy . I'm sure the overwhelming majority of Brits who work drive the economy and do quite well economically. I'm no expert in English sociology, but given the values I detect from a large group of Brits on the internet (atheism, free sexual mores, drug infactuation, excuses for crime) (and not so much on lit net but elsewhere) I'm not surprised by the social disfunctions you list. I'm sure that will cause a riot of posting after this, but so be it.

[kilted exile]

Sorry Virg, but your reasoning I think needs rethinking. The UK is no more atheistic, open to sexual exploration, lenient regarding drugs or crime than anywhere else in Europe. In fact with a number of these issues the UK is tougher regarding it than other European countries. The reason for these issues is certainly not a liberal agenda.The reason for these issues is widespread disillusionment in large sections of society.

The majority of the population in many areas are stuck in dead end jobs with no chance of advancement, many of the jobs they are trained to do are industrial jobs which are nearly nonexistant in the UK post 1988. Instead they have to take lower paying jobs, leading to spouses having to work as well and eventually to the complete reduction of the family unit.

Higher education is virtually inaccessible to large portions of society because grants were done away with and replaced with loans meaning many youths are fully aware growing up that they have no chance of being able to afford to go to university even if they get accepted there, as a result many school children lose track in the high school system in urban centres and drop out at 16 (in my year at school before we were 16 there were 34kids in my class, after we turned 16 this number dropped to 20) and that is when they show up at all....

Yes, there are widespread issues with regards to teen violence and teen pregnancies in many areas. This is because there is nothing to do, so kids stand about on street corners & eventually one thing ends up leading to another. We used to play football (soccer) in the street (all the pitches cost money to play on) the police move you on if you do that now.

For the obesity, this is a widespread problem not solely related to the UK. However, there are some more UK specific reasons for its prevalence here. With the family situation I have outlined previously,there is no time for parents to ensure that their children are eating a nutritious diet - many work shiftwork which is not conducive to traditional family dinners as a result kids get left money to go to the local fish & chip shop to buy for example a deep fried half pizza supper. Also the UK diet has never really been a particularly healthy one.

I am sure you have read Road to Wigan Pier, the unfortunate thing to report is that there are places in the UK which have not advanced much from there.

[SleepyWitch]

I'm sure the overwhelming majority of Brits who work drive the economy and do quite well economically.

have you ever visited one of the not so touristy places in Britain?
if not, I'd recommend you to visit Coventry, Birmingham or any other of the ex-industrial cities...

plus, it's not only those who've always been poor anyway, even the middle classes in Britain are rapidly being eroded. many of the middle class are bogged down in morgages and debts up to their neck



For the obesity, this is a widespread problem not solely related to the UK. However, there are some more UK specific reasons for its prevalence here. With the family situation I have outlined previously,there is no time for parents to ensure that their children are eating a nutritious diet - many work shiftwork which is not conducive to traditional family dinners as a result kids get left money to go to the local fish & chip shop to buy for example a deep fried half pizza supper. Also the UK diet has never really been a particularly healthy one.

when i was living in England, I read in the times that many mothers will give their children a candy bar and a bag of crisps as a packlunch for school. the article said even middle class mothers did that because they had to rush to work and didn't have time to prepare a sandwich, fruit etc.
i was like :eek2: this can't be true
right the next day I saw a middle class mother with a primary school age boy at the bus stop. she gave him a king size snickers bar and a pack of crisps!

of course, we've got obesity here,too. but here it's more widespread for working/lower class children to go without a breakfast and packlunch altogether. we don't get middle class mothers giving their children a king size candy bar for breakfast

[Lote-Tree]

Fortunately, I think that this thread is a bit of a lark, and serious debating over whether or not women would make better leaders is somewhat inane, but amusing at any rate.


It is meant to amuse first :-)
You don't think the last option on the poll was serious do you? ;-)

But any "serious" debating is taken at Posters own Risk :-)



In my humble opinion, (and in a serious vein), the best PERSON for a given job should be in that given job.


But women's psychy is different to men. Perhaps they have qualities for leadership that is different from men but we have not seen them in action fully yet?



Thanks for the survey, nonetheless, and interesting thread, Lote!

Thank you :-)

It is meant to amuse but has some "serious" undertone :-)

[quasimodo1]

To Lote-Tree: Women would do better at government; that's a given for me.

[Lote-Tree]

To Lote-Tree: Women would do better at government; that's a given for me.

Do you say this as a man?

[quasimodo1]

To Lote-Tree: Yes, male, I admit it. Is there a Lote tree, flora wise? quasi

[Lote-Tree]

To Lote-Tree: Yes, male, I admit it.

Ah good :-)

I think their approach would be totally different to men. And this different approach may make all the difference. But we will have to wait and see :-)



Is there a Lote tree, flora wise? quasi

Don't understand this question?

[Virgil]

Logos, those are disfunctions linked to values. They have nothing to do with the economy . I'm sure the overwhelming majority of Brits who work drive the economy and do quite well economically. I'm no expert in English sociology, but given the values I detect from a large group of Brits on the internet (atheism, free sexual mores, drug infactuation, excuses for crime) (and not so much on lit net but elsewhere) I'm not surprised by the social disfunctions you list. I'm sure that will cause a riot of posting after this, but so be it.
After re-reading that i realized I did not mean atheism in that list, but nihilism. I come across so many Brits that are nihilists on the internet. Of course that is just my impression and obviously if Britain has the best economy in Europe than the general population can't be that way. The demographics of the internet are not that of the general population.



have you ever visited one of the not so touristy places in Britain?
if not, I'd recommend you to visit Coventry, Birmingham or any other of the ex-industrial cities...

I've been to london and the area south of London, I don't recall what it's called. London seemed fairly well to do for a major city; I've seen worse. And the area south of london seemed very prosperous. Upper middle class by my judgement.


plus, it's not only those who've always been poor anyway, even the middle classes in Britain are rapidly being eroded. many of the middle class are bogged down in morgages and debts up to their neck
Well, that's everywhere. If you own a home you have a mortgage unless it was handed down to you. If you think Britain is so bad, then I wonder what the rest of Europe must be like if Britain has the best economy of the larger countries. (Ireland is doing fabulous BTW, also after free market reforms, I might add, but that is smaller size country.) I hear high unemployment and that doesn't even account for students who take years to find a job. Of course this is only what I read in the newspapers; I have no first hand account.

[kiz_paws]

But women's psychy is different to men. Perhaps they have qualities for leadership that is different from men but we have not seen them in action fully yet?
By "seen in action fully yet", I will submit my view on how things were done here in North America during World War II, for example. The women 'ran things' quite well, and were indignant when, after the war, the boys came home and wanted things to go back to the way it used to be, which didn't happen.... The "little woman at home" realized that she could wield a wrench any bit as good as a guy, so why the heck would she go back to making pies and scrubbing little kids.

Of course, there were plenty of women in the service at that time, too, not to close them out -- but my point was this issue of women being CAPABLE of running things besides homes... Now this statement may get some folks going, but I thought I'd throw it into the pile, at any rate. :)

[SleepyWitch]

I've been to london and the area south of London, I don't recall what it's called. London seemed fairly well to do for a major city; I've seen worse. And the area south of london seemed very prosperous. Upper middle class by my judgement.


yep, the south of England is indeed very prosperous.
but once you cross the so-called "Watford Gap" a bit to the north of London, it's a different story. of course it's not all black-and-white, but on average the north is worse off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-South_divide_in_the_United_Kingdom

I've got some statistics about it somewhere...

as for Ireland, one of the reasons for its tremendous economic growth rate may be that they started from nil. 50 years ago, Ireland was a developing country. it's not surprising that you get a high growth rate in these circumstances: there was a lot of potential for growth.
I think they're past that stage now, but a couple of years ago this explanation was still valid for Ireland.
with better developed countries, the growth rate levels off unless you invent radically new products or open up new markets... there are only so many cars, fridges and ipods people can buy.


Well, that's everywhere. If you own a home you have a mortgage unless it was handed down to you.
yep... but the problem in the UK is that mortgage rates were ridiculously low a couple of years back and people bought and resold houses like crazy. then the rates increased drastically due to some new legislation and now people are stuck with those morgages... (aaargh, I might have got it the wrong way round. I'm no good at economics.. maybe Kilt knows the details)


If you think Britain is so bad, then I wonder what the rest of Europe must be like if Britain has the best economy of the larger countries.
yeah, that's a good point. Actually, Germany's economy, for example, has only recovered recently and they're scrapping lots of social security/health insurance/benefit thingies, so things are going downhill here too. only they haven't hit bottom like in the UK yet...
but the question isn't necessarily how well the ecnomy is doing as a whole but where the money goes. e.g. the Scandinavian countries have are top of the league in education, access to health care etc (worldwide! they are number 1 in most categories).. ok, they are small countries, but still...
France has free childcare for toddlers from the age of 1 and they're a big country, with roughly the same population of the UK.

hehe, if all the other countries are going to the dogs as well, the reason for it can't be British nihilism :)

[Bii]

woah :goof: ok!....

It was intended as a tongue in cheek comment, no offence intended. Apart from the bit about Britain being run by the media, which is pretty much true.

My apologies, I'll try and hold back with the flippancy in future. :angel:


when i was living in England, I read in the times that many mothers will give their children a candy bar and a bag of crisps as a packlunch for school. the article said even middle class mothers did that because they had to rush to work and didn't have time to prepare a sandwich, fruit etc.
i was like :eek2: this can't be true
right the next day I saw a middle class mother with a primary school age boy at the bus stop. she gave him a king size snickers bar and a pack of crisps!

of course, we've got obesity here,too. but here it's more widespread for working/lower class children to go without a breakfast and packlunch altogether. we don't get middle class mothers giving their children a king size candy bar for breakfast

Those sorts of practices are pretty much banned by the schools now, at my son's school you can't send them with sweets or chocolates as part of their packed lunch any more. That being said, it shouldn't be for the school to impose these kinds of standards, but the parents. The problem for parents is two fold. The first is simple economics, it's significantly cheaper to buy sweets/crisps and the like, than it is to buy fruit, yoghurt, raisins and other such healthy snacks although the gap is shrinking slowly. The second is that, and I'm sure this is not just in Britain, but we seem to be moving more to an 'entitlement culture' where people expect that they should have everything that they want, and because there is so much choice these days, whatever you want is generally available. When I was a child (which isn't that long ago - honest!) the prevalence of convenience foods was low, generally we had a family meal in the evening which was cooked from scratch, and that was pretty much all there was available. You'd get fruit when it was in season, veg when it was in season. Now you can get peaches in December and it's cheaper to get frozen ready meals than it is to buy frsh produce and make a meal from fresh ingredients. So much has changed in such a short time. Parents, in general, think their kids should have what they want because they didn't, but that isn't solving the problem, just making things worse. So people give their kids chocolate for breakfast, 'cos that's what they want, even though it's not what's best for them. And they can't say no, because the kids go to school and all their friends get what they want, and if they don't then they're picked on for being 'different'. So they respond to the peer pressure, 'cos no one wants their kids to be bullied.

At some point it has to turn around, but at the moment that doesn't look to be some time soon, unfortunately.

On the obesity point - I think this has significantly more to do with lack of activity than diet. Kids are encouraged to stay indoors now because their presence outside is offensive to adults (which I think Kilted Exile has already commented on). They gather in groups outside, which was exactly what I used to do when I was a kid, but these days they get moved on because people think they're up to no good, or because people are intimidated by their presence. That's not the kids fault.

[Lote-Tree]

By "seen in action fully yet", I will submit my view on how things were done here in North America during World War II, for example. The women 'ran things' quite well, and were indignant when, after the war, the boys came home and wanted things to go back to the way it used to be, which didn't happen.... The "little woman at home" realized that she could wield a wrench any bit as good as a guy, so why the heck would she go back to making pies and scrubbing little kids.


Yes. This happened in UK too.

Women indeed have made spectacular progress. Going from powerlessness in the Suffragettes movement to be heads of states - this sucess should be celebrated :-)

[Virgil]

as for Ireland, one of the reasons for its tremendous economic growth rate may be that they started from nil. 50 years ago, Ireland was a developing country. it's not surprising that you get a high growth rate in these circumstances: there was a lot of potential for growth.
I think they're past that stage now, but a couple of years ago this explanation was still valid for Ireland.
with better developed countries, the growth rate levels off unless you invent radically new products or open up new markets... there are only so many cars, fridges and ipods people can buy.

From what I understand, people from all over are trying to immigrate to Ireland, including main land Europe.


yep... but the problem in the UK is that mortgage rates were ridiculously low a couple of years back and people bought and resold houses like crazy. then the rates increased drastically due to some new legislation and now people are stuck with those morgages... (aaargh, I might have got it the wrong way round. I'm no good at economics.. maybe Kilt knows the details)
Well, that happened here too and once rates went up it did hurt people who got variable mortgages, and the economy has slowed here too because of it. But this is a short term issue, hardly one that will have lasting issues.


hehe, if all the other countries are going to the dogs as well, the reason for it can't be British nihilism :)
No I did not say the nihilism had an effect on the economy but on the social problems of drugs and crime and single mothers.

[SleepyWitch]

From what I understand, people from all over are trying to immigrate to Ireland, including main land Europe.

yep, that's why I said "I think they are past that stage" (the one where the high growth rate is mainly due to their starting from nil.)
I'm very vague on Ireland, but I think one of their advantages is that they have focused on the services and light industries sector (call centres, high tech..), while England used to focus on heavy industries, such as cars, steel, coal etc. starting with the steel crisis in the 60s they've had to reorganize their economy. of course, the services sector dominates their economy now, but that doesn't help those who trained to work e.g. in car manufacturing.

I'm not sure about this at all, but my impression is that Ireland never reached the high level of heavy industrialization England had, so it was easier to skip that stage and move on straight to a services sector economy???? that's just my hyphothesis, though

hehehe, this has absolutely nothing to do with Lote's question, but never mind :)

[Virgil]

hehehe, this has absolutely nothing to do with Lote's question, but never mind :)

Hehehe, sorry Lote. I think we're done now. :)

[Lote-Tree]

Hehehe, sorry Lote. I think we're done now. :)

No problema chaps. The thread is already done with :-)

[Niamh]

From what I understand, people from all over are trying to immigrate to Ireland, including main land Europe.

Ireland was one of the first countries to open its borders to the new EU countries of poland, Lithuania, latvia, Estonia, slovakia etc when they joined about four years ago. Our Economic boom in the property developing industry meant that a larger wotk force was needed and many of the Immigrants/non nationals went into this sector and the retail and hotel sector also.




yep, that's why I said "I think they are past that stage" (the one where the high growth rate is mainly due to their starting from nil.)
I'm very vague on Ireland, but I think one of their advantages is that they have focused on the services and light industries sector (call centres, high tech..), while England used to focus on heavy industries, such as cars, steel, coal etc. starting with the steel crisis in the 60s they've had to reorganize their economy. of course, the services sector dominates their economy now, but that doesn't help those who trained to work e.g. in car manufacturing.

The computer industry is one of the most inportant industries in Ireland were the likes of HP and Dell have call centres, manufacturing plants, and office centres all over the country. Also many american based research companies like Quintiles have important bases here. And the Pharmacutical industry trives here as well. So sleepy you are right. Not a heavy industry country!


I'm not sure about this at all, but my impression is that Ireland never reached the high level of heavy industrialization England had, so it was easier to skip that stage and move on straight to a services sector economy???? that's just my hyphothesis, though

The only part of Ireland that ever really reached the high level was the North and mainly Belfast. IE harland and Wolfe shipbuilders. I think one of the reasons it didnt boom in the south was because we were more into our agriculture.


This is just to let you know how much Irelands economy has changed. When my parents were buying our house back in the early seventies, it only cost £3000.(which was a good bit in those days.
In the early-middle 90's a house might have cost around £45,000. Now over ten years later, to buy a house like mine could cost you from €375,000 and up, depending on the area, in the suburbs. My boyfriend bought a three bed semi, ten minute walk away form my house, for almost €490,000. now Thats some difference!

[Lily Adams]

I'm sure someone said this already, but who says the world is ruled by men? I mean, even if men do "rule the world", (Which is wrong because no one actually "rules the world". Except me. When I grow up.) they have people who they consult who can be women! It's not like they can make big decisions all by their self.

[ennison]

The connotations of the word 'rule' mean it would be neither better or worse than whoever is postulated to 'rule' it at present. I believe it is Satan. But then I would wouldn't I.

[samercury]

:lol: The idea of the world being more peaceful with women in charge just makes me laugh

[Virgil]

:lol: The idea of the world being more peaceful with women in charge just makes me laugh

I guess you seen some real cat fights, Same. :lol: I've seen some women get real aggresive too. But it's probably the same amount between men and women.

[SleepyWitch]

I'm sure someone said this already, but who says the world is ruled by men? I mean, even if men do "rule the world", (Which is wrong because no one actually "rules the world". Except me. When I grow up.) they have people who they consult who can be women! It's not like they can make big decisions all by their self.

good point, Lily.. but do those women really advise the men or do they just tell them what they want to hear?
where I work, everyone (men and women) is always backing up the boss even when they have different opinions themselves and these opinions are more well-founded.

[SleepyWitch]

[QUOTE=Niamh;391376]
The only part of Ireland that ever really reached the high level was the North and mainly Belfast. IE harland and Wolfe shipbuilders. I think one of the reasons it didnt boom in the south was because we were more into our agriculture.
/QUOTE]

thanks for explaining it, Niamh

[Redzeppelin]

Let's put it this way: I have worked under both female and male dominated management structures and the guys were much more laid back. Because guys are less relationally and emotionally oriented, I think we're quicker to forgive and forget; in my experience, it seems that women seem to hang onto to things a bit longer - and that can't be conducive to peace. Granted, to be fair, they are generally less competetive than men, so it may balance out - but I agree with my poll choice: nobody is immune to the corruptive qualities of power.