If women are inherently caring and nurturing, shouldn't they be in charge more?

for all i care too

No. Being in charge, and being caring and nurturing are similar in some ways but are separate for being masculine and feminine principles. They stand together but are separate flesh. A woman can be in charge if she wants, but that means losing her feminine principle, which is impossible. Any woman in authority is experimenting, and will give up authoritative positions once the dissolution of her femininity spiritually awakens her. She'll either realize it's not worth losing, or that it cannot be lost completely. If she doesn't step down, it's out of stubbornness, a conflictive ego, which can't lead people if not for an objective purpose.

If they were better at being in charge, they would be in charge.

>If women were in power war would end
History demonstrates that the opposite of this is true

No, women do nothing for society

mentalfloss.com/article/31274/6-modern-societies-where-women-literally-rule

Attached: iq-by-college-major-gender.png (741x643, 66K)

>alpha
I've got news for u buddy

does it?

because the people in charge now are good at being in charge?

Ok like what

Yes, that's why I said it.

>I don’t understand how the current system encourages the world to remain exactly as it is

i was prompting you for some sort of support of yr claim

women literally have not shown they can run a large company without men let alone a country

You're not oppressed
>teach me history
literally just google it then

They are already in charge. In charge of nurturing and caring as teachers and nurses.

if you use 'literally' like that people aren't likely to respect your opinion

You know males and females are almost 50% of the world?

and yet men can run companies without men very easily

lol nice one

I assume you mean without women and that's because fewer number of women in the workforce.

Im a dude so yeah I’m not oppressed. What did you mean

It's because women are not needed whereas men are, women are mostly a detriment to the companies they're in

Being "in charge" changes a person. Concerning antagonistic political disputes government authorities find aggression is often inescapable.

Power by its inherent nature erodes what you might call traditionally feminine-associated virtues. It enforces a ruthlessness and unsympathetic coldness that is more often associated with traditional masculinity .

Just look at the record of what female rulers there have been. Catherine the Great was a warmongerer against Ottomans and other Caucasian states. Elizabeth I utilized the navy to violent effect against the Spanish. They treated their enemies as worthy of death.

The one major difference is that we have never lived in a world where women rule as a conscious coalition, rather than conforming to a man's world with its propensity towards warfare, remorseless competition and outright aggression. My prediction would be that in such a world female rules would still be deeply antagonistic at times but in general more defensive in their foreign policies. (Which of course exposes them to the more masculine aggression, ensuring that traditonally masculine traits will always find rational assertion when the more feminine mindset gains too much prominence.

If women are more likely to promote equanimity in their relations, aggressive defectors could upend the system, and some women, or a man, would take advantage of this weakness in the feminine ruling style.

You win. I can't refutet this.

>history has shown women like to go to war
>No I can’t provide an example

do you think women would trade places with men for all the per capita measures if you offered the choice? I dont think they would

I have no idea. Unfortunately that hypothetical situation doesn’t prove your point that >if you wanna be in charge then just be in charge lmao

Women do have dick envy though.

a lot of them do. lots of women aren't women but auxiliary male personnel

I was responding to your point that women are oppressed. I dont think they would even entertain having to live the life of the average man. Even just having to sign up for selective service would probably weed out 80% of them

Believe what you like, I'm not going to spoonfeed you. History supports one of these sides. I leave it to you to discover which one.

If they were offered the option to live the life as an average man, then they wouldn’t be oppressed.
>women aren’t oppressed because they wouldn’t even want equality if they were offered
Makes no sense. Maybe you’re right and they would choose comfort but that doesn’t change the way things are

Haha how mysterious you leave it to me. You obviously can’t prove the point you tried to make, which is fine

It's alright man

women really are much nicer than men

Not equality, the life of men. Which also means that they have to work more than men, but men spend more money than they do, among a bunch of other things. I dont think women would like having to support men very much. I cant see them being very happy about the workplace casualties, homelessness and suicide rates either. Or the domestic violence or custody laws.

It's not even clear in the first place how they're oppressed now.

Read It leads to destruction of society and at the heights of patriarchy I expect war, women bicker men are object oriented. The types of wars are different imo

I mean is it that hard to see that some women wouldn’t want to be supported by men? And can’t you imagine that some men would love to be supported by women? Each human being is different, and hardworking women don’t care for the way things are. Lazy women are cool with it. Your problem is you want all women to be the same and all men to be the same, and that isn’t true

But men are different than women. What's the point of this hypothesis?

Im talking in terms of averages, I dont think women would want to change places with men in our society. I think a hell of a lot more men would want to change places

>ctrl+f “war”
>no results
>skim article
>completely irrelevant to your claim

Again, some women would and some women wouldn’t. There isn’t a coalition of women that decides for all women what they will do

>averages

I have no problem with women being authoritarian and in control. That’s one of my favorite parts about this interesting relationship. Butterfly is very intellectual and intelligent, but the funny thing is that she’ll get carried away and I’ll have to do something like make her wear a collar and she always obliges. :3

Butterfly make sure you wear it in front of people today, like at a cafe like last time. You can be honest with us it’s okay :D

U have simple life fren

Fuck it. We’re way off base here. Your original claim was
>you’re not oppressed
Unless every woman was offered this choice to switch with men that you invented, they’re just as oppressed as they are now. If you really think they aren’t then talk with me about the way the world is and not weird hypotheticals tailored to your argument

All those cultures have been run back to stone age, relationships and society

I don't think women want to be dependent on men.

The article doesn’t prove anything you said dude.

good god lad the point of the hypothetical is to illustrate the way the world is now. The relatives benefits of being a woman outweigh the cons, compared to the male situation, for the average individual.

The men who are at the top of society are a very small subset

Well theyre going to have to be in many fields, an obvious one is manual labor

Yeah but at the end of the day women disagree with you. Why do you get to make that call? They don’t want it the way it is and there’s no way out, hence slight oppression

Yeah. Because acconplishments come from feeling really strongly about it.

They dont want it the way men have it either, so their claim to being oppressed is ridiculous.

You're not oppressed

they are in charge of the household but the man has the final say

Without pre-defined ideal roles, engagement in society, and subsequently society, will collapse. Roles that are too broad don't have good engagement.

Yes, they do. In their minds it's couched in different terms, but the substance is identical.

Fuck I know she’s doing it too. I fucking know she has a collar and I know she’s doing it. Fapfapfap

They do though. Have you never heard what a woman has to say

Wtf is so great about being a modern average male?

This

Being average is comfy uwu

Would you want to be a housewife? There's a lot of drudgery involved in that too, not to mention nobody cares about what you do. I'm saying women want more freedom to do whatever they want. Right now, what's expected of an ideal family is a woman that takes care of kids and a father that makes money. That's just how society works right now.

Dude. I don’t know. I’m not a girl. I’m only saying that they do want more responsibility. Why would you want to live a docile life that’s taken care of?

Women should have interesting things to say if they want people to listen to them for real. Here a pussy just ain't enough like with most things in life.

Read You lose civilization, you get communes and it's not equal

Most men arent responsible for all that much either, so what are they talking about?

I'm sure those civilizations we're great when men were in charge. Women only are responsible for these places being backwards, not the geography of these places, not the resources offered.

>they do want more responsibility
they want more power. Nobody on earth really wants more responsiblity. Why would you?

To prove yourself. A male impulse.

Bruh there are more female graduates then males at this point and are steadily out earning the average guy. Its really just about power like the other user said.

lol ok
Men have the ability to have more responsibility. I assume they just want the opportunity
Stupid generalization. I’ll go with self fulfillment. Some people enjoy a challenge

1. China

Your argument is rebuffed

All Chinese are Urban? These places have strange cultures too. There's a lot of places ruled by men that are far worse off. This doesn't prove women are responsible for these places not progressing.

That all counts for short term needs, but you can't do long term leadership if you care for every small Problem of the populus directly.

They're in charge of male children, the future world leaders.