Would the world be more peaceful if there were more women leaders?

[Syne]

So shenanigans is citing two sources to support my argument..which you just completely ignore? O_o
Sorry deary, but you can't expect others to do research to support your own arguments for you. That is shifting the burden. I made an argument and I supported it. You talked out of your ass, and even seemed to misrepresent determinism, and now you're whining about having to support your own arguments.

You cited two sources supporting your argument?  That's fucking hilarious!  You're all over the place.

Yep, they were quotes followed by bold blue links. https://www.scivillage.com/thread-4420-p...l#pid15319
Are you having THAT much trouble following a simple discussion? O_o

Would the world be more peaceful if there were more women leaders?

No. When polled, 33% of women want men as leaders...because they know, first hand, the cattiness and often vindictive jealousy of other women.

I take it that you agreed with the article, which was in opposition to Steven Pinker’s opinion.

The article says…

"It is, indeed, a stereotype to dismiss women as inherently peaceable. I wish to disclaim altogether the kind of assumption… in feminist talk of the present day.” That is, “the assumption that men have been the barbarians who loved physical force, and that women alone were civilized and civilizing. There are no signs of this in literature or history."

False dilemma. It doesn't have to be one way or the other. Women can be overly stereotyped as peaceable while men can be much more prone to violence.

So tell me why those two must be mutually exclusive.

But then you try to back up your argument (whatever the fuck that is) citing quotes from Wikipedia on evolutionary psychology.  And now, you’re agreeing with Steven Pinker, who basically says that men are stupid barbarians and women are more civilized.

He said that feminization is one of the long term trends that has been pushing violence down.  That giving women more power will mean that violence for its own sake will be less appealing.  He notes that the parts of the world that lag in the decline of violence are also the parts that lag in the empowerment of women.  Pinker argues that the empowerment of women does exercise a pacifying influence and the world would be more peaceful if women were in charge.

WTF?  Yeah, like I said...shenanigans.  

No, it's only your straw man, deary, that agrees with everything Pinker said. I already told you what I agreed with, but you didn't seem interested in quoting or responding to what was actually said. You'd much rather make it up for yourself.

The empowering of women is not the cause of declining violence, because only those in power (men) are in a position to empower others. Those are only correlated because they likely share a third cause. Otherwise, demonstrate the causation.


Now, go back and try to show where any of my posts here are in conflict. You will find that it's only your straw man arguments that conflict with anything I've said. The only shenanigans is your eagerness to troll and straw man...

...or are you really THAT incapable of following simple reasoning?

[RainbowUnicorn]

"women must renounce their femininity and “denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it.”"
"calling for people to “attack femininity directly”
“We can only give femininity so many modifiers for so long before we have to confront the possibility that it is femininity itself that has become the problem.”

Did that come out as well as you thought it was going to?  Genuinly [< I have lost the will to get past the spell checker]  - assume no mockery intended, do you think it worked?

desyphering synes post as a ... thought bubble..

"ha ha ha.. women wont want to throw away their sensory sensuality which i label as femininity covertly"

oh ! ha ha ha im soo clever !

im soo clever ! look i have a penis !

---

So shenanigans is citing two sources to support my argument..which you just completely ignore? O_o
Sorry deary, but you can't expect others to do research to support your own arguments for you. That is shifting the burden. I made an argument and I supported it. You talked out of your ass, and even seemed to misrepresent determinism, and now you're whining about having to support your own arguments.

You cited two sources supporting your argument?  That's fucking hilarious!  You're all over the place.

Would the world be more peaceful if there were more women leaders?

No. When polled, 33% of women want men as leaders...because they know, first hand, the cattiness and often vindictive jealousy of other women.

I take it that you agreed with the article, which was in opposition to Steven Pinker’s opinion.

The article says…

"It is, indeed, a stereotype to dismiss women as inherently peaceable. I wish to disclaim altogether the kind of assumption… in feminist talk of the present day.” That is, “the assumption that men have been the barbarians who loved physical force, and that women alone were civilized and civilizing. There are no signs of this in literature or history."

But then you try to back up your argument (whatever the fuck that is) citing quotes from Wikipedia on evolutionary psychology.  And now, you’re agreeing with Steven Pinker, who basically says that men are stupid barbarians and women are more civilized.

He said that feminization is one of the long term trends that has been pushing violence down.  That giving women more power will mean that violence for its own sake will be less appealing.  He notes that the parts of the world that lag in the decline of violence are also the parts that lag in the empowerment of women.  Pinker argues that the empowerment of women does exercise a pacifying influence and the world would be more peaceful if women were in charge.

WTF?  Yeah, like I said...shenanigans.  

"It is, indeed, a stereotype to dismiss women as inherently peaceable. I wish to disclaim altogether the kind of assumption… in feminist talk of the present day.” That is, “the assumption that men have been the barbarians who loved physical force, and that women alone were civilized and civilizing. There are no signs of this in literature or history."

translation ...
"i have a penis and you do not there for i am better than you"

[Secular Sanity]

It doesn't have to be one way or the other. Women can be overly stereotyped as peaceable while men can be much more prone to violence.

So tell me why those two must be mutually exclusive.  

Would the world be more peaceful if there were more women leaders?

Would the world be more peaceful if all the leaders of the world were women?

Why does it invariably need to become a matriarchy...or black power...or eat the rich...? Invariably, whatever group claims victimhood is eager to victimize in return. You know, instead of just accepting some things as healthy consequences of natural order.

Are there any modern, first-world matriarchies? Why not? Even women favor voting men into power.^
Are there any examples of minority rule? Of course there are...like minority rule by white South Africans during apartheid. How did that turn out?

Evolutionary psychology predisposes people to having certain expectations, motives, and strategies. Are these things, shaped by nature, unhealthy?
If evolution is generally a good thing that promotes good survival strategies, aren't most the consequences of that natural order healthy?

A good thing?  O_o

Evolution does not make ethical statements concerning good or bad, deary.

Are you really THAT incapable of following simple reasoning?

"Evolution does not make ethical statements about right and wrong. Some people misinterpret the fact that evolution has shaped animal behavior (including human behavior) as supporting the idea that whatever behaviors are "natural" are the "right" ones. This is not the case.

Evolution doesn’t result in progress.  Natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive."

Misconceptions about evolution

The standard deviation for IQ is higher in men than women. So yes, there are more men both dumber and smarter than women, at the extremes of the bell curve. And yes, the lower end potential for IQ can mix with competitive nature to disastrous effect. But on the other hand, most modern technology, safety against inherently aggressive nations, and even safety against overly aggressive males are a product of men in general.

And like Darwin, are you putting forth the idea that women are inferior, and that male-male competition and female selection is responsible for enhancing the male intellect? 

Are genes passed down equally in girls?  How 'bout boys?

"As humans are a highly social species, there are many adaptive problems associated with navigating the social world (e.g., maintaining allies, managing status hierarchies, interacting with outgroup members, coordinating social activities, collective decision-making). Researchers in the emerging field of evolutionary social psychology have made many discoveries pertaining to topics traditionally studied by social psychologists, including person perception, social cognition, attitudes, altruism, emotions, group dynamics, leadership, motivation, prejudice, intergroup relations, and cross-cultural differences." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona...psychology

"In the last three decades, the evolutionary perspective has been reinvigorated with considerable theoretical advances and a continually growing array of empirical studies.

Claims for such dramatic advancements on currently held beliefs likely evoke skepticism. The massive empirical evidence accumulating for the influence of evolutionary selection pressures on psychological mechanisms will convince objective observers." - http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/200...spx#Kruger

Are these quotes supposed to support the idea that men are natural born leaders?  Is that the 'natural order' of things? Is that your argument?

As you said earlier, men are more inclined towards violence.  Is there a warrior gene?   Is war a part of our nature (our evolutionary heritage) or is war a more recent cultural elaboration of male-male competition?

[Syne]

It doesn't have to be one way or the other. Women can be overly stereotyped as peaceable while men can be much more prone to violence.

So tell me why those two must be mutually exclusive.  

Would the world be more peaceful if there were more women leaders?

Would the world be more peaceful if all the leaders of the world were women?

So since the original question didn't give any reason the two should be mutually exclusive, you want to change it to some reductio ad absurdum?
Does that include the leaders of all groups, religions, clubs, organizations, movements, families, etc.?

Why does it invariably need to become a matriarchy...or black power...or eat the rich...? Invariably, whatever group claims victimhood is eager to victimize in return. You know, instead of just accepting some things as healthy consequences of natural order.

Are there any modern, first-world matriarchies? Why not? Even women favor voting men into power.^
Are there any examples of minority rule? Of course there are...like minority rule by white South Africans during apartheid. How did that turn out?

Evolutionary psychology predisposes people to having certain expectations, motives, and strategies. Are these things, shaped by nature, unhealthy?
If evolution is generally a good thing that promotes good survival strategies, aren't most the consequences of that natural order healthy?

A good thing?  O_o

Evolution does not make ethical statements concerning good or bad, deary.

Are you really THAT incapable of following simple reasoning?

"Evolution does not make ethical statements about right and wrong. Some people misinterpret the fact that evolution has shaped animal behavior (including human behavior) as supporting the idea that whatever behaviors are "natural" are the "right" ones. This is not the case.

Evolution doesn’t result in progress.  Natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive."

Misconceptions about evolution

Again, try reading what was actually written. "...evolution is generally a good thing that promotes good survival strategies..."
Who ever said evolution makes "ethical statements"? This is just another of your non sequitur straw man arguments.

The standard deviation for IQ is higher in men than women. So yes, there are more men both dumber and smarter than women, at the extremes of the bell curve. And yes, the lower end potential for IQ can mix with competitive nature to disastrous effect. But on the other hand, most modern technology, safety against inherently aggressive nations, and even safety against overly aggressive males are a product of men in general.

And like Darwin, are you putting forth the idea that women are inferior, and that male-male competition and female selection is responsible for enhancing the male intellect? 

No, those are just facts. Facts don't make value judgements any more than evolution makes ethical statements.
And again, only your straw man says anything about competition and female selection having any impact on male intelligence. If I had to guess, I'd say that it was the evolutionary psychology of being hunters (which transferred to being fighters/soldiers) that led to male intelligence. You know, cognitive strategy versus intuitive strategy.

Are genes passed down equally in girls? How 'bout boys?

Again, are you claiming there are no gendered differences? O_o

"As humans are a highly social species, there are many adaptive problems associated with navigating the social world (e.g., maintaining allies, managing status hierarchies, interacting with outgroup members, coordinating social activities, collective decision-making). Researchers in the emerging field of evolutionary social psychology have made many discoveries pertaining to topics traditionally studied by social psychologists, including person perception, social cognition, attitudes, altruism, emotions, group dynamics, leadership, motivation, prejudice, intergroup relations, and cross-cultural differences." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona...psychology

"In the last three decades, the evolutionary perspective has been reinvigorated with considerable theoretical advances and a continually growing array of empirical studies.

Claims for such dramatic advancements on currently held beliefs likely evoke skepticism. The massive empirical evidence accumulating for the influence of evolutionary selection pressures on psychological mechanisms will convince objective observers." - http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/200...spx#Kruger

Are these quotes supposed to support the idea that men are natural born leaders?  Is that the 'natural order' of things? Is that your argument?

Men didn't become, nor remain, leaders by happenstance. The biggest hurdle to women in power is women voting them into power, just like the largest hurdle to women in STEM fields is women wanting to work in those fields.

As you said earlier, men are more inclined towards violence.  Is there a warrior gene?   Is war a part of our nature (our evolutionary heritage) or is war a more recent cultural elaboration of male-male competition?

As I speculated above, hunting and battle do seem to have overlapping skill sets, e.g. strategy, risk assessment, etc..
What, do you really think war is a more modern contrivance? Please tell me you're not one of these doe-eyed people who really thinks ancient people lived some utopian lifestyle. That's basically the Garden of Eden myth.

[Leigha]

The world would be different, not necessarily more peaceful if more women were leaders. While men have always been ''in power,'' and are prone to certain behaviors biologically due to testosterone, there are still tons of women out there with uncontrollable anger issues and violent tendencies. Many women commit murders, etc so if more women were in powerful government type positions, or led countries, I don't think that would automatically mean world peace.

[Secular Sanity]

The world would be different, not necessarily more peaceful if more women were leaders. While men have always been ''in power,'' and are prone to certain behaviors biologically due to testosterone, there are still tons of women out there with uncontrollable anger issues and violent tendencies. Many women commit murders, etc so if more women were in powerful government type positions, or led countries, I don't think that would automatically mean world peace.

Sex differences in crime (wikipedia.org)

---

Again, try reading what was actually written. "...evolution is generally a good thing that promotes good survival strategies..."
Who ever said evolution makes "ethical statements"?

Err, by using the word 'good' you're making a value judgement. Natural selection doesn't promote behaviors that are good for the species as a whole. Natural selection has no foresight or intentions.

'natural order'???  Still trying to justify that term, eh?

No, those are just facts. Facts don't make value judgments any more than evolution makes ethical statements.

And again, only your straw man says anything about competition and female selection having any impact on male intelligence. If I had to guess, I'd say that it was the evolutionary psychology of being hunters (which transferred to being fighters/soldiers) that led to male intelligence. You know, cognitive strategy versus intuitive strategy.

Really?  Well, I think that there's more evidence that sexual selection contributed more to human intelligence than hunting.

And if women were less intelligent, how would it be possible for us little ole females to successfully judge male intelligence?  We’d have to be intelligent, too, wouldn’t we?

"This could explain why despite the absence of clear differences in intelligence between males and females on average, there are clear differences between male and female propensities to display their intelligence in ostentatious forms." Evolution of human intelligence (wikipedia.org)

This might explain why you lied about your education.  

Are genes passed down equally in girls?  How 'bout boys?

Again, are you claiming there are no gendered differences? O_o

OMG, try to keep up, will ya?  Think about it, deary.

What, do you really think war is a more modern contrivance? Please tell me you're not one of these doe-eyed people who really thinks ancient people lived some Utopian lifestyle. That's basically the Garden of Eden myth.

Garden of Eden?  No, that's more up your alley, but Brian Ferguson claims war is a relatively 'new' development and that there is little evidence of regular wars in the Stone Age.

Anthropology Professor Brian Ferguson makes the case that early prehistoric people were far more peaceful than warlike.

https://player.vimeo.com/video/73080151

[Syne]

Again, try reading what was actually written. "...evolution is generally a good thing that promotes good survival strategies..."
Who ever said evolution makes "ethical statements"?

Err, by using the word 'good' you're making a value judgement. Natural selection doesn't promote behaviors that are good for the species as a whole. Natural selection has no foresight or intentions.

'natural order'???  Still trying to justify that term, eh?

Again, who said natural selection promotes behaviors that are good for the species? O_o
Read what you quoted a couple of more times. There's no such thing as a survival strategy as a species. The species only survives due to the survival strategies of its individuals members.

You're moving your own goalposts. You went from "ethical statements" to "value judgements".

good - benefit or advantage to someone or something

Now if you can't say that survival is an inherent benefit to the organism, you're far too daft for sensible discussion.

No, those are just facts. Facts don't make value judgments any more than evolution makes ethical statements.

And again, only your straw man says anything about competition and female selection having any impact on male intelligence. If I had to guess, I'd say that it was the evolutionary psychology of being hunters (which transferred to being fighters/soldiers) that led to male intelligence. You know, cognitive strategy versus intuitive strategy.

Really?  Well, I think that there's more evidence that sexual selection contributed more to human intelligence than hunting.

And if women were less intelligent, how would it be possible for us little ole females to successfully judge male intelligence?  We’d have to be intelligent, too, wouldn’t we?

LOL! Female sexual selection is typically done on success and dominance cues that denote resource and protection surety. Not a direct assessment of intelligence.

And no one said women aren't intelligent, so quite being so needlessly defensive/making up straw men.
It's okay, SS, every knows you're a smart girl.

This might explain why you lied about your education.  

Really? You're just going to start trolling and lying again?

Are genes passed down equally in girls?  How 'bout boys?

Again, are you claiming there are no gendered differences? O_o

OMG, try to keep up, will ya?  Think about it, deary.

If you believe the same contributing genes differentiate by gender, what are you on about? O_o
Or are you just back to being a committed troll?

What, do you really think war is a more modern contrivance? Please tell me you're not one of these doe-eyed people who really thinks ancient people lived some Utopian lifestyle. That's basically the Garden of Eden myth.

Garden of Eden?  No, that's more up your alley, but Brian Ferguson claims war is a relatively 'new' development and that there is little evidence of regular wars in the Stone Age.

Anthropology Professor Brian Ferguson makes the case that early prehistoric people were far more peaceful than warlike.

Yeah? And from that same site, a month later:

Debate continues over whether Stone Age people were peaceful or warlike
"Ferguson said the timing of the rise of violence and warfare differ greatly around the world. “If forced to answer the question: globally, when did war begin? I would have to say between 11,000 BC and 1400 AD,” he told Ancient Origins.

Lòpez-Montalvo says in her article: “One of the main problems in establishing the origin, nature and scope of violence in prehistory is the asynchronous emergence and ambiguous interpretation of the limited material evidence left in the archaeological record by even the most lethal episodes of physical violence.” Asynchronous means violence emerges at different times."

You know, aside from the fact that sparse population may not have been in proximity to compete for resources.

[RainbowUnicorn]

It doesn't have to be one way or the other. Women can be overly stereotyped as peaceable while men can be much more prone to violence.

So tell me why those two must be mutually exclusive.  

Would the world be more peaceful if there were more women leaders?

Would the world be more peaceful if all the leaders of the world were women?

Why does it invariably need to become a matriarchy...or black power...or eat the rich...? Invariably, whatever group claims victimhood is eager to victimize in return. You know, instead of just accepting some things as healthy consequences of natural order.

Are there any modern, first-world matriarchies? Why not? Even women favor voting men into power.^
Are there any examples of minority rule? Of course there are...like minority rule by white South Africans during apartheid. How did that turn out?

Evolutionary psychology predisposes people to having certain expectations, motives, and strategies. Are these things, shaped by nature, unhealthy?
If evolution is generally a good thing that promotes good survival strategies, aren't most the consequences of that natural order healthy?

A good thing?  O_o

Evolution does not make ethical statements concerning good or bad, deary.

Are you really THAT incapable of following simple reasoning?

"Evolution does not make ethical statements about right and wrong. Some people misinterpret the fact that evolution has shaped animal behavior (including human behavior) as supporting the idea that whatever behaviors are "natural" are the "right" ones. This is not the case.

Evolution doesn’t result in progress.  Natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive."

Misconceptions about evolution

The standard deviation for IQ is higher in men than women. So yes, there are more men both dumber and smarter than women, at the extremes of the bell curve. And yes, the lower end potential for IQ can mix with competitive nature to disastrous effect. But on the other hand, most modern technology, safety against inherently aggressive nations, and even safety against overly aggressive males are a product of men in general.

And like Darwin, are you putting forth the idea that women are inferior, and that male-male competition and female selection is responsible for enhancing the male intellect? 

Are genes passed down equally in girls?  How 'bout boys?

"As humans are a highly social species, there are many adaptive problems associated with navigating the social world (e.g., maintaining allies, managing status hierarchies, interacting with outgroup members, coordinating social activities, collective decision-making). Researchers in the emerging field of evolutionary social psychology have made many discoveries pertaining to topics traditionally studied by social psychologists, including person perception, social cognition, attitudes, altruism, emotions, group dynamics, leadership, motivation, prejudice, intergroup relations, and cross-cultural differences." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona...psychology

"In the last three decades, the evolutionary perspective has been reinvigorated with considerable theoretical advances and a continually growing array of empirical studies.

Claims for such dramatic advancements on currently held beliefs likely evoke skepticism. The massive empirical evidence accumulating for the influence of evolutionary selection pressures on psychological mechanisms will convince objective observers." - http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/200...spx#Kruger

Are these quotes supposed to support the idea that men are natural born leaders?  Is that the 'natural order' of things? Is that your argument?

As you said earlier, men are more inclined towards violence.  Is there a warrior gene?   Is war a part of our nature (our evolutionary heritage) or is war a more recent cultural elaboration of male-male competition?

2011 arrest data from the FBI:[43]

• Males constituted 98.9% of those arrested for forcible rape[43]
  
• Males constituted 87.9% of those arrested for robbery[43]
  
• Males constituted 85.0% of those arrested for burglary[43]
  
• Males constituted 83.0% of those arrested for arson.[43]
  
• Males constituted 81.7% of those arrested for vandalism.[43]
  
• Males constituted 81.5% of those arrested for motor-vehicle theft.[43]
  
• Males constituted 79.7% of those arrested for offenses against family and children.[43]
  
• Males constituted 77.8% of those arrested for aggravated assault[43]
  
• Males constituted 58.7% of those arrested for fraud.[43]
  
• Males constituted 57.3% of those arrested for larceny-theft.[43]
  
• Males constituted 51.3% of those arrested for embezzlement.[43]
  

[RainbowUnicorn]

How US mass shootings are getting worse

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-cana...ting-worse



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1635092

Although women comprise more than half the U.S. population, they committed only 14.7% of the homicides

A total of 215,273 homicides were studied

https://www.statista.com/statistics/4764...-s-gender/

The statistic shows the number of mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2017, by gender of the shooter(s). Between 1982 and 2017, 2 mass shootings were initiated by female shooters, 88 by male shooters. The mass shooting in San Bernardino on December 2nd 2016 was the only instance in which both a male and female were the shooters.

[Secular Sanity]

Again, who said natural selection promotes behaviors that are good for the species?

You did, silly boy.

Why does it invariably need to become a matriarchy...or black power...or eat the rich...? Invariably, whatever group claims victimhood is eager to victimize in return. You know, instead of just accepting some things as healthy consequences of natural order.

Evolutionary psychology predisposes people to having certain expectations, motives, and strategies. Are these things, shaped by nature, unhealthy?

If evolution is generally a good thing that promotes good survival strategies, aren't most the consequences of that natural order healthy?

Read what you quoted a couple of more times. There's no such thing as a survival strategy as a species. The species only survives due to the survival strategies of its individuals members.

good - benefit or advantage to someone or something

Now if you can't say that survival is an inherent benefit to the organism, you're far too daft for sensible discussion.

Again...evolution is an impersonal process.  It’s not really concerned with promoting survival strategies, and no, it’s not an inherent benefit to the organism.  Everyone dies sooner or later.  You only need to survive long enough to get into someone’s jeans.  

Female sexual selection is typically done on success and dominance cues that denote resource and protection surety. Not a direct assessment of intelligence.

All of which requires intelligence.

So, go ahead, smart one, let us see how intelligent you are.  Defend your statement that women’s oppression is the 'natural order'.