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

[Syne]

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?

Where?

No mention of the species there.

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.  

Wow, you can't even manage to admit survival is a benefit to the organism. Suicidal much? Maybe just nihilistic.

And again, who even implied that evolution wasn't impersonal? You just keep arguing straw men.
Evolution does promote successful individual survival strategies.

"Natural selection has no foresight or intentions. It simply selects among individuals in a population, favoring traits that enable individuals to survive and reproduce, yielding more copies of those individuals' genes in the next generation." - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar...herfaq.php

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.

No, it doesn't. Women have adapted to reading social cues from their peers in lieu of cognitive analysis. They simply shortcut intelligence by essentially crowd-sourcing. This is why women are notorious for being attracted to scummy guys. Whatever intelligence they do possess is subverted by their evolutionary psychology telling them cocky bullies are good mates.

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

That's you trying to shift the burden for your own assertion that women are oppressed. There's nothing to refute (null hypothesis) until you provide compelling evidence it exists.

[Secular Sanity]

It would almost be believable had you not thrown in social systems and then point out that humans are a highly social a species.

[RainbowUnicorn]

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

its called "naturalness" not oppresion.
sheesh have you not read 1st grade intelligent design yet.

[Syne]

It would almost be believable had you not thrown in social systems and then point out that humans are a highly social a species.

LOL! Where did I "throw out social systems"?

So you think there's zero underlying evolutionary psychology at work in social issues/interactions? 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

You've obviously been reduced to trolling again.

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

its called "naturalness" not oppresion.
sheesh have you not read 1st grade intelligent design yet.

natural order - the orderly system comprising the physical universe and functioning according to natural as distinguished from human or supernatural laws

"In philosophy, the natural order is the moral source from which natural law seeks to derive its authority. Natural order encompasses the natural relations of beings to one another in the absence of law, which natural law attempts to reinforce. This is related to Dharma.

In contrast, divine law seeks authority from God, and positive law seeks authority from government." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_or...losophy%29

[Secular Sanity]

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.

Matriarchy is a social system.  Let me ask you something.  How does "more women leaders" translate to a matriarchy?  

Are you implying that patriarchy (wikipedia.org) is a healthy consequence of natural order?

And remember, we’re not just talking about Hickville, USA. We’re talking globally here…and globally, women are far from having an equal voice to men in public and private spheres.

The World's Women 2015 Trends and Statistics

"Power and decision-making inequality between women and men tends to be severe and highly visible in power and decision-making arenas. In most societies around the world, women hold only a minority of decision-making positions in public and private institutions."

[Syne]

It's cute how you keep backtracking whenever you feel insecure about your previous arguments.

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.

Matriarchy is a social system.  Let me ask you something.  How does "more women leaders" translate to a matriarchy?  

Are you implying that patriarchy (wikipedia.org) is a healthy consequence of natural order?

And remember, we’re not just talking about Hickville, USA. We’re talking globally here…and globally, women are far from having an equal voice to men in public and private spheres.

The World's Women 2015 Trends and Statistics

"Power and decision-making inequality between women and men tends to be severe and highly visible in power and decision-making arenas. In most societies around the world, women hold only a minority of decision-making positions in public and private institutions."

Just follow the discussion. CC had just said:

Then I don't see how a female leader could fully get "in touch" with and exercise any supposed alternative, "matriarchal worldview" that would end or feature fewer wars, anyway.

CC took it there, and I asked why it needed to go there at all. So go ask CC how one translates to the other.
Since I already gave you statistics on women wanting men in positions of power, I don't see any evidence that one would lead to the other.


"As a common standard of differentiation between sexes, advocates for a patriarchal society like to focus on the influences that hormones have over biological systems. Hormones have been declared as the "key to the sexual universe" because they are present in all animals and are the driving force in two critical developmental stages: sex-determinism in the fetus, and puberty in the teenage individual. Playing a critical role in the development of the brain and behavior, testosterone and estrogen have been labeled the "male-hormone" and "female-hormone" respectively as a result of the impact they have when masculinizing or feminizing an individual.

Most sociologists reject predominantly biological explanations of patriarchy and contend that social and cultural conditioning are primarily responsible for establishing male and female gender roles. According to standard sociological theory, patriarchy is the result of sociological constructions that are passed down from generation to generation. These constructions are most pronounced in societies with traditional cultures and less economic development. Even in modern, developed societies, however, gender messages conveyed by family, mass media, and other institutions largely favor males having a dominant status." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy...l_theories


But I guess you think the largely pseudo-science sociology is more credible than biology. I'm talking about biology. You know, evolution.
And that biology doesn't inevitably lead to oppression, since it was largely men who secured things like suffrage for women. Like I already said, empowerment comes from those with power.
And since women are typically the majority in Western countries, they are the ones who voluntarily keep men in power.

[Secular Sanity]

It's cute how you keep backtracking whenever you feel insecure about your previous arguments.

Thanks, but I never really feel insecure because I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.

Just follow the discussion. CC had just said:

Then I don't see how a female leader could fully get "in touch" with and exercise any supposed alternative, "matriarchal worldview" that would end or feature fewer wars, anyway.

CC took it there, and I asked why it needed to go there at all. So go ask CC how one translates to the other.

Oh, you're right.  Thanks!

However, you're the one that took it to a natural scheme of things.

But I guess you think the largely pseudo-science sociology is more credible than biology. I'm talking about biology. You know, evolution.

So, its’ not about sorting out who or what is pseudoscientific in the social sciences?  All social science is pseudoscience?

Evolution or evolutionary psychology?

You know, instead of just accepting some things as healthy consequences of natural order.

What do you mean by 'natural order'?

Evolution...evolutionary psychology...you know, the definition of the words "natural" and "order".

Evolutionary psychologists typically contrast evolutionary psychology with what they call the standard social science model (SSSM). They characterize the SSSM as the "blank slate", "relativist", "social constructionist", and "cultural determinist" perspective that they say dominated the social sciences throughout the 20th century and assumed that the mind was shaped almost entirely by culture.

Critics have argued that evolutionary psychologists created a false dichotomy between their own view and the caricature of the SSSM. Other critics regard the stand social science model as a rhetorical device or a straw man and suggest that the scientists whom evolutionary psychologists associate with the stand social science model did not believe that the mind was a blank state devoid of any natural predispositions.

Evolutionary psychology (wikipedia.org)

And that biology doesn't inevitably lead to oppression, since it was largely men who secured things like suffrage for women. Like I already said, empowerment comes from those with power.

And since women are typically the majority in Western countries, they are the ones who voluntarily keep men in power.

Oh, goody!  For a minute there I thought that you might be in agreement with Goldberg that patriarchy was inevitable?

Because in reality, you never want to fall asleep next to someone that hates your fucking guts.

[RainbowUnicorn]

It's cute how you keep backtracking whenever you feel insecure about your previous arguments.

Thanks, but I never really feel insecure because I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.

SS you do realise he is projecting his insecurity on to you here by attempting to demean you & insinuate a sexual hierarchy ?
meanwhile projecting his own process of name-calling by suggesting you are talking in circles when in fact he refuses to adress the questions you put(% of female leaders in the world) so he can avoid having to answer them ?

i really admire you tenacity & poise to continue communicating.
your such a trooper

[Image: B000MF4O82_starshiptroopers_UXSY1._V1435...SX940_.jpg]

[Secular Sanity]

Yeah, no worries. 

Thanks, though, RU.

Had he not called you a moron, I probably wouldn’t have had the tenacity.

Hey, do you want to read John Stuart Mill’s speech in favor of women’s suffrage?
 
...The whole movement of modern society, from the middle ages until now, greatly accelerated in the present century, points in the direction of the political enfranchisement of women. Their exclusion is a last remnant of the old bad State of society—the regimen of privileges and disabilities. All other monopolies are going or gone. The whole spirit of the times is against predetermining by law that one set of people shall be allowed by right of birth to have or to do what another set shall not, by any amount of exertion or superiority of ability, be allowed to attain. (Applause.) If nature has established an ineradicable and insuperable difference in the capacities and qualifications of the two sexes, nature can take care of itself. What nature has decided may safely be left to nature. But when we find people making themselves uneasy for fear that nature's purposes should be frustrated unless law comes to her assistance, we may be pretty certain that it is not nature they are so careful about, but law pretending to be nature. To all such pretenses the growing improvement of mankind is making them more and more adverse.

I do not know how long a time it may require to get rid of women's disabilities. Great changes in the habits and opinions of mankind are always slow. But of one thing I am certain—that when once they have been got rid of—when their true aspect is no longer disguised by the varnish of custom and habit—they will appear in the retrospect so devoid of any rational foundation, and so contradictory to the principles by which society now professes to guide itself, that the difficulty which will be felt will be to conceive how they can ever have been defended, and by what possible arguments they can ever have been made to appear plausible. (Loud and prolonged cheering.)
 
Nite, RU.

[Syne]

Just follow the discussion. CC had just said:

Then I don't see how a female leader could fully get "in touch" with and exercise any supposed alternative, "matriarchal worldview" that would end or feature fewer wars, anyway.

CC took it there, and I asked why it needed to go there at all. So go ask CC how one translates to the other.

Oh, you're right.  Thanks!

However, you're the one that took it to a natural scheme of things.

And? See, this is the part where you argue something. I remember what I wrote.

But I guess you think the largely pseudo-science sociology is more credible than biology. I'm talking about biology. You know, evolution.

So, its’ not about sorting out who or what is pseudoscientific in the social sciences?  All social science is pseudoscience?

Evolution or evolutionary psychology?

I said "sociology" not "social sciences". You know there's a difference, right?

And that biology doesn't inevitably lead to oppression, since it was largely men who secured things like suffrage for women. Like I already said, empowerment comes from those with power.

And since women are typically the majority in Western countries, they are the ones who voluntarily keep men in power.

Oh, goody!  For a minute there I thought that you might be in agreement with Goldberg that patriarchy was inevitable?

Because in reality, you never want to fall asleep next to someone that hates your fucking guts.

It may be inevitable. Luckily I don't sleep with misandrists c*nts.