Topic: Why are all women leaders so fucking terrible... (Read 2213 times)

Hahahaha. Lol. And despite their very formal stature with the always prim hair-dos, i think they got it - many penises. Lol. Women presidents is a trend now, go Clinton.

good . i can understand

Women is always not authority in man's eyes and also womens have other "important" things to do intsteed of working. But sometimes womans can manage problems that mans can't.

Not te be judges as sexist but i think the nature of a woman is really sympathic or they are just soft hearted. many other arguments but feel free to enlighten this comment.

Radical feminism is not compatible with modern lifestyle. That is why so we have previously well-to-do nations getting wrecked, once they get a female head of state. The best example will be that of Germany. Angela Merkel destroyed not only the German civilization, but also the entire (Western) European civilization in a matter of months.

Ya until now that same democary until today never parred with that martial law they were ones against.

agreed it was the of the revolution, that was the reason why she`s been elected as a president.

Not only that, she had no political history and she was just forced there because of his husbands name. But i think some of our country men are blinded to that fact because of media manipulation by that same family. Cause during the previous time before her, the country has a smart and logical leader even comedic at times that Philippines rised economically.
sorry for the drama.

here in phillippines we once had an a female president it was over 30 years ago and she remove every project that the previous president was working on and that is the start of the downfall of the philippines.

There have been plenty of good female leaders. Margaret Thatcher, Elizabeth I, Boudicca. Of course all of those were British! 

Congratulations, you know how to use the quote function and selectively edit my statements removing the links so people can't actually see the entirety of what I wrote. You still haven't explained WHY you have come to your conclusions. All you have done is list a bunch of quotes and then throw some more cudgels at me. This is getting boring.

Oh right, i forgot you arent mentally able to remember your past postings although it is just 2-3 post in the past.






the classic:


do you read what you post?
you think that your opinion is all that matters and everyone is brainwashed who disagree, but the truth is you are brainwashed with *(not sure if you use "in" or "with" here) your delusional perception of reality.
maybe dont read too much breitbart, dailystormer and cnn? are you a tea party member?

i just looked trough less then 10 of your last post and i really cant believe what utter bull you give from you.

and btw. im just an alt of a mod and this is all a conspiracy to remove you and your friends forever from this forum. dayum.

That was your interpretation of my ideology (which happens to be incorrect BTW), not an explanation of why what I said was projection.
I used to be like you, a blind liberal fighting for the legions of "victims" the world over, then I educated myself. You haven't got a clue what my ideologies are, all you know is your knee jerk reactionary response to the ideas I present. Every statement I made I can back up why I said it in detail, including historical cases and references to other forms of these ideologies and explain why they are harmful. You can't even explain your one point about why you think I am projecting, you just reach for your cudgel again.

Thanks for proving MY point

because the women have no right to lead any country or organization.
but if women is being hurt emotionally then she will be the bad ass leader for her rivals.

Oh is it like that?
I always had the impression that tecshare shows his thoughts and opinions pretty clearly and i showed my thoughts and opinions regarding you people pretty clearly.

What? Here you go telling TS (and the world) what he thinks... like you know what he thinks. You barely know what you think.

Ok we try it once for free just for you:

You are thinking that everyone opposing your ideas and opinions is a brainwashed feminist, collectivists, socialist or communist but it contrast you are a brainwashed conservative (tea party ringing?), who is obsessed by mostly middle age thoughs which are mixed with nationalism, racial, ethnic and religious mistrust, class thinking and so on.

Look who is projecting now... Your links explain the terms, not why you think they apply to me.

I know what these terms mean, I am asking you to explain exactly what makes them attributable to me and why, but of course you can't do that can you? It is far easier to just make an assumption based on your bias and then make your claims without explaining them.

And i though wikipedia was not hard to understand  

Btw right now you are supportingconfirming my claim ^^"

Care to actually support any of your claims, or do you just prefer to throw buzzwords at me like a cudgel? It is rather convenient this method does not actually require you to understand anything you say except on a very superficial level.

P.S. It's 21st

You forgot Dilma Rousseff (Brazil)

Cant stop rolling on the floor laughing.

21th century american. No wonder you people like trump.

I hope it is not too hard to understand in the end it is wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

1. As far as I can tell no one here said women were stupid, just that they in general are poor leaders.

2. Of course women are doing well in school, the school system is designed with the female model as the default on every level. Women are outperforming boys and men in schools on EVERY LEVEL of the educational system, and outnumbering men in college, but I don't hear anyone complaining and screaming about how boys and men are being left behind. On the contrary feminists are still crying about how they are being left behind.

That's the thing about feminism, it only works one way. One set of standards for men, another set of standards for women. This is not an equality movement, it is a supremacy movement. Since men and boys are being treated as disposable tools and future violent rapists, is it any surprise that they are not performing well in the educational system that disenfranchises them?

The War Against Boys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqOTj9NDv80

Actually, you were right I did say that, but I was looking in the wrong place for it (my op). However that still doesn't prove your point based only on your interpretations of my statement. Your post said:


... as if it was a nearly impossible task. It's not. My response was directed at the part of you conditioned by feminists and collectivists that make you BELIEVE this is a seriously complicated subject, when in reality it is staring your right in the face but you refuse to look at it because it might be "sexist" to examine reality in public. This doesn't have anything to do with your level of intelligence, it has to do with your conditioning by society to never critically examine the behaviors of women. You interpreted it as a dig at your intelligence, but that's all it was, your interpretation. So in the future if you want to criticize my words, try criticizing what they ACTUALLY say, not what you "interpret" them to say.

Also, I noticed you didn't bother replying to any of those other points and jumped right for the most inconsequential thing. Perhaps I hit the nail on the head?

ITT too many guys in here have been out of university for a bit too long.

One day at an average, current day math, physics or biology department would cure them of their adorably outdated misconceptions about "emotional, mother instinct-driven womenfolk".

These girls would wipe the floor with your inferior cortex before you had a chance to tip your fedora.

Give me a break on the altering of what you said was on my cellphone at the time and was going off memory.Its a real pain to quote, bold and even type.

Religious comment was my attempt at saying the topic is not easy to peg down unless you where religious like a few people in the thread. I know you are not religious from reading other threads.

Actually, there are only bad leaders. Why? Because they die. If their leadership themes continue because of them, only then have they had some semblance of good leadership.

The only leadership that is good is the one that will last forever. The only way this happens is through the leadership expressed by the words of the Bible... Jesus-salvation leadership.

Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself, and believe that you will be saved by the work that Jesus did on the cross, and His resurrection. This is the only leadership that will last.

No, I am more agitated with your accusations of arrogance because I DARED suggest you read my post, because everyone knows every user of this forum bothers to read all the previous posts before making their own  

Also who said I was religious? I cited evolution several times as reasoning for women not being great leaders. Religious folk tend to not be too fond of evolutionary theory. Why is it that we need women to tell us what reality is? Does every discussion about women require a female moderator to make sure the little boys don't say anything the women would disapprove of? You really think they would admit to being poor leaders if it were true? Please. Also pointing out a particular weakness of women in general is not "looking down on them". You are stuck in the feminist delusion that we are all the same, and that any critical examination of the behavior of women is sexist. That is complete and utter horse shit that denies us all our individuality, as well as a realistic perspective on social dynamics. A lot of what you are saying comes directly from "critical theory", which is just Marxism wrapped in a paper thin veil of "social science" (ie horse shit designed to push collectivism).

 I come at conversations like I have spent a fuck of a lot more time studying these topics than most people, so maybe, just maybe I do know what I am talking about. If I don't I tend not to say much if anything. In the future I will try harder to pretend like I don't spend a lot of time educating myself so you don't feel so inadequate and therefore feel the need to label me as arrogant.

"Its not that tough"

What the fuck is this? Where did I say this? You don't get to interpret my words for me then expect me to defend them as if they were my own, sorry.

So you are pissed because you feel like no one read what you had to say, you know how often I post and you and another account keep posting like no one said anything! Relax, I read it and had nothing to say because I sometimes like to see if people agree or watch posts develop before reflecting on them.
We do not have similar minds so I tend to watch who else agrees. Sometimes I reply sometimes I dont.
The post I replied to was short and easy to chew through. Sometimes I need to let your posts marinate to see if I do agree.
Do not think you pegged it down because you are coming at from a male stance, if more women where here we might get sonewhere. I have to many biases to think about this clearly enough.
Not religious so I do not look down on women in the way a few posters are here. Its not easy for me to chop it up to women being engrained to act a set way.
Hard to peg.

As for the arrogance, you do come at conversations like you are right and choose words that reflect this.
Example "Its not that tough"!
Implying it was easy for you and people that do not naturally come to the same conclusion are lesser in intelligence. Intentional or not this is how I perceive your posts sometimes. This does not mean I disagree with you most the time either.

Excuse you? You said the issue would be "hard to peg down", I referred you to my previous comment giving my take on the topic, and instead of bothering to respond to it you call me arrogant. Some one is on the rag.

I was about to point this out as well lol.

Despite whatever gender everything is garbage.. and the comment with women leaders is just sexist. Im sure both will always have a different way of finishing the job in their own different view, but will intially get the same job done.

The problem goes way beyond like mentioned.

In history most of all great leaders are men. women just recently rulling in the name of sex equality. But women has no talents for ruling than they do with socializing.

Almost all of them are shit regardless of gender. I can't say I've been any more disappointed by women than men. The problem is the type of person such a job attracts and the fact that even if they get in it's all stuck in aspic anyway. That's a societal problem. Not gender.

I totally agree with that !#@!!! 

 

 

Very good point here!!

World war I and II were not started by women, infact all the wars that claimed billions of lives down the history to mankind have been started by men. That does not stop people from re-electing men into office. A woman does her best in political office and the insecure men start pointing fingers, it's this same insecurity that has claimed billions of lives down the history of mankind.

SO all you insecure men need to deal with your demons before you end up blowing the whole world with the atomic bombs one of you invented!

My bad missed the part about the topic being closed once Tecshare addresses the topic. Such arrogance can not be trifled with.

Read my post above. Not that tough. Women tend to be collectivists as a matter of evolutionary biology. Collectivists destroy society.

Do not think this is the issue, think its more how we perceive women roles of power. Every leader needs strong support and some men will resent women in higher positions no matter what.
So religious expectations for women, societies gender roles or something deeper? Be a challenge to peg the issue down.

because women have no guts for leadership.

Actually that may be more in line with how you are perceiving the discussion. If you want to close conversations in that manner you could really apply it to any topic and be done with it. Its pretty much what the political correct movement is all about,shutting down honest discussion about relevant issues.

So when some one is robbed what is the first thing that people use to describe the person? You realize we are actually programmed to be racist,its a uncomfortable feeling of the unknown and its subtle enough that most people would consider themselves to be not racist or prejudice.

If we can not address sexuality or race as a issue what are you really trying to tell us? Has nothing to do with being excepting of one another or tolerant of differences.

There are differences between Male leader and female leader, their perspective and their point of view is different, but when comes to decide something I think both of them is the same, but in my opinion Male leader is better in cooperation and communication

Very good response this really makes me think and I often catch myself in biases relating to sexual orientation.
It kind of what I am trying to figure out with Hilary Clinton,is it the suits that bother me or the actual issues of her being a warhawk that is in the pocket.
They all end up in the pocket some how through greed or exploitation,so not sure why it bothers me so much. She feels insincere and I can not get past that.

There must be something to women also knowing they are viewed in this way and it feeding into how they present themselves to the public.
Sometimes they over act or over react to get the message across and that has to be something they have studied with their handlers.

yes maybe you correct on that,i see country with women president or leader,will not same good as country or are that lead by men,some asian country has proof it,phlipine when its lead by women,its not good,indonesia also ever lead by women,its not good too.

So, you can continue with your statement and ask why black people are bad leaders, or leaders in Asia etc.
I think that you are wrong.
There are not good or bad man or woman leaders.
There are not good or bad black man leaders etc.
Sex, race, religion or nationality doesn't influence on leadership abilities but moral values and personal character.
Mrs. Thacher was one of the greatest politic leader in United Kingdom, in this century
It's the same for Indira Gandhi in India or Golda Meir in Israel etc.
So, don't judge people based on their sex, race or nationality but based on their character.

Benazir Bhutto

I think you came close to the center of this argument, but are attributing it to society itself some how not having evolved yet to accept female leaders. The reason it does not "sit right" and feels "risky" is because it is. Women have themselves not been able to occupy positions of leadership for more than what 100 years or so? Biologically speaking, men have evolved to lead, and women have evolved to use the protection of men to survive. This is not just on a physical level but a physiological level as well. Men have had thousands of years of experience evolving these skills, and these traits have been selected for via evolution. Women have not been in positions of leadership long enough to even begin to start catching up with this evolution in males.

Now I am not arguing that men are automatically better leaders, but it seems that they are ABLE to be better leaders in general, and have given into the trappings of corruption like any human being in a position of leadership has lately. This is the dirty little secret feminists would like to keep under wraps at all costs, and why they will lose their minds over any biological or evolutionary comparison between men and women. They understand that women on an INDIVIDUAL level require a state of symbiosis or at least parasitism on men in order to survive, and the discussion of this fact destroys their whole feminist narrative of women being exactly equal to men. Women should be TREATED equally, actual equality between any two humans is nothing more than a myth. If it were true there would be no individuals and we would all be the same, and clearly this is not the case. This is why collectivists are waging a constant battle against those who are "privileged" enough to have more intelligence, skills, wealth, etc than others so they can force them to regress to the mean, thereby elevating their own positions in comparison. This is also why women in general tend to lean toward collectivism, because they require the state to take from the individualists who have done better in order to increase their own standard of living via theft from those individuals.

We've had feminists in particular preaching the lie for decades that "If women were in power there would be no wars" so naturally peoples' expectations were high, if you tell a lie often enough people start to believe it.

LOL, very true.

because in islam women are never in leader ship that is why.

What about male leaders? Are they any better? I don't think so. All the politicians are pretty much the same. We shouldn't expect anything special from the female ones.

how about defending the country's borders and putting your own people first instead of islamic invaders

You are terrible wrong? Are you all women hatters or what? I think Angela Merkel is great leader. And I wonder how good would you bee in. such situation if you had a chance?

They are emotional and not logical fact thinking people

Female leadership gets criticise & judged harshly, by both men and women alike.
It comes from a feeling within individuals that female leadership does not 'sit right'. Female leadership feels 'wrong' at a primal, 'gut' level.
Female leadership feels 'risky'.
Humans don't have an evolutionary experience with women leading groups.

The argument can easily be be re-framed, given the vast number of male leaders we have had throughout history how many would you consider good?

All women leaders make so fucking terrible in all country. they found every time a new way form her fucking brain. so rabbis and stupid brain. Maybe they want many many penis.

i think you are so bigoted.. women can handle politics perfectly and can vote well too.. if a woman run a goverment, she doesnt  definitely merge her mothering instinct in her job.. women can handle everything without bothering her motherhood staff..

Absolutely true! Agreed under every word.

Women not a categorically to be a better leaders, and it’s no favor to them to suggest that they do but you don’t expect them to do a better job than the men for any reason.

That's disputable. It comes down to the individual and not gender, plenty of guys do a disastrous job at politics which effects a lot of people. I'm not sure about Ontario or Alberta, but Angela Merkel was doing a reasonable job until she invited in all refugees, without any concept of the numbers that would come and who was going to pay for integrating them. Other countries in Europe didn't necessarily want them, but the open borders made it impossible to police - she lost a little credibility with that.

It is a interesting issue,that Albertan seems to be better than I thought she would be but thats not saying much.
The whole difference between men and women seems to really become more apparent with politics.

because their mothering, caring mentality doesn't allow them to take tough decisions. it is women keeping the democrats in power in america because cutting welfare and letting those poor blacks go hungry would be too painful to watch. it is women continuously electing left wing parties across europe holding up "refugees welcome" signs for their future rapists because they couldn't bear the sight of dead beach boy or some wog holding a crying kid for the camera at the border. women should play no role in politics and that includes voting.

I don't get ..

Germany,
Ontario,
Alberta..

all sooo fail it pains me.