They are able to think rationally, the problem is that their emotions would override their ability to be rational. That's what i wanted to say. I'm sorry. Maybe i should have worded it differently.
I'm just pointing out that your logic seems confused. And your elaboration hardly makes things better; all women are not soft and flaky and clouded by emotions any more than men are. And to say that women are both too emotional and not empathic enough is direct contradiction.
Women and men aren't naturally different. Women and men score similarly on intelligence tests, and often women score higher. To make a distinction that women are too emotional to be leaders is just sexist. There have been plenty of female leaders in the past who have been no more irrational than male leaders. And it's not like male political leaders make rational decisions for the good of the people very often anyway :P
No-one should rule the world, but I agree that if someone has to it should be men and women in equal parts.
Not all women are egotistical and selfish. I am sure there is just as many egotistical men. You may not have noticed but most of Americas leaders are men. They are still not very good leaders. Shit is shit no matter the gender. I guess crying that you are in the friend zone is just as rational when in reality you just didn't have the nerve to ask the chick out. Saying a woman is a bitch for not dating you since all none bitchy women would love you seems very egotistical.
Is it normal i think it would be a disaster if women ruled the world?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
They are able to think rationally, the problem is that their emotions would override their ability to be rational. That's what i wanted to say. I'm sorry. Maybe i should have worded it differently.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
4
4
-
disthing
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
-
Riddler
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm just pointing out that your logic seems confused. And your elaboration hardly makes things better; all women are not soft and flaky and clouded by emotions any more than men are. And to say that women are both too emotional and not empathic enough is direct contradiction.
Women and men aren't naturally different. Women and men score similarly on intelligence tests, and often women score higher. To make a distinction that women are too emotional to be leaders is just sexist. There have been plenty of female leaders in the past who have been no more irrational than male leaders. And it's not like male political leaders make rational decisions for the good of the people very often anyway :P
No-one should rule the world, but I agree that if someone has to it should be men and women in equal parts.
"Their emotions would override their ability to be rational"
This isn't in any way exclusive to females.
How many wars have been started by men and fought by men because emotion has clouded good judgement?
That we can't always control our emotions is a human (animal) thing. Not gender specific.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
And I agree entirely, as usual. Aggression and paternal protectiveness is just as much an irrational emotion as mercy and maternal caringness is.
Not all women are egotistical and selfish. I am sure there is just as many egotistical men. You may not have noticed but most of Americas leaders are men. They are still not very good leaders. Shit is shit no matter the gender. I guess crying that you are in the friend zone is just as rational when in reality you just didn't have the nerve to ask the chick out. Saying a woman is a bitch for not dating you since all none bitchy women would love you seems very egotistical.