If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Politics is an aggressive environment, so having an aggressive, competitive and driven personality is obviouisly going to be a massive help in rising through the ranks. Testosterone is obviously going to come in useful, which is why men dominate politics, whereas oxytocin isn't.
Really, it shouldn't be a matter of moaning. If you're good enough and strong enough you'll make it - regardless of gender.
Are men the cause or the effect of testosterone in politics?
Do men do well in politics because they have testosterone, or is testosterone needed in politics because men have it and they are already "there" in politics, so to speak.
Do you not think that women find power attractive then? More so than men?
Expensive cars, nice houses, clothes ...status symbols, I think matter much more to women then men.
Well in England we assume criminal courts are based on competition with the opposition and defence fighting it out against one another.
However many other countries have legal systems based on discovering the truth of a situation and finding the best resolution - which seems impossible when looking at our situation.
So there can be theoretical alternatives - always based on gaining an elected positon to some degree but they could be based more on the production of evidence, free votes, reduced party control, etc.
People succeed through competition - you can't just give success away because they're 'nice'.
Not only does he show his underlying (obviously not deeply underlying) mysogyny with that comment but he also misses the point being made.
That being that it is the man who has the power there.
The OP talked about about women having power, but the comment was based on looks. Yuo only have to look around the world to realise that the OP was complete crap. Women account for approximately 50% of the world population.
Now take a look around you and asked what percentage of the world leaders are female, how many CEOs of FTSE 100 companies are female (NB Kermit, did you notice how that fact has been overlooked) - in fact have a look at any board of directors for any organisation and ask yourself why there isn't a 50/50 split? Judges. Police Chiefs. MPs. the list is endless and I cannot think of a single example where man domination doesn't exist.
It can't all be because of testoterone.
Using Maggie as an example of how the world is fair is also completely bogus. Wit hevery rule there are exceptions. In the history of the UK there has been only one female PM. One.
Look at Royalty. In most countries , with a royal family, the first born son becomes regent even when there is a older female sibling.
Kermit is spot on in his analysis (several pages ago), the power in the world is with the men.
Was that aimed at me? I wasn't using her as an example of how the world is fair...
I think we've built a society where men are more comfortable in the knowledge they can achieve these things themselves and women are brought up to believe they must aquire them through a man.
I think the situation is how it is, but accepting it as natural or unchangable is accepting something that is flawed.
I think if the situation was reversed then you'd see men socialised in the same way, and it's why so much of feminism has focused on the importance of language. If everyone in charge or in authority is a chairman, a policeman, etc, then it's unsurprising that women have often grown up under the assumption that this is the way it will always be, rather than something they can achieve for themselves.
Of course that also ignores the fact that by keeping women down, fat ugly powerful men guarantee there will be women who will fuck them; because they are denied the position of power themselves.
To slave freedom is the most desirably thing in the world; to a free man it just seems natural.
No, i just started my rant with your quote because I couldn't be bothered to quote Matt - partly because I don't want to give him th epublicity.
I also can't be arsed to quote some of the other doofus comments, so I carried on with my rant regardless.
Or, perhaps, the proportion of women who want to become MPs is much smaller than the proportion of men who want to become MPs.
Considering what self serving bastards MPs tend to be, that's probably quite a nice thing to say about women
I was wondering when this argument would come up.
Women obviously naturally want to earn 1/3 less than their male equivalents, and they want to spend their lives in servile and menial roles instead of in the top seat.
A bit unlikely, don't you think?
I agree with spliffie that the current political climate in Westminster is very argumentative, aggressive and misogynistic. But the important question is why it is like this?
It couldn't possibly be because men control the arena, and men determine that the system should benefit themselves, could it? It couldn't be that men decide that only certain characteristics are suitable for politics, could it, and it certainly couldn't be that the men then determine that women are useless as leaders because they don't tend to show these characteristics as much.
As for why some people would be attracted to power, and some wouldn't, to divide it down "natural" lines is ludicrous.
We live in a system which restricts power from the hands of women, and always has done, and so women who want power will need to gain power through the hands of men. It isn't that women are attracted to powerful men per se, its that as many women as men are attracted to power, but women only gain power through whom they are married to. If the only way you get power is by marrying a powerful man you will only marry powerful men if you want to get anywhere.
Our system continues to value women's looks over intelligence, which is why many men would rather be seen with an attractive woman than an intelligent woman- their kudos is based on how nice her tits are, not how educated she is.
Before we start feeling too sorry for MattLiverpool, lets not forget what his attitude to rape is.
Zalbor, I am not going to be nice and smiley to misogynistic pricks, so lets cut out all this crap about how I'm a terribly rude ogre. When people stop spouting bigoted misogynistic filth I will stop thinking they are pond scum. Yeah?
Power, status and rulership will always be aspired to, and as a result, will always be a competitive environment. There's nothing which can change that.
I'm not saying women have to "become more aggressive" to get into politics at all - you can't become something you ain't. Those women who are politically talented, as i say, will make it if they try.
Discriminating by what means exactly?
Fewer women are in politics than men simply because women have less interest.
But, as usual, you assume that the status quo is the only way of doing things.
And, as usual, you assume that the belief that only men can do some things and only women can do others is correct.
Come on, do you honestly believe that less than 2% of women want to be an MP? That less than 2% of women want to be the CEO of a FTSE100 corporation? Do you really believe that women aspire to be nothing more than a PA or a secretary, earning 66p for every pound the equivalent bloke will earn?
In my law firm about 2/3 of the staff are women, but about 80% of the partners are men. Are you really trying to tell me that women don't get to the top because they don't want to? And in the same breath telling me that women get off on power? Please, its one or the other.
And, like always, you demonstrate the semantic understanding of a 14 year old.
No, I didn't.
Well, what I do know is that being a footballer's girlfriend is most favoured female occupation...make of that what you will.
Women can't be teachers, lecturers, managers etc?
Eh? I didn't say anything about women getting off on power - if i did, i'd have managed to make the distinction between wanting individual power and being attracting to someone with power. Which, it seems, you can't.
Personally the last thing i'd want to be is a footballers girlfriend. And i don't know of any girl who has that as an 'occupation' in mind. Of course there are girls who want to. But that's only cause it's an easy way of being stable and having money and a famous boyfriend. Then again, getting in with the social circle of rich footballers isn't easy in the first place so its a pretty unrealistic goal anyway.
Is it? Got proof?
Sounds a bit like everyone wanting to win the lottery or be a filmstar.
Not to a senior level, no. Not as readily as men can.
There isn't a distinction, though, the pursuit is of power.
Why would a woman be attracted to someone with power? Because he gives them power and social standing. Why would they settle for marrying power if they could get their own?
You have said that women find power sexually attractive and desire power, but in the same breath try and claim that women don't really want power. Which is it?
They can and do. What do you think is stopping them?
No they don't.
I shall ask again- what percentage of FTSE100 companies have a female CEO, and have a board with at least 50% female members?
It isn't 50% of FTSE100 companies now, is it?
Thatcher and Rimington don't prove that women have the same opportunities as men.
Attitudes such as yours that claim that you can only be successful if you are aggressive and ruthless, and attutudes such as yours that claim you need "testosterone" to cope.
And attitudes such as yours that claim that women aren't able to be these things.
What stops women getting to the top are men. Men are in control of the glass ceiling, and it suits the old boys club to leave it there.
Women like Jacqui Gold are very very few and far between, and it isn't because women are inferior or unsuitable, or simply would rather work as a carer or a teacher.
Why women don't have power is an interesting questions, and I think the simplest answer is that they don't because they never have had power. 10,000 years is a lot of tradition to change, especially when you're fighting something that is so prevalent and so dominant.
Oh, still waiting for proof that most women aspire to be footballers' wives btw.
10,000 years of tradition and you honestly believe such difference isn't inherent?
I - and most other men i'd say - have no problem with the idea of women holding positions of high status and power in principle. Opportunities should be based on merit, not gender. Even still, competitive fields will always be male-dominated, because it's masculine psychological tendencies which will always promote a rise to the top.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/lifestyle/2006-07/19/content_644611.htm
Oh come on. They've got to've rounded up a right bunch of shallow scuffballs.
Edit: Oh, a survey by More magazine.
Does pretty mean: slim and nice rack? No. Just means nice to look at whatever that may be. And I said as young as you feel so there was no upper limit.
I actually think woman are an inspiration. I admire them in lots of ways. They lead the way. I admire all the women in my family.
Why do you judge a woman's success by comparing them with those of men? Aren't you contradicting yourself? I'm meeting a lot of women who are doing great things in our society. Could it be a different power?
Who said I wanted to do that? Of course its true sometimes. If I did get laid and often I could still be a socially inept loser though. Perhaps popularly good looking people are socially inept because they've had it all too easy and not had to work at their personality to get on in life. But I'm not popularly good looking.
Socially inept? Sometimes, maybe too often, I accept I have my faults and try to change. Part of that is posting how I think on here, so that I can be challenged. And challenged I was. Thank you for that.
Does not getting laid mean I'm socially inept? But I don't think you meant that.
But I'm never a loser.
sorry, this seems to be one of only a few threads that is getting any posts and I'm board.