Another woman murdered on our streets.

[BronzeSquirrel]

I predict that given another 30 years of women pushing to get power over men ,we may see ( i wont) The Taliban ruling this country ! Let them show you what controlling sexual violence crimes will get for women.At a price !

Get power over men? We've always had it.

 

[Saphire]

It may take me a while to digest all that, but thank you for replying.

 

[funandflirty]

Ok, you are right, I didn't express that very well.

Women tend to co-operate better than men in many circumstances, especially where forming coalitions and concensus with goals are concerned, men tend to be more singular in thier arguments as in "My way is the right way".

In our current government system, argument and then compromise is the sole purpose of parliament.

So far, parliament has been an aggressive environment, with 2 sides fighting to say "This is how we solve the problem" given thier own political bent.
Until a compromise is reached.

What we see from studies with womens commitees is that they tend to be more of the mindset "We have a problem how do we solve it?"

Idea's are then debated until a consensus is reached.
Which on paper sounds far superior and in small scale systems may very well be.

Women are also more "People" focused, men more "Thing" focused, hence the disparity in Nursing/Engineering etc and Government is all about people, so surely women should be even better suited to it than men.

The problem is, while government is indeed all about people, it's also a massive system, a thing.

It's a thing where most problems government have to make policy on are incredibly complicated, where many intersectional factors have a bearing on the central problem they are trying to fix.

Take the wish for concensus to it's logical conclusion and we will have ever wider sweeping changes to policy and hence law as this intersectional web spreads broader and wider to encompass more and more aspects of life.

This is why the simple, direct approach to government of 2 sides arguing a point has been used for so successfully in all Democratic nations throughout history.
Concensus is to be avoided as it takes to long and detracts from the initial goal.

It's better to sort things out now, to play "Whack a Mole" with societies problems as they appear, whilst also keeping a watchful eye on the future policy changes needed to improve society as a whole.

So whilst our system of government is a broken mess it miraculously functions, treats us fairly, keeps the lights on, keeps us fed, warm and safe most of the time when compared to the majority of other countries.

However, having a more "Feminine" co-operative approach to government may well turn out to be far superior to the current combative "Masculine" approach.
We just don't know, it hasn't been tried in such complex societies as we live in now.

This is only my opinion, I could very well be wrong, I hope I am.

As for the "to have Equity one cannot have Freedom".
Equity by it very nature will subject those more capable in certain aspects to limits imposed by the state.
Affirmative action is a simple example of this.
Equality does not do this, instead it gives everyone the same opportunities to do with what they can and choose to.

Pretty sure someone could accuse me of using stereotypes in this argument, of saying "All men be like" or "All women be like", that is not the case, there are some very capable women who do well in the current government system we have, I dare say no one would accuse Jess Phillips or Priti Patel of avoiding a good argument, just to name two.
Nor am I saying that because Society is very complex that women are to stupid to understand it.

All I'm saying is, that given what we know about male/female differences psychologically, I think a more feminine style of government would be, in it's wish to be "Fair" and "Equitable", actually be more controlling and oppressive as the desire for concensus requires more and more voices be heard.

But, as I have said, I could very easily be wrong, I am a lot.

I enjoy reading you, it is refreshing - and does not resort to name calling and silliness.

 

[SamBally]

 

[funandflirty]

 

[hell2bwith76]

Get power over men? We've always had it.

Just what i have been trying to say all this time ! Pity that the women on this forum don`t seem to like it

 

[hell2bwith76]

Ok, you are right, I didn't express that very well.

Women tend to co-operate better than men in many circumstances, especially where forming coalitions and concensus with goals are concerned, men tend to be more singular in thier arguments as in "My way is the right way".

In our current government system, argument and then compromise is the sole purpose of parliament.

So far, parliament has been an aggressive environment, with 2 sides fighting to say "This is how we solve the problem" given thier own political bent.
Until a compromise is reached.

What we see from studies with womens commitees is that they tend to be more of the mindset "We have a problem how do we solve it?"

Idea's are then debated until a consensus is reached.
Which on paper sounds far superior and in small scale systems may very well be.

Women are also more "People" focused, men more "Thing" focused, hence the disparity in Nursing/Engineering etc and Government is all about people, so surely women should be even better suited to it than men.

The problem is, while government is indeed all about people, it's also a massive system, a thing.

It's a thing where most problems government have to make policy on are incredibly complicated, where many intersectional factors have a bearing on the central problem they are trying to fix.

Take the wish for concensus to it's logical conclusion and we will have ever wider sweeping changes to policy and hence law as this intersectional web spreads broader and wider to encompass more and more aspects of life.

This is why the simple, direct approach to government of 2 sides arguing a point has been used for so successfully in all Democratic nations throughout history.
Concensus is to be avoided as it takes to long and detracts from the initial goal.

It's better to sort things out now, to play "Whack a Mole" with societies problems as they appear, whilst also keeping a watchful eye on the future policy changes needed to improve society as a whole.

So whilst our system of government is a broken mess it miraculously functions, treats us fairly, keeps the lights on, keeps us fed, warm and safe most of the time when compared to the majority of other countries.

However, having a more "Feminine" co-operative approach to government may well turn out to be far superior to the current combative "Masculine" approach.
We just don't know, it hasn't been tried in such complex societies as we live in now.

This is only my opinion, I could very well be wrong, I hope I am.

As for the "to have Equity one cannot have Freedom".
Equity by it very nature will subject those more capable in certain aspects to limits imposed by the state.
Affirmative action is a simple example of this.
Equality does not do this, instead it gives everyone the same opportunities to do with what they can and choose to.

Pretty sure someone could accuse me of using stereotypes in this argument, of saying "All men be like" or "All women be like", that is not the case, there are some very capable women who do well in the current government system we have, I dare say no one would accuse Jess Phillips or Priti Patel of avoiding a good argument, just to name two.
Nor am I saying that because Society is very complex that women are to stupid to understand it.

All I'm saying is, that given what we know about male/female differences psychologically, I think a more feminine style of government would be, in it's wish to be "Fair" and "Equitable", actually be more controlling and oppressive as the desire for concensus requires more and more voices be heard.

But, as I have said, I could very easily be wrong, I am a lot.

In your opinion did Maggie do a good job in Government then ?

 

[BronzeSquirrel]

In your opinion did Maggie do a good job in Government then ?

Love her or hate her, that woman had bigger balls than any of our present day politicians.

 

[Saphire]

Just what i have been trying to say all this time ! Pity that the women on this forum don`t seem to like it

 

[hell2bwith76]

Love her or hate her, that woman had bigger balls than any of our present day politicians.

Is that all what todays women are interested in ? the size of a mans balls ffs.
Being a good politician isn`t about being good at shouting down the cabinet !
Being a good female boss isn`t about shouting orders at hard working males .
Most of the worst crimes seem to happen up North anyway ;i think it`s something to do with the people up there.

Ohhh i forgot ,the housewives identified with MT because she was only the daughter of a Grocery shop owner ,same as most people are eh lolol !

 

[hell2bwith76]

View attachment 5986

Women always had power over men ! .
Most of them know it too.
Cleopatra ..destroyed Mark Anthony for example .
Anyone with a decent knowledge of History will find a lot more women who have controlled their man and then destroyed him.

Forgetting that, ,just what is your solution to the problem which you present ?
Rules won`t work cause humans ( male and female ) don`t like to be told what to do .Hence the disastrous lockdown and then the petrol shortage ,not helped by silly motorists overstocking .

 

[SamBally]

Mansplaining. A man explaining something to a woman in an angry, rude or condescending way. Lots of it on this particular thread. Manterrupting is like mansplaining but it is done by interrupting or hijacking a conversation because they believe a woman doesn't have the right to an equal voice or deserve to air it, or even because they believe she's wrong or just plain stupid. Irrespective of whether it is crude or more subtle it is one and the same thing, misogyny.

For example. A crude misogynist is fairly obvious. A more sophisticated misogynist less so and will disguise his real thoughts behind what appears at first glance to be a compliment or gushing praise but ultimately both types believe women are inferior to men.

 

[Saphire]

View attachment 5987

Mansplaining. A man explaining something to a woman in an angry, rude or condescending way. Lots of it on this particular thread. Manterrupting is like mansplaining but it is done by interrupting or hijacking a conversation because they believe a woman doesn't have the right to an equal voice or deserve to air it, or even because they believe she's wrong or just plain stupid. Irrespective of whether it is crude or more subtle it is one and the same thing, misogyny.

For example. A crude misogynist is fairly obvious. A more sophisticated misogynist less so and will disguise his real thoughts behind what appears at first glance to be a compliment or gushing praise but ultimately both types believe women are inferior to men.

View attachment 5987

Mansplaining. A man explaining something to a woman in an angry, rude or condescending way. Lots of it on this particular thread. Manterrupting is like mansplaining but it is done by interrupting or hijacking a conversation because they believe a woman doesn't have the right to an equal voice or deserve to air it, or even because they believe she's wrong or just plain stupid. Irrespective of whether it is crude or more subtle it is one and the same thing, misogyny.

For example. A crude misogynist is fairly obvious. A more sophisticated misogynist less so and will disguise his real thoughts behind what appears at first glance to be a compliment or gushing praise but ultimately both types believe women are inferior to men.

So very true.
And I think this is how so many abusing men manage to woo unsuspecting females.

 

[Saphire]

Women always had power over men ! .
Most of them know it too.
Cleopatra ..destroyed Mark Anthony for example .
Anyone with a decent knowledge of History will find a lot more women who have controlled their man and then destroyed him.

Forgetting that, ,just what is your solution to the problem which you present ?
Rules won`t work cause humans ( male and female ) don`t like to be told what to do .Hence the disastrous lockdown and then the petrol shortage ,not helped by silly motorists overstocking .

I have littered this thread with suggestions, you either ignore them or shout 'stupid'.

Read SamBallys previous post, it may help you understand how you come across sometimes.

 

[hell2bwith76]

it is done by interrupting or hijacking a conversation because they believe a woman doesn't have the right to an equal voice

Hahaha ,i`ve never yet met any woman who can`t talk the hind leg off a Donkey . You say they don`t have an equal "voice"? roflmao.Women beat men hands down when it comes to talking /screaming ( football matches or Tennis) ....men can barely get a word in !! I think you all know this
What you would like is that all males didn`t have a voice to return with .

 

[hell2bwith76]

Read SamBallys previous post, it may help you understand how you come across sometimes.

I`m not particularly interested in SB`s prognosis of the typical male . I`m trying to get an answer which will show that you and they have a solution to the murder /abuse of all women ! Not your opinions on me or my fellow males.
Can`t you think of one ? you`v had plenty of time to chat about it and come up with the solution .Come up with a solution and send it to that Dicks woman ! She`s a fine example of female equality .

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

Mansplaining idiot, who learns history from films starring Taylor & Burton, demands answers from women he is typing abuse at on how to stop him and others like him abusing and perving on women.

 

[hell2bwith76]

Mansplaining idiot, who learns history from films starring Taylor & Burton, demands answers from women he is typing abuse at on how to stop him and others like him abusing and perving on women.

Is that a direct accusation of me you nasty person ?? So i "abuse " and "perv" on poor ,helpless women eh ? I think you need to reflect on that attack.
I`m very surprised by at least one of the women who "liked " your accusation. Why feel comfortable even saying "hello" to me if you agree with vile person who wrote that about me ?.

 

[hell2bwith76]

I have littered this thread with suggestions, you either ignore them or shout 'stupid'.

I think i counted a single one of your "solutions" . Bring back capital punishment ?. That`s not like "littering the thread " is it ?.
If that Cuzens guy was so sure that he could get away with murder then how come he was allowed to do what he did ,with CCTV cams on him ?
Was he being protected ,by that Dicks woman who had the top job ?.A lot more answers needed to a lot more questions imo.
If he wasn`t being protected by anyone in the force then why did he risk murder ,knowing the penalty he would get if he was caught ( which is exactly what happened !).

 

[BronzeSquirrel]

I think i counted a single one of your "solutions" . Bring back capital punishment ?. That`s not like "littering the thread " is it ?.
If that Cuzens guy was so sure that he could get away with murder then how come he was allowed to do what he did ,with CCTV cams on him ?
Was he being protected ,by that Dicks woman who had the top job ?.A lot more answers needed to a lot more questions imo.
If he wasn`t being protected by anyone in the force then why did he risk murder ,knowing the penalty he would get if he was caught ( which is exactly what happened !).

It's not so much about being 'protected' as about complacency and a culture of sexism and misogyny in the police. It's been there for decades. In fact, it's notorious for it. This is what happens when there's a male dominated institution. It's that ingrained that nobody says **** all, not just the big cheese at the top.