The world would be better if women ran it.

[meesterperfect]

they always have in a sense.
throughout history until this very day think about the main motivation for power or riches.
for prehistoric man it was for the most food and the most pussy.
for dark ages and middle ages it was the most food and the most pussy.
for modern man its still basically the same, for the most food, the most material things and the most pussy.
well food and material things can't run anything. that leaves pussy.
In that sense women have ran the world since day one.

 

[Bearded_Menace]

Women are insane and wholly untrustworthy. They're a hundred times more deceptive, conniving and manipulative than men are. Have you ever seen Snapped or Deadly Women?

Ugh, I am gonna sound like a misogynist bastard when I say that I agree here. Men are more openly violent and aggressive with our malice. We do a lot of sick and ****** **** that turns your stomach. But we are usually fairly predictable. Women, however, are a bit more sneaky and hard to predict. Lets not forget they tend to hold grudges and never, EVER forget when you fuck up. Couple all of that with raging hormones and that time of the month and you have a pretty nasty ***** on your hands. Don't let a woman's soft demeanor fool you. If you fuck over her in any way(which includes leaving the toilet seat up or leaving just a small corner of Frosted Flakes in the box) you are gonna wholeheartedly wish that retribution was coming from Mike Tyson in his prime rather than that swirling 110 pounds of raging hormonal biped. Seriously, I could see a woman in charge of a first world country bombing Egypt just because the prime minister said he was gonna call and didn't(which is typical guy behavior).

 

[Trident1]

One word...................Boadicea. She kicked serious ass in her time.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Ugh, I am gonna sound like a misogynist bastard when I say that I agree here. Men are more openly violent and aggressive with our malice. We do a lot of sick and ****** **** that turns your stomach. But we are usually fairly predictable. Women, however, are a bit more sneaky and hard to predict. Lets not forget they tend to hold grudges and never, EVER forget when you fuck up. Couple all of that with raging hormones and that time of the month and you have a pretty nasty ***** on your hands. Don't let a woman's soft demeanor fool you. If you fuck over her in any way(which includes leaving the toilet seat up or leaving just a small corner of Frosted Flakes in the box) you are gonna wholeheartedly wish that retribution was coming from Mike Tyson in his prime rather than that swirling 110 pounds of raging hormonal biped. Seriously, I could see a woman in charge of a first world country bombing Egypt just because the prime minister said he was gonna call and didn't(which is typical guy behavior).

Misogynist or not, true that!

 

[PirateKing]

[chauvinist]If they were capable of running the world they would.[/chauvinist]

 

[shayd]

Holy risible generalization, Batman.

 

[maildude]

I hear Geraldine Ferraro wanted to start up a Department Of ******** Parties.

 

[Death-Proof-69]

this is one of those cans of worms in which there is no right answer

 

[Gordar]

If women the way you see them (pacifist, non-agressive, etc) ran the world, the human race would be extinct by now.

Let's look at nature...

All of the male primates (that I know of) fight & so do most mammals where males are dominant. Why? Because winning a battle means that the winner is stronger and this means that he can score pussy. Female ******* don't mind this, since a strong male will most likely produce strong offspring. This is still true for human women as well, which is proven by the link below. It shows that fertile women generally prefer dominant (& thus aggressive) men, while non-fertile women prefer caring men.

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/3/256.full

This is a good thing as well, since a *** who's too weak to stand on his own legs wouldn't survive long.

So if women were in power one of the following things would happen. They'd either let men fight once a month, just to see who's the strongest amongst the men, or they'd become the dominant & aggressive gender, which is what happened to hyenas.

 

[bustybbwlover]

i don't know, women get catty as fuck with each other but seeing as how fucked the world already is i suppose they should get a shot at running it

 

[lame_excuse]

They can rule my world if they'd want, only if they're hawt.

They could enslave all men and use us for reproduction periods. I wouldn't mind being that kind of slave.

 

[emceeemcee]

One word: Thatcher.


Power hungry women who gravitate towards leadership positions usually just share identical traits as the men in the those same positions - aggressive, immoral, oppertunistic, untrustworthy, ruthless, sociopathic etc.

Often these power hungry women are MORE aggressive, immoral, etc than their male counterparts as they are overcompensating due to the male dominated systems they work in. They have to 'prove' themselves.

And Sarah Palin can just suck my balls. What a fucking retard.

 

[LukeEl]

Nah I'd rather have *****-Chtullu like overlords run the world.

 

[Rey C.]

Vote Sarah Palin in 2012!

I'm goin' all in:

Sarah P. for Prez and Michele Bachmann as the Veep! Shtoopid and crazy all in one shot. :nanner:

I'd say by 2016 even the majority of women would vote to repeal the 19th Amendment.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

Really. Why not? Everyone else put what I would put down so I feel no need repeating. Enjoy the song.

 

[ragincaucasian]

I don't know about all women qualifying to run the world.

Hot gymnast nymphomaniacs running the world? Now there is a quantifiably can't miss proposition

 

[Mazlbazl]

I think you must be at least in part ruthless when leading a big group of people, regardless if women or men. As everybody wants the world to be like he or she likes it, a leader of state or country must press his or her group to one direction. And this only works with pressure or hard decission from time to time.
Second, everybody and every group will get into situations when their wishes collide with those of others. Here perhaps women would be better diplomats, but I'm not sure if any power hungry person, regardless of sex, really pull back just to keep peace.
You can see this with all the women in history that had power like Catherina the Great in Russia, Queen Elisabeth I. and Mrs. Thatcher in Great Britain, and so on, all showed the same attitude as their male components.
So I think it would be an interesting situation, but don't believe there would be a big difference to a men led world.

 

[Member442]

I don't agree *****. It would just be fucked up in totally new ways. So we would be no better off. Just fucked differently. Though I would like to see a woman in office trying but I think much would change. Not as much war maybe. I don't think she would have much power anyway. Doesn't seem like anyone on top does really its all about what the congress and business want now.

 

[D-rock]

Nah I'd rather have *****-Chtullu like overlords run the world.

At least they would be easier to understand than women. :tongue:

 

[om3ga]

Maggie Thatcher...:eek:

I rest my case....