Why women should rule the world

Loads of women scientists, doctors and teachers in Russia, but under Communism those were all poorly-paid bourgois jobs. The heroes of socialist labour who got the best wages were the butchest, blokeyest trades involving picks and shovels and big hammers.

Provided they were working on weapons, the scientists would have been treated very well. One of the key perks being able to shop at supermarkets usually reserved for the party elite, as well as being first in line for housing. The labourers may have been honoured with citations but I'd say reliable access to good food and private accommodation is more of a reward.

This is much more gendered violence and had it been a man sterilising 10m women we'd probs have heard much more criticism (especially if it was still happening).

Israel has routinely used long-lasting contraceptive drugs on Ethiopian Jews as a form of population control, both through coercion and deception.

The researchers concluded one of the main reasons Russia beat the USA into orbit is because they used the talents of women scientists and the USA did not.

That may have been why Vanguard was delayed but von Braun had been pushing to use his Redstone for a number of years before Sputnik (Eisenhower wanted to avoid militarising space while the Soviets brashly bolted an orbital stage to their ICBM). The Soviets grabbed some Nazi rocket scientists but it's my opinion that America got their hands on the cream of the crop.

While I believe space travel could have been achieved in a world ruled by women, I'm not sure we'd have seen anything as drastic as leaping from heavier than air flight to landing on the Moon in under 70 years in the idyllic world some seem to imagine a world without male leaders would be. Space travel goes hand-in-hand with wanting to put an explosive in the back garden of your enemy in a way that's not interceptable in the same fashion as a bomber.

Loads of women scientists, doctors and teachers in Russia, but under Communism those were all poorly-paid bourgois jobs. The heroes of socialist labour who got the best wages were the butchest, blokeyest trades involving picks and shovels and big hammers.

And when those women scientists got home, they had to make the tea and scrub the floor.

"Would people have landed on the moon, discovered penicillin, etc. if women were in charge?
There's no way of knowing, so it's pointless speculation."

I don't remember which book I read it in, but along my way I read about the Space Race between Russia and the USA and how it was one of John F. Kennedy's high priority projects. Kennedy was pissed off Russia beat the USA into orbit in 1957 and commissioned a study to find out how it happened.

The researchers concluded one of the main reasons Russia beat the USA into orbit is because they used the talents of women scientists and the USA did not. Only drawing from 50% of your talent pool instead of 100% means you're going to lose out on innovation.

This is not to call Russia a feminist paradise or anything, but men's barriers to women's participation in science had gone further by 1950s Russia than by 1950s USA. I like to think the Hidden Figures of NASA in the 1960s may have been hired because of that report.

Gucci Grace and her delightful boys showing off their big watches on Instagram.

The fun news is that Grace's farm has been invaded by gold-diggers. Actual diggers of gold, and she can't shift them. Irony rules.

I don't understand the bracketed comment. Is this a reference to the behaviour of dictators' wives, like how Mugabe's wife was waltzing around shopping in France whilst her husband was committing atrocities?

Mao's policies killed a lot more than 1.5 million. Probably more than Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot combined.

(Ably assisted by his fragrant wife in her expensive Parisian undies beneath her grey overalls.)

In a century that gave us Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, the worst a woman could manage was Mrs Gandhi's State of Emergency and her compulsory sterilisation of 10 million men.

Pol Pot allegedly killed 'between 1.2 million and 2.8 million' people, Mao about 1.5m, and I don't know the total Nazi death toll (about 7 million Jews alone, likely more).

Sterilising men obv isn't the same as executing them, but the overall impact on society could be close in terms of how many lives were prevented from ever coming into existence by the parents being sterilised.

Worryingly, India is still trying to sterilise men and there was a push in February of this year.

I don't think it's a good comparison, because dictators don't just focus on persecuting one sex like Gandhi did. This is much more gendered violence and had it been a man sterilising 10m women we'd probs have heard much more criticism (especially if it was still happening).

In a century that gave us Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, the worst a woman could manage was Mrs Gandhi's State of Emergency and her compulsory sterilisation of 10 million men.

with the majority of MN posters being female, yes... you can see how fuzzy and warm the world would be. Oh, wait...

Having power means you are more capable of doing damage. White people have done more Bad Stuff in recent history than black people have, but that's not because there's anything inherently more evil about the melanin-deprived.

Women in power (Queen Elizabeth I, Indira Gandhi, etc) have proved just as ruthless as men. Although you could perhaps argue that they were atypical, given that they achieved power in the first place.

The sinking of the Titanic is a slightly bizarre speculation, but raises an important point.

It just reminds me of the MRA arguments about how many are responsible for all the good things ever done.
Would people have landed on the moon, discovered penicillin, etc. if women were in charge?
There's no way of knowing, so it's pointless speculation.

Men cause us no end of problems.

Is this due to inherent/social differences, men not historically giving women the chance or a bit of both? An interesting comparison I read a few years ago was that it's, in a way, a reversal of looking at the sex of those making scientific and technical achievements. I firmly believe that women are under-represented in STEM history because they were denied opportunities (even in the 80s, I was discouraged from pursuing a scientific career).

General Galtieri started the Falklands War. It is arguable that he was encouragedged by Tory govt. policy, notably the visit to Buenos Aries by Nicholas Ridley to discuss leaseback and the withdrawl of HMS Endurance.

There have been a few female war leaders who were not shy in coming forward: Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, The Chinese Dowager Empress.

So, an attempt at a reversal of the standard MRA whinge about the Titanic? Super clever, that.

In answer to Sapphos's question, there's not much, mostly just men starting wars and claiming that they did it for women or that a woman made them do it.

With regards to the Titanic, that is.

What a bizarre speculation.

I am of the opinion that if women were the sole decision makers in human affairs, there would be no war or famine in the world today.

@KathyBriggs360, on other threads you proudly boast of your actions in publicly bullying your female neighbour. On what planet was that good decision making on your part, let alone supportive to other women?

Im going back a bit nowbut the titanic wouldnt have sunk if there'd been a female voice asking but why do you want to go this fast? Do you want to break records before you know the route!?!?

When I first saw that I though "Oh god, not another pronoun"

One of the few good things to be said about the man in question is that he's unlikely to ever go on a pronoun wank.

Xi, rather

When I first saw that I though "Oh god, not another pronoun"

I think the whole concept of leadership is a very male one. In my female utopia I do not need be led somewhere by someone else with an urge to boss me about in service of their own agenda.

They all share a lot of qualities too, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't have aimed for or succeeded at being dictators in the first place.