Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Charlie Brooker on why women should rule the world

49 replies

starkadder · 01/06/2009 21:12

A bit harsh maybe....and he wouldn't be allowed to say it the other way round, so...

but funny nonetheless...

here

OP posts:
blinks · 01/06/2009 21:58

LOVE HIM

monkeytrousers · 03/06/2009 10:51

Oh Charlie. He is funny. Nice thought. Wouldn't work though.

If women ruled the world, we'd soon evolve cocks to swing - figuratively!

edam · 03/06/2009 10:56

Thing is, I'm too lazy to run the world. Although if I got to recline on a couch while someone fed me grapes like a Roman Emperor I'm sure I could summon up the strength to issue a few orders.

redandgreen · 03/06/2009 11:01

I have been thinking about this a fair bit for the last week or so as I am also reading one of his books, and I have finally come to a conclusion this morning.

I would!

DaddyJ · 03/06/2009 11:02

erm...Charlie, have you heard of Mouldiegate?

Any group that's dominated by one gender will suffer from the limitations of that gender.

PMSLBrokeMN · 03/06/2009 11:09

"We're lazy and we like blowjobs." couldn't have said it better myself!

EvenBetaDad · 03/06/2009 11:28

Me and DW have ben saying this for the last 2 years. Totally agree.

We both worked in the City and quite frankly if there had been women in charge the whole credit crunch would never have happened.

"We don't need a few women in conspicuous positions of power scattered here and there - we need a 10-year prohibition on all forms of male power."

Damn right. I am disgusted at the behaviour and appalling mess that a cerain group of men in a positon of incredible power have made of things. Not a shred of personal responsibility, courage or ethical behaviour in some cases. I am embarrased by some (not all) members of my sex. The whole macho but cowardly pack of egos that ran the entire world financial system off the edge of a cliff while grabbing the spoils need to take a good look at themselves and never allowed to work in a bank or any part of the financial system again. I know what they did, I used to work there, I know why they did it and I know they don't care. In reality what is happening is many of the very same people are even now in charge and plotting and planning to do it again.

Nothing has changed. We do need 10 years of women in charge and the first job should be to sack a very large number of the senior men in charge i our fnancial system. Far too many of these just don't get it - they made a complete mess of the world and it is their fault.

The same thing could be said in politics.

edam · 03/06/2009 12:07

"The whole macho but cowardly pack of egos that ran the entire world financial system off the edge of a cliff while grabbing the spoils need to take a good look at themselves and never allowed to work in a bank or any part of the financial system again."

Hear, hear, EvenBetaDad!

(And if we could limit it to a decade, there'd still be something left for ds to do by the time he's grown up.)

EvenBetaDad · 03/06/2009 12:33

edam - agreed. Our two DSs need somethng to do as well. Dont want them hanging about the house after they are 18.

But seriously, the plain fact is that brave, ethical and decent men and women do enter the City and politics but I know of plenty of examples where they get gradually squeezed out over time because they dared to stand up to the male ego maniacs - who inevitably ended running the financial system and then eventually ran it out of control.

monkeytrousers · 03/06/2009 16:01

Well, there is a high proportion of people with psychopathic persoanlity traits in the city. But then more men are psychopaths, more are geniuses too.

DaddyJ · 03/06/2009 16:08

indeed, mt (good of MN to give you your name back!)

You once posted a brilliant brilliant article called 'is there anything good about men' - could you point me to the thread please?

southeastastra · 03/06/2009 16:16

read this yesterday, very good! never happen will it

KingRolo · 03/06/2009 16:29

Excellent article. Charlie Brooker is the only reason I buy The Guardian these days.

monkeytrousers · 03/06/2009 17:08

The Baumeister paper?

Here it is www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

I think it has a sting in its tail though.

DaddyJ · 03/06/2009 17:10

Yes, that's the one, thanks! - but where is the MN thread?
I wanted to join the debate but got busy in RL
and cannot find the thread again.

policywonk · 03/06/2009 17:13

I was reading this in the park the other day and laughed out loud at the bit about 'the world is a swinging dick contest and we've caught our collective glans in a nearby desk fan'

The bit about city boys reminded me of OneBat's very perceptive comment about the G20 protests: that the idiots who got us in to this financial mess are in the same demographic group as the idiots who go along to peaceful protests with the specific aim of having a ruck with the police. As she said, 'there's a reason why car insurance for men under 30 is so high'.

monkeytrousers · 03/06/2009 17:20

Sorry DJ. I lost my history. All I got back is my name

I could start another one!

monkeytrousers · 03/06/2009 17:23

PW, that perfectly describes evolution by sexual selection - from a male perspective. Everyone knows females drive sexual selection, the guys are back seat drivers

policywonk · 03/06/2009 18:38

Which bit - the bit about having your cock caught in a desk fan?

EvenBetaDad · 03/06/2009 18:52

I read the article as well. I thought it was interesting but the big flaw for me was the statement about sex drive.

"Our survey of published research found that pretty much every measure and every study showed higher sex drive in men. It?s official: men are hornier than women. This is a difference in motivation."

Men are not 'motvated' to have sex they have a hormonal element that creates their sex drive called testosterone and that is nothing to do with motiation in the sense it is not derived from the concious brain. I know there is not a perfect correlation between testosterone levels and sex drive but it certainly leads to biological difference that also leads to secondary sexual characterstics such as physical strength.

The desire for more sex tends to cause men to compete for as many female mates as posisble. That ensures biologically the best men win the most mates and the species survives. Nothing to do with a concious 'motivation' though.

However, I do agree with the pairing of upside and downside factors. Unfortunately, testosterne drives some men to do stupid risky things like drive the entire financial system off the edge of a cliff while they are busy 'competing' for mates.

Recent research shows that aggressive and risk trading patterns among City traders are known to be correlated to higher testosterone levels.

HeadFairy · 03/06/2009 18:55

Yay charlie Brooker... mind you we're far to clever to rule the world, we'd only end up being just the same as the cock swinging men, so we just sit back and be smug at all the men buggering up the world.

monkeytrousers · 03/06/2009 19:24

Yes, I am examining and testing his hypotheses on my days off.

He does have some interesting stuff to say, some food for thought, but he doesn't understand biology or evolution that well.

He is coming from a culturalist perspective.

monkeytrousers · 03/06/2009 19:25

Though your idea on group/species selection is a bit old BetaDad...

EvenBetaDad · 03/06/2009 19:52

I agree with your statement:

"Everyone knows females drive sexual selection, the guys are back seat drivers"

Which bit of what I said is old?

monkeytrousers · 03/06/2009 20:19

Well I was being a bit mischevious. I wouldn't saw it in an essay.

Group selection was a concept mooted by EO Wilson (if I remember rightly) at the beginning of sociobiology. It seemed pretty persuasive at first but the genes eye view of things since then has tipped the scales well over into kin selection.

Swipe left for the next trending thread