The Role of the New Age Male

SDW, some women are not driven to power, that is undoubtedly true, just as some men aren’t. For a long time, most women didn’t think it was possible to be in a position of power; I’m sure many bought into that same mindset that you have – that it just wasn’t in their nature.

But gradually, as more and more women break out of that mold and begin seeing the possibilities, and seeing those avenues begin to open up to them, more are seeking and finding success and fulfillment in positions of power. All one needs to do is look to the steadily rising numbers of women in leadership to see proof of that, which is why I listed some of them above. I wouldn’t have been able to produce that list 50 years ago, and in another 50 years hopefully producing such a list will be unnecessary as women leaders will become ubiquitous.

I happen to think men and women, in general, share a good number of strengths and ambitions. But they also, again in general, have some gender-related tendencies and strengths that, when taken together as complementary forces, have enabled our very survival. Why not make the most of that? It seems to me it would be beneficial to have a fair mix of both men and women in positions of leadership to best utilize those reciprocal strengths.

You need security to have a home. If you can’t protect your home then it’s not yours.

Your argument is that we have won. The house is ours. We have conquered and there is no longer a threat. That is the case you are trying to make, but don’t you think other people want to win too? Don’t you think other people want a house? A nice big house.

Sorry, I am new here. I’m not well versed in the academic pursuit of Philosophy and often claim to be (though not actually) anti-intellectual. I have often read about, and marveled at, the ideas of many native people. As I have become more aware of the world around me I have used empirical data to judge the validity of many ideas espoused in my hearing. I find it odd, maybe fascinating, that so often I return to the aforementioned natives. It seems that these poor “savages” that we needed to “save” from their “backward” ways did, in fact, have it right all along. They didn’t need scientists to show them that to survive we need to be in balance with nature. It seems that was apparent to them. Extremes of any nature were deemed poor judgement. I could get off on a tangent here about the Pueblo “Indians” use of solar energy to heat and cool long before OPEC, Exxon, and the like, picked our pockets. We could open the topic to the well developed social structure and so on.

I point to a couple little things about native people, yet I don’t say native to where. Why? Simply put, it appears native in a global sense. (Is that possible?) Simpler people didn’t get bogged down in deconstruction. It seems they felt that their understanding was evidence enough of the validity of these ideas. Self evident.

Why are we bickering here about women vs men as leaders? What is the end game? It seems to be the very small minded approach to leadership that gets one into trouble. Substitute Democrat, Republican, yada, yada, yada.

The real dilemma is respect for the abilities of both genders and how these roles can assist the group. It seems that most native tribes had defined roles and a level of respect for said roles. Sure, often (most) times men were the chief but the earth was Mother Earth. In their world view women had a place of importance. Now the expression of these things is not ours to judge. In our world we let pedophiles watch tv in prison because it would be cruel not to–I find that odd. The point is that women have always had a role in most cultures, just not Christian dominated cultures. That damned Eve caused all kinds of trouble don’t ya know. So women are bad.

Seriously now, shouldn’t we be looking at a way to bring the nature of women to the foreground to develop a better world? (Sorry, my daughter gravitated to pink and purple stuffed animals and my son pounded on things. I agree that women are better suited to create) There are differences. We should utilize these differences because they will build a stronger tomorrow. Think about the European Royals of a bygone era. Too pure a blood line has a disastrous effect. Think about your stock portfolio. You need to be diversified to survive changes in the economy. Now think back to my opening silliness. Balance. We need both men and women to share in the role of leadership. No voice should over power the other.

The advent of the A Bomb and the H Bomb ended the concept of total war.
For the super-powers it is now a case of mutual destruction

The UN and NATO more or less insure
that there can never be large scale invasion
or mass occupation
ever again
so nations are reasonably safe from each other

Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are proof
that there can be no winners
if we keep marching in that direction

Wars are now mostly internal insurgencies
The role of the modern warrior is now police action

International terrorism
is related to resentment
against out-dated, bigoted foreign relations
and short-term capitalist exploitation

Both Capitalism and Communism
are becoming more passe with every passing failure

Peace lies in global education
not endless force

The creative energy of the entire specie
can be turned toward planet management
with the right encouragement
and focused leadership

It is not an impossible ideal

Every culture shares in a common weal
in identical family values
Women are born to insist on those values
in every new born.
they just need a reasonable chance to exercise that power

If they have leadership
world peace and equality can become a real possibility

I think our funds would go towards de-wrinkling skin and inventing diets that let you eat and not get fat. You have the wrong idea when you think of the scientific ventures women would support.

Also, this whole idea of global education sounds more like forced indoctrination. What do you tell the Muslims or the Christians? Do you tell them God doesn’t exist and they have to follow a new leader now? I mean, the whole idea of a women leader is grounds for war for a good part of the world.

Welcome to ILP, jclark, and thank you for adding your perspective to this discussion. You bring up some good points.

I hope you’ll enjoy your stay here. :slight_smile:

I do believe we sell ourselves short as a species. It is the easy path. Some of my earlier chatter harkened back to early civilization for a reason. Quite often people did the right thing based on upbringing not on agenda. Why is this such a hard concept? Someone made the comment that respect for both sides needs to be part of the equation. This, of course, is true. Have we devolved so much as a species that we can’t understand the simple concepts of so many civilizations from hundreds and thousands of years ago?

See, here is my anti-intellectual side. Must we deconstruct an argument/discussion to the point that it is self gratifying mental gymnastics? I don’t get the benefit of this deconstruction unless with each step you peel away layer upon layer of a very in-depth problem. At some point we have to say we don’t give a damn about our puritanical roots because we see where it was done much better by some other culture that respected roles.

Super-granny :smiley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY79KbCptTo

Women are more organized, but i wouldn’t trust them with state affairs

Well then put Bush & Co
back in charge =;

I’m not american, so i don’t know

You must be from another planet then
Welcome to a Bush bankrupted Earth :mrgreen:

It’s the obamination.

:smiley:

Time will tell.

We must castrate ourselves and imbibe vast quantities of estrogen.

It is the only solution.

Only through growing a vagina shalt thou be saved.

What would there be to save without one?

What?

Without a vagina … there is nothing to save …?

WHAT?!

Speak sense you mad theist!

AAAAARRRGGHHHH!!!

You think that masculinity is the whole of the worlds problems and when I attempt to satirize that you rejoin with a completely inane comment.

You missed the point.
Wonder why ](*,)

Let me put it another way
What came first
the Vigina?
or the penis? :astonished:

Missed the point again
Get men out of the kitchen
and put them to work in the trenches

Asexual reproduction came first.

Learn biology.

“Men” aren’t in the kitchen.

Stop assuming we are all pussies like yourself.

Wait a minute …

Are you a closet disciple of Satyr and think that “manhood” needs to be found again through opening new frontiers?

I never thought you had it in you MM; I’m impressed.

400 men sitting on their backsides in Congress
deciding how to pork-barrel the house-keeping money
is pretty much pussy-footing in my accounting book

I am never sure what direction Satyr is heading heading in
but he is not going my way
that is for sure