- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,070
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
-
Features
Are Humans Hard Wired to Prefer Men as Leaders?
- Thread starter SLD
- Start date
Three of those were spouses of the dictator and the other democratically elected. Don’t try to take away from Yo-Jong’s coming glory.
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,266
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
I read that article.
The standout was Gandhi. She didn't get her power by being married to a dictator. She was elected.
And she was trying to hold together a huge and fractious nation. One that was too new to have a democratic tradition. But, when she lost the election, she stepped down.
Tom
J842P
Veteran Member
An aside:
My father knew the Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos personally. He worked as a loan officer for the World Bank in the Philippines.
In the same capacity in Latin America, he knew Alfredo Stroessner from Paraguay.
My father knew the Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos personally. He worked as a loan officer for the World Bank in the Philippines.
In the same capacity in Latin America, he knew Alfredo Stroessner from Paraguay.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Patriarchy? I do not know what that is, though I've seen plenty of unwarranted claims about something called 'Patriarchy'. But as to whether human males have a predisposition to prefer males as leaders, I do not know. It's an interesting matter for research, though perhaps not doable because it's tabboo.laughing dog said:
I think the question in this thread is about human preferences, not just male preferences, by the way, and the word "hardwired" has been the source of serious miscommunication in this thread, if one takes a look at some posts, but it's about human predispositions.
Obviously, not all humans (or human males) prefer males as leaders, but that is not the question.
ETA: Sorry, the above quote is from a post by Don2 (Don1 Revised).
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,267
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
The opposite of the matriarchies that, we've been lectured in this thread quite solemnly, do not and cannot exist.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
First, that was my quote not laughing dog. Why did you strangely change the ownership of the quote?
Second, it's really weird that so many people in this thread don't know what patriarchy is or that it impacted history. I don't know how to explain the lack of knowledge.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
What I see in the thread is the use of the word in an at best ambiguous manner. I'd rather use more clear terms, or ask the person using them for clarification.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
I didn't change anything (I often do not quote using the quote function, since I prefer to have greater flexibility). I made a mistake, and thought it was a post by laughing dog.
Some of us disagree with the usual claims involved an alleged patriarchy. But that aside, if one takes a look at Politesse's reply and yours and how "matriarchy" and "patriarchy" are used in this thread, it should be clear that there is miscommunication going on. At any rate, I think it's better to use more precise terms, such as whether humans prefer males as leaders, regardless of what "patriarchy" stands for.Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
You shouldn't have done it.
Angra Mainyu said:
You shouldn't be in this thread if you do not want to discuss the content of posts instead of semantics and posters. Putting you on ignore again.
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,266
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
Where did this happen?
Pointing out that matriarchal societies are small, unusual, and unimportant isn't the same thing as "do not and cannot exist".
Maybe this was posted and I missed it because it's such a ridiculous claim. Maybe you're talking about somewhere besides this thread.
Please educate me.
Tom
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
I made a mistake. You shouldn't have assumed the worst and ask "Why did you strangely change the ownership of the quote?", as if that were deliberate. But this is an example of what I am talking about.
I would want to discuss the content of posts. I would not want to be attacked. It's part of the problem I pointed to here.Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
In any case, I do not agree that I shouldn't be in this thread.
Elixir
Made in America
Where "flexibility" means allowance for carelessness... yeah, I've done that. Best to use the quote function so that you catch it on the re-read.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
And another attack. No, "flexibility" does not mean that. Quite the opposite: I value precision, and for that it is better to be able to copy and paste, then add the quote, etc. It's considerably more difficult, but it's better in general. And sometimes I make a mistake, which can easily be corrected and does not cause problems. But I do get consistently attacked for it. And I did not even make a comment about the subject matter.
I practised "manual" quoting for a while on this site, because there was a months-long bug where pressing 'reply' or 'reply with quote' refused to function, or functioned erratically.
Angra admitted he'd made a mistake in the attribution. Why the lecture over a simple mistake?
Elixir
Made in America
Lecture?
Never mind Meta - "I often do not quote using the quote function, since I prefer to have greater flexibility"
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
And again!
The content of my posts show that I actually make an effort to understand the posts I read, rather than just attack my interlocutors if they are not part of this or that group. Sometimes, I make mistakes, but in this case, it was clearly not a mistake that would have bad consequences, and is easily fixable. If Don2 (Don1 Revised) had simply told me it was his post, I would have apologized and that would have been it. Instead, he assumed the worst for no good reason at all: he said " Why did you strangely change the ownership of the quote?", accusing me of changing the ownership of the quote. Obviosly, after that attack, I have nothing to apologize for, and I will just defend myself.
As for my often not using the quote function, that is precisely to have greater flexibility when I reply. It allows me to address the details of different posts much better, and reduce the chances of misunderstandings regarding what part of the post I'm replying to. It has a cost, namely it takes longer and more effort, and sometimes I make errors. In this particular case, since it was a single post, the quote function would have been better.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
What about all the queens in history? The difference between a king and a dictator is magical fairy dust. There is no difference
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Those were queens and empresses, not dictators. Where’s the female Franco? The female Idi Amin? She’s waiting for her corpulent brother to die.