Nerd Pride Radio

Well, it's hard to measure specific corruption from a specific source without knowing that person very well both before and after attaining power. BUT the idea that power is corrupting is generally uncontroversial. Unless we are arguing that women are somehow special and saintly to the extent that they would not be corrupted, I think the best we can get to is that women are AS deserving as men of competing for power in society. Which is fine if we are removing barriers to that.

If we are arguing that women are holy sanctified beings that should be given all the power, we are deciding that sexism is fine, as long as it benefits THIS group. Which is where I take issue. Also with the spread of "patriarchy" to effectively mean "a man is in charge of anything, anywhere"

Funny enough, this is reminding me of a recent conversation with a coworker about ethnostates.

I agree with you that there's nothing especially saintly and uncorruptable about women, though I'm not sure I buy the old adage that power corrupts. Socrates, Jesus, Buddha... legendary good guys I don't think would have become tyrants if they had the chance, and there are a lot of good men running around who aren't letting the power they have right now corrupt them much, if any.

But back to women: I wonder if women would choose to do the things that men choose to do with their power, if they were slightly physically dominant in the way that men are. Because frankly, women could arm themselves right now and make themselves more physically powerful in order to commit the usual crimes, and we don't see that so much. Quite frankly I don't have the necessary desires to hurt people that are required to commit certain kinds of crimes, and I wonder if women just have those desires less, on average, than men, such that society as a whole would be a far less violent and threatening place if they were to assume the power men have right now.

The premise of the book seems to be that, given this kind of purely physical power for women, the same bad things would happen as we see now. But is that because (I haven't read the book) they're still embedded in patriarchy and patriarchal ways of thinking?

There's a long an interesting history of women's and feminist separatist communities, sometimes but not always lesbian. But I'm more interested in what it's like when women become dominant in a certain area and are responsible for the decisions and enforcement. I have only rare examples of this and, wow, they are different. Not all rosy - there are pros and cons - but definitely different and better. I hear a lot of people gripe about how they don't like having a female boss. But why is that? My experiences of women's leadership have been about 90% amazing and quite different from what you get with male leaders. What if it was all that way, backed by the assurance of men not being able to easily overpower women?

Just to clarify: I do NOT think of patriarchy as something all men are complicit in and tainted by. Far from it. It hurts men very much, imo. Only some men benefit from this rules-system, this way of playing the game of life, and some women benefit from it too. I've made it work for me. I don't like it, though. And I love men.

Todays pressing feminist issue is *squints*
shoe emojis

http://mashable.com/2017/10/23/flat-sho ... L7m7XTEPqM

Ya, whatever. Now there are two dumb shoe things. As a connoisseur of the hell that is girls' clothing today, I can tell you lots of people think girls want fabric clothes printed with images of ugly shoes. Who are these people? Ugh.

If we were cold hearted about it, it's boys we'd slaughter. We need fewer of them. In some ways, this has been the function of war, to thin the herd. Sadly, the way it's been prosecuted, it's been absolutely counter evolutionary.

More patriarchy issues. If men were considered experts in caregiving, would be a whole different story. I think we should do a five year inversion experiment where all leadership and management decisions currently occupied by men will be swapped with caregiving positions both private and public occupied by women. See what happens. Just for fun.

Seriously, who else has Seth McFarland made veiled sexual assault jokes about in the last couple decades? Someone may want to look into those people.

Damn it's like everybody is coming out of the woodwork and suddenly a mass wave of expose...

so I mean at this point we have to give it up for ALEX JONES RIGHT, turns out Hollywood is some kind of kid fucking sexual assault rape fantasy camp.

I mean... lmao

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/featur ... mn-1053466

What does Alex Jones have to do with it? Isn't he the one who keeps accusing people whose small children were slaughtered of being actors faking it?

Okay, so him and another fifty million people?

Oh, the guy who lost that custody battle, and heaped lots of stuff on his ex-wife?

In other news, if I had been a student at Reed College when I was 18, I would probably have had years of difficulty wrestling with my own inner conflict as a Republican, so... small things to be thankful for. These people mad because non-white prof teaching on ancient Mesopotamia. Ummm.... ... ... What?

Another novel solution from the radical feminist: guns of all sorts will be legal but the only people who can use them are women. I'm sure we can work out some sort of exception for the military, but if we can turn this into a global rule then we can solve that one too.

More equality! http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017 ... D=ref_fark

Don't post your little piece of violence porn here and slap the word equality on it like a smartass. Ugh. Gross. Why would you do that?

Lol you have some deep issues. By your own twisted scale, what do you think you deserve for posting this under the label "equality" and then explaining yourself like that? Thankfully I don't operate by your rules.