Message from @Dyno
Discord ID: 524206594070937620
point is, there are bound to be less female examples due to cultural norms
but there are tons of examples of shite male rulers
again, because there have been more male rulers
Part of it is the proclivity to seek out power, their lack of that drive is a function of their nature. Cultural norms acknowledge this nature, they don't enforce it. I wish we did enforce it. Feminism is what is enforcing this idea that women should seek out things which they statistically do not find happiness in and aren't great at.
it's perhaps controversial in some circles to say, but this drive and also success often depends on one core question - planning to have kids?
Can't we just burn ourselves?
women who don't have kids more often do have that drive and success
women who do, often don't
and most women do
Yes, that's very much part of it. Even if women could do great at these things, we would be sacrificing families to achieve some statistical goal. For what?
you'll find out when you grow up
No, women who have been duped into joining the rat race and competing with men end up childless or with fewer children. You have cause and effect wrong.
no u
Dyno disagrees with you, burn yourself.
you can argue either side of that debate phash and it's impossible to prove either
point is though
no kids = chance of success
whichever causes which
that's the correlation
Ikr dyno.
Burn yourselves.
Women chase career before they really consider the impact on family life, because they are young and not worried when they start anyway. Then they collect debt because of college and need to work. Then before they know it, they are over 30.
you're talking of far too recent issues now
this isn't a historic one
just recent
Yes, I'm talking of the current situation. Sorry, I guess I didn't know we were speaking historically. Historically, it wasn't a real problem.
well I think the question was just women in general
so it's full spectrum of now and then
Right, I pretty much answered the qotd with my first post. I thought it was leading to other discussion. Anyway, I've said enough.
Theres de Beauvoir
Not really and almost i possible. Women are naturalny emptional and Will never be Able to hołd their own actibely in debatę because they are do ile. No Woman has ever Led a People to greatness rather inherites the momentum or even inherites the success. Men on the other hand have both collapsed and built empires this is because Man and women have fundime tally different me talities and roles and modes of think Ing. Any one who think otherwise has never been with a Woman for more than 5 min.
As philosophers they might work
But POLITICAL philosophers, no
Just no.
Ayn Rand
I rest my case
Ayn Rand -> the most retarded philosophy that got unecessary traction because its basically unfalsifiable
almost anyone could have made a similar idea based on selfishness or some other mechanism, and then shoehorned everything under it
Women are excellent domestic philosophers (aka moms)<:Redpill:459545654272720896> <:Redpill:459545654272720896>