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

no u

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>

Truest redpill ^ Funny thing in Polish we distinguish between intelligence in the mechanical sense