Why aren’t more women world leaders? Some Reddit dude has a theory. (SPOILER ALERT: It’s really dopey.)

But if we ran the world on rainbows, that would mean we’re sucking all the color out of everything!

No, you make rainbows by breaking white light into a spectrum… so if we were ‘mining’ rainbows there would be more colours.

@Linds- to br fair, Hastings is a sexist, womanizing ass a lot of the time. And while Poirit can be full of himself, he is generally speaking the truth.

I guess I am just a bit tired of the “he is an insufferable asshole but it’s ok because he’s a SMART insufferable asshole!” schtick.

Speaking as a manly man, I think that coal is the only appropriate power source.

I also bitterly resent the fact that manly men have to mine for it.

Thank you for your time.

At least he didn’t use the old misogynist standby: “Women do not hold significant positions of power because they are dainty feminine flowers and have no brains or abilities to speak of. This is why no woman ever is suited to any sort of work beyond simplistic drudgery in the home and that icky cootie-filled “love” thing.”

What, that old thing? No way. r/MensRights is hard at work introducing new misogynist standbys, like “society is already about everybody giving things to women and feminism is merely the highest form of rampant female entitlement and selfishness.”

Get with the times!

Speaking of dicks… I’m going to be one and agree with Ruby, sorta; can anyone actually envision women turning the tables on men and rehashing history?

I don’t think it’s because we are ‘innately’ less aggresive or more advanced or whatever- I just can’t imagine that we would ever do anything like that

rjjspesh: Because of the ways girls are raised and socialized, there tend to be differences in how they act when they end up in positions of power. But if we’re hypothetically postulating that women are in charge of everything, that would presuppose differences in socialization (since that’s a large part of what keeps women out of those roles), and therefore I’d expect the results to be pretty similar.

Part of the reason is because women are not big fans of what famous women go through. If you wear a pants suit, you are not a woman. If you get misty eyed, it is proof that women are too weak to handle power (meanwhile John Boehner cries and it is no big deal.) If you are over a certain age and are showing cleavage, you are gross! Better not gain any weight, cuz then you are a Bad Person.

On and on and on ad nauseum until you just want to scream (but if you do, that proves you are too emotional and therefore unsuited to power.)

Add in things like Faux News that deliberately create a culture that makes it hard for a woman to be anything less than young, blonde, pretty and vacuous (I found out from a style consultant to politicians that they actually put glitter on their chests to make them more noticeable) and you have a strong reason why no woman would ever put herself through that.

they actually put glitter on their chests to make them more noticeable

WTF, seriously? Wow. Just, wow.

Speaking of female leaders – did you hear about what happened with Alan Jones (radio guy) and his comments about Julia Gillard (prime minister)?

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillards-father-died-of-shame-alan-jones-20120929-26soa.html

What he said was partly just regular (if very personal) repulsive political posturing (her father died of shame) and partly “women get everything handed to them” meme. I heard somewhere that he said she got a big jump in the polls because she was crying in public (because her father had just died). Which is a classic MRM thing. I can’t find a written article that mentions that bit though. I think I heard it on tv.

There has been a huge lashback at him though, with lots of sponsors pulling their ads from his show.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/alan-jones-apologises-as-sponsors-pull-ads/story-e6frf7jo-1226484904553

I haven’t found what he actually said in his ‘apology’ but several references to it being a notpology.

Yep, I was shocked to find out that they do that Cloudiah but I cannot say I was very much surprised if that makes sense. It was an enlightening hour long class to say the least.

Someguy, we keep telling you. Start your own fucking blog. We are here to mock misogyny.

Bored Stick, what you choose to harp on endlessly speaks volumes about you. Get a life and your own blog.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Dude wrote that about the Catholic church, but I think it tends to hold true in general.

Not exactly. Origin of the phrase, “Power tends to corrupt”.

Even with Lord Acton the letter wasn’t about the church, per se, but about absolute power, in general

Here, again, what I said is not in any way mysterious or esoteric. It appeals to no hidden code. It aims at no secret moral. It supposes nothing and implies nothing but what is universally current and familiar. It is the common, even the vulgar, code I appeal to.

Upon these two points we differ widely; still more widely with regard to the principle by which you undertake to judge men. You say that people in authority are not [to] be snubbed or sneezed at from our pinnacle of conscious rectitude. I really don’t know whether you exempt them because of their rank, or of their success and power, or of their date. The chronological plea may have some little value in a limited sphere of instances. It does not allow of our saying that such a man did not know right from wrong, unless we are able to say that he lived before Columbus, before Copernicus, and could not know right from wrong. It can scarcely apply to the centre of Christendom, 1500 after the birth of our Lord. That would imply that Christianity is a mere system of metaphysics, which borrowed some ethics from elsewhere. It is rather a system of ethics which borrowed its metaphysics elsewhere. Progress in ethics means a constant turning of white into black and burning what one has adored. There is little of that between St. John and the Victorian era.

But if we might discuss this point until we found that we nearly agreed, and if we do argue thoroughly about the impropriety of Carlylese denunciations, and Pharisaism in history, I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no position, like Ravaillac; but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greater names coupled with the greater crimes. You would spare these criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them, higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice; still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science.

The standard having been lowered in consideration of date, is to be still further lowered out of deference to station. Whilst the heroes of history become examples of morality, the historians who praise them, Froude, Macaulay, Carlyle, become teachers of morality and honest men. Quite frankly, I think there is no greater error. The inflexible integrity of the moral code is, to me, the secret of the authority, the dignity, the utility of history. If we may debase the currency for the sake of genius, or success, or rank, or reputation, we may debase it for the sake of a man’s influence, of his religion, of his party, of the good cause which prospers by his credit and suffers by his disgrace. Then history ceases to be a science, an arbiter of controversy, a guide of the wanderer, the upholder of that moral standard which the powers of earth, and religion itself, tend constantly to depress. It serves where it ought to reign; and it serves the worst better than the purest.