Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Why women shouldn't rule the world.
I was studying for my only final this semester and it dawned upon me the main difference between men and women. Men are simple, women are indecisive. NO, not just complicated, but INDECISIVE. Where does this indecisiveness stem from? Is it hereditary or is it socially influenced.
*note* this does not relate to ALL women. Just a sizable majority.
Observations for indecision:
Shopping: When men shop, we go into a store, look around for a few minutes (10 max) and decide. It's simple yet efficient. Women can window shop for hours in the same store and not buy a single item. It's not that they're complicated, it's because they're fucking indecisive. How difficult is it to select one handbag from another? The use is the same and you either like one over the other. If that realization takes more than 30 seconds to make, you are either brain-dead or useless.
Dating: Guys know when they like girls. They don't think too much about it, they just know. With more experience, they know when to take the fall and when not to. Some men are different than others, but on the whole, it's fairly simple: if the girl is nice, smart and doesn't get easily offended, done deal. Sexual attraction is an added bonus, but not entirely necessary at first sight. With women, everything becomes complicated. Again, not because they're complicated, but because they're indecisive. The main reason guys don't know what women want is because women themselves don't know what the fuck they want in the first place. How many women choose losers over nice guys? a lot more than they should. Why? Because they're indecisive about what they really want. What do they want? who the fuck knows.
Driving: The main reason why women are really so much worse drivers than men is once again simple: indecisiveness. When a guy gets into an accident, it's usually because he fell asleep on the wheel or was perhaps driving recklessly. You don't hear of guys backing up into parked cars on the other side of the street or crashing into barricades simply because they "came out of nowhere". Women get into far stupider accidents because of indecision. They take too long to make simple decisions and over compensate for said decisions with rashness or absentmindedness.
Arguments: With a guy, it's simple. If it makes sense, it's correct. With women, their answers to arguments usually stem from the indecision of the argument. What was the argument about? Who said what? Why did they say that? Answer to all of these? Irrelevant as long as she wins the argument; which is usually through oppositional abdication. She won't let a little thing like sense come in the way of accepting the fall. No way. If she paid more attention to logic, worked out her argument concisely and if necessary and followed through on key, relevant points, she'd be a man.
All in all, women are way too indecisive to rule the world.
*note* this does not relate to ALL women. Just a sizable majority.
Observations for indecision:
Shopping: When men shop, we go into a store, look around for a few minutes (10 max) and decide. It's simple yet efficient. Women can window shop for hours in the same store and not buy a single item. It's not that they're complicated, it's because they're fucking indecisive. How difficult is it to select one handbag from another? The use is the same and you either like one over the other. If that realization takes more than 30 seconds to make, you are either brain-dead or useless.
Dating: Guys know when they like girls. They don't think too much about it, they just know. With more experience, they know when to take the fall and when not to. Some men are different than others, but on the whole, it's fairly simple: if the girl is nice, smart and doesn't get easily offended, done deal. Sexual attraction is an added bonus, but not entirely necessary at first sight. With women, everything becomes complicated. Again, not because they're complicated, but because they're indecisive. The main reason guys don't know what women want is because women themselves don't know what the fuck they want in the first place. How many women choose losers over nice guys? a lot more than they should. Why? Because they're indecisive about what they really want. What do they want? who the fuck knows.
Driving: The main reason why women are really so much worse drivers than men is once again simple: indecisiveness. When a guy gets into an accident, it's usually because he fell asleep on the wheel or was perhaps driving recklessly. You don't hear of guys backing up into parked cars on the other side of the street or crashing into barricades simply because they "came out of nowhere". Women get into far stupider accidents because of indecision. They take too long to make simple decisions and over compensate for said decisions with rashness or absentmindedness.
Arguments: With a guy, it's simple. If it makes sense, it's correct. With women, their answers to arguments usually stem from the indecision of the argument. What was the argument about? Who said what? Why did they say that? Answer to all of these? Irrelevant as long as she wins the argument; which is usually through oppositional abdication. She won't let a little thing like sense come in the way of accepting the fall. No way. If she paid more attention to logic, worked out her argument concisely and if necessary and followed through on key, relevant points, she'd be a man.
All in all, women are way too indecisive to rule the world.
Comments:
Some good points, Gautam. I agree that the general "bell curve" of indecisiveness for women overlaps a bit higher than that for men. I think it's rooted in our radically different species-propagation roles. Primitively speaking, in nature, the 'job' of males is to spread their seeds widely to increase the chances of their genes surviving - generally not really a huge time commitment here if they make a wrong decision, so why over-think it? For females, the job is to ensure survival of the single/few offspring. There's at least a few months commitment. To make that time worth it, perhaps a little thinking-over (or over-thinking) is warranted. The subtle details, other than just overall 'nice'/'loser', become more important in that decision. Of course, it's less useful when the same frame of mind is applied to handbag selection.
You've nailed some of the drawbacks of indecision - however I don't think indecisiveness in itself is always a disadvantage. Nor is simplicity always a plus when dealing with complex situations. The optimal world-ruling policies, if there are any, should satisfy immediate needs without compromising future survivability. To attain power, but also to sustain power. This calls for a collaborative project, a yin/yang of sorts. I think I wrote a paper on this as well...
You've nailed some of the drawbacks of indecision - however I don't think indecisiveness in itself is always a disadvantage. Nor is simplicity always a plus when dealing with complex situations. The optimal world-ruling policies, if there are any, should satisfy immediate needs without compromising future survivability. To attain power, but also to sustain power. This calls for a collaborative project, a yin/yang of sorts. I think I wrote a paper on this as well...
Fair enough, mai. I don't think indecision is exclusively disadvantageous; however, I think that when it comes to the really important decisions--if we were to embrace a world run by women, exclusively--then we'd move at a much slower pace than we're moving at currently. I could have pointed out the advantages of indecision but that would have deviated from my original point. I just feel that in a world governed through media, engrossed in a proliferating cesspool of lies and propaganda, quick decisions need to be made even if they may not be the best. A collaborative project may be a viable solution in theory; however, I think our inherent gender differences will inevitably preclude that from happening.
Ooh! A debate between BF and GF!
Looking at this situation... um... realistically as opposed to Gautam's blog, which knowing concentrates on entertainingly broad generalizations, a person who would become ruler of the world would most likely exude both positive qualities of indecision and decision.
But for fun let's try a totally plausible scenario!
Let's say we had an indecisive female ruler of the world and we're suddenly attacked by space-mutants. Sure they might be ostracized from their original race thanks to their horrible mutations and the emotional scars of neglect (dually represented by the physical scars of their rancid mutations), but the fact is those motherfuckers be attacking our asses and we need to act before they steal all our women and our supply of delicious minute maid orange pop -- decisions need to be made.
However, in the long run, the war could ruin us economically and could have a negative toll on the earth's population. Why? Because we didn't ask ourselves that same question and didn't attempt to get to the source of the problem. Something a little indecision could have helped with.
In short, if women ran the world, we'd probably make quite a bit of progress because they'd make decisions which weren't brash and ill-thought-out, but that progress would be all in vain if space mutants suddenly attacked and they were too busy thinking of the best way to deal. If man ran the world, we would probably stand a chance when attempting to lay the smackdown on invading grotesque space mutants; however, we'd use up all of earth's resources, nuke the bastards with everything under the sun and subsequently enjoy many years of white, cancer-inducing Christmases.
So it comes down to whether you'd chose the lesser of two evils. I, for one, welcome our space mutant overlords.
P.S: Gautam, I think that a reactionary response to propaganda and media-saturation isn't very smart as that's exactly what they want: a reaction.
Looking at this situation... um... realistically as opposed to Gautam's blog, which knowing concentrates on entertainingly broad generalizations, a person who would become ruler of the world would most likely exude both positive qualities of indecision and decision.
But for fun let's try a totally plausible scenario!
Let's say we had an indecisive female ruler of the world and we're suddenly attacked by space-mutants. Sure they might be ostracized from their original race thanks to their horrible mutations and the emotional scars of neglect (dually represented by the physical scars of their rancid mutations), but the fact is those motherfuckers be attacking our asses and we need to act before they steal all our women and our supply of delicious minute maid orange pop -- decisions need to be made.
However, in the long run, the war could ruin us economically and could have a negative toll on the earth's population. Why? Because we didn't ask ourselves that same question and didn't attempt to get to the source of the problem. Something a little indecision could have helped with.
In short, if women ran the world, we'd probably make quite a bit of progress because they'd make decisions which weren't brash and ill-thought-out, but that progress would be all in vain if space mutants suddenly attacked and they were too busy thinking of the best way to deal. If man ran the world, we would probably stand a chance when attempting to lay the smackdown on invading grotesque space mutants; however, we'd use up all of earth's resources, nuke the bastards with everything under the sun and subsequently enjoy many years of white, cancer-inducing Christmases.
So it comes down to whether you'd chose the lesser of two evils. I, for one, welcome our space mutant overlords.
P.S: Gautam, I think that a reactionary response to propaganda and media-saturation isn't very smart as that's exactly what they want: a reaction.
Neither funny nor insightful; however, I would have expected nothing more than such an insipid response from you.
I was not referring to "ONE" ruler, but just a generalized society where women ruled in the hierarchy instead of men; quite the opposite of what it is now. Clearly that eluded your frail mind.
Secondly, despite such an imbecilic scenario that you've delineated, if we were to be attacked by mutated space-aliens, would it not make sense to act quickly and render our invading foes weak? Why would indecision prevail in such dire straits?
The fact is, if we used up resources to defend our planet, it would be worthwhile. If we were indecisive, we may render our own judgment fallible by second guessing our better judgment. The fact is, indecision would not prevail but hurt us.
This of course is given your outlandishly foolish example, so I don't blame you entirely for thinking the way you did.
Post a Comment
I was not referring to "ONE" ruler, but just a generalized society where women ruled in the hierarchy instead of men; quite the opposite of what it is now. Clearly that eluded your frail mind.
Secondly, despite such an imbecilic scenario that you've delineated, if we were to be attacked by mutated space-aliens, would it not make sense to act quickly and render our invading foes weak? Why would indecision prevail in such dire straits?
The fact is, if we used up resources to defend our planet, it would be worthwhile. If we were indecisive, we may render our own judgment fallible by second guessing our better judgment. The fact is, indecision would not prevail but hurt us.
This of course is given your outlandishly foolish example, so I don't blame you entirely for thinking the way you did.
