"Maybe it's time to let women rule world"

What a terrible article. How long would this woman last in a world ran by females? .

This woman better be careful what she asks for.

Its a Guy.

And these type of writters are the real aggressive and callous ones.

I wonder why it also never occurs to him to consider all the violence because of womens part (women vote for war, marry the victors of war, raise sons with those values). Furthermore when women don't go to wars they helped create they are sacrificing "allies" who must take their place. Women do the same thing when it comes to work related deaths. Nearly all deaths for the purpose of building and maintaining civilization happen to men, because women do not take those responsibilities. So women are acting like men are their shields which is very callous of them, and a form of violence IMO. In fact that to me is the most profound form of female violence, not taking their burden and treating men as disposable.

@previous comment

Obviously I'm talking about classes of people because we all can't do the same thing. But I would of course be apposed to calling a group of hazardous type workers violent without taking into account what they do for me and what I do to them. One way I practice my beliefs is that ,as long as I'm of the right age and I'm not disabled, I will not vote for a war unless I'm willing to go to war myself. (War is a different beast for a number of reasons and there is not usually a surplus of soldiers when a war is decided).

Here's a note I wrote to the author of this piece:

W.Gifford-Jones MD -- You asked if you were naive, and yes, I think you are. You have completely missed the biological side of this. Biologists tell us that in the vast majority of primate and mammal populations the sexes are divided into two groups, the "choosers" and the "competers." The choosers are more involved in childcare and childbirth while the competers are geared to compete for reproductive access to the choosers. This pattern plays out repeatedly and is easily observed. Biologists also tell us that the "competers" as a group are physically larger, more competitive, more aggressive and more violent. They have evolved into this pattern in order to do the things necessary to win reproductive access. ie the male gorilla must prove to his potential mate that he can protect her in the jungle and wins her affection by proving he can be aggressive and violent when needed. Perhaps the most curious aspect of this is that the pattern is sometimes reversed (two examples are the seahorse and the sandpiper) where the males are more involved in childbirth and childcare and it is the females who are physically larger, more competitive, more aggressive and yes, more violent. The important point is that it is not a matter of male or female, it is a matter of competer or chooser and these patterns have been shaping our populations for millions of years.

But yes, the males are more the competers in human populations and bear responsibility for their end of the violence problem. At least .18% of them do since 99.82% of men are not convicted of a violent crime in the US each year. Let's keep in mind that for every violent male in our culture there are probably 10 males who have dedicated their lives to stop them. But what about the ladies? Are they blameless victims in all of this? Absolutely not! They are, as choosers, responsible for their choices! If women would cease choosing aggressive and violent men as mates the incidence of domestic violence, interpersonal violence, spousal murder etc would decrease. But the ladies don't want the beta males, they want the alphas who are competitive, aggressive, and sometimes violent. Imagine for every one woman who chose a violent man as her mate that there were 10 women who had dedicated their lives to stop this from happening? Hmmm Imagine a world where the women choose only peaceful, easy going nice guys as their mates. Under those circumstances the world would change. Suddenly in order to win the competition men would need to show they were easy going! And they would shift accordingly. If we are going to condemn the men for their violence we must also condemn the women for their choices. Somehow political correctness forgets this.

@Tom

Well said!

I would also clarify that its not just about who the women choose, it's about the selfish choices they make for themselves, which subvert the sanctity of another's life. IE the Titanic, women would let good men (sons, brothers, fathers, uncles, cousins, and strangers) die in their place. How could the 50 year old mothers not at any point in time protest the dying of their 20 year old sons FOR MAKING A TRADE. Women choose their health over male's, pink month in the NFL (wtf...). Women practice violence through "good" men when they use the police state to unfairly hurt men, including those betas you talk about. (Women as a whole have yet to take real responsibility for their part DV, false rape and anonymity, child abuse, infanticide).

Their choices, including mate selection, put good men at risk. It would not solve the problem to pick betas because women will put those men at risk and ask those betas to do their violent bidding.

when i lived in another life, it never occurred to me and some
of my buds to even consider that women got to choose. truth.
if i wanted some it was there, always. why compete for something
that was free for the taking? i was Charlie, except younger and much poorer,
and busier.

as i got older, it got harder and harder to turn her eye, and
then i started to understand something about this subject, and
ponder the why of it. who controls, and why?

the chooser has an advantage. what is that advantage? is it looks? is it money?
is it bias in the law? i've read stuff saying how we progress through relationships
and gain and lose power. before marriage, he has the power. newly weds, its her.
kids come = her (bigtime), kids gone = potentiall equal, divorce = her, and so forth.
i can buy that, mostly.

guess that begs the question, how do i get my advantage?

Answer: don't sign a contract that gives her all your rights (marriage).

i had the advantage in the beginning. i gave it away. everybody told me to.
its natural to marry, they say. it is not natural in this messed up society.
servitude is never where you want to be in any society.

Women only get to choose from the men who give them offers. Men get to choose just who they bother to give attention. I make that choice every day... If you see women as the choosers then it's probably because you give them all your power - in that case she is probably going to NOT choose you... there is simply nothing that can further from it - you've already exhausted yourself on her - there is no more of you to be had... When women do the same thing - men reject them - it's just natural.
It's arguable that men actually get to choose more than women - we are after all the initiative. Taking the initiative however means we have to bear the load of rejection at first hand. Women don't bear the active rejection - they bear the passive rejection (no offers).
Men have to walk the line of allowing oneself to be disposed of by females, without disposing of themselves. All too often we senselessly throw ourselves into the fray and get beaten - that is because we have not taken care of ourselves first. Obviously if we don't take care of ourselves we are going to be beaten up?
This is because women don't take care of men - men take care of themselves - men take care of women, men take care of everyone. This much is clear and both genders understand this - even the most vicious feminist...

Hitler would have had allot in common with this women!

according to the USA Government figures:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/figure3_5.htm

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/figure4_2.htm

save these links when you see somebody spouting falsehoods and provide them the data.

oregon dad