NationStates Jolt Archive

So NSG, who do you think rules the world, and who should?

Some people say women should rule the world, quoting war-waging as being part of the male condition, but are immediately countered with example upon example of female leaders who were just as bad. But perhaps this is because our political system is so masculocentric that only the most masculine and politically aggressive and strong-willed women stand a chance.

Some people say women already rule the world - do they? I suppose it comes down to whether you believe that it is the (historic) oppressors who hold the power, or whether it is true that behind every great man is a great woman.

I contrast, the arrival of Angela, Ségo and Hillary in positions of leadership marks the outcome of a decades-long process of post-war empowerment that has seen girls overtake boys in school and leave them behind. Women now make up 57% of university entrants and outnumber men in every subject including maths and engineering.

Would it be so bad if women began ruling the world politically after such a long period of men ruling the world. Do men really deserve to have power more than women? In coming years some fear that "ebil man-h8rs will tayk ova teh wrold!" but if women held the majority of political positions, would it necessarily mean that, or would it be like a pendulum - after so long of male-dominated politcal, it swings over to the other side, not to the extreme of course, but into the other side, and then back again, and then over again, until it eventually settles somewhere in the middle. Or do you think women will always be on the sidelines politically, at least in our lifetimes? At present, women only count for 17% of members of national parliaments.

Or perhaps all the talk about 'women should rule the world' is simply a case of 'grass is always greener', as we lament the current political leaders and disasters. Would things necessarily be different if women held more politcal power? And if so, would things necessarily be better?

She was also determined to look at why the skills developed through motherhood aren't considered relevant to a woman's CV. Myers is amazed that while sporting prowess is considered a key indicator of leadership potential in the US, bringing up children - which builds skills such as diplomacy, team-playing and flexibility - is undervalued.

Myers doesn't believe that it's just sexism that keeps women out of power. At times, she says, women undermine themselves. "We don't raise our hands for promotions, we don't take credit for our accomplishments. I can't tell you how many times you'll say to a woman, 'Oh God, what you did was so great', and they say, 'Really? I didn't think it was that good.' No, it was your idea, you worked hard, claim it."

Researching her book, Myers interviewed a number of successful women, including the late Anita Roddick, who said that women have a tangible discomfort with power. "They see what it's done to men and they want no bloody part of it," Roddick said. When Myers asked women if they considered themselves powerful, they tended to reject the term. "But if you asked them if they like the ability to make a difference, they loved that."

Some people think Australia should rule the world. Do you think they are more in tune with nature than the current superpowers. In response to water shortage concerns, this was said:

Well, aside from the bleedingly obvious using less water in general, tehre are a couple of ways. We here in South East Australia have been in a fairly severe drought for yonks. There are a few key points that really do make a world of difference.

1) Collecting stormwater. There is more stormwater runoff a year in this city than the entire city uses. something along the lines of 20 billion litres more. You can't drink the stuff, but its more than adequate for washing machines and most certainly for watering the garden. So rainwater tanks rock.

2) Appropriate agriculture. Seriously, people in state are trying to grow stupid crops. Why try to grow rice in a dry climate? Have dry crops for the dry south, and wet crops for the tropical north. It seems easy enough to me. With the ability this country has to export pretty much anything, it's just people being set in their ways. SO much of our drinking water goes to farmers.

3) Water treatment plants. Yes, yes, I know, it SOUNDS bad to be drinking recycled sewage, but in actual fact it's significantly cleaner than most rainwater, AND a shitload cheaper and easier to do than to treat stormwater or, as our state government has decided to do, build a great big whopping desalination plant. Go them :rolleyes:

Most Australians will be able to give you a fairly good idea about water saving. Hell, as a Melbournian I have to bow down to teh superior drought knowledge of those in Perth, Adelaide, and even (somehow) Brisbane. SO ask them.

So NSG, you decide!

China will rule a multi-polar World. Meanwhile NSG, you can decide who should rule the World. Maybe the Chinese Masters would take that into consideration.

So NSG, who do you think should rule the world? So NSG, you decide!

Me
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/EMOPOyes008HL3.gif

Who knows. Who will rule the world? Britain, as per usual. Obviously.

Whatever happened to democracy! :p

I am disappointed by having so few options outside the patriarchy. Although my personal choice would probably be metriarchy, I wouldn't mind giving matriarchy a go . . .

I couldn't be bothered to read all that but my answer would be that gender should not come into the choice as it is irrelevant and a very bad way of trying to judge character, skills, beliefs etc. Instead... crazy idea but what the hell... why not judge them by looking at their actual character, skills, beliefs?

I do think that taking into account traditional masculine and feminine approaches and getting the best of both worlds would be a good idea.

I do think that a leader who was a feminist (male or female, but I'd say a female is more likely to understand and truly care about feminist issues) would be nice.

America. For all its flaws, its still better than the rest.

*Hides from inevitable lynching mob*

So NSG, who do you think rules the world, and who should?

Some people say women should rule the world, quoting war-waging as being part of the male condition, but are immediately countered with example upon example of female leaders who were just as bad. But perhaps this is because our political system is so masculocentric that only the most masculine and politically aggressive and strong-willed women stand a chance.

Some people say women already rule the world - do they? I suppose it comes down to whether you believe that it is the (historic) oppressors who hold the power, or whether it is true that behind every great man is a great woman.



Would it be so bad if women began ruling the world politically after such a long period of men ruling the world. Do men really deserve to have power more than women? In coming years some fear that "ebil man-h8rs will tayk ova teh wrold!" but if women held the majority of political positions, would it necessarily mean that, or would it be like a pendulum - after so long of male-dominated politcal, it swings over to the other side, not to the extreme of course, but into the other side, and then back again, and then over again, until it eventually settles somewhere in the middle. Or do you think women will always be on the sidelines politically, at least in our lifetimes? At present, women only count for 17% of members of national parliaments.

Or perhaps all the talk about 'women should rule the world' is simply a case of 'grass is always greener', as we lament the current political leaders and disasters. Would things necessarily be different if women held more politcal power? And if so, would things necessarily be better?



Some people think Australia should rule the world. Do you think they are more in tune with nature than the current superpowers. In response to water shortage concerns, this was said:



So NSG, you decide!

Me. I should rule the world.
Free spaghetti and pizza for every person on planet earth. And free beers and sodas for every man woman and child on the planet.

I vote penguins.

I vote me.

Me. I should rule the world.
Free spaghetti and pizza for every person on planet earth. And free beers and sodas for every man woman and child on the planet.

Okay, that's three votes for metriarchy. Too bad we can't all win :p

I personally feel that world is far to large to be ruled by one single person, no matter what their gender. I feel a person who wants to rule the entirety of the planet may want to seriously consider checking into a mental institution. To have that many people mad at you is sheer lunacy.

If elected ruler of the world, I pledge to make sure that every person on the earth gets a free PS3 with a big screen TV with stereo surround sound.

(shameless campaigning) lol

Given the choices, I'll go for Australia. But personally, I think it ought to be me that rules the world; or at least not someone else.

I personally feel that world is far to large to be ruled by one single person, no matter what their gender. I feel a person who wants to rule the entirety of the planet may want to seriously consider checking into a mental institution. To have that many people mad at you is sheer lunacy.Well, if it keeps them from killing each other, it may be worth the sacrifice. Nothing brings people together like a common enemy. (Of course, that doesn't tend to last past the immanent threat, but one should take what one can get.)

If elected ruler of the world, I pledge to make sure that every person on the earth gets a free PS3 with a big screen TV with stereo surround sound.

(shameless campaigning) lol

You bastard! Those TVs are only going to be 1080i!

Mankind.

Given the choices of Australia, a patriarchy, a matriarchy, and a bs option, I'll go with a patriarchy.

Maybe we could give Angelina Jolie a chance? And make Kate Hudson in charge of the drug policy :)

The world should be ruled by no one man, but failing that, it should be ruled by whoever does the job best, regardless of gender (or any thing else). Of the choices present, I must therefor pick Australia, since it is a nation which allows people of different genders to rule.

The world should be ruled by no one man <SNIP>.

Okay, Me and Nanatsu then.

This is easy. John Stossel! :p jk

Nerds. Mostly because all wars would be solved either on WOW or on forums like these. :D

It's not like all men are in this big council and we all get together to decide how we're going to opress the female underclass. More world leaders just happen to be men, and it's changing. But we shouldn't do that crap that the radical feminists say we should and make half of the world's legislatures women. We must elect people on merit, not on gender.

Now, what REALLY pisses me off is when people say that if women ruled the world, there'd be no war or poverty because women are more cooperative and compassionate. Yeah...freakin'...right. I know women. They are basically men with differing anatomy. Were they in the supposedly male-only world-ruling cabal, they'd do the same thing.

To answer your question, Max Barry should rule the world, and Jennifer Government ought to be how he shapes it.

Humans should rule the world. HOMO SAPIENS UBER ALLES!

Specifically, nerd should rule the world. More specifically, NSG. And to be exact, I want LG in charge.

the lizard people because they are doing such a good job:)

Come with us, away from the sun.

The sun is your enemy, we own the shade.

Okay, Me and Nanatsu then.

Woohoo!! Right on! Me and you for world rulers!!!

I should rule the world, clearly.

Well, I'd rule it for a couple of days, get bored, and hand over to Rotovia.

The gender issue doesn't matter as much as the class issue.
Rich men rule the world.
I don't think the world needs ruling.

What we really need is more extreme authoritarianism, coupled with extreme xenophobia.
I am willing to fill the role as the new paranoid dictator. The cremation ovens will be lit up again, and random "enemies of humanity" will be marched into concentration camps where they'll be shot/hanged/starved/etc.
Everyone will be watched 24/7, and patriotic music will be played at full blast in every major metropolis.
Also, I will build thousands of hundred meter tall iron-statues of myself to be places randomly across the globe.
And... we will blot out the sun... yeah...

Whatever happened to democracy! :p

I took it out back and shot it Old Yeller style.

Where is the option that says : Me?

Where is the option that says : Me?

You just used it...


And look, another newbies first post with no gun smileys...
:D

But we shouldn't do that crap that the radical feminists say we should and make half of the world's legislatures women. We must elect people on merit, not on gender.

Do you have a source for this? I have never heard any feminist, radical or otherwise, suggest this.

Now, what REALLY pisses me off is when people say that if women ruled the world, there'd be no war or poverty because women are more cooperative and compassionate.

Or this?

Nerds. Mostly because all wars would be solved either on WOW or on forums like these. :D

Can you imagine how much money would have been saved by rping the Iraq war? I can see Cheney and Bush trying to godmod. "Your twenty roadside bombs accidentally detonate in your trrrrrorists backpacks, heh heh, and the populace rises up against the al-qaeda. U.S. soldiers get flowers and vagina thrown at them. Somehow, gas still rises to 7 dollars a gallon so we...I mean...the oil companies post record profits. Heh. Liberating rules."

Who knows. Who will rule the world? Britain, as per usual. Obviously.

Who? Is that a state? A state can't rule the world. That's just silly.

You just used it...


And look, another newbies first post with no gun smileys...
:D

I'm sorry. I had no idea they were compulsory.

Poll fails.


There should be an option for both sexes to rule the world together.


Patriarchy isnt any better or worse than matriatchy.

No one should rule the world.

Some people should rule various organisations for limited durations of time. Let's say no more than 10 years in the same office.

Anyway, if there is the need for an Emperor of the Solar System, choose a friend of mine. I'll be his Political Officer.

I'm sorry. I had no idea they were compulsory.

They aren't...
All to often it seems like they must be though... :(

Perhaps a resolution is in the offing?

Where's the option for "those who are actually qualified?"

I think the entire world might be a bit much, there'd be so much work, there'd be no time for the perks that come with the job. Like Dirty Harry says, a man's got to know his limitations.

That being said, I wouldn't mind my own small country to rule. Maybe an island nation, or something.

William Hague. Obviously.

The Proletariat?...or Crab People...

I say women should have a chance at ruling the world, as long as they are skilled enough and mentally and morally capable of real leadership, and making proper decision

New Zealand proves that Their female leader sucks ass like a sphincteral vacuum cleaner, so shes not fit to set an example

America might find out about female leadership if Hilary does a [G.W bush], and burns some ballot boxes to get the election

So far Angela leads germany okay as a ****ing democrat can, but a different political stance would be better

- - - - -
BTW, i bet $5 that Lunatic goofballs clicked option 6 for the melted cheese

An old racist black guy. Hilarity would ensue.

Me, me, me and me. Of course.:D

Poll fails.


There should be an option for both sexes to rule the world together.


Patriarchy isnt any better or worse than matriatchy.

Also there should have been a "no one" option. I was forced to vote for the cheese option.

Poll fails.


There should be an option for both sexes to rule the world together.


Patriarchy isnt any better or worse than matriatchy.

I know.

But if I put an option saying "Both sexes should rule together equally" then practically everyone would choose that.

Of course it's preferable to have both sexes ruling equally.

However it's going to be a very long time before that actually happens, as it was naturally always be swinging towards one gender or the other.

At the moment, essentially, men rule the world.

I was wondering if people believe it should stay like this or whether people believe women should hold the majority of positions of political power, seeing as a perfect medium is unlikely to occur any time soon.

People feel uncomfortable and unsure of their answer to this question, hence the majority vote goes to the cheese-induced-nausea.

I know.

But if I put an option saying "Both sexes should rule together equally" then practically everyone would choose that.

Of course it's preferable to have both sexes ruling equally.

However it's going to be a very long time before that actually happens, as it was naturally always be swinging towards one gender or the other.

At the moment, essentially, men rule the world.

I was wondering if people believe it should stay like this or whether people believe women should hold the majority of positions of political power, seeing as a perfect medium is unlikely to occur any time soon.

People feel uncomfortable and unsure of their answer to this question, hence the majority vote goes to the cheese-induced-nausea.

We should have a duarchy. A man and a Woman could co-rule. They would be our unquestioned masters. The woman would totally rule all women and the man would totally rule all men. *Dreams of this perfect world*

I believe THIS says it all...

www.mabtw.com
:cool:

NOTE: I so do not believe the stuff on that site... don't kill me.

God should rule the world.

Failing that, or the existence of God, I should rule the world.

Failing that, no one should or can rule the entire world, as I will be dissatisfied with their performance, create my own nation, and therefore eliminate their global hegemony.


And, as is traditional, a disclaimer. I do not believe nor disbelieve in God and do not intend to spark an argument over His existence or nonexistence, and I hope none of the rest of you turn my post into such a spark.

I do not believe nor disbelieve in God.

One can either believe or not believe. One cannot believe both or neither.

I think obviously Gorgutz HeadHunta should rule the world, He's Da Biggest BAddest Boss of all da Bosses...

No one's bigger or Meaner dan da ORKS!!!

Green is BEsT!!!:gundge:

I shall rule the world. After all, it's hard for there to be competition when they all happen to die of heart attacks...


How'd I know this? Well, I like making notes of my competitor's names in this special book of mine.:D

hai guiz! i wuud make an exelant world ruler nd an hero. ne1 hoo dosnt liek it can eet led :gundge::sniper::mp5::upyours:


















































































Seriously, why do we have these? Maybe the "upyours" but do we really need the gundge, sniper, and mp5?

a council of nine members chosen every five years by the members of the 16 councils of nine members reprisenting the 16 international regeons of the planet.

these intern having been elected by plurality voting two years previously within each of their respective international regeons.

their rule is rather limited however, though within its defined limits, absolute.

elegibility to be elected to these councils is irrespective of gender or even age, but is based upon an originality index which combines intelligence and imagination.

=^^=
.../\...

Yeah, I don't think that there should be one gender to rule the world by itself, but so far we haven't all died under men's leadership, so I'd stick with that answer.

I picked men rule the world, and men should rule the world. To be controversial!


Neither gender should rule the world, since its basically going to go to hell either way. What humanity needs is some sort of uncaring machine to take care of us, and in case the almighty robotic overlord ever turns on us, we will need to have the right to veto it if more than 90% of the world votes against it... Yeah.

Also, it'll need to have rims and play MP3s. Otherwise how will it manage to stay in office?