fafalone Posted November 14, 2002 Posted November 14, 2002 The agressive women would be in power. A strong leader is agressive, and agression will inevitably lead to war. It takes agression to run for office.
aman Posted November 14, 2002 Posted November 14, 2002 The CIA was looking for new members and tested three applicants for their last test of loyalty. The first applicant came in and two CIA agents gave him a gun full of blanks and said go in the next room and shoot your wife. He went in and a minute later came out. "No, no, I can't shoot my wife." They took the gun and dismissed him. The second applicant came in and they gave him the gun full of blanks with the same instructions. He went in and came out moments later. "No way, I can't shoot my wife." They took the gun and dissmissed him too. The third applicant was a woman. They gave her the gun and told her, her husband was sitting in the next room and to go in and kill him. She entered the room and after several moments the agents heard "Bam, bam, bam" They went inside and the husband lay dead on the floor. They asked "How could this have happened?" The lady said "Well, the damn gun was full of blanks so I had to beat him to death with the chair." The Fairer sex, Ha.:flame: Just aman
aman Posted November 15, 2002 Posted November 15, 2002 Well I'm old and when you've been around old people long enough, you'll hear lots of jokes more than once, and on, and on, and on. Just aman
Glider Posted January 20, 2003 Posted January 20, 2003 Originally posted by Ami awhile back, i read a book that suggested a theory to end war... it was pretty detailed, woman could take sperm sample of men and then kill them..... ...which would take a war, which women may or may not win, but in any event would have to start (which seems to undermine the argument somewhat). Nonetheless, this war, in principle, would be a war to end all wars. Funny, that sounds familiar to me. Haven't we already had one or two of those?
Adam Posted January 21, 2003 Posted January 21, 2003 I saw a movie on Sci-Fi channel , it was called "the last man of earth" The government created a virus that kills only males so women dont die and used it in wars, then the virus went out of control and killed all males just left very few, and women reproduced through some genetic manipulation , until one scientist made an artificial man.
Skye Posted January 21, 2003 Posted January 21, 2003 I'm not a history buff but I don't think female leaders in the past have shied away from war. I don't really think women are less inclined towards conflict, but theres the physical aspect which can be intimidating in a woman-man scenario, and the cultural aspect with either woman-man or woman-woman. In a all women world neither of these would have much effect. Perhaps a good model for the society, and especially government, would be a women-dominated profession, or maybe a all girls school. Probably not that much different. Personally I think the differences between men and women are variations on a theme, rather than yin and yang, mars and venus. (Interestingly I read in an old National Geographic that for ancient South Americans Venus was the god of war.)
Glider Posted January 21, 2003 Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by Skye I'm not a history buff but I don't think female leaders in the past have shied away from war. I don't really think women are less inclined towards conflict, but theres the physical aspect which can be intimidating in a woman-man scenario, and the cultural aspect with either woman-man or woman-woman. In a all women world neither of these would have much effect. You have a point: Boudica, Jean D'Arc, Queens Elizabeth I and Victoria, and Margeret Thatcher are all examples of women who did not shy away from war (although of these five, only the first two took an active part). I think in general, females are less inclines towards aggression, but are not averse to violence. I know that doesn't seem to make sense, but it's a different drive. and requires that a different set of 'buttons' be pushed.
NSX Posted February 23, 2003 Posted February 23, 2003 Originally posted by Glider Funny, that sounds familiar to me. Haven't we already had one or two of those? I hope it stays at two.
Glider Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 Me too. It's starting to look a bit dodgy though.
Sayonara Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 I worked in a nightclub for 4 years and I can safely say that women fighting each other is one of the most violent, vicious and relentless things that I've ever seen. I don't think being more emotive is really going to help a society get along without conflict. Incidentally I saw a lot more women fighting than men. If that didn't convince you: Bodacia.
Glider Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 Relentless is an excellent word to describe violence by women. A person stabbed to death, they'll look for a male suspect. A person stabbed several times, they'll look for a frenzied male suspect. A person stabbed 30 odd times, they'll start looking for a female.
Sayonara Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 Originally posted by Adam I saw a movie on Sci-Fi channel , it was called "the last man of earth" The government created a virus that kills only males so women dont die and used it in wars, then the virus went out of control and killed all males just left very few, and women reproduced through some genetic manipulation , until one scientist made an artificial man. You sure that was on the sci fi channel? Sounds a bit Channel 5 to me.
the GardenGnome Posted February 28, 2003 Posted February 28, 2003 Women still fight, and not all men agree to war. So it depends on the person.
RED FIRE COW Posted March 1, 2003 Posted March 1, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone What if llamas sprouted wings, flew into space, and ate the ISS astronauts? HAHAHA that was great I couldnt it have said it better myself.
Guest SS 3 Goku251 Posted March 1, 2003 Posted March 1, 2003 Originally posted by the GardenGnome Women still fight, and not all men agree to war. So it depends on the person. My therory on this issue is that a woman controls a certain man in different situations. Such as reproduction. The women can some how control the out come of certain perdicaments. :zzz: :lame: :bs: :spam:
RED FIRE COW Posted March 1, 2003 Posted March 1, 2003 Now I love woman. But I think they are insane lol :bravo:
NavajoEverclear Posted July 14, 2003 Posted July 14, 2003 the way to end war is to teach both sexes love and loyalty toward their mate, there by raising family as the sole concern in life. If everyone in the world could learn this there would be no war. But you could not make everyone in the world understand this and so even if you could convert a majority of the world to this lifestyle, the rebels would cause havoc, obligating men to defend their families and become caught in war.
Sayonara Posted July 14, 2003 Posted July 14, 2003 Originally posted by NavajoEverclear the way to end war is to teach both sexes love and loyalty toward their mate, there by raising family as the sole concern in life. If everyone in the world could learn this there would be no war. What utter twaddle. That's not going to stop the endless politicking and it certainly won't remove the need of cultures to expand or defend their ideologies.
kether Posted July 9, 2004 Posted July 9, 2004 Golem never acheive divinity over creator. (well at least in stories they dont) Every dog has his day in this purrrfect world.. The earth maybe a bitch but she knows without the sun (son) she will wither and die. omnipotent she is not, and slave she never was. the language is a virus...it has nothing to do with us if one can grasp it
Guest ben+Jen Posted July 9, 2004 Posted July 9, 2004 ok this is a total load of bullshit!!! Woman couldnt live without men. The male part of this species has developed the major part of modern sociaty, Men and woman are equal, this issue shouldnt be appearing ps Woman dont understand the offside rule RETARDS
admiral_ju00 Posted July 9, 2004 Posted July 9, 2004 There is such a thing as parthenogenesis. Also, there's recently been a few studies done with rodents that didn't require sperm for them to produce offsprings. While these tests may still be unethical in human trials, it may be possible to come up with similar results. So you're not entirely right there. But what you're said in the above post, does come from male dominance point of view.
kether Posted July 9, 2004 Posted July 9, 2004 ok this is a total load of bullshit!!! Woman couldnt live without men. The male part of this species has developed the major part of modern sociaty, Men and woman are equal, this issue shouldnt be appearing ps Woman dont understand the offside rule RETARDS Concrete in your head...ha ha
admiral_ju00 Posted July 9, 2004 Posted July 9, 2004 Concrete in your head...ha ha Heh, so much for my attempt at a civil debunking, but this works as well
Leison Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 I dont think eliminating males from the world will end the war.Above all are "Men" responsible for war? It is often said 3 Ws(Women,wine,wealth) are root of every war.Although if the "male" species is removed war will be lead by women as it the last solution of the complex quarrel and quarrel is omnipresent. Moreover,The world will end if any one of male or female is removed completely. Science can never challenge NATURE.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now