Women are more fit to rule than men because of their ability to sympathize with other people

Men are selfish, brutal, cruel, barbaric, rough. They don't listen to reason, they just fight over materialistic things.
Remember that World War 1 and 2 was caused by men who follow their selfish desires.We saw that men who went to war kill, steal from, and rape female civilians.
Women are less hostile, able to sympathize with others.When women became heads of state; Queen Elizabeth, Angela Merkel, Aung San Suu Kyi, etc .There are no major wars. No more +10 million deaths.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=c2idjhewTMI
economist.com/news/europe/21722877-european-history-answer-queens-especially-married-ones-who-gets-more-wars-kings
youtu.be/w7NoW703iQY
youtu.be/nLFLORx6xsU
youtube.com/watch?v=F6RUL-lS5xY
youtube.com/watch?v=ym1N3WZYk4w
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

How's that College assignment for Sup Forums going/?
Suck a dick faggot

there were women following those leaders in ww1&2 willingly & contributing as well, dumbass

oh sry. disregard this shit. I'm easily baitable when deinking lots of coffee..

so your saying we shouldn't of fought the nazi's you evil racist bigot, also bait thread so s a g e

That's a weakness, you stinky Jap.

But they're not responsible for the deaths of millions. since they're not the head of government, males are; Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, Mussolini, Tojo, all males.

So u be saying gender differences are real?

Studies show trait agreeableness (sensitivity to the feelings of others) makes people worse at managing others.

stop replying to me, shill. said i fucked up already, sorry.

Female monarchs waged more wars on average.

Yeah, women are so sympathetic that they sympathize with the enemy and bring down entire civilizations.

leave him. he's just spitting nonsense. Hillary wanted to go to ww3. also: pizzagate. tell me something worse, OP. unless you're a fag / shill and deserve sage all the way

What's the death toll?

youtube.com/watch?v=c2idjhewTMI

What is PMS, Alex?

>Women are more fit to rule than men because of their ability to sympathize with other people
t. someone who never had women in workplace spending their whole day gossiping.

That's why majority female work spaces turn into bitchfest centrals, none will ever nip the problems in the bud openly. Instead they opt for gossip and bathroom bitching sessions, essentially making the environment toxic to work in.

>women
>ability to sympathize with other people

>implying war isn’t a spiritual necessity that keeps societies from going down a degenerate path of insanity
Women, not even once.

Is Prince Charles /ourguy/? He's the heir btw.

Don't know, but wars increase by 27% when women are in power.
economist.com/news/europe/21722877-european-history-answer-queens-especially-married-ones-who-gets-more-wars-kings

>Angela Merkel saving muslim refugees
>Donald J Trump banning muslims.

>if we kill ourselves by letting hordes of invaders within our country, we win

death toll please?

> Women are sympathetic
> Unsympathetic towards men

See the problem there or not, femanon?

Quality bait anyway.

>Believing in muh magic because of intense repressed homolust
Evola, not even once.

I see you are a man of culture as well...
Caste system in the Netherlands when??

One could argue that ww1 and ww2 were scripted in such a way that the end result was to give women more power because they are easier to control.

woman logic
it never fails, put your head in the sand, thats solid

Men are unsympathetic towards other men and women.
It took like more than 100 years till women can vote, work, own property, etc.

>Merkel lets savages in out of the kindness of her own heart
She’s just a weak puppet, serving interest groups that need those savages in Europe for a plethora of reasons (asylum industry, business owners that need consumers, suppression of wages, breaking of national identity to further ((EU))) etc.)

Your nonsense argument isn't suddenly valid if ww2 has a higher death toll than wars in the 1400s.

That's because there's no need for a war, when the invaders can just walk through the open borders and start pillaging anyway. Not only are women stupid enough to allow this - they actually encourage their governments to put these people on welfare while they rape and murder the citizens of the host country. This is probably the dumbest OP I've seen in a while - and I've seen a few retards trying to put up failing "communist general threads," so that's saying something.

Death toll is irrelevant, those wars were mostly from older times. Killing 10.000 in the year 1400 is about the same as the 6 million of the holocoust.

>Implying it's good to let more refugees in

Also, bait thread so SAGE

Guess what those 3 are capable of? Nothing. Aung San is a fucking whore. Get out of Japan, Zhang Yang

oops! looks like you've posted on the wrong board!!
>That's OK all newfags do that..
Try these boards... they will better suit your type of faggotry!

/bant/ - International/Random
/his/ - History & Humanities
/trv/ - Travel
/r9k/ - ROBOT9001
Sup Forums - Random < the original hate machine of the
internet.
/soc/ - Cams & Meetups

>women should be in charge because they are more easily manipulated by jews

do these women seem sympathetic to you when they cover up the crimes of savage subhumans against other women? i think it's something else

also treating enemies who want to destroy and will never accept any compromise with sympathy is suicidal

yes britain has improved soooooo much in the 65 years of lizzys reign; she signed off on every piece of legislation that got great britain to the state that it's in today. angies managed to do what she's done in a mere 12 years; just think what germany would like like if she had another 50+ years in power!

>the shitty of Sup Forums

wake up and smell the coffee fuckfaces.

Women, 95% of them, have no control over themselves and should never rule.
Men, 90% of them, have no control over themselves and should never rule.

Say that to catherine the great or queen victoria.

noticed that many of these women are not having any children ?

It is philips influence on his son and I hope william is the same.

vergin spotted

There is no place for sympathy in politics or if you want to survive longer then few years as a country.

kek --- catherines own son paul hated her so much he made an unbreakable decree that a woman would never ever rule over russia ever again.

So why is there so few women leaders?

it's called misogyny dude.

But if they are so stronk and shieeeeet how did they get ostracized in the first place?

OP is an english teacher.

We all know that sympathy is communism, which leads to genocide.

because a board room consisting of ancient farts wont choose a woman to join their ranks.

Do you really believe that has been the case for centuries for hundreds of different governments?

If that is the case(which it mostly isn't), then how did said old farts get there in the first place?

100 years ago most women couldn't even vote, they were kitchen accessories and cum dumpsters. You are high if you think women had anything to say back then.

Misogyny. The notion that women arent fit to do anything besides raise children.

Rally the shareholders against them. I mean if you’re such great natural leaders that shouldn’t be impossible right? Oh and do it without help from our semitic friends for once.

What are you shilling for?

>Misogyny. The notion that women arent fit to do anything besides raise children.

But how did men get in a position to have the power to decide such things then?

If women were better leaders, we would have had more of them long ago. After all who doesn't want their country to be great and kick ass?

They certainly aren't fit to govern

irrelevant when we are talking about the nature of things

Apart from the military-technical apparatus, the world of the ‘Westerners’ has at its disposal only a limp and shapeless substance – and the cult of the skin, the myth of ‘safety’ and of ‘war on war’, and the ideal of the long, comfortable, guaranteed, ‘democratic’ existence, which is preferred to the ideal of the fulfilment which can be grasped only on the frontiers between life and death in the meeting of the essence of living with the extreme of danger.

The fundamental principle underlying all justifications of war, from the point of view of human personality, is ‘heroism’. War, it is said, offers man the opportunity to awaken the hero who sleeps within him. War breaks the routine of comfortable life; by means of its severe ordeals, it offers a transfiguring knowledge of life, life according to death. The moment the individual succeeds in living as a hero, even if it is the final moment of his earthly life, weighs infinitely more on the scale of values than a protracted existence spent consuming monotonously among the trivialities of cities. From a spiritual point of view, these possibilities make up for the negative and destructive tendencies of war, which are one-sidedly and tendentiously highlighted by pacifist materialism. War makes one realise the relativity of human life and therefore also the law of a ‘more-than-life’, and thus war has always an anti-materialist value, a spiritual value.

Everyone I guess, because more women graduate from uni than men and in less time and usually with higher grades too. Every study shows a female CEO has a higher chance of solid financial decisions and bigger profits for the company.

Women only care about two things, their children and pleasing Chad, and even the first can be subordinate to the second.

Answer our question, you slimy oven-dodger.

Female rulers are statistically more likely to take their country to war than their male counterparts

Sympathy is not a desired quality in a Leader. You japs should know that

Empathy>Sympathy

typical japanese low test post

yeah its not like "sympathy"/feels>facts is currently destroying europe right?
You idiots in japan have no clue like non zip ZERO.
And instead of looking what is actually happening in europe you want the same.
Just end yourself before you and others drag your perfectly fine country down the same path

>Women are more fit to rule because they have more empathy
This is the reason they are NOT fit to rule shit and are meant to raise children instead.

When times get tough the majority of women keel over in hysterical crying fits because they're overwhelmed with their emotions.

14 women on an island couldn't even get their shit together to build a camp on an island for almost an entire week.

youtu.be/w7NoW703iQY
youtu.be/nLFLORx6xsU
They literally used their emergency walkie talkie to evac a cunt who had been crying for days about her fingernails being dirty and her hair being a mess.

It seems bait but I'll bite it.

Women are overly sympathetic to the point where they feel the need to save the world. Leading to pathological altruism, refusing to admit to themselves that saving some people means harming others. This is why we have a migrant crisis.
A politicians responsibility is solely to citizens of their nations and no one else.

Doesn't matter. The effectiveness of the men they're sending to war dictates that.

>women rule the west
>eastern countries with male leaders occupy the west
Have fun getting fucked in the ass by the glorious Slavic cock, western faggots.
Nature doesn't tolerate weakness.

Imagine how all this #metoo shit would go down if you put women in charge of nuclear weapons.

Women always pile on to the attention bandwagon. All women. Always. No exceptions. You’re confusing this selfish desire for attention with ‘solidarity’, compassion and empathy. It isn’t any of those things, the Salem witch trials and the current Salemist #metoo shit prove that women don’t actually care about the damage they cause. The attention and validation is more important to them - especially the single/aging women.

They think that by playing the victim of a melodrama, a strong man will come to save them. But they will turn against the man that saves them if he doesn’t play along with their preconceived fantasy of how it should all play out. Kind of like what (((they))) do.

(((They))) are a matriarchal culture after all.

There is nothing nastier than two women vying for female dominance...

>When times get tough the majority of women keel over in hysterical crying fits because they're overwhelmed with their emotions.
And you guys ask yourself why women arent in positions of power more often. This is it. This kind of retarded bullshit stated by men within their company or their political party.

Female rulers are more likely to give away their empire. example) the anglos.

>everyone is a repressed homo
Hello female lit student.

This.
/thread.
Life is not sweets and kisses, the more feminized a culture get, the weaker it gets, until it gets conquered.

Well, if they stopped doing it, men wouldn’t have anything to talk about. They keep proving us right.

Fake and gay
Even if it was true that women are empathetic rather than selfish, how is it a good thing to put others in front of your own people? It just doesnt work at any level

but that's where you are wrong because again, female CEOs show higher profits, better leadership and better decisionmaking.

men can do that too
youtube.com/watch?v=F6RUL-lS5xY
youtube.com/watch?v=F6RUL-lS5xY
youtube.com/watch?v=ym1N3WZYk4w

...

ITT: retarded women once again proving everyone how retarded they are

when you leave your moms basement you often have to interact with a wide variety people you fucking nerd

>Human beings are selfish, brutal, cruel, barbaric, rough.
Fixed

There's nothing special about women that makes them immune from being awful people.

>100 years ago most women couldn't even vote, they were kitchen accessories and cum dumpsters. You are high if you think women had anything to say back then.

100 years ago men couldnt vote either and were used to fight the most brutal wars and to toil in the most precarious situations, you are high if you think man had a say back then

>Misogyny. The notion that women arent fit to do anything besides raise children
I dont think you know what that word means

>because a board room consisting of ancient farts wont choose a woman to join their ranks.
That's not how a board room works. The woman in the this scenario would have to already own enough shares in the company to be eligible for the board AND be interested in being on the board.

Given that women don't tend to strive to achieve that is why they aren't in that situation in the first place.

from my experience of desert island tv shows

-strong men do not accept female leadership, preferring solitude
-women need men in the system to do the work
-women must cajole the men to stay, involving manipulation
-women are no less greedy than men
-men have more of a sense of justice, women's goes out the window
-women are fiercely loyal to their in tribe
-groups will tend to split along gender lines if unaided

Women have always had a significant degree of power over men, it was just less obvious in the past. If anything they fucked themselves by wanting to throw that away just so they could waste their life in pointless wageslavery and be far more culpable for their mistakes.

>100 years ago men couldnt vote either
wat?

>Given that women don't tend to strive to achieve that
Wrong. There are plenty of women interested but no company willing to take them. They usually have to be pushed by a man, which causes all kinds of weird situations where they are suspected of fucking their way to the top.

Yes and i do alredy you unberable faggot, but i wont take away from my brothers to give away to friends

Go see how many countries had universal vote back then, hell go see own many had vote at all

t. Someone who has never worked with western women before. Or any women.

Who takes time to write this stupid shit?

men make the British Empire
women lose it

men are civilization builders
women are consumers

Yeah, sounds nice on paper... but women are more vindictive than sympathetic