D
I'm sure you love to hear feminists cherry pick the usual foid leaders to say females should be leaders. You know like Catherine the Great or Queen Victoria.
Here is something to consider:
>Democratic/liberal (with women in power) countries are rich and peaceful, therefore democracy/liberalism (with women in power) works
This is a very flawed assumption. If this was true, Latin America, South East Asia or even Eastern Europe would be the same tier as the west. But they are not. It is just the richest and successful nations HAPPEN to also be liberal and democratic (with women in power) .
Argentina elected a woman. How did that work out?
The causality is backwards. if you are already winning, you can afford to experiment or virtue signal with things like female leaders. if you are behind, you need to actually try to be effective, or there's a real chance you will cease to exist.
In Russia, before Catherine was Peter the Great. He had to do a lot of really ugly work like going through multiple wars in order to develop the infrastructure needed for the Russian Empire to be great. So by the time Catherine was there, Russia was already in a relatively good position
As for Queen Victoria, lets assume she actually did something and it wasn't all the men doing the heavy lifting. When did she take reign? 1837. You know what that means? It means no Napoleon, America or any really difficult enemy at your doorstep to deal with. When most of your opponents are countries with technology 1 stage behind you, of course things would look good. Basically she really was in a very good time for the Brits.
I have talked shit about Steve Jobs many times. But there is one thing I will admit. He's damn good at running apple. Not only did he found it but after he got kicked from it, he came back many years later when it was struggling and revitalized it. Thats what many consider to be the strongest of leaders. Someone who can take real hard adversity and win. Its the same way you differentiate between an all time great fighter and a can crusher.
Usually the founders of a nation/system are respected the most because they had to lay the foundation etc. And as expected even for the brave female leaders, they are noticeably absent here. Nevermind saving a nation.
Here is something to consider:
>Democratic/liberal (with women in power) countries are rich and peaceful, therefore democracy/liberalism (with women in power) works
This is a very flawed assumption. If this was true, Latin America, South East Asia or even Eastern Europe would be the same tier as the west. But they are not. It is just the richest and successful nations HAPPEN to also be liberal and democratic (with women in power) .
Argentina elected a woman. How did that work out?
The causality is backwards. if you are already winning, you can afford to experiment or virtue signal with things like female leaders. if you are behind, you need to actually try to be effective, or there's a real chance you will cease to exist.
In Russia, before Catherine was Peter the Great. He had to do a lot of really ugly work like going through multiple wars in order to develop the infrastructure needed for the Russian Empire to be great. So by the time Catherine was there, Russia was already in a relatively good position
As for Queen Victoria, lets assume she actually did something and it wasn't all the men doing the heavy lifting. When did she take reign? 1837. You know what that means? It means no Napoleon, America or any really difficult enemy at your doorstep to deal with. When most of your opponents are countries with technology 1 stage behind you, of course things would look good. Basically she really was in a very good time for the Brits.
I have talked shit about Steve Jobs many times. But there is one thing I will admit. He's damn good at running apple. Not only did he found it but after he got kicked from it, he came back many years later when it was struggling and revitalized it. Thats what many consider to be the strongest of leaders. Someone who can take real hard adversity and win. Its the same way you differentiate between an all time great fighter and a can crusher.
Usually the founders of a nation/system are respected the most because they had to lay the foundation etc. And as expected even for the brave female leaders, they are noticeably absent here. Nevermind saving a nation.
Last edited:
