Ah, the Nazi/anti-miscegenation blather, cloaked in quasi-Krischun self-righteousness. Your "thinking" leads to trains full of Jews bound for summer camp in Poland. Ironically, you do make an oblique case for forced sterilization: your own.

There is no historical evidence that women would bring more compassion and intelligence to leadership roles on the basis of their sex. This is a gender conceit. There are many of these kind of conceits, for women and for men. We have come to ascribe, for all kinds of reasons (a book in itself!), what we hold to be the "civilizing" virtues more to females than we do to males, despite the historical evidence that men have played a rather significant role in the evolution of human civilization. They continue to do so. When we ascribe to the belief that one sex is somehow superior or inferior than the other on whatever basis, we do a great deservice to individual humans of both sexes.

The British Empire saw its two most expansive periods of colonizations during the reign of female monarchs. Would you rather have Mahatma or Idira as an enemy? Did Golda refrain from striking back at Israel's attackers just because some of them were children? Margaret Thatcher isn't remembered for her nurturing skills and compassion toward the less fortunate. Ever read how Catherine I, Anna Ivanovna, Anna Leopoldovna, and Elizabeth I (Petrovna) ruled Russia? So the peasants ate better? This is an unpopular view to take these days, but the problems of power in human societies, and between human societies, aren't fundamentally issues of gender. They're issues of class and priviledge and what is defined as "national interests." No indication that women are any less ruthless and terrifying in their pursuit of these goals than men can be, even if in some instances they may be more subtle.

No reason not to elect females as leaders. They do their job of holding their own and national interests on a par with any man. But for goodness sake elect them, women or men, on their merits, not on their gender!

Some writer's idle speculations are best left unpublished, and Fukuyama's 1998 piece may be such an example. It seems to be mostly a rhetorical air-dance. Granted, that doesn't make the article utterly worthless...just mostly without substance. The multiple and chaotically inter-related factors affecting a state's strength or weakness over time relative to another state are so numerous that Fukuyama's male-female dichotomy--regardless of it being based weakly on observations of non-human behavior within comparatively non-complex social structures--is very artificial. Any such overly-simple dichotomy would be: even one that simply looks at non-democracies versus democracies. Perhaps one might as well write about left-handed statecraft versus right-handed statecraft, or moon-gazing nations versus sun-gazing nations.

Consider that Athens was a democracy beaten in a foreign land (Sicily) that it imperialistically (in a pre-emptive manner?) invaded in the name of spreading democracy. What is more, it warred against other democracies. It also warred against tyrannies, of course. It defeated some states; it lost to others. Which was the "feminine" state in each of those instances? Was the United Kingdom a feminine state when Thatcher governed it? Is it now? Was it when it, or was the U.S., when either helped defeat male-dominated Serbia recently? Which is Israel? Does the reality of Golda Meir or the fact that women are among Israel's business leaders mean that it's a "feminized" democracy at all?

Again, it's not that all of Fukuyama's speculations are worthless, or even that this particular one is completely without value, but such ditties strike me as being no better than a great pianist's bad practice session--complete with warm-up exercises--weeks before a performance. It's best left unattended...or in this case, unpublished.

Poop More,

You're a blathering idiot. You're hiding behind organized religion, which the male half of the population invented, to justify dominating and controlling women. That is why black women don't want to marry black men. For starters, women didn't come out of some male rib, as religion falsely preaches. We have the same number of ribs. We were created at the same second in time by a God/ess that is both male and female. Why does everything on the planet have polarity: dark/light, night/day, in/out but God is mysteriously only male? Because men like to believe that and use that to justify oppressing women. But black women are realizing they can earn the same or more without men so why invite a man in the home to beat and bully them. Why not stay single. Maybe the fault of the black broken family today is the fault of black men, not whites. It is inhuman to expect one gender to be submissive to the other.

Men made up that we were suppossd to be support players only. That is arogant male bullshit.

I grew up in predominately black rural ghetto so I know what I'm talking about. The women ran the community and held families together. The men dropped out of high school, stole, had police records and illegitimate children but still thought they should be the king of the house even thought they contributed nothing.

obviously unless it is women expecting it of men.

Of course women rule, in every household everyday.

Even George Bush has to answer to somebody.

Most women are smarter than to bother to become president. And if they did bother, they would do the same things men do, protect their nation, or else the nation would perish.

Women do not need the trouble to be presidents and they certainly do not need to impress men, that is unless it is like David Blaine or something, where he sits on a pole for a week for shits and giggles and because it makes him money.

Apply this to feminism, there has never been a feminist society, because the moment a society becomes one, within a generation or two it dies out from nobody breeding anymore. Basically once women can choose whether to get pregnant, they do not bother.

But this lack of feminist societies is not MEN'S fault though feminists want to blame men for it.

Show me a free man, he is probably a monk. Women rule over all men and over society whether they admit it to themselves or to men or not, so the whole thing is ridiculous.