5 ms·
Why do you inherently ascribe it to "male loser" vs. just "loser"?
by Avicebron 4y ago
Why do you inherently ascribe it to "male loser" vs. just "loser"?
- planarhobbit 4y agoProbably because the only thing that can physically stop a man is another man, and when men get so unhinged as to support ruthless leaders to get what they want, all bets are off and you’re dealing with a carnage waiting to happen.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- zozbot234 4y agoBecause patriarchy. To females, being a "loser" was simply the status quo; there were no "winners" to aspire towards.
- thrown_22 4y agoImagine erasing such murderous despots as Kathrine the Great and Elizabeth Tudor because of their genitalia.
- InTheArena 4y agoNeither of whom were outside of a single standard deviation from the norm in Europe at this time. I find the GP argument less the convincing, but I believe that women haven’t been the face of genocide and war because of lack of opportunity - But all such are historical outliers - regardless of sex.
- thrown_22 4y agoQueen Victoria killed more people with famine than Stalin did. The only way people can lie to themselves that women rulers have less blood on their hands is by not studying history.
- sealeck 4y agoQueen Victoria had a _lot_ less power than Stalin did (Stalin had virtually complete control of the entirety of the state machinery, whereas Victoria was much more of a figurehead, although certainly less so than the British monarchy has thankfully become)
- usrusr 4y agoThose stand-ins for men that didn't have a trace of parallels anywhere lower in the hierarchy.
- daseiner1 4y agohumbug. just because men have different measures of status and success does not mean women don’t have some of their own
- alangibson 4y agoHow many female dictators or mass shooters are you aware of?
- thrown_22 4y agoQueen Victoria has a death count much higher than Hitlers. Something quite impressive considering the world had a quarter the population of 1940 when she started.
- anigbrowl 4y agoFactually correct, but as head of state her direct impact on policy was minor - I'm not aware of her dismissing governments of whose policies she disapproved, for example. Accepting the fruits of imperialistic tyranny is morally culpable, but it's also a systemic problem, distinctly different from the active application of executive power.
- thrown_22 4y agoThere is no evidence Hitler was at all involved with the execution of the holocaust either. Funny how you're holding one responsible for the crimes of their regime and the other was a figurehead. The moral of the story is don't lose a world war if you've committed genocide.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> There is no evidence Hitler was at all involved with the holocaust either. There's considerable evidence he was, actually. > Funny how you're holding one responsible for the crimes of their regime and the other was a figurehead. It's almost like a head of state and a combined executive head of government and head of state are different things.
- thrown_22 4y agoThere is evidence he wanted the Jews out of Germany and he didn't much care if they left in a boat to Madagascar or on a train to an extermination camp. There isn't evidence that he was involved with either attempt. If we applied the standards of the Nuremberg trials to the British Empire during the Boer war Queen Victoria would have been hung.
- honkler 4y agoAs long as a woman has a womb, she’s never the loser.
- poorlyknit 4y agoCould you elaborate on that?
- honkler 4y agoNo.