Would the world be more peaceful if women were heads of states?

If there was a woman president, prime minister, etc?


0|0
213

Most Helpful Guy

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 2

  • no not really.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I don't think so. Not all woman are compassionate and kind. Queen Elizabeth was a female leader who murdered millions.

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 12

  • The Falklands war was when Margaret Thatcher was PM

    0|2
    0|0
  • perhaps, the entire world would have to watch out during that time of the year

    0|0
    0|0
  • It'd be utter chaos. No sexism, women are great at things men aren't, and vice versa.

    Personally I believe women think with too much emotion - it's been proven men and women make decisions differently. For example, I'm sure the 'refugee' problem in Europe would be much worse if women were in charge of all the countries there. Just because they'd be gullible into thinking they are 'refugees' who need help.

    Again this is not sexist to women at all.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Lol. "I'm not sexist, but women are gullible and too emotional"

      "I'm not racist, but..."

    • @coulditbebutter Strong cherry picking. You missing out the studies that show women base decisions on emotion? Oh wait, I forgot that in your little world, men and women are exactly the same.

      If I didn't put the disclaimer prior to making any comments regarding women, you would've just blamed it on me being "sexist". How dare I point differences out between men and women, stating each are better at different things. Oh the humanity.

    • And if women do tend to make decisions based more on emotion, who's to say their response to the refugee crisis would be in favor of the refugees? They could just as easily choose not to let refugees in, because they--emotionally--value their existing friends and family over the refugees. I'm not debating that men and women sometimes use different methods to make their decisions. But I do find it odd that you automatically assume women won't reach the same conclusions as men, and that the conclusions women reach will lead to "utter chaos" in a leadership position.
      You wrote five whole sentences, and there's plenty that sounds prejudiced on your part. I don't need to cherry pick all that much.

  • I mean, none of the countries would be talking to each other and immigration/emigration would be a bitch e. g. "And where do you think YOU'RE GOING?"/"Where the HELL have you been?"
    But yeah, sure, peaceful, what the hell, sure.
    All those matriarchal societies were soooo peaceful.

    0|0
    0|1
  • Naw it'd be just as stupid

    0|1
    0|0
  • Doesn't matter really.

    Exhibit A: Hilary Clinton

    Exhibit B: Sarah Palin

    Exhibit C: Theresa May

    Exhibit D: Margaret Thatcher

    I'm sure there has been plenty other female scum-fucks for leaders

    0|0
    0|0
  • No, why would that be the case?

    0|0
    0|0
  • The world probably wouldn't change much, neither more nor less peaceful.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Depends on what format she is running.

    0|0
    0|0
  • The same sort of people would still claw their way to the top.

    This 'type of person' is less common among women than men, but there are more than enough of them to run everything.

    0|0
    0|0
  • it depends on who the women leader was , everyones political beliefs are different

    0|0
    0|0
  • 1|2
    0|0
Loading...