I'd say no but then it depends on the person but thennn people will try to control the leader... and why if there isn't anyone you can trust? I'm not going to say Hillary Clinton is bad but the things I've researched and found out about her... She isn't perfect. No one is... But corruption and power hungry people who sit in congress, the government and etc, I don't trust them all that much.
It wouldn't make a difference if women were to rule the world. All of those, men or women, will end up being puppets anyway for the real people whose behind all the corruption in the world...
Even if someone tried to change the ways to a better world, they will end up dead with the media reporting it as "suicide," and cover it up.
So to answer the question... No. I don't think there will be less war and more peace if women were to rule the world. It will just be the same. But if all the women leaders had a group of trusted individuals who shared the same vision and goals to change the world for better in a positive way then yes, men or women, it can work. But it's very hard when the richest people behind most bad things happening are the ones controlling everything. If they don't like your agenda, they can get rid of you and pay the police and government lots of money to shut their mouths :/
Okay I need to shut up haha. I keep getting out of topic.
Yeah no... ever seen women act like bitches to other women? They are worse then men who fight with eachother. Men are straight forward and honest with their thoughts. Women on the other hand tend to break eachother down emotionally.
A woman says to another woman: gross.. how could you even think about wearing that skirt to work? I'm so not hanging out with you.
While a man would say: dude.. that shirt is not cool, get changed now.
Though sometimes I think men are more stuck on revenge in a physicial way (ofcourse, physical pain can lead to emotional pain but..), while women are more stuck on revenge in a mental way.
Let's be honest.. I rather get beat to pulp and have pain for 2 weeks then having to deal with emotional pain for ages.
A matriarchy It's the exact opposite of a patriarchy, which is stupid. The world has two (or more depending on your views, but since this question deals with two, I'm keeping that number) sexes.
The world benefits from the healthy interaction between them, and the abilities, viewpoints and wit that both sides bring to the table.
What we need though is more understanding, respect and communication between people, not just men and women, it's this idiotic tendency to polarize everything what is making collaboration and conversations utterly difficult.
"All men suck"
"All women are crazy"
"All women hate men"
"All men are predators"
Stupid oversimplifications of the world.
Are you kidding me? There's a reason why God placed Men to be the head over the woman. We're not even in power to do anything, and we still cause war with each other. Whether intentionally or unintentionally. Unless God says so, heck no! It's about the intentions overall. And sadly many of us get too emotionally invested and attached that can lead into a lot of big problems. Wisdom must be applied. And sadly a lot of women needs to understand that there are just jobs that we are good at that needs our focus and attention. Abandoning it just because we don't want to be left on the sidelines feeling like we're doing nothing won't help getting any job done.
No, in fact we have had female rulers in the past and they where just as predisposed towards violence as every other ruler. You have Queen Mary the first, known as bloody mary because of her violent genocidal persecution of protestants, you have Agrippina the Younger who was the mother of Nero who poisoned two of her three husabands used her son as a tool to gain power and even when he came of age tried to create a sexual relationship with him in order to maintain her control over him (which is probably why Nero was so crazy and had her killed (after many failed attempts to assassinate her)), then you have Countess Elizabeth Báthory de Ecsed who murdered many young girls and bathed in their blood (literally), Queen Isabella of spain who had many people (thousands) tortured and killed during the inquisition, Jiang Qing who was the wife of Mao she had his political rivals murdered/assassinated and was responsible for persecuting to death over 30,000 people, and Ranavalona I Queen of Madagascar who was so brutal that she would torture and kill her own people, in fact she reduced the population of her own people by over 50%(tens of thousands if not more people dead) through killing and torturing them as well as forcing them to constantly go to war. So no, history has shown us that evil and violence is not gendered, not by a long shot.
That's extremely hard to say. I think there is some chance a female-ruled world would be more peaceful, simply because women don't tend to solve problems with physical aggression. While men can be a bit autistic at times - which hinders them from empathizing with fellow human beings - women are better at putting themselves in another person's shoes, mediating and solving things by talking them out.
Also, women tend to be less radical in their convictions, which is beneficial if you want to get along peacefully.
And finally, - and this one is statistically provable - women are on average more politically liberal/progressive and less religious than men. This means they are naturally less drawn towards an archaic and tribalistic way of thinking.
Opinion
225Opinion
u Most people who try to answer this question make the assumption that the women who became leaders would be like the women they know in their personal lives, and those women would be obviously less aggressive.
Men who become political leaders are not normal, everyday, Joe Lunchbucket guys who are suddenly elected president. Women who would become political leaders would not be suburban housewives suddenly thrust into a position of power. Political leaders of either gender are people who have made a career of their political ambitions and aspirations and those who are successful tend to be those who are more aggressive.
Margaret Thatcher did not hesitate to wage war against Argentina when the Falkland Islands were invaded. In a retrospective analysis of European monarchs between 1480 and 1913, queens were 27% more likely than kings to wage war, and queens were also more likely to annex new territory during their reigns.
i think there would be less war for sure. true peace? i'm not sure but i believe there would be less war
We’d still have problems but women have better intuition.
I vote for yes, but not wholeheartedly.
Simple reason - in my opinion if only women who gave birth to 1 or more children were allowed to rule, number of wars would be less, because they know how to create new life. Though even here would be exceptions - not all women are good, caring mothers. And this can affect their "rule" respectively.
Woman who didn't have/don't have children proved to be no less aggressive than men. I saw how some women went to politics, saw what they said and it was, unfortunately, unsightly.
Given current situation, which was created during very long time (hundreds if not thousands of years), it could be hard for the woman to "rule" by herself, by her standards, because she will be threatened, manipulated, etc. by men who hide in shadows.
If women were given chance to rule country from "white sheet of paper", from 0, there is a possibility that their countries indeed would be more peaceful, but we already have many countries ruled by men. So even if woman-ruler don't want war, she can be easily forced, if man-ruler will attack her country, for example.
Thus I don't mind to see more women at politics or as a rulers, but I won't "hold my breath either".
If you are talking about the women ruling the world from the starting, things would eventually get to the situation where it currently is. Every "human" wants to be supreme. There were wars either to prove the supremacy and to protect the nation. Women would be no different than men at that time. Many wars have been fought on the basis of religion. What if since the world was dominated by men, we made religion to favour us too? Who knows? You need power and what's better than making people follow you just because religion says it?
Same thing would happen to women eventually. Of course women are known for their motherhood love but when you are ruling a nation/world, you surely must've compromised on that virtue of yours.
A simple example proves my point why giving powers to women could be as dangerous as it was when given to men:
With new laws and protection acts regarding women, men are starting to feel unsafe. Why? Because some (and I mean some) of them are misusing it. A single complain to police and man "you are being arrested". Some surely take advantage of the power they get.
Same can be applied on a bigger stage, what men did, women could've also done. It's a hypothetical question after all. And here's a hypothetical answer to it.
No, because the kind of people that get a job like that aren't the kind of people I'd call 'reasonable' and 'normal'.
Like police, politicians are mostly sociopaths, because it takes a pretty heartless individual to do what they do. Using the US military on the behalf of a corporation needing to secure better pricing for oil or so that our govt can continue producing heroin and feeding it into the US takes a real piece of work.
And if you think Hillary was any more level-headed, you're kidding yourself. Look at her short time as SoS. She started 2-3 wars and even laughed about how Gaddafi was sodomized with weapons and swords and died a horrific death, all because HRC wanted to start wars and get rid of someone who wouldn't be a puppet to the US govt.
"We came, we saw, he died - har har har." Gaddafi was even trying to work with us, but I'm sure even he knew the US had started the coups across the Middle-East. The Arab Spring was a US-created revolution designed to undermine all those nations, making them easy for us to control - yet again.
So nah. . . they're all sick, twisted freaks. If a normal person were to be elected, they'd either be assassinated or blocked by Congress.
Whether they have a penis or a vagina matters very little.
a I think a lot of people underestimate women as these weak incapable people, and they assume that if women ruled, the world would be filled with rainbows and unicorns, but give anyone power for a long enough period of time and you are bound to get the good who use power for good, and the bad who are so consumed by it, that they will literally kill anyone who stands in their way of it.
Now having said that, there is a second consideration when it comes to war, and that's that a lot of women are mothers, and a mother protects her own. A good woman and a good mother doesn't want to see harm befoul anyone else's children UNLESS they are a direct threat on her own----you see where this leads---everything is good until you threaten the family. I don't for see a less war situation, just wars over different things.
I'm a woman and even I know that a world ruled just by women would turn into total anarchy just like it would happen in a world ruled only by men, the difference is women would probably make more of a "mess" while doing it.
My last 3 years of school I had every class with the same 20 girls, it was not pretty, I would sit in a chair in the middle of the room and just watch the scene unfold every single class. It was not pretty, let's just say sometimes or classroom looked too much like a henhouse.
The same didn't happen with the guys in one of the other classes in our year. They also had every class together but, while the girls turned against each other, the guys would destroy the whole classroom together.
Apparently it wasn't the first time this happened, everyone already knows that too many women in a place will eventually end in disaster, now imagine what it would be like if the General Assembly of UN was composed only by women?
The world is the problem.
Not the gender.
Everybody in this world is so fixed at getting back at others and proving their supremacy that the gender hardly changes anything.
Power knows no gender.
Affects all the same.
Only thing that can stop this is alien invasion I guess :p
The rules of war would change indefinitely. Most women do not face their enemies head on, it is always done sneakily. So, unless something major happened world wars would probably not erupt but women would probably refuse to compromise with one country or the other. Maybe stop supplying certain commodities to a certain nation or such. It could be anything. However the world will most likely be happier and grow more emotional as a whole. To accurately answer that question, yes there would be less war and no peace at all. None at all.
No because this is gender based nonsense again. It doesn’t matter if it’s a man or a woman ruling a country, as long as they have the right intentions. There surely are a lot of male leaders that are doing nothing else but ruin their country, nevertheless it doesn’t mean that women would do it better.
Yes, I have always raised this topic and have got mixed responses.
We would have much less wars if women ruled the world. I mean just look at the history of modern, ancient warfare, almost 99% were started, driven by men. Violence, aggression, dominance are attributes coming naturally to men and our society question masculinity of men who don't exhibit these qualities. Women on the other hand are naturally compassionate. Motherly instinct drives them to be caring and humane. If you look at the war crimes and genocides, most were leaded by men. The female officers were only doing their jobs in fear of being persecuted otherwise by their male counterparts. Women don't even think of land, territory, like men. They don't care about it. The few that do are heavily influenced by men.
I can guarantee you if the complete leadership of both Israel and Palestine became female, the war would end. Because both leaders would care about children dying on both sides.
Women are the biggest bull shitters there are, they say one thing mean another act one way when men are around and another when they are with only other women.
Look at the drama women have with each other, over the stupidest things. How they will destroy themselves, to get back at someone.
There is more domestic violence between women, than there is between women and men.
So do I think there would be less war and more peace if women ruled the world, hell no. There would probably be more wars, fought over ever stupider things than men have started wars over.
Research has shown that women in positions of power, abuse that power at the same percent as men in positions of power.
Let's just assume men do rule the world. Why is that? Well, because men always tried to conquer other lands, improve their own strength etc. - that's why men were (for a looooong time) almost the only ones at the top. And how did they do it? Through war.
If women would rule the world now, there must have been a way they got to that level of power and I don't think it would have been a peaceful way. So no, there would be no change at all. For thousands of years, war was the only way to achieve power.
I work with a lot of women young and old in my industry. I see them undermining each other back stabbing and just political manipulations that i avoid at all costs.
In my opinion there would still be war if women ruled the world. War would still break out and this time women will be the ones killing each other. But it would be approached differently more underhanded and not brunt force.
Add a woman's impulsivity when her emotions are unpredictable. Males calculate and analyze. Im not saying women dont analyze and calculate the consequences too but half of the women in the world if not all of them are impulsive
I say no because women think that they can do a better job.. but in face, the opposite would be true. People like to point out that ant colonies have been around for millions of years. But the ants often end up killing their queen (mother). To add to that, by definition, the oldest colony species (ants) should be the dominant species by now (millions of years living in animal cities). Makes me think that if women ruled, we would still be cavemen and cavewomen. So I am out on this one.
No. Women tend to have a lot more emotion in regards to issues in daily life, so to handle an entire country would be quite scary. For instance, when most guys fight, they usually become friends. When girls fight, they are sworn enemies and will try to bring each other down behind their backs with rumors and secrets. Logically speaking, men tend to settle the differences so that they can move forward, while women tend to cling to the past a bit more. I'm not saying women can't be in a position of power, because id vote for Michelle Obama if she ran 2020, but sometimes they aren't the most grounded people.
It'd be quite the opposite actually, the world would be even more war torn then it is now, women are constantly back stabbing each other, talking behind each others backs and causing fights over the most petty things. And are far to emotional and irrational and love drama.
They don't need access to nukes and armies.
And before you call me a sexist I'm not saying anything that isn't already very true. Turn on the TV and watch literally any reality TV show or show with a hidden camera and tell me I'm wrong.
I believe war would be different, similar to how men resort to violence quicker and women resort to silent sabotage quicker. I believe that instead of war the countries would've cut off trades or pulled investments in order to sabotage other countries causing people to go into poverty and starve to death as opposed to dying in war and the lack of war will create a lesser desire for new technology so various nuclear and space exploration advancements would have not been made, in fact studies have shown women favour security over adventure so chances are technology would be hindered in favour of helping others so as a society we'd probably not advance as well and the seeking of equality would overall cause havoc as people desire to feel special as opposed to being the same which could cause wars within countries as opposed to between countries
Think there would be less war and more peace if we stopped discussing which gender should rule the world and instead about which people should be in charge of affairs that decide the future, irregardless of gender.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions