Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
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.
You are amazing!
I agree. She is logical. If there has to be a leader for the women of the world it would be just like her
@parttimelover I hope your right! She is killing it!
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.
Id probably say no. But again, take note what a scorned women does to your property. So its a tit for tat scenario going on here.
@Kenneth001 There's so many ways to avoid this scenario, however. The easiest way is to only marry a woman who is the big love of your life and who you know won't ever betray you like that. I always wonder why some men find it hard to follow such a simple rule. For example I know with absolute certainty that my wife would never do that because I've known her for a long time and because she sacrifices a lot for me, which such a woman of the "bad kind" wouldn't do.
A second option is to do a prenuptial. I my country that's even a regular part of the marrying formalities (so it's not something you do extra). You can choose between three different options, basically. My wife and I both didn't want to do this because we trust each other and because neither of us owns any property. But it's always an option for other couples.
And lastly, if you're an extremely suspicious person, you can of course also not get married but instead live together long-term without any formal status.
@Lumirayz
The prenup is one of the three options. The other two are marrying someone that you can trust or not getting married formally and live together as long-term boyfriend/girlfriend. I used to have a guitar teacher who had been with his girlfriend for over 25 years. When I asked him why they never got married, he said: "we just didn't feel like it's necessary". And I can understand that position too.
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.
Accidentally posted before I added a cite: qz.com/.../
i think there would be less war for sure. true peace? i'm not sure but i believe there would be less war
Why?
because i think women are less prone to act out violently. i think women in charge who bear children would be less likely to send others' sons and daughters out to die
BUT that doesn't mean it think there would be true peace. i think there would be less combat but i imagine there would still be conflict (to what extent, as in more or less than now, i don't know)
we see less women statistically resort to violence or physical altercations to settle arguments or conflicts but i don't think we'd say women are engaged in less arguments or conflicts.
As per the conflicts mostly occur on the understanding of what are they. But if it's a girl than it is rather difficult to understand lol...
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.
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 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.
Why would we still be cavemen and cavewomen if women ruled?
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.
PREACH IT
And 'grown up' MEN?
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
Historically, European queens waged more wars than kings. Let's also look at other prominent women leaders throughout history. Egypt's expansion under Cleopatra, Catherine the Great expanded the Russian Empire even further, and for a more contemporary example, Hillary Clinton convinced her husband to intervene in Yugoslavia threatened to go to war with Iran in 2008, pushed for bombing Libya when she was Secretary of State, and said she was willing to go to war in Syria during the 2016 election. It seems like men are more warmongering because they're in power more often, but per capita tells a different story.
There would be more war if we chose our leaders based on gender rather than their capability to run a country.
You are wise beyond your years.
There would be less war is women were the only soldiers allowed on the battlefield. As long as men are the majority of soldiers, there will be war. A society can not sustain losing too many women to war otherwise it won't be able to reproduce.
Women in leadership are just as violent as men.
You want to stop war? Ban men from joining the military, an have all female soldiers in every country.
We would have world peace overnight.
Men are more disposable than women. One man could theoretically impregnate an entire population of women. A women is limited by +/- 30 years divided by 9 months per baby.
Women are just as violent as men, if not more so. The reason we associate violence with men is that men are stronger, so when a man gets violent there is more likely to be greater injuries to either party.
Women are not more peaceful than men. Have you ever lived with a woman?
It would be different, that's for sure. Both men AND women can make good choices if they really tried. And they can also make BAD choices too. It just comes down to who we as a people put in charge. If we choose people who think towards the future and are smart, compassionate, driven, as well as many other qualities, then there would be more changes towards a better world for everyone. :)
Women's mindset would be like men today if we lived in a matriarchal world. Don't underestimate the power of mindset, upbringing and history.
So in the end there would just be as many wars tbh.
I. Agree at the same time its all about Greed. And ego. look at trump. he to is only in it for himself and has manipulated the whole process democracy I wish at least one person wood stand up and do the right thing it's not for the world do it for your kids your children and other children all over the world I don't care if it's a man or a woman but we need somebody with a backbone I'm sure there are so many obstacles but we have to get out of the good old boy system all of our representative at least 85% but they all had their hand in the cookie jar to benefit themselves so that the man can step up to the plate and do the right thing I'll be the first one to go to woman in if I believe it she can do it I don't care what it is in this world you back your play with good people caring people you can do anything in the world
No. Throughout history there were plenty of powerful women that have ruled nations whether directly or from the shadows and for this particular example, I would like to use Catherine the Great. She was an exceptional empress, who created a dynasty for more than 300 years and she did this by conquest. The main point is that whether it's a woman or a man, human nature sometimes supersedes what's right and wrong, simply for the purpose of greed or lust for power.
I doubt it. War is always based around the distribution of resources and economic power. Women being in power doesn't change or remove that incentive.
LOL no. Imagine Killary Clinton ruling the world... =))
(and no, I am not a Trump groupie, I just hate that woman!)
😂😂😂 killary.. if Trump read this he'd rtfol
@Pikachula true =))
@Pikachula That's... disturbingly accurate, actually.
@damnwinter Oh, no doubt. Nobody actually runs the world. I'm just spitballing here.
@Bippwatt :D I think both our accuracy awards go to @Pikachula here!
Things would go from a dick measuring contest to a tit measuring contest. Wouldn't change much.
All ladies here, but there's still war, probably because we made a pact with the usa, the country that tells us we need to support them in their wars.
But I think if it were ladies everywhere there won't be wars like we know them now, more like just killing the enemy instead of all those innocent people..
"just killing the enemy instead of all those innocent people.."
You are completely delusional about wars. Even if the females ruled countries their would still be casualties among the civilians unless those women are morons. Killing civilians and enemies is just much easier and effective than killing just enemies.
@Pikachula Less than Sweden.
Wait the 3rd born and your grandsons will wearing Hijab.
@Pikachula You guys are being colonized from the inside out. Take a look how is France today. Let them enter or not, was YOUR country choice (or not maybe they ate UE toy...) Poland and Hungary closed the gates. They had ball to do that.
Oh okay "alway's America fault" lol :D you will say "i hate wite people" too? lol :P
But i honestly hope i culd be wrong. I don't want this happen never to a continent who brigs almost a utopia and now is falling to Feminist and Politically Correct.
@didigo182 you have no idea what you are talking about. Yes france has their troubles, but they always had them.
We don't have that much trouble here. I think it's good they let those people in , now they are safe. If they didn't start a war in Syria those people didn't even have to come to our countries in Europe.
And yes I do blame America (usa) and their hunger for war, let them stay in their own country , enough problems there as it seems..
@Pikachula If they "are safe now" in your (occidental, cristian country) why 'muslin 1st world countryes' like Saudi Arabia and Quatar do NOT accept them? Hun? :)
"Yes france has their troubles" lol wait until the next terrorist attack... or you forgot the kids dead in middle of street by a truck? This isn't not a normal thin even in my own country ("a no mans land").
The point it's not the Nationality or peple (many of them are decent people) the proble its the religion and they having sons like rats! USA it's neither a saint r innocent. But one thing they know how to do very well: protect their own interest/culture/frontiers.
@didigo182 it's more safe now than ever, if you did some research on terrorism in Europe you would know..
I don't know why Saudi Arabia etcetera didn't accept them, I think it's inhuman. What if this happends to you , should we just leave you there to die? Oke.
I'd rather live here than a country like the US where there are shootings, just because.. a guy gets bullied kills 10 people, guy is bored and psycho kills many and so on. And they aren't even Muslims, none of them, so what are we even talking about.
People die every day in southern America in those ''drugwars'' too. Unless thats false information, Thats more than you'll see here.
@Pikachula "more safer than ever" okay.. if you say so.. lol
The issue it's who enter there. Why you guys not accept only woman and child? Accepted instead alone, single in 'militrary age' Man. And neither Middle East Country accepted these refugees. Weird hun? Maybe occasionally Turkey or another one but the biggest flow (90%) go to Europe, a totally different continent/culture.
... You are anti-guns too right? (I already imagined that) "a guy gets bullied kills 10 people, guy is bored" - a muslim got a truck and killed 10, 20, 50 because he was bored... What is the difference? 10 people are killed on a stupid way (okay im not agree either) but in USA have over 140 million guns! Shit happen.
Yes, people die in everyhere. But it's NOT accetable a country/continent who it's NOT in a War suffer with terrorist attacks.
"What if this happends to you, should we just leave you there to die? Oke" - If i had woman + kids, i would let them there and already be happy to them been safe.
@didigo182 those women and kids were brought here too, they're here too. We accept their whole family.
Other 'refugees' such as albanians were refused they didn't get into our country , only people from Syria and some Eritrea.
These terrorists are killing people because they are sick in the head and have this hatred formed about our western society, that's their reason. Same as anders breivik that killed people that cared for people with other nationalities and religions, did you even know about that terrorist attack? The guy that killed many children on an island with his gun in Scandinavia?
Interesting. At least you guys have a "filter" do not allow 100% enter there.
If Albanians bring problems there they have to be stopped too, not only Afghans, Iraqis or Syrians.
Yes i know about the guy of Scandinavia, he is sick and was a exception, he not killed by religion. He was not trying to impose their customs and rules on another's country. It was a sad event i knoww; But we are talking about totally different circumstances.
If possible research about what happening in Sweden, "No go" Zones in Sweden and Sharia. I know maybe im wasting my time in trying to show you this, but maybe i can fix you :) lol
@Pikachula I confess was waiting something like "haha don't waste your time" haha
I tried to send PM but not accepted, so i will send here: www.youtube.com/results
The mainstream media will deny and never will show this.
I know it's late there but when you have more time, take a look.
@Pikachula If you only put snipers to kill the enemies your enemy will just bomb the shit out of you and you have lost. So yeah, you are delusional. You either kill civilians together with enemies or lose. War is war, and nobody thinks about human lives when they fight.
About Muslims and "come visit the Netherlands" - you are being delusional here again. Your country is full of Muslims and Rotterdam is even being ruled by a Muslim. Wait a little bit and all those Arabs will be able to rape blonde White girls like yourself without getting any punishment.
@TheGreatSodini 😂 I'm not saying there are no Muslims here.. And no they won't rape me. There's a bigger chance a dutch mental guy will rape me here than a muslim. Please..
And we were talking about wars in a world ruled by women , so it might not be that the enemy will do what you say. Putin kills his enemies too by poisoning them.. did anyone drop bombs on him? USA kills people by dropping bombs, but did they drop bombs in the usa to come kill them, I don't think so.
@TheGreatSodini I'm very curious as though you've even been here, my country full of Muslims, maybe in a few cities , but still many without 👀 and most of them are practically dutch now in their ways and habits. Don't judge if you haven't seen any of it. Mentioning Rotterdam is just stupid , almost everyone in Rotterdam is foreign that's why we chose abutaleb. He's not even pro extremist or Muslims at all. He even came in the news for that 😅 he told them to behave and otherwise get back to your own damn country, he's not much better than greet wilders
@Pikachula Nice meme, those secretaries of Defence are babies
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbRcvzcUUAAfMVC.jpg
Women are far more deceitful, back stabbing, and hateful than most men.
That is why when people split up, the guy just wants to be separated and have equal custody of his kids.
While the woman wants to take his kids away, steal as much of his money and possessions as she can, then goes around spreading lies about him so people won't realize how terrible of a person she really is.
Still waiting for women to actually fight for men's rights in court. Especially in family law.
No, it would be a fucking disaster. They can´t even normally talk to each other in general without the influence of emotions and drama.
I´d say, there must be a healthy balance.
Do you think that makes it good that Trump won? (I know basically nothing about politics by the way, so don't get into too much detail.)
Trump is better than Clinton. Even though he is an asshole. Bernie should have won
Yeah, for 25 days out of the month anyway...
But seriously, women are less aggressive by nature.
I believe God made them that way, and yes there are exceptions (see Ronda Rousey), but GENERALLY women are less aggressive and thus less likely to start wars. They're also less likely to do daring things like discover new continents and charge into burning buildings to save people. Testosterone makes a difference.
This is just a loaded question assuming women are less violent than men. Women are no less full of malice, it’s simply a lower capacity for violence compared to men. Where a man would throw a punch a lot of women would instead start a rumor or gaslight.
No. Women still want power. As well, there are dominant women. I mean, look at Cleopatra or Joan of Arc. They weren't afraid of war and used war to gain for whatever reason they saw fit for their ideals/beliefs. The only thing, the wars would be because of different reasons perhaps.
To quote my favorite game series:
"War is atrocity committed in the name of survival"
Humans fight wars when their survival is threatened. A scarcity of resources or threats to our safety are the 2 biggest reasons. Even the Crusades were fought for the safety of the Church.
If women ran the world, wars would still be fought because we haven't mastered how to balance our need for resources and safety so everyone has enough of both.
I would think so as naturally women are more nurturing and maternal.
I haven't even read down yet but I know there's going to be a lot of males saying basically women are in a way evil and unintelligent and shouldn't be doing anything important, to those people, shut up and grow up.
Same. And your own narrowly defined concept of what being female is is almost as insulting as your assumption of us being sexist.
I'd like to point out that women are way more ruthless than men. Men, we'll let our enemy see another day if they submit. But women? Fuck no, man. Only total ruin will do.
And that's just one thing.
Men are also more blatant and straightforward than women. We think in straight lines. Women think in curves and bends. They are far craftier and more subtle than men.
In other words, I honestly vastly prefer patriarchy or egalitarian society to a matriarchy.
@Bippwatt
the worst thing is though, that she speaks out pubicly how she admittedly doesn't even care about checking but still seems to be knowing what "men are like" it's a leftist way of arguing and living. "As long as you're not on my knees you oppose me, and are the ennemy. Only speak when you say stuff that i want to hear and that i already understand"
@blondie
Fair enough, you said "naturally" and "mostly" and "basically" so you're in a way much smarter than i initially thought. For most it's hard to see that. But you're young, and you have no choice but learn stuff in a long term. Nothing people teach you in youtube videos or college can be as valuable as real life. No offense
I think there might be less if both men and women ruled more equally. This is only because it would mean that the people in charge would be forced to see each other's opinions instead of being able to shrug them off and label people into groups like male and female for example. It may make for rulers that see all kinds of conflicting groups and opinions and come to a consensus instead of war
I doubt it, because the women who got into the position of power had to fight hard for it, and they rarely resemble Mother Teresa.
Women would allow their emotions to influence their decisions, and cause a lot of problems. I don’t think this is the smartest idea😂
No, we have had many female rulers in the past. Many of which proved not to be as peaceful as you might think. Even a woman needs resources to rule and if another woman has something she doesn't, best believe there is going to be more than passive aggressive banter.
Violence is not gendered, some of the most bloody rulers in history have been women (queen Marry IE: Bloody Mary comes to mind). Around 50% of rapes are perpetrated by women, as is at least half of all domestic violence. There is no reason to believe that having a woman in charge would reduce world violence.
Men have downfalls and so do women I think that it should be equal, and if they listened to each other then they could learn more, and therefore be better an smarter.
Equality matters. It wouldn't matter if you are male or female, both can stop war and still can till this very day. Men do not take over this world.
Less? Yes considering that statistically women care more about things like poverty, education and gun control/war but women wouldn't just solve all the world's problems but I mean just the equal opportunity at things like politics would help the world to start to grow and become better.
Lol that's why my daughter suffers from female bullying in schools and my son never did right, because women are just nicer kinder people than men.
Haha. Most of the richest people on earth on men. And the rich women are there husband's. And gun control would just make more crime.
Okay but @HateYourCellphone I'm not talking about kids I'm talking about mature grown women. Everyone knows that kids will be kids. I'm saying once they're grown up and are actually old enough to have their own opinion and make their own decisions
Almost every grown man and woman has issues that I know.
They all have moments of greed, lust, envy, etc...
I've seen both act poorly during their events.
To claim women would run the world better is obtuse and nieve. Both man and woman are equal.
This is one of the reasons I don't think feminists actually believe in equality. Claims like this make me believe the end goal is superiority.
Get your head out of your ass. Best scenario is we share power and together make what ever decisions we do. Good, bad or ugly.
Superiority? I stand for equality for women across the globe and nothing else. Women tend to care more about social issues than men and that's one of the areas where the world is suffering the most in. I agree that women and men should rule side by side because that's fair and it will promote equality. I really do think you misunderstood me, I think that if men and women stop fighting over power as if it has to be one way or the other then men and women could rule equally and no one would be suppressed.
The question is if women "ruled the world" so expecting me to believe your answer to that question was about "sharing power" is ridiculous if it was your answer would have framed it that way.
I don't mince words. I don't put my feelings and thoughts into your words. I read them and I consider them.
If you want to be successful in making me believe this story you're pushing now try rewriting your initial response so it is correct and no one has to try to inject this into it.
Also I don't believe women are "more about social issues than men" I believe that's a lie.
Lol @ that. Your statement wasn't about the type equality we just discussed.
That statement was just a reference to the more equality we had the better the world would be. From the stand point of what you believe now which is that men hold more power. That does not prove that you believe in an equally run world only that you believe women need more power.
I don't disagree that women could or should have equality in politics and everywhere else. I disagree at your pointing to that statement as proof of your intentions.
How are you goign to try and tell me what I meant I think I of all people would know considering that 1. It's ny opinion and 2. I typed the statement based off of my opinion. If you don't agree that's fine there's technically no right or erong answer but don't attack me. I said statistically women care more about the social problems and that's a fact I learned in the government class I'm taking at my college but I'm sure if you need to check you can look it up and find it online. I then went on to say that just because women are put in charge that won't solve all the world's problems. The last point I maade was that equality between the genders would help promote peace. That's what I said and that's what I meant.
I cannot tell you what you mean in tour heart. I only put your words in context to the "actual" question being asked. In that context what I say your words mean is the best way I can understand them.
If that's not what you meant then I am sorry. I would like to believe that's not what you meant, but... I think it is and your only altering and retracting it to make it easier for me to agree to.
I don't agree that women would run this world better if they were in power. I don't think they would do worse either... we would have a whole slew of different problems probably equally as bad as it is now.
I think equal power would be good to keep each other in check, but this question was about women having the power not equality.
No because women can be catty bitches that hold grudges, lol
And How!
No. Men don't rule the world, every decision they make is informed by their love for the women in their life as well as the men. I don't see why that would be different if reversed.
The fact of the matter is a woman DID rule the world. Queen Empress Victoria, monarch of the British empire at the height of it's global power didn't end war on earth.
She looked after her own (the empire)...
One of things that you dont know, is women are more likely to bullie one another then men. Women are sneaky when it comes to their shit. Men are more blunt and make it obvious fist fights and the sort. With that said while i dont think will get in a fist fight as often as men will i think if the controlled the world and hand control of armies that reservation woukdnt be as pronounced.
As much as people may defend this, and this is unfair at times, both genders balance themselves out. It makes the somewhat functioning world of now works.
As long as violence is a possible solution to the problem of "not like us," there will be armed conflict. Wars are fought over ideas, always. Women have ideas. What we fight about might change, but war would still exist, because war is an effective political tool.
They're would be less wars, but a hell of a lot of cat fights..
@Pikachula yea I'm a kindle, and it automatically choses the wrong words sometimes or I click the wrong word.
I'm on a kindle
I think men make great leaders. Great Bosses too. Not that we suck at the same job. I've always just gravitated to preferring men in that position.
Why?
Not only there wouldn't have been less wars (female rulers during the course of history made no less bloody wars than male counterparts), but also humanity would still be living in grass huts.
Why would the humanity still live in grass huts then?
Because women seldom are present and/or take interest in achievements, ambitions and development; construction, gathering of resources and so on and on was incomparably harder/dangerous throughout the history than it is now, and even nowadays women are seldom present in fields that have a level of danger involved, or require extreme amount of dedication (such as science), where one person pretty much secludes himself from the world and focuses solely on work for decades, if not whole life (like Tesla, Einstein and many others).
Some morons (such as feminists, apologists, white knights and such) often argue that it is because "muh womynz weren't allowed to do it". Well, they're allowed for many decades now, but situation didn't change much, eh?
Additionally, all matriarchal societies ceased to exist throughout the history for many reasons explained above.
These facts speaks in favor that in the world where women rule, humanity would get stuck in age of grass huts at best.
Eugene don’t play dumb... women having the opportunity do to things outside of their traditional gender roles is fairly new compared to the centuries that women have been oppressed and prohibited from doing those things.
It’s going to take time (maybe even double the amount of time they were oppressed) for our society to start seeing a significant change in what women pursue, (but don’t worry, we’re headed in the right direction).
It will take centuries to unlearn how women have been socialized to behave.
To expect that change would happen so quickly is very naive of you. I don’t think understand how these things work.
@ktdec
Now that since yet another 48h ban for honesty is over (something that one or more of ubermods cannot tolerate), I can finally answer:
First of all, as already mentioned, there were queens in many countries many times. They led no less bloody wars than their male counterparts. It's debatable that if 20th century weaponry would exist during their reigns, whether the casualties would be greater than during WW2 or not.
Second, matriarchal societies existed in many places and many cultures. However, they proved to be futile by being easily destroyed, as men felt they often were left out, hence they weren't that eager to build, to create, to discover something new, to provide, to invent, while women weren't naturally driven to do that; thus a community would fall into stagnation first and later fall to superior opponent.
@ktdec
And there's a saying "those ignorant of history are bound to repeat it". I don't mind foreigners stepping on same rakes over and over, however, I cannot help myself but to pinpoint obvious ignorance to a foreigner, because, well, I love common sense.
Men are women are different, therefore not equal. Society that is ruled by women would be either extremely bitter with constant wars (at the expense of another sex, ironically), or extremely passive, where men quickly would deteriorate to a female level (get feminized, sorta like nowadays western SJWs) in terms of ambitiousness, masculinity and thirst for knowledge, hence that society would fall into significant, likely permanent, stagnation.
Laws of humans won't change the laws of nature, won't change biological tendencies and natural calls, no matter what some people want to believe.
I know that’s what you would like to believe because it helps you feel better as a man but everything you said simply isn’t true. You really think that because men and women are “different” that means they aren’t equal? Please tell me that was a joke, because i certainly did laugh 😂. If that’s the case, you think 4 quarters and a dollar bill aren’t equal because they are different. Please educate yourself.
@ktdec
>> You really think that because men and women are “different” that means they aren’t equal?
Well, considering that they have different genetics, different instincts, brains work differently and so on and on (and yes, you can google the researches on this matter -- you know, like scientific ones, not some buzzfeed-level assumptions), it does men we're not equal.
We can be equal (and already are) in legal procedures, for example, however, in anything else there are things that men do better than women and vice versa.
For example, right now I pinpoint the facts & assumptions based on facts & historical experiences (logical behavior, typical for males) and you predominantly get into emotional/personal area, while ignoring the facts I've stated (typically predominant in females). While we're both humans, it does show clear difference in our mentality, thus we aren't equals.
But this conversation gets boring. Ignorance is the bliss for some.
Good evening.
Show proof using quotes that i got into an “emotional/personal area”... because, you know, men are “logical”.
There’s a difference between being equal in abilities and worth although you sound very desperate to prove otherwise. Logic, hun. Use it like all the men do. Two dimes and a nickel equal a quarter but they are different. I can’t make it any simpler for you.
No. Have you seen the way some women use their boyfriends as a gaurd dog they can 'sic' on others? It would work the same way. A world leader doesn't have to be violent or capable of violence themselves to be capable of inciting violence through their chain of command. Women can be power hungry too you see this in the business world.
I voted yes, though I'm not entirely sure about that - in truth, I think women would start fewer wars directly - but wars generally do happen when she's scared she can't feed the kids, and prods him to do something about it - men themselves are a bit aloof/harder to get into that jealous mode required for war.
Men are blamed for the body standards of a woman when in fact it's women that have those standards about other women. Most don't dress to impress but dress to showcase their superiority.
Secretly many women are jealous of their peers, and some are so mean they hurt their peers emotionally and mentally just for the pleasure.
Plus women are generally more blood thirsty than men as i believe.
Now imagine this on a nation scale.
If anything it would be worse. I'm not saying that there aren't women capable of ruling countries, but women are scientifically the more emotional thinkers which isn't good when you have to rule an entire country. And putting aside my point, of you said "yes" then you're an idiot. The reason the world is shit is because it's in human nature, not because of what sex the person is.
No, I think they'd be a period of peace for a couple years until many female leaders would lose power through elections, revolutions, and them stepping down. Based on my knowledge things like border control would largely cease to exist and countries would become more socialist.
Then eventual chaos. are men really supposed to let random leaders take the place of the men they voted for? Same with women.
It's like replacing Trump with Hilary, both men and women wouldn't support it.
In general, the guys get set out of class/school lessons more than girls.
Girls mature faster, pay attention to a wider range of topics, etc etc
I only say this because I do/have done all of the above.
The other side is girls typically react worse to all situations, typically instinctive, with scenario based logic and failure to consider the important, they are more focused on concerns than acting.
The world won't go anywhere if, a single person ruled it whether be a man or a woman.
In case of most woman, once they made a decision, they don't back out of it. Which, can backfire at times.
And, there would be laws benefiting woman and, it won't sit well with other men.
So, we are the ones who can rule the earth. Because, we are the king and, the king is the one that needs to be protected in chess. Without us, there's no country and, its just a piece of land.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions