Would there be less war and more peace if women ruled the world?

Why/why not?
Would there be lesser war and more peace if women ruled the world?#War #MenVsWomen #WomenWar
  • Yes (Explain why, please)
    Vote A
  • No (Explain why, please)
    Vote B
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy
Wow! I think this is my most popular question on GAG! : ) Thanks for joining it. Here's my opinion: It would probably not be lesser wars or more peace because humans are humans regardless of gender and it's part of the human nature to be greedy, wanting power etc.


Most Helpful Girl

  • 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.


Most Helpful Guy

  • 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.

    • Yes but then periods come along and everything goes to shit once in a while

    • Show All
    • What are the other 3 options beside the prenup?

    • @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.

Recommended Questions


Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 68

  • I really don't think we will have peace if one group is ruler. I think this world takes the hard work and dedication of everyone in it, and we all do better if we ALL do better.

  • 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.

    • Thank you for being wise. Could you teach this wisdom to grown-up women?

    • Show All
    • +gGreat I think both men and women are in need of this knowledge, fam

    • I've heard my equal share of the genders fighting on who is wiser, more powerful, more of a born leader, and men and women need each other, their differences bring out their capabilities and strengths.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Things would go from a dick measuring contest to a tit measuring contest. Wouldn't change much.

  • 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.

  • There would be more war if we chose our leaders based on gender rather than their capability to run a country.

  • 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

  • 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

  • LOL no. Imagine Killary Clinton ruling the world... =))
    (and no, I am not a Trump groupie, I just hate that woman!)

  • Show more from Girls

What Guys Said 226

  • i think there would be less war for sure. true peace? i'm not sure but i believe there would be less war

    • Show All
    • 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...

  • 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 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".

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 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.

  • 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.

  • Show more from Guys

Recommended myTakes