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
Updates:
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.

3|5
69227

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.

    4|8
    0|1

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.

    7|6
    0|2
    • 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.

    0|1
    0|1
  • 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.

    8|8
    1|0
    • 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.

    2|6
    0|0
  • 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.

    2|8
    0|0
  • Things would go from a dick measuring contest to a tit measuring contest. Wouldn't change much.

    1|9
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • There would be more war if we chose our leaders based on gender rather than their capability to run a country.

    6|10
    0|0
  • 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.

    1|7
    4|0
    • 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

    2|4
    0|0
  • LOL no. Imagine Killary Clinton ruling the world... =))
    (and no, I am not a Trump groupie, I just hate that woman!)

    4|14
    0|1
  • 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.

    1|4
    0|0
  • 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.

    1|7
    1|0
    • Ehm I don't know any girl that ever said what you said in your example. We would be telling her it's inappropriate too. It would be more like, not sure if you should wear that to work, I wouldn't if I were you though. 🙃

  • 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.

    1|7
    0|0
    • 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

  • 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.

    2|4
    0|0
  • 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.

    3|3
    0|0
  • Women would allow their emotions to influence their decisions, and cause a lot of problems. I don’t think this is the smartest idea😂

    1|7
    0|0
  • No because women can be catty bitches that hold grudges, lol

    1|8
    1|0
  • 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.

    1|8
    0|0
  • Definitely, world needs more ladies in politics. Women wouldn't be like fighting between eacher, they would solve problems differently. However I think wars would be still there.

    5|2
    1|3
    • Are you going to be a polititian?

    • Show All
    • Neither am I. Women are allowed to be in politics. But no one wants to be a politician

    • "Women wouldn't be fighting with each other".

      Like the bastions of social tranquillity that are office environments and school cliques?

      Please...

  • 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. :)

    1|2
    0|1
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    2|4
    3|1
  • They're would be less wars, but a hell of a lot of cat fights..

    2|6
    0|0
    • Who's would be less wars? What does that mean in English when people say "they are would be...", or "they are is..." i come across this kind expressions a lot lately

    • Show All
    • @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

  • Nope. Women can be just as bad as men when it comes to things like this.

    2|5
    2|0
  • 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..

    0|2
    1|6
    • Now i can understand why Europe it's almost totally submitted to Islam. And their man are cucks and can't protect their own women.

    • Show All
    • @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

  • 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.

    0|1
    0|4
    • Please don't assume my sexism

    • 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 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.

    3|2
    0|0
    • Being underestimated is an advantage. If you're underestimated, you have the element of surprise.

      If you have to nag your way into power, then you likely weren't being underestimated at all. Their estimations were dead on.

  • Females are still people and people will be foolish.
    E. g. politicians

    0|7
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|4
    • 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.

    • Show All
    • 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.

  • Well seeing as there is no 'ruling' gender atm and there are already still wars I would think it would be worse cause girls just suck at that, it wouldn't be much better with men either

    0|4
    0|0
  • More from Girls
    38

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

    6|2
    0|1
    • Why?

    • 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.

    1|9
    0|0
  • 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".

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    2|2
    1|0
  • 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.

    0|2
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • i dont think so, maybe women are more tolerant than men, however... men are decisive women are not, so while most men know what they want and go for it, women need a while to decide, so we will still have wars but different kind o wars

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    2|0
    • Why would the humanity still live in grass huts then?

    • Show All
    • @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.

  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I Believe we are going to find that out maybe not in our time but we will start seeing more women play bigger roles in today's society. And i welcome it the good old boy system sucks. And we need change. So i welcome it

    1|1
    0|0
  • Apparently throughout history from 1400 to 1900 Queens were more likely to engage in warfare compared to kings.

    0|2
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Maybe not as long as men have it for... but once a month... some bitch or bitches is going to the other side.
    And what makes you think women don't rule the world?

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • If all rulers were women, they would learn really fast after their nations were invaded and taken over that they will need to start protecting their interests, which naturally includes national defense and war.

    0|1
    1|0
  • 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

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Women are generally incapable of running societies.
    There are only TWO societies in the world completely run by women and both those are still living in grass huts.
    Men (as much as women like to deny it) are the reason society has advanced and survived to this point.
    Yeah, there are dictators and megalomaniacs but that goes for both genders.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I'd say no, there would be the same amount of war, just the reason behind them would be different. Maybe even the extent of how vicious the wars are, would be different too.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Which reasons do you think it would be instead behind them? And how would it be differently when it comes to vicious?

  • Not is Hillary Clinton was a part of it. All joking aside. There would be less war but I don’t think there would be all together.

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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)...

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    1|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    2|0
  • More from Guys
    196

Recommended myTakes

Loading...