- Yes (Explain why, please)Vote A
- No (Explain why, please)Vote B
Would there be less war and more peace if women ruled the world?
What Girls Said 68
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.11
- Show AllShow Less
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.8
There would be more war if we chose our leaders based on gender rather than their capability to run a country.16
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.5
Things would go from a dick measuring contest to a tit measuring contest. Wouldn't change much.10
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.8
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.8
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.5
No because power know no gender.11
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.1
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.9
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.8
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.2
Women would allow their emotions to influence their decisions, and cause a lot of problems. I don’t think this is the smartest idea😂8
Nope. Women can be just as bad as men when it comes to things like this.7
Females are still people and people will be foolish.
E. g. politicians7
fuck no just NO9
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.5
No. History has indicated that female leaders have been and are perfectly willing to go to war.6
Women or men, it doesn't matter. It depends on the person who is ruling the world4
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 :p6
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?4
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.1
human nature is human nature5
- More from Girls 38
What Guys Said 227
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.13
- Show AllShow Less
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.10
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.1
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.1
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.4
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.1
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.1
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 impulsive1
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?1
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.1
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.1
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.1
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.2
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 countries2
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.1
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".1
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.1
If women ruled the world we'd be living as slaves. Not to mention the monthly bloodbath we would have to go trough. Almost like the movie "Purge"1
No, it would just make the wars quieter and more savage. And surrender probably wouldn't be very prudent. No offense, ladies.1
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.1
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 it2
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.
Good question can't say for sure.1
Probably. I'm not sure but we should find out. Angela Merkel seems to be doing a good job as the leader of the free world.1
Probably less war in my opinion... But peace.. Hell naw.. LOL.. They would be a women's equivalent to war..1
No. Female leaders are just like male leaders. There are fewer women than men with the aggressive drive and desire to rule a country but picking from those women wouldn’t need make much difference.1
- More from Guys 197
Select as Most Helpful Opinion?
You cannot undo this action. The opinion owner is going to be notified and earn 7 XPER points.