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.
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.
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
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.
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. 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)...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
227Opinion
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.
I talked about equality in my initial response and my answer was "less? Yes" all I agreed to was less
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)...
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..
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
@Duke1985 there would be** I think is what she means bro. Don't be annoying 🐍🤑
@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.
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.
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.
Very random
Thank you. I wanted to make it random. Kassie?
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.