2006-07-13 10:48:49 · 40 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
No need to get hostile "Portugese". I merely asked a question that didnt warrant your aggressiveness, however indirect it was.
And I will not attribute your rudness based on your gender.
2006-07-13 11:26:00 · update #1
Absolutely. I am all for it.
2006-07-13 10:51:45 · answer #1 · answered by Sir J 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The very human need to wage war doesn't stem from anything related to gender. Humans have fought for control of land and resources since the first two people met in antiquity. To imply that only men wage war is blatantly biased and extremely sexist. I would almost be as offended by your question if I was a woman. Women have waged as many wars and even fought in as many battles as men have. Study history just a little and you'll learn about female warriors like Bouddicca or Himoko. Europe was ruled off an on by warrior queens for centuries. The Russian army fielded countless thousands of women in both world wars. I can promise you right now this second that there's units of Israeli female pilots and ground troops kicking the Hezbollah in the pants. It's much harder to study and to learn than it is to assume and spew forth hate. I'm not sure what male soured your disposition but I feel sorry for you none the less.
2006-07-13 11:11:57 · answer #2 · answered by Portuguese Prognosticator 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. History has shown women run and matriarchial socities just as violent. It seems to be about power and the human condition not gender when you get on a large societal scale. In fact, I think some of the most brutal native american tribes were women run (Mohawks, for one). The women had no sympathy for the women of other tribes so they were fair game for killing in wars.
2006-07-13 10:56:57 · answer #3 · answered by PoohP 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guess we will never know until the US Government and it's people lets them try.
My best guess would be "Yes", maybe a few more slaps on the hand and time outs. I think women have been great at settling conflict for many years! Mom's expecially! We are less reactive and more pro active in general.
2006-07-13 10:56:18 · answer #4 · answered by divaterry1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes and No. Since we know that in world cup of females Logic first place was awarded to random number generator i would guess we could have Pretty interesting life . WOuld there be mroe peace than war is hard to say. But possible to go both ways.
2006-07-13 10:52:27 · answer #5 · answered by PicassoInActions 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on who these major rulers listen to for advice. And it depends on the women. I appreciate the spirit in which your question is asked, though, and I totally agree that women are more nurturing than men, and women aren't anywhere near as physically violent as men.
2006-07-13 10:56:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What make you think women are not controling the world
think of all the great leaders of the world and now take a look at who is standing at their side
Think of your own parents ...how much influence does your mom have over your dad
women have alot more control than you think
2006-07-13 10:55:03 · answer #7 · answered by egregious_38m 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL...Hat's off to the New Zealand comment. I think if the world's governments were predominantly female we would go to war less often and social services would be more prevalent.
Of course poohp could be right...
2006-07-13 10:59:17 · answer #8 · answered by afk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. New Zealand has a woman prime minister. When was the last time New Zealand was at war?
2006-07-13 10:51:18 · answer #9 · answered by David S 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely. Women are more mediating than adversarial.
Unless all the female leaders were PMS'ing at the same time... I would duck and run for cover then! lol
2006-07-13 10:52:19 · answer #10 · answered by lily 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am guess you never heard of Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi or Golda Meir
2006-07-13 10:50:49 · answer #11 · answered by P. M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋