Please try and convince us if you think yes, because I think the Alpha Females would likely be quite similar to their Alpha Male counterparts that currently do so much chest banging (think Gorillas here).
The best answer choice will be based on the most persuasive arguement, meaning not necessarily what I agree with.
2006-07-19 05:16:29 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Alpha Women are more motivated towards proving their "alphaness"/strength/toughness over thier alpha males counter-parts, mostly because there have been so few women in power that they feel its necessary to prove their worth (prove that they belong).
A woman in power would prove her worth by making strong decisions and backing them up, even if they seem to against the norm, they would fight with cander to prove their worth. Look at Hillary, it's a well known fact that she has a bigger dick than Bill, and she's not afraid to show it to anyone to prove it. In other words, a woman holding a majority position would be as stronger or stronger than her male counterparts, because she would have to in order to get into that position. A soft "cookie cutter" would never be voted into such a position.
2006-07-19 06:17:56 · answer #1 · answered by kris_rynshall 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I dont think it would at first be a safer place. perhaps after a time, it would. At first, those chest beaters you spoke of would have to step in and address some real big issues in our continental and global commmunity. Those issues would inherently have violent components. As time passed though, so many opportunities for women and the poor would open up. We would see the compasionate and logical side of feminine strength play itself out in the global arena. In the long run, putting women in places of power is always a good idea.
2006-07-19 12:27:53 · answer #2 · answered by prancingmonkey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No way man. Have you ever seen a woman PMS-ing? Could you imagine what might have happened during the cuban missle crisis if Kennedy and Khrushchyov were both women on the rag? Let me tell you, It would have been the end of the world as we know it.
2006-07-19 12:29:03 · answer #3 · answered by joshman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Leona Helmsly answered that question for most of us. Or take a look at the Queen of England and how miserable her people are and how rich she is.
humans are humans and power corrupts. they may seem nice as Mommies, but you put them in power and they go berserk and spend all the money on shoes.( Imelda Marcos)
so do not trust or prefer a woman any more than any man.
post-menapausal women are particularly prone to be as mean or meaner than any man.
all their milk of human kindness juices dry up
2006-07-19 12:26:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It wouldn't matter. We already dropped milk and cookies on Afghanistan when we went to war with them. The US estrogen stystem is strong enough to stop Uncle Sam's facial hair from growing.
2006-07-19 12:30:12 · answer #5 · answered by taogent 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nah, women are catty. Many get jealous and territorial just like men. In the end we are all human and was all have the same innate weaknesses.
2006-07-19 12:22:15 · answer #6 · answered by trinitytough 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It might be different, but I doubt that the world would be safer.
2006-07-19 12:23:59 · answer #7 · answered by desotobrave 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. they will nag each other to death. i know, it's bad for me to say it since i'm a female myself, but i hate the nagging women.
2006-07-19 12:28:04 · answer #8 · answered by islandgrl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋