2006-08-17 02:49:30 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Not at all.
Was Maggie Thatcher a "peaceful" woman? Not a bit of it.
How about Indira Ghandi? Or Corazon Aquino?
Cast iron women all of them. Trust me, when it comes to brutal leadership, women are right there with thier male counterparts.
2006-08-17 02:55:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know. I would love to see more women as leaders because I am a woman. But there are a lot of women out there that can be just as mean as men. I personally have a theory when it comes to peace on earth: if everyone got laid more often, I think there would be a lot more peace. Just think about it. the iraqis and other middle easterners cover up their women and just use them for procreation. They use men for pleasure. Now tell me that doesn't make for a messed up way to live?
2006-08-17 09:56:18 · answer #2 · answered by rchilly2000 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be the same. Women are not any less violent, power hungry, impatient, or quick to anger than men. If women ruled the world there wouldn't be potpourri on every street corner and there wouldn't be sweet little scented notes sent to each country that doesn't like us. There's not a big enough difference between the personalities of men and women to make a difference like that in the world.
2006-08-17 09:54:41 · answer #3 · answered by corbeyelise 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO ~ Women will gather all the warriors and send them out to fight for her honor. Women are dangerous when angered and we are also much more dramatic than most men, therefore I can't see women as being more peaceful as leaders than men. PEACE Depends entirely on each individual and not gender
2006-08-17 10:04:33 · answer #4 · answered by search 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know if it would be a better place but I can say that the politicians would be better dressed. On a more serious note-- I think that a woman in the oval office would show that we're an evolved society and I think that it would be a nice change.
2006-08-17 09:55:26 · answer #5 · answered by jennp_49837 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think its the character that defies a person not the gender, but if it were to happen i think due to the stereotypical view of women by society the majority of people would be protesting against her leadership because of her gender and some people may just not take her seriously.
2006-08-17 09:59:03 · answer #6 · answered by Crimsonite 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aahhh they'd wonder what the other country was thinking, was I overly intrusive, did I talk too much, was I dressed well when I met their president, should I send a thank you note, should they send a thank you note.
In other words probably, but there would be so much chaos people would be walking into walls not knowing what to do.
2006-08-17 09:58:49 · answer #7 · answered by Murfdigidy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Umm... have you ever seen a 'catfight' or heard women talking about other women?
Actually, I don't know... could be a more peaceful place, or the nukes would start flying every time one started having PMS.
2006-08-17 09:56:21 · answer #8 · answered by texasrednek2000 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If women really are more diplomatic and social than men then it could be better. But I don't know that there is enough difference to matter.
Men and women are a lot more alike than we are different, after all.
2006-08-17 10:00:24 · answer #9 · answered by mikayla_starstuff 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends who the leaders are... if it's Rice, no, she's horrible... but if it's someone who knows what they're doing and are making decisions to better their country rather than expand their wallets or improve their reputation... then i think the world would be better (male or female)
2006-08-17 09:56:02 · answer #10 · answered by CupidsTarget 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋