Meaning if Women were our Queens, pesidents, prime ministers, etc.
2006-09-15 21:31:36 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Yes.
2006-09-16 03:59:27 · answer #1 · answered by Desert Sienna 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No. Power trips are power trips, but women have not yet learned how to play fair. Remember a magazine that started all this mass hype about "feminism," which had a term previously used to represent "manuscript," and made a big symbolic gesture out of saying that women could hide the fact that they were married as well as men, and led to at least one whole generation of people who simply do not have any manners because they got stuck somewhere in between the old-fashioned way and the Politically Correct way, looking for their own way.
I would like to offer you my summary of the so-called feminist movement, which was acknowledged at various points to be a very socialist style movement: "Stop being exploited by men! Start being exploited by women!"
No, very few women do power well, and most of them have been born to it. Long live the Queen.
2006-09-15 21:43:58 · answer #2 · answered by auntb93again 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would say no. Condi and Hillary are women and they are two of the worst warmongers. Thatcher instigated a war in Argentina for oil, and the list goes on. The ones causing the slaughter of animals by the millions are women - for the sake of vanity. I don't see too many guys wearing fur coats.
It depends on the individual not the gender. Whether man or woman, a kind generous person is a kind generous person and a vicious greedy maniac is just that. Gender has nothing to do with it.
2006-09-16 00:14:02 · answer #3 · answered by pepper 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Would those women play by the same "war is wonderful" rules? The foundation of Western philosophy is considered to be the son of a Midwife, and yet nothing he may have written down on paper survived so we have to rely on what Plato said about him. This is the same Plato whose student Aristotle wrote that slavery is fine and that women are inferior. Since mothers hurry first word learning, and we can only speculate that he was humble enough to learn a few things from his wife, the distortions of Socrates (mainly by his student Plato) are all we have to go on. What about Easter philosophy? Women different therein?
2006-09-15 22:44:46 · answer #4 · answered by clophad 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You know, women always go on and on about being more social and communal, and yet every one of the most overly dramatic, throw-stuff-out-the-window roommate situations that I've ever heard of involved all female co-habitants.
To answer your question, I would say no - although maybe less prone to war and more passive aggressive.
2006-09-15 21:45:44 · answer #5 · answered by Shofix 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe not better, but certainly different.
Running a nation requires the tough decisions. Women's makeup hasn't come that far yet.
P.S. Queens are often women.
2006-09-15 23:54:01 · answer #6 · answered by Yellowstonedogs 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
(Conspicuously) I believe they are already in charge, and getting the Man's advice.
Women tend to be more Emotional Creatures, more Hormonal, I would not want my country ran by someone who is having a really bad PMS, Bi-Polar kind of day.
2006-09-15 23:47:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it would be better. I think it would be more fair.. but the truth is I don't think that we(women) should be in total control of everything you know, just keep a balance you know. Because men are good at some things and women are good at others.. So balance is the key.
2006-09-15 21:43:48 · answer #8 · answered by Purrk3y 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think the world would be a better place cos women dont usually start wars or fight.
2006-09-15 21:33:35 · answer #9 · answered by frankmilano610 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No! At least it wouldn't be if women like me were in charge.
2006-09-15 21:39:57 · answer #10 · answered by Kandi 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Fewer acts of aggresion, but more scheming and passive aggression.
2006-09-15 22:40:59 · answer #11 · answered by Rod 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋