2006-10-16 12:25:02 · 27 answers · asked by Why_so_serious? 5 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Hello friend!
When I used to be a substitute teacher, I would watch how the boys and girls would act differently at school and what I found was amazing and humorous to me.
Boys would knock each other down, wrestle, call each other names and walk away the best of friends five minutes later.
Girls on the other hand, would take what ever offense was thrown at them and put it in a pot to stew for the rest of the school year and maybe into the next, AND they would get all of their friends to stew along with them.
Men might make wars that seem long, but if a girls made the war......they would last a LONG time.
But I do believe that behind a good man is a good woman.
Woman were created from mans rib not skull. She belongs at his side, not at the head.
2006-10-18 21:01:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Hmmmm.... I don't think that is true. I work with women, and have for many years. Women can be really sneaky (passive aggressive). There is a lot of tension and stress in those offices because women don't just come out and say what they think and want. They hold grudges forever.
I'd say war would be fought much differently, if women ran the world completely. A lot more sneaky stuff, like poisonous gases, etc. No all out warfare, but death, just the same.
One last point.... who says women DON'T run the world?
Behind every good man there is a strong woman.
And behind every evil man, there is a sneaky woman.
Just my opinion.
I♥♫→mia☼☺†
2006-10-16 12:34:22 · answer #2 · answered by mia2kl2002 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
No.
I am a woman and if you made me mad on the wrong day I would nuke you. Women are emotional and they fight alot more than men.
I personally think that if women ran the world there would be no end to war because women don't duke it out and let it go. They keep on fighting forever.
2006-10-20 16:25:50 · answer #3 · answered by AlwaysRight 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well the human race although is now modern and has got high tech b.s. and ur equal rights etc... ( this is all totally fine and personally i agree with most of it) however Our race is still the same inside as we were in the past when we showed these things and were allowed to, but we stilll feel the exact same way and we still prejudice and discriminate,which is just human condition. So although laws and stuff have happened for equal oppotunitites, not many people feel or believe in them, unless they are the victims.
2016-03-28 12:15:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I think because of the different types of people (ethnic and ideology) that war would be relavent even if women were in charge. If people have opposing goals, and the sides can't get what they want through peaceful means there is going to be war.
2006-10-18 19:03:53 · answer #5 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. It's a nice thought, but even if women were in charge, there is too much diversity in the world to ever have world peace. There will always be wars no matter who is at the helm.
2006-10-16 14:46:39 · answer #6 · answered by Curious George 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Let's see...Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria both started empires by the sword and the cannon...Mary Queen of Scots definitely fought an ugly civil-type way...Joan of Arc turned the Hundred Years War from a game into an actual war...that Irish queen who attacked the Romans naked on a chariot was definitely not practicing pacifism...various Czarinas and Chinese Empresses did likewise....
2006-10-17 04:34:59 · answer #7 · answered by The Armchair Explorer 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If Women ran the world, there would be war once a month.
2006-10-16 12:33:22 · answer #8 · answered by seanski_2110 2 · 8⤊ 1⤋
Well I think it is important to look at situations where women did in fact hold positions in power. Yaa Asantewaa of the Asante Kingdom of Ghana is a classic historical example of a female leader who reaffirmed loyalty to the Golden Stool, the symbol of the Asante nationhood. In the face of despair, when all the male leaders had given up, she restored hope, and marshalled the Asantes to fight the British to preserve the Golden Stool, the sovereignty of the Asantes. Her leadership was critical, she restored and rekindled their determination to assert and fight for their independence against all odds. Democracy that is gender blind and lopsided is no democracy.
2006-10-17 18:28:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The question appears to suggest that merely because the President is not a woman, women don't have an input.
What about Mrs. Bush, what about Mrs. Clinton, ...then there is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice...she is a woman...and should be partly to blame for the middle east affairs...
2006-10-16 16:17:33 · answer #10 · answered by Caesar J. B. Squitti 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋