If women were in charge throughout history would there have been less wars or just different ones?

Answer 1

Hello? Wake up, sleepy head . . .
Women HAVE BEEN in charge, thruout history . . .
Who do you think has created, delivered, and raised???
The humans who start, and fight in wars?
Think about - we're due for a change, huh?

Answer 2

Traditionally the peoples of the Iroquois Confederacy were a matriarchial society. Note that doesn't mean men were regarded as inferior, just that gender roles were defined along different lines. Lines of descent and property were passed from mother to daughter. The house was the woman's. The town was run by the women. The fields were run by the women. In short the domestic sphere was theirs. The world outside was the men's. In short I think the Iroquois were the best example of anyone where women got to running the show, and they were some of the fiercest warriors North America has ever known. They were the power broker of the old NE and they stayed that way for a long time. In the seventeenth century they essentially wiped out the Huron and almost did the same to New France. In the eighteenth they played incredibly important roles in the Seven Years War and Revolution, as well as keeping the American armies out of Canada in the War of 1812........

and I haven't even brought up Queen Isabella of Spain, Catherine the Great of Russia, of Elizabeth the First of England......

So you ask, would feminine leadership have changed the nature of war? I vote not bloody likely.

Answer 3

I would say, different ones. Women have waged wars when they ruled there is enough historical evidence. But I think that women value life more. They know the "price" of raising a child, the labor and effort and joy in seein a child grow up into a man or a woman. Therefore I believe that women would wages wars but different ones. Maybe even less wars. I do not believe women differ from men that much. Its the testosterone that drives men into fights, wars and other challanges, women have very little testosterone I think this is one of the main differences that also might explain the Happy-go lucky attitude towards wars that men have and women do not.

Answer 4

Women started the French revolution. Considering the emotions rather than logic is dominant in the female mind, it might have been more. But truthfully, if women had been in charge throughout history, we would still be in the stone age so it wouldn't matter.

Answer 5

Just as many, but possibly different ones. The notion that women are less violent than men is just a myth.

Answer 6

lots of persons do not imagine so, yet extra wars were fought for land and organic resources than something else. lengthy before regular faith got here about mankind change into scuffling with to proceed to exist. As for those wars fought because of religion - looks to me there'll consistently be human beings disagreeing with one yet another. Makes me ask your self why such a range of of do not have self belief something like the AntiChrist received't ensue. i imagine something like that can make perfect experience.

Answer 7

women have always been in-charge

its like

i am the boss of the house, and i have my wifes permisssion to say so

also

there is a woman behind all great men
and more than one woman behind all those who were not so great

Answer 8

yes i do i thing women make a better job then what the men do

Answer 9

I think the number would go down but they would last longer and result in more casualties.

When you get them pissed the stay that way.

Answer 10

We should've put women in charge of countries, when you get them mad, they just ignore you for 6 months, they won't bomb and kill you....