If women rule the world, would there be any war?

Answer 1

Hell yeah. just more manipulative and controlling. Esp those like my SIL. The Paxil ain't working

Answer 2

You know I'm all for women lib and think all ladies if they do the job should have the same as a man. I love having my own car but hate changing a flat tire not that I can't do it. But as far as the world being ruled by a women and going to war-- If one of my kids got sick I wouldn't have time to go to war. So I guess Hilary -I'm not ready for a women ruler .

Answer 3

When Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of England, the first thing she did after the Falkland Islands were attacked was to respond with maximum agression.
Women tend to harbour negative emotions more vehemently than men, and as Shakespeare said 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'. They can be more aggressive than men, and I see no reason to believe that putting women in power would be the end of all wars. They would simply be started for different reasons.

Answer 4

Yes. Rulers such as Queen Elizabeth the 1st ordered and waged war on other countries. I think overall it would be less, but you must remeber, I think most people, male or female who want power are the type who will do it at any cost and are people willing to wage war, it just so happens that more of those people are men.

Answer 5

'As a general rule, I would say no. The golden mythology tells us there was once a peaceful, golden era. It was during ancient Pagan times, when Goddess was alive and well in the hearts of all. Women were in leadership positions, but ruling did not occur. Life occured in cooperative style relationships.
When men took over, they created competition, violence and war! '

Thanks that is the best laugh I had all day. Key word: Myth, not FACT. Show one shred of factual evidence please.

Of course there would still be war.

Answer 6

Probably. I hear lots of people say that if women ruled the world that there wouldn't be any war, but they underestimate just how bloodthirsty and revengeful many women are. Not much less bloodthirsty and revengeful than men, really. They'd just rather not actually fight in any wars.

Answer 7

Female rulers have caused wars about as often as male rulers have. Queen Victoria. Catherine, Empress of Russia. Margaret Thatcher.

Give a woman a gun, and it's probably at least as likely to be misused, as it would be if it had been given to a man.

Hey, Mardy, Queen Victoria fought the Russians, too. Why do you think Florence Nightingale was necessary?

Answer 8

Probably. There have been women heads of countries before and those countries didn't avoid war because their leader was female. There might be less of it though, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be other issues.

Answer 9

Yes, but for different reasons. Women will go to war to prevent genocide, to free enslaved women and children, to protect human rights. We will not go to war for oil or territory or pissing rights over a people. The wars would be the same but with women, the ends will justify the means.

Answer 10

nicely, think of roughly it...........i don't have my info on the instant, yet while elizabeth governed england, how many invasions and wars existed in the process her era as queen. in case you get the different info straght, make an estimate to perhaps a 10 fold and you'd be able to easily arrive to the respond.

Answer 11

The womyn rulers who were cited as warmongers were all puppets for patriarchy. I think if society were to evolve into something fairer--matriarchy--that violence and war would not be much of a problem. This is because a woman in a powerful position who does not allow herself to be influenced by men would be more compromising, cooperative, and less likely to resort to violence in the event of a conflict. I'm all for Hillary in '08. She's got my vote. One female president sets the stage for the next, and a weakening of patriarchy hopefully.