From what I've seen of girl - girl/woman - woman confrontations, they smile through their teeth at each other, and then stab each other in the back at the first opportunity. Would make for a rather boring war, no? Everyone just talking, than sinking the enemies shipment of scented soaps in the middle of the atlantic?
2007-02-22 19:14:31 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
I've often pondered the answer to this question, and once postulated that all wars would end if women were put in charge.
My partner countered that the only reason women don't start wars is because they're not in a position to, and whilst peace might last for a while, once women were in charge the wars would soon start again, albeit for slightly different reasons!
Her reasoning goes that women b*tch at the moment because they are kept in line by men, and can't really do much else - but once the women are in charge and able to exercise their full power, there's no way they won't want to get back at the men who made their lives a misery. So the first war initiated by women will be one to wipe out all the useless men. Then when there's not enough men left, the second war will be fought over the good men...
Female insight or wind the man up talk? You figure!
2007-02-22 19:34:37 · answer #1 · answered by Dogstarrr 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Who says women don't start wars? Check the history books around the time of "Bloody Mary" Queen of the Scots and various English Queens for openers. If past history does not satisfy you, wait until Hillary Clinton becomes President. Our enemys will see a woman President as a chance to take advantage of us. Hillary will then go from peace loving to " bombs away".
2007-02-22 19:39:24 · answer #2 · answered by Kenneth L 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
some thing is conceivable, yet fantastically unlikely. The syrians and Saddam did not get alongside both, Saddam's regime did not get alongside with each person. the country became below virtually consistent monitoring yet guns businesses for over a decade. The regime became no longer able after the first gulf warfare to implement any type of lengthy time period massive guns initiatives. no longer going.
2016-12-04 20:11:28 · answer #3 · answered by laranjeira 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Women who go to conventional combat wars and follow the pattern that men created in fighting the war, usually kill more out of fear than the deep need men have to utterly conquer. When women fight one on one, it's more for a social status thing than complete conquering the way men do. If women were the main warriors on the planet, men would become obsolete except for the breeding stock the women would need for future Amazons. So, keep the men off to war and let the women just hiss at each other in the offices, laundry mats, and such.
2007-02-22 19:27:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
You may have hit on it. Women are more caniving and tend to find a less incriminating way to settle their disputes. They do it behind closed doors and manipulate the situation for their maximum gain but with minimum incrimination to them.
Hell hath no fury then a woman scorned as you all know.
Evidence of women's ability to 'hide' behind a veil of secrecy is the statistic that more women are unfaithful in relationships then men. BUT who would believe it?
2007-02-22 22:49:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Possible reason why women don't start wars? THEY DO, trust me they do,perhaps not on an international level but god man a woman can create war at the flutter of their eyelids.just sit back in a big night club and observe.
2007-02-22 19:27:15 · answer #6 · answered by the gaffer 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋
And that's supposed to be an insult, or something? Is that worse than killing people? I'll take a little "cattiness" over genocide any day.
However, history shows that women can, and do, start wars.
2007-02-23 02:32:01 · answer #7 · answered by wendy g 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the bell curve of life has at any given moment all of us fighting with our own spouses and they when at home and don't have to play like the guys do when they get whipped at home then they go out and get pissed at some poor jerk and start a war over what should have never left the house in the first place should have had social laws that were not crushed under the weight of blindness of the moment~and don't try to repeat the argument cause it will only fuel the fanning fires of misunderstanding that are aimed for the acute angle of the behavioral sciences for an equation in stressful behavior and dies and agonizing death of living with other people who want what they don't know, the woman take you down to their level and beat the hell out of u and then the guy goes off to the office and goes off half ****** till it has a dumping grounds.. this goes either way guys & girls are in a u know what u know situation for the given situation of the moments behavior
2007-02-22 19:29:10 · answer #8 · answered by bev 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Check out the history of Catherine the Great of Russia. Women are quite capable of behaving EXACTLY like their male counterparts,
2007-02-22 19:57:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
or... because not many nations have ever elected a women to lead the nation..
but.. women are more i think the term is "catie" than men..
if you put 10 women in a room.. they will single out the weaker one and they will destroy her... what she is wearing.. her hair. chest.. etc..
it isnt that women are nicer... that are not.. they are meaner.. they just have never had power...
10 men in a room they will talk sports and drink beer.. thats about the size of it
2007-02-23 04:19:13 · answer #10 · answered by Larry M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋