we certainly wouldn't have wars..
2007-03-27 05:07:42 · 17 answers · asked by nola_cajun 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Kristel... Screw the bible
2007-03-27 05:11:52 · update #1
oops.. my bad.. thought she said men were suppose to be the ones in control..
2007-03-27 05:13:01 · update #2
Well, we wouldn't be at war right now, so...amazing!
2007-03-27 05:11:31 · answer #1 · answered by sunshinegirl 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Two words: Margaret and Thatcher
She took the UK to war with Argentina. She ruined the UK's relationship with the European Union by being confrontational.
She managed her cabinet through tyranny.
She was called the Iron Lady!
Now imagine if Condoleza Rice ran the US. She is a pretty tough person who would not shy away from confrontation.
I do not see a more peaceful world run by women. It's a nice thought, because we see women as instinctively more caring, but politicians run the world and their personality has nothing to do with gender. Instead, they are a type of person. A type who is competitive, power hungry, opinionated and dominant. That's what motivates them to become politicians.
It's such a shame. What wpould be nice is if caring, compassionate women ran the world, but they'd get over powered and ousted by these maniacal iron ladies.
Shame, cos the world needs the gentle touch of warm women!
2007-03-27 12:17:27 · answer #2 · answered by dogterhoo 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sure we would. I think that if there were no men, some women would take the role of men. Also, I am a woman, and I think that there is a time to fight. Not all wars are bad.
2007-03-27 12:10:31 · answer #3 · answered by country_girl 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since we're talking about human genders, expect both to have their shares of strengths and weaknesses. Both can be very capable leaders or tyrants.
On the other hand, each gender has different tendencies based on their nature and training environment. The women are more inclined to administer better than men. They put weight on details and work better under pressure. Men deals more on concepts and gets easily irritated when their egos are challenged. Although women get carried emotionally more than men. Men are more objective than women. Men have their brawn and women their wit.
2007-03-27 12:44:07 · answer #4 · answered by maria f 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We probably wouldn't have wars. We probably wouldn't have anything else either. Overall, in the history of mankind's discoveries, women have contributed virtually nothing.
Inventiveness appears to be a male characteristic.
2007-03-27 12:14:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the world would have turned out pretty much the same.
True, men and women have different thought processes, but I think that power corrupts people, regardless of gender.
2007-03-27 12:54:44 · answer #6 · answered by Melissa E 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The world wouldn't be a living hell as right now and men would be on leashes and trhere nees bowing to us women
2007-03-27 12:14:06 · answer #7 · answered by candy_girl7845 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think there would be a lot more lovemaking, happiness, and appreciation of beauty. Wars, no, we would not have wars. I think we know more about compromise and sacrifice for the greater good. Good question! Thank you! :-)
2007-03-27 12:12:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Plenty of pies and cakes. Men would wear dresses.
2007-03-27 13:26:27 · answer #9 · answered by Nicole 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
actually, according to the bible, we WERE supposed the be the strong and bold and controlling ones...garshh!
2007-03-27 12:11:02 · answer #10 · answered by Jaime 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋