I totally agree. Women aren't any better than men, and that viewpoint is so freakin' limiting. I am not always in touch with nature, or the rhythms of life, and I often just want to smack people, maternal instinct be d@mned. If women were in charge, there would still be war and strife. We're _human_.
2007-05-25 17:08:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by random6x7 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
It may actually be even worse. The US cant keep our noses out of other countries business now, and guys dont care about others peoples dirty laundry. Can you see the mail room at the White House delivering the Enquirer, Star, Sun and Cosmo daily? When a woman finally gets elected (and it will happen at some point..HILLARY? GOD NO!!!!!!!!) she will try to hard to prove she is worthy of the position. There may not be war but there could very well be some intense negotiations every 4 weeks. Cant do any worse than the Bushwhacker....foll me once and...uhhh....shame on you, foll me twice and .........I wont be fooled again.....
He is like watching a monkey poo fight at the zoo.
Woman may be more fair but they are also very petty.
2007-05-25 16:22:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by allybill2 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
If you think violence and domination have nothing to do with patriarchal definitions of masculinity, you should read "The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, and Anxious Masculinity" by Stephen J. Ducat.
Edit: Oh, btw, I guess some ppl may not understand where I'm going with this. I am not sure if women would engage in less war, because violence and domination are so highly revered in our culture, and women buy into patriarchy just as much as men do. However the *culture* of power and domination did stem from patriarchy. A better question might be "if the world had *always* been run by women (or if the world was completely egalitarian), would there really be less war?"
Edit II: It also depends on the leader's politics: a war-mongering wingnut is a war-mongering wingnut, regardless of gender. A peaceful, open-minded liberal is a peaceful, open-minded liberal regardless of gender.
2007-05-25 16:26:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
No.
Sex has nothing to do with war.
The United States goes to war.
Brittain goes to war.
Ireland does not go to war (only about 10% female politicians in Ireland).
Iceland dosn't even have an army.
There have been states with female leaders which did go to war.
Margeret Tatcher.
Isabella of Spain. (She even instrumented the inquisation)
Hatshepsut.
Sex and war are unrelated.
2007-05-25 16:01:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Nidav llir 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think women actually care about sending men off to die for the rights of women to complain about not having equal rights while being exempt from being sent themselves.
Less war? Not at all, more likely more war on those nations who refuse to allow feminsts to rule like they do in the US.
2007-05-25 16:31:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Phil #3 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Xerxes has Artemesia, his ally during his invasion of Greece who commanded a large number of ships. She recommended caution before Salamis, but she did not recommend peaceful negotiations.
Cleopatra was not particularly pacifist. Neither were Queen Maud, Maria di Medici, Queen Elizabeth I, Golda Mier, or Margaret Thatcher.
But, all of them had to interact with men.
2007-05-25 16:05:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by greydoc6 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
There have been plenty of women leaders in history. From Jeane D'Arc to the mythical Amazons they were bloody and violent just like the men. (I'm not saying women are just as violent as men, I'm saying that women leaders are just as violent as men.)
Besides matriarchy didn't do too good. A lot of the poor countries are matriarchal (whether you like it or not).
2007-05-25 15:55:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by Ωмΐŋǿשּׁ§ 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
Instead of War's we'd have lots more Cat Fights!!!
2007-05-25 15:53:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Scott 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
if we ran the world there would be chairs with 5 legs to entertain us women
2007-05-25 21:02:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
How would women running the world have anything to do with male violence? Women would merely commend male troops to battle.
2007-05-25 17:06:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋