Please offer your opinion and why you actually believe so. This is usually mentioned in regards to war. There is certainly no historical evidence in the few cases of women rulers to suggest that women are not just as likely to cause wars, if not perhaps worse.
2007-09-24 06:41:16 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
I don't think women would do a better job in charge. I think we need to talk about who is actually qualified to do the job and leave gender colour religion etc. out of the debate. Margaret Thatcher certainly didn't do a very good job and I am not impressed by Hillary Clinton either. I mean- in every occupation-the one who is best qualified should have the job.
2007-09-24 07:18:31 · answer #1 · answered by whatever 2 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Margaret Thatcher started the Falkland Islands War with Argentina--it made her hugely popular. A war over a couple hundred people on some mostly worthless islands. Condoleeza Rice is a dedicated imperialist who has no trouble advocating wars in the Middle East.
So no, unfortunately, I think that the world wouldn't automatically be peaceful if women ran things.
2007-09-24 15:36:02 · answer #2 · answered by Steve-O 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I think the odds of war are the same reguardless of who is in charge... however I think that there is a very strong stigma in this country where people believe that a woman still has no right in office. Frankly, we need a business man/woman... What is between a persons legs does not make them a better or worse leader.
2007-09-24 13:53:56 · answer #3 · answered by shadowsthathunt 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The whole "if women were in charge, there would be no wars" is the most cliche feminist lie out there.
Sally Field's speech at the Emmy's involved that same tired, abhorable, subliminally-misandrist quote. She said it as if it weren't cliche and that it were some kind of newfound epiphany that no one has ever heard before. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImoMGyJjWIk (01:33)
Throughout history, many female leaders have either conducted military action and wars, or supported war/military action.
Hillary Clinton as a Senator voted for an invasion of Iraq, and Condoleeza Rice is also a warmongering supporter of the Iraq war. There are also thousands of coalition soldiers in Iraq that are women, that voluntarily joined with the mindset that they are supporting military action. Both Rice and Hillary Clinton have Iraqi & American blood on their hands.
Ron Paul voted against military action in Iraq. Hillary Clinton voted for military action in Iraq. Who's more warmongering, Clinton or Paul? Ron Paul is an isolationist that believes the U.S. should stay out of foreign affairs and should only use war as a matter of self-defense and as a very last resort. Condoleeza Rice is a proponent of "pre-emptive war", and thinks the US has the right to invade sovereign nations before they attack us. Who's more warmongering, Rice or Paul?
The statement that a matriarchy would be the "end of all wars" is a played-out feminist lie.
2007-09-24 14:29:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 3⤋
Well I guess since we would still all cover in fear of the tigers (no not the tiger tank) earth would be in better shape because we havent invented the diesel engine to pollute it with (and to put it into tanks) and we would be far to busy to survive to wage war against each other and there would be enough for everyone, because we would be only a handfull of humans anyway.
Also there would be nothing that would confuse a woman, like math or achievments that put her in her place, like the Saturn V rocket.
So from a certain angel they do have a point.
2007-09-24 14:18:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
Assuming that wars would be worse if women were in charge is as dumb as assuming that there would be no wars if women were in charge.
Just an FYI.
2007-09-24 13:49:48 · answer #6 · answered by smoofus70 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
It would be interesting to give women the opportunity to screw up the world like men have.
Unfortunately, ultimate power corrupts; women would just make different mistakes.
2007-09-24 23:40:36 · answer #7 · answered by edith clarke 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Women have traditionally conducted the affairs of their households and families as a culture unto itself with greater prosperity and frugality than have males in male - dominated societies conducted their more "worldly" affairs. Women strive to empower their loved ones, to nurture growth and wellness in their families, to help others rise, whereas male paradigms have been based on reducing the power of others in order to accumulate power and rise relatively to others, which entails theft, plunder and destruction. Government in the hands of males has traditionally been a plum of self-serving privilege and position of advantage from which to exploit segments of the public and gather power, not at all about empowering the public. In New Zealand, for example, every top government leadership position is held by women. And, since women have begun to manage the public affairs of their nation, New Zealand's economy has been turned around from the self-serving decay of isolationism that benefited only a small elite group, and their economy is now prospering. Also, because women bring with them thousands of years of experience at managing households to benefit others, there is less plunder and fleecing of public coffers. Transparency International, an organization that rates nations for many factors of success, or failure, recently rated New Zealand's women - led government the least corrupt in the world.
2007-09-24 14:22:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
"Do women actually believe that somehow the world would be better if women were in charge?"
Well they would, wouldn't they!
@Zucchini. You said "Men are undeniably responsible for the vast majority of crime"
How can you say that? Please cite your facts.
2007-09-24 17:14:25 · answer #9 · answered by celtish 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, women don't believe that, they believe that the world will be better if men and women ruled equally.
2007-09-24 15:03:02 · answer #10 · answered by wendy g 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋