Advanced search

If the world was predominantly run by women, would there be less wars and conflict?

(121 Posts)
kim147 Fri 01-Nov-13 21:52:56

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

msrisotto Fri 01-Nov-13 22:31:18

I was having this conversation in the pub yesterday too grin. I dont think it would be any different. For the world to be dominated by women, then we wouldn't have been forced into the nurturer, non violent stereotype that we are in the first place. Power corrupts so we would probably have become drunk with power, like the men did, and go on murderous rampages. Like the men.

wheretoyougonow Fri 01-Nov-13 22:35:41

Cough cough anyone remember Thatcher? Queen Elizabeth I or Boudicca?

msrisotto Fri 01-Nov-13 22:43:34

Successful women are often noted to be quite masculine in their behaviours, we might say that that is what women have to do to succeed in this society.

WhentheRed Fri 01-Nov-13 22:43:41

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EugenesAxe Fri 01-Nov-13 22:48:40

Looking at AIBU you'd be tempted to say no, probably there wouldn't be fewer wars.

Maybe Justine and co. could have a go at the world map - every now and then you'd see a grey area with the words 'Country deleted for breaking our International Diplomacy Guidelines. Dependencies may also be deleted.'

Miopiccolotopolino Fri 01-Nov-13 22:55:47

Nope, I don't think the world would be more peaceful if women were 'in power', no flipping way.

I have met a few power hungry females over the years some of whom are both openly aggressive and intimidating as well as scheming and undermining.

People who act primarily in their own interest and have a strong need to be in the centre of attention or to be top dog can be either male or female.

YouMakeMeWannaLaLa Fri 01-Nov-13 23:14:03

Impossible to know now. In recorded history almost every culture has been patriarchal, even with female leaders (hence women in power being 'masculine').

Personally, I would love us to have a go and find out!

scallopsrmissingAnyFucker Fri 01-Nov-13 23:28:34

There is no evidence to suggest that it wouldn't be more peaceful. There is evidence to suggest that it would be more peaceful. Women are less violent for a start. That goes a long way!

paperlantern Fri 01-Nov-13 23:31:16

NOt a chance. wars historically have bee fought for all sorts of reasons, there is no reason to suggest that had the women been in charge they would have thought any different.

Take for example the crusades. They may have bee fought by men but they were actively supported by woman (eg the then queen of france attended the crusades.

During the Wars of the roses you have women heading up armies to support their child's/ husband's claim to the throne. If women were in charge I have no doubt they would be supporting there own.

WWII I would have been in there like a shot. Although maybe that's a bad example as you then have to question whether if hitler was a woman the war would have happened. I think yes because there were a lot of women who supported Hitler and his views

paperlantern Fri 01-Nov-13 23:38:50

"war and conflict seems to be male led"

This is a bit of a sweeping statement. Most of the wars I know about have been fought over land, religion, resources, power or a combination of all four. Yes maybe because there is a patriarchy they have been led by men, however for a matriarchy to be more powerful we have to be conclude that woman are uninfluenced by these things. hmm

scallopsrmissingAnyFucker Fri 01-Nov-13 23:46:33

Well they probably wouldn't think any differently in the framework of a patriarchy, no. Because a patriarchy encourages violence.

But we aren't talking about that.

BasilBabyEater Fri 01-Nov-13 23:47:06

Of course there would have been fewer wars and would in future be fewer wars, if women had had their rightful place in society.

Men are more violent than women.

Where women gather together, there is very little need for police (except to keep men who might attack away).

Where men do, the policing has to be stepped up, because they haven't got the female presence which reduces violence. That's one of the reasons the FA went on a charm offensive to get women and children into football grounds - because their presence reduces violence. It's one of the reasons male prisons are so violent and women are safer from rape in a female prison, than in normal life.

All the women in the past who have been warlike, have operated in patriarchal society so in order to be successful they have had to adopt and internalise masculinist values.

In a society that didn't see male lives and interests as more valuable and important than female ones, women would not need to adopt those values to function and actually, neither would men.

The idea that the level of violence would be the same if women had true equality with men, is desperate denial IMO.

SabrinaMulFUCKERJjones Fri 01-Nov-13 23:47:17

Er, Elizabeth I quoted as saying 'I don't like wars' - the armada was an invasion against her which was thwarted by some very lucky weather conditions?

Boudicca - was defensive not attacking. She was whipped and her daughters raped by the aggressors.

Thatcher - well I'm no fan of hers - but arguably also defensive.

I don't see women leaders like Aung San Suu Kyi being overly aggressive, do you?

Mintyy Fri 01-Nov-13 23:49:17

Yes, far less violence and bloodshed in the world if it was predominantly run by women. Probably the same amount of disagreement, though.

BasilBabyEater Fri 01-Nov-13 23:49:19

Angela Merkel hasn't invaded any neigbouring countries as yet. hmm

ArmyOfPenguins Sat 02-Nov-13 11:55:37


DixonBainbridge Sat 02-Nov-13 16:42:45

Angela Merkel hasn't invaded any neigbouring countries as yet.

Neither has David Cameron, your point was?? confused

Having seen some of the evil office politics & campaigns against people that just "aren't liked" I don't things would be less violent if women ruled. Maybe less &overt violence, but it'd still be there....

SabrinaMulFUCKERJjones Sat 02-Nov-13 17:05:48

David Cameron voted to send troops over to Libya - Angela Merkel abstained.

DixonBainbridge Sat 02-Nov-13 17:15:14

Libya was a UN sanctioned effort, not an "Invasion" - especially as no troops set foot on Libyan soil...

With regards to Merkel - as part of her 2005 election campaign she lambasted then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder for damaging the transatlantic alliance by opting out of Washington’s plan to topple Saddam Hussein. So she does have the capacity for violence....

StarlightMcKenzie Sat 02-Nov-13 17:16:50

Only if it were run by breastfeeding women!

SabrinaMulFUCKERJjones Sat 02-Nov-13 17:43:09

Still, Dixon - Cameron 'for' sending troops, Merkel 'abstained.' The Iraq war was not orchestrated by women in power.

I like the idea of the world run by breastfeeding women.

Or Bonobos.

DixonBainbridge Sat 02-Nov-13 18:01:14

I think that when women are no longer oppressed and restricted they'll be just as nasty and violent as men are now.

You'd still have the drivers for war - Religion, Resources, Power etc. as mentioned above - that won't go away. Now whether that would be an actual physical war or a war of sanctions as a result of failed negotiation, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the people dying...

BasilBabyEater Sat 02-Nov-13 18:41:38

Why don't we test it eh Dixon?

larrygrylls Sat 02-Nov-13 18:59:18

You either accept that men are more competitive for better or for worse, or you don't. The idea that men are more violent but that does not stem from more competitive instinct, which in turn stems from testosterone, sounds highly dubious. If you do accept that males are more competitive, then this is an advantage in certain areas and a disadvantage in others. If you think men and women are broadly equal competitively, then the idea that women would not end up being aggressive in a matriarchy again seems dubious, as the violence is the endpoint of the competitive instinct.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now