Men just causing wars

I also wonder if they would be quite so keen if the law were that their own sons and daughters would have to lead the front line ground troops.

The courage to put strangers in harm's way to achieve what YOU want is no courage at all.

"Isolated examples of male leaders doesn't really cut it as proof that men cause wars."

Either both statements are true or neither of them are.

And Greed.

Is that part of the post not more about he fact it was women?

Since when were the Suffragettes "left wing"? Plenty of them were Tories

To paraphrase Alexander Pope, based on some of the posts on this thread. ‘A little knowledge is a dangerous thing…’

First sensible comment on the whole thread.

No it's an accurate assessment of the situation. Don't believe propaganda. Learn the facts.

I see Tommy Robonson’s mob attacking and injuring people. I see nothing from the far left.
How about that policewoman attacked with a sledgehammer?

That was probably because men were trying to take their crown and country from them!

@PinkCatCushion
"It would be so much better if we just put the leaders, who want to go to war, into an arena and they fight each other to death."

It's been done.
Frankie Goes To Hollywood in the video for Two Tribes (my favourite ever track), check it out.
Very funny but in a way, so real with all the posturing. Made at a time when the Cold War was still in real danger of turning "hot".

I remember seeing it at the time (heaven knows where as I am sure it was not suitable for TOTP?) and that image of the dusty arena, the leaders fighting each other, the blood etc stuck with me.
When I rediscovered the video many years later, it was the realisation that I hadn't imagined it after all.

It's obviously a lot more nuanced than that. In today's world, it's rarely -+ if ever - a case of one man just 'deciding' to go to war. Politicians, military, lawyers etc all advise, and a female leader would need to act off that same advice.

Untill society gets to a place where there are just as many women as men in these roles, there's no frame of reference to support the idea that we'd do things any differently.

School gates

Israel just causing wars.

Wars are started by leaders..
Most leaders have been male..
So most wars are started by men..

However, when the discrepancy is accounted for, female leaders are no less like to start wars or engage in them than male leaders.

Why? Patriarchy? Probably more likely that while there are average differences between men and women as a population that probably do mean that women are less aggressive, impulsive, violent etc. only the tiny extreme minority of people have the traits that push them towards and enable them to become powerful leaders. You need an unusual amount of confidence, aggression, ability, self belief, brutal and stubbornness to rise up to the top, and it basically acts like a filtering mechanism. As a result by the time you get to that point, male or female, you are not really representing the average anymore, but are likely part of a very tiny minority that possesses those traits and abilities. Male or female averages and overall differences then makes nodifference, because we are talking about an unrepresentative 0.0001% of men or women that posses the specific and unusual combinations required to obtain power.

It's a bit crass to talk about it, but it's an interesting thought experiment to imagine what the Nazis final death-count would have been if they had been left to run riot for 70'odd years like the Soviet "communists". Then there are the other fascistic governments of the 20th century to take into account. The Japanese weren't exactly benign overlords in China and Korea, then you have the central European nazi puppets happily marching their own populations off to the death camps.

Also worth remembering that 20-25 million or so of the "left" being decried here themselves died putting an end to far-right atrocity, and that's just the Soviets, it doesn't included untold numbers of Chinese who died fighting the Japanese invaders.

You are correct though. Totally different timescales involved, both utterly repugnant in their own ways, so it's a bit bizarre to try and turn it into a "who is worse" Top Trumps because there is nothing to suggest that if the other "side" had prevailed fewer people would have ultimately died. IMO the reality would have been an order of magnitude worse, because as much as the Soviets mistreated the various peoples they incorporated, they never had designs on total global domination and subjugation in the same way the Fascists did. Not quite so hell-bent on racial purity and ethnic genocide either.

History has proven that the far left are much more dangerous than the far right when given absolute power

I'd say this is highly contentious and debateable, because far-right regimes tend to flame-out far more quickly than the far left on the whole, yet they still put up pretty astonishing death-counts despite being comparatively short-lived.

Jesus wept! The Suffragettes were cross party. They fought for the likes of you to cast your right wing vote.

Animal Farm😁what sort of comparison is that? It’s a work of fiction for fucks sake.

As for more deaths. Communism was much more widespread. So hardly like for like.

Hilarious post. Animal Farm and The Suffragettes😂😂😂😂😂

Well, we had the BLM supporters who were luring out policemen with bogus phone calls and shooting them. Even the suffragettes were trying to set fire to packed theatres/churches and maiming innocent postal workers with their letter bombs. I think at least four people died as a result of their actions.

And of course the pièce de résistance of the far left was communism which is estimated to have killed around 10x more people than the Nazis did.

History has proven that the far left are much more dangerous than the far right when given absolute power. You must've heard of the book Animal Farm surely?

😂😂

I see Tommy Robonson’s mob attacking and injuring people. I see nothing from the far left.

Reform is followed by mainly men. Thats the most extreme party in this country. Britain First and the Raise the Flag dickheads are nearly all men.

Very possibly. It certainly seems that more women subscribe to extreme wokeism/political views. These are the types of things that can lead to extreme solutions being seen as 'justifiable' and purges of 'undesirable' demographics being enacted. Certainly we see a lot more violent protesting from antifa and and the hard left. I wouldn't want these people in power.

Sorry, but no - all wars are about land. Politics and religion and just excuses.

It's not really that simple, is it, if the status quo is oppressive? There are plenty of women in Iran who would wage their own war on the regime there if they possessed the power...

@BlueJuniper94not do much now, women are fully part of the military including commanding positions, my dd has dozens of men under her

I mean the majority of wars have been caused by men.

Some have of course been caused or joined, or partially caused by women.

But then again, those women were working in a patriarchal system and a system that values aggression and confrontation. So probably the thing is to change the way the world works in a much more wholesale way than just swapping male for female leaders.

And of course there are some really good men leaders and some really good women leaders within the current system. We just need a massive overhaul in the way the whole of humanity approaches things to see the people who real do want the best for everyone at the top. People who want to lead in order to benefit their country rather than just to wave their dick (real or metaphorical!) about.

That’s the context.