Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this RE war?

28 replies

Candleyankee · 21/10/2023 18:03

Friends and I were having drinks last night, ended up talking at one point about current events. At one point I said I truly believe that if all the world leaders were women, we would not resort to war and violent conflicts in the same way the world does now.

A friend said that was ridiculous and while I admit that international politics is extremely more complicated than I have the knowledge to understand, I really don’t believe that as women we would ever resort to bombing countries, killing other people’s innocent children, drafting people’s sons to fight wars they have no say in just because another leader told us we couldn’t have their land/oil/etc.

and yes, I know we have had women in history who have resorted to violence for example Margaret Thatcher deploying troops to the Faulklands but they were women playing a game in which most of the players were men.

AIBU to think that if ALL world leaders were women, there would be significantly less violent conflicts between countries?

OP posts:
AllProperTeaIsTheft · 21/10/2023 18:10

I think it's tempting to think this, but probably YABU and over-simplifying. The reasons for going to war are complex, and it would be naïve to think that women could just resolve them by nice negotiation but men couldn't. There are just as many reasons why sane male leaders would not want to go to war if they could avoid it as there are reasons why most sane female leaders wouldn't want to go to war if they could avoid it.

MatthewsMumFromTikTok · 21/10/2023 18:13

I also think YABU

Women can be utter bitches

Spendonsend · 21/10/2023 18:22

I genuinely dont know. Maybe they woukd war over different things. Or come up with different methods of controlling populations that were also horrible.
It would be nice to think there would be more negotiating and compromise. But if respurces are scarce, i think most women would find ways to make sure their loved ones got those resources.

Justcallmebebes · 21/10/2023 18:24

Golda Meir?

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 21/10/2023 18:25

I don’t think women would engage in mass random slaughter like Hamas.

SilverGlitterBaubles · 21/10/2023 18:25

I'd like to think that would be the case OP, but then I think of Liz Truss and Suella Braverman who are both incompetent, over promoted and driven by ideologies and I'm not so sure.

Lurkingandlearning · 21/10/2023 18:26

I think a lot of the women who’ve been in the position to go to war have done so

cansu · 21/10/2023 18:28

I think this is sadly untrue. Politics is about power. Many female politicians are just as concerned with power than others. Those that rise to the top in a male dominated world tend to have many of the features of their male counterparts.

OneTC · 21/10/2023 18:28

Women mostly just lack the opportunity to show us what arseholes they could be imo

SammyScrounge · 21/10/2023 18:30

No. When you become leader of a country one of your responsibilties is to ensure the safety of your country and your citizens. If someone lobs 4,000 missiles at your country,
invades, and.carries out an atrocious act of terror on your citizens, then it would be your duty to strike back. As the Israelis have done and will continue to do until they have destroyed those tunnels under Gaza and the weapons and terrorists hidden there.

The SAS used to say when engaging with terrorists 'shoot the women first' because they were more fanatic. On the other hand, a famous feminist (forgotten her name)said if women ruled the world, nothing would ever get done due to endless trivial arguments

unbelieveable22 · 21/10/2023 18:39

The behaviour of Ursula Von see Leyen dispels any notion of that. Her lack of empathy towards the population of Gaza, who were deprived of basic human rights such as water, electricity and food was shameful.

therealcookiemonster · 21/10/2023 18:52

have you not watched mean girls?

roibustea · 21/10/2023 19:03

maybe read some history... starting with queen victoria and moving on to elizabeth i (with a quick pitstop at bloody mary). i always find it odd when people blame imperialism and colonialism on men! though it sounds like you think the poor silly-headed females were just coerced into it by the patriarchy - if only women like thatcher were a bit stronger-willed and less easily manipulated...

Galatine · 21/10/2023 19:10

Many years ago at university I took part in a political simulation exercise. Many participants advocated and worked for a peaceful compromise. (I stress again that this was just an exercise). A notable exception to this consensus was a Nun who felt that the only solution was military force.
It’s tempting to think that women are less aggressive, but in international diplomacy politics tends to rule.

Justcallmebebes · 21/10/2023 19:14

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 21/10/2023 18:25

I don’t think women would engage in mass random slaughter like Hamas.

They're are female active members of Hamas as well as Hezbollah and many ISIS female fighters

Josole1 · 07/02/2024 14:28

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

99victoria · 07/02/2024 14:42

I think women are naturally more co-operative so I do think if all world leaders were female they wouldn't be so quick to go to war - they would probably seek negotiation and compromise more tenaciously. That's not to say women leaders wouldn't go to war but I think it would be more of a last resort

araiwa · 07/02/2024 14:55

Based on mn, tomorrow would be the start of ww17

Blueeyedmale · 07/02/2024 14:57

Kim Jong un sister will be absolutely ruthless if anything were to happen to him.

TheScenicWay · 07/02/2024 15:06

The world seems to be run by narcissists by psychopaths.
I can't imagine any actual mature adults would be ok with mass slaughter.
They would sit down, negotiate and talk things through. If things didn't work out, maybe some sanctions of renegotiation of deals. But a killing spree? I don't understand how it's ever acceptable.

countrygirl99 · 07/02/2024 15:10

Look at yhd history between India and Pakistan while Indira Gandhi was president of India.

Ponderingwindow · 07/02/2024 15:23

What are the big reasons war happen?

religion: I think this would not be as much of an issue with women leaders. A large part of how religion starts wars is the misogyny of religion. A world with female leaders would also have to have more egalitarian or gynocentric religions.

scarcity of resources/economics: this is still an issue. I do think women are more likely to negotiate. Trade and transfer of goods is ultimately more profitable than war.

a power that has been in charge losing power and grasping at straws: this is the kindling for many wars. People see their way of life threatened and radicalize. I’d like to think women won’t fall for this, but we can see it playing out in the U.S. right now with women joining the MAGA movement. This is the most insidious problem. I think with female leaders, the trend could be counteracted with strong messaging and education. Part of the problem right now is that people don’t listen to those who feel disenfranchised. They are immediately castigated which just exacerbates the problem.

saoirse31 · 07/02/2024 15:27

Your friend is completely right.

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 07/02/2024 15:54

Ponderingwindow · 07/02/2024 15:23

What are the big reasons war happen?

religion: I think this would not be as much of an issue with women leaders. A large part of how religion starts wars is the misogyny of religion. A world with female leaders would also have to have more egalitarian or gynocentric religions.

scarcity of resources/economics: this is still an issue. I do think women are more likely to negotiate. Trade and transfer of goods is ultimately more profitable than war.

a power that has been in charge losing power and grasping at straws: this is the kindling for many wars. People see their way of life threatened and radicalize. I’d like to think women won’t fall for this, but we can see it playing out in the U.S. right now with women joining the MAGA movement. This is the most insidious problem. I think with female leaders, the trend could be counteracted with strong messaging and education. Part of the problem right now is that people don’t listen to those who feel disenfranchised. They are immediately castigated which just exacerbates the problem.

The main reasons war happens is because of middle aged/older men deciding to do it.

CuttingMeOpenthenHealingMeFine · 07/02/2024 16:04

It’s really not that simple and I just don’t buy into the whole ‘there would never be any problems in the world if women were in charge’ crap because all you need to do is be around groups of young girls, teenage girls or even groups of grown women to know how petty and horrible they can be.

The issues going on in the world right now are based on long standing and complex problems and nothing to do with women vs men.