Ukraine war: Johnson says if Putin were a woman he would not have invaded

[Discovereads]

Russian President Vladimir Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if he were a woman, Boris Johnson has claimed. The UK prime minister said the "crazy, macho" invasion was a "perfect example of toxic masculinity" and he called for "more women in positions of power". www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61976526

This had me in stitches yesterday. Boris shamelessly lying to try and get women’s votes. It must have escaped his pea brain that the last ruler to invade the Ukraine was Catherine the Great, also Russian, but most definitely a woman. And in comparison, she succeeded where it remains to be seen whether Putin will succeed in annexing the Ukraine or not.

Does BoJo really think we are that stupid?

I think there's a real attempt here at getting women's votes. Two soundbites re Boris's opinions on the T issue. Nadine Dorries taking action on women's sports. Calls for NHS to stop erasing women from language and now this from.Bojo about needing more women in positions of power.

I think we'll see more like this as they continue to court female voters.

@Musomama1

Good. If they keep going, they can have it.

Here's the Queens study - odube.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Queens_Dube_Harish.pdf

Of course the conclusions are very much more nuanced than the simplistic "queens were more aggressive" summary provided.

Thatcher was PM when Argentina invaded

All Thatcher did was protect our territory. Protect the residents of the Falkland Islands

Galtieri might have started the war but it was Thatcher who finished it.

Here is the link
www.nber.org/papers/w23337

Yes women commit less interpersonal violence than men, but that is largely a function of being physically weaker. But when it comes to sending other men (armies/navy/Air Force) to fight, women are just as prone as men to warmongering.

Isn’t that a good thing?

Not a huge fan of Margaret Thatcher, but give her her due, she didn't start the Falklands War.

Perhaps Johnson should step down in favour of a woman, given he's so against toxic masculinity.

Perhaps Johnson should step down in favour of a woman, given he's so against toxic masculinity.

Yes! He should.

Sorry wasn't clear I do think it's a good thing. And want to see what more they can do.

I’ve written to general email - not to Labour MP as pointless - to say good re stating biological differences (back when that came up) but would like to see more in action

Keep the ball rolling

"But when it comes to sending other men (armies/navy/Air Force) to fight, women are just as prone as men to warmongering."

This is not the conclusion of the study into Queens and wars. The conclusion was that unmarried Queens were subject to attack more than Kings or married Queens. Married Queens were more likely to start wars and join wars as an ally, and the reason for this discussed in the research paper was that they were able to use their husbands strategically to put them in positions of power and make more allies. Thus giving them more capacity to attack than unmarried queens and kings (whether married or not).

The authors of the report then go on to specifically point out that this research is about hereditary monarchies that ruled absolutely, in eras when gender roles were very much more fixed than today. And where being able to drop your spouse into a strategic role was possible. So, not sensible to try to use this research to discuss elected leaders in modern democratic states.

You cannot compare Thatcher and the Falklands where Argentina invaded British territory to Putin.

Anyway BJ is right. Women have far more sense 😬

‘So, not sensible to try to use this research to discuss elected leaders in modern democratic states.’

Agree.

Apparently not, we're being loved bombed by an abuser according to OP. It's a shame people have to resort to hyperbole or devaluing the meanings of words.

OP also appears to have overlooked the abusive behaviour of some of our other politicians, namely gaslighting. Telling the electorate that women can have penises despite the evidence of our own eyes is the very definition of gaslighting.

To be fair, Thatcher didn’t invade Argentina so much as the Argentinian military dictatorship invaded the Falkland Islands. The Falklanders considered themselves British.

I don't think female leaders are less likely to go to war. The type of personality/character of people who become leaders tend to be confident, dominant , perhaps even arrogant or egotistical and often power seeking. It's a personality issue, not a sex one. You could say that women are less warlike than men generally, but the women who get to the peak of power tend to show traits that society more often associates with men (Thatcher being one).

But it is daft to put Thatcher in with war mongers. Argentina invaded and took over a territory populated by British people. What was she supposed to do - say pretty please Argentina can you go back to your own country now? Yeah, that would have worked. Like her or loathe her, a Government's responsibility is to defend its people.

I wonder if women in positions of power feel they have to be seen to be tough to ameliorate millennia of women being 'the weaker sex'. I think Priti Patel and perhaps Hilary Clinton are prime examples of this - have to be tougher than the men to prove themselves.

It's a bit of a ridiculous position. Not something that Jacinda Ardern appears bothered by, and Angela Merkel, while holding her own in a male world, didn't seem to over compensate by being gung ho and over the top.

Unconvincing. Wars are not started just because a leader is personally aggressive.

Clinton would probably have invaded or bombed somewhere if she’d been elected.

Blair and Bush were hardly macho types.

This thread is about our PM Boris Johnson. If you want to talk about other nasty politicians go ahead, but don’t accuse me of over-looking them when I’ve started a thread only about the PM.

Putin is a particularly extreme version of war mongering - up there with the worst expansionists

I suppose there are books about his character and what drives it

The queens of the past were probably being counselled and influenced by men.

Not all sexism has negative stereotypes, it often has positive ones too. We’ve all been fed them. Like mums are “naturally” better at child care than men. That women are “naturally” better at communication and have higher emotional IQs

That's just the truth.

Johnson is also very likely right that a woman wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. He's not right about anything else, though.

Oh dear. You really believe having a vagina makes you a better parent, communicator and have a higher emotional IQ? Those are not truths, but sexist stereotypes.

Catherine the Great most certainly was not Russian - he was a German princess and her ethnic origin was very much used against her by her opponents when she ruled by not being 'Russian enough' and 'Prussian'.
Also, Ukraine did not even exist at the time of Catherine the Great. The territory of modern Ukraine was part of Poland at the time (or so called Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth) and was basically divided between Russia, Prussia and Austria (the Habsburg monarchy) as a result of the three patricians of Poland. So it is probably incorrect to call it 'Ukraine invasion'. Before then Poland, Lithuania and Russia had been in constants territorial wars - not uncommon for that period of history

She didn't invade; the Argentinians were the invaders.