Let’s face it guys, women are by and large less power/religion fixated than men.
They have a higher regard for the sanctity of human life than we do, after all they brought us into the world so why would they want to get rid of us.
Differences between countries could be ironed out around a table over scones and cream with strawberry jam and cups of tea from fine china cups instead of sabre rattling and mindless threats.
After the meeting was over and having sorted it all out they then could compare the latest tupperware containers and browse through Vogue magazine or some other literary gem.
After all this it’s back to the office, shoes off slippers on and a night watching TV.
Nice, erroneous broad-brushing there, partner. :rolleyes: Have you ever observed a female feud? Women in conflict are mean, mean in a way that men can rarely be.
If women are viewed as being less … destructive in power, that is in part, because women are rarely in power. Less-powerful groups necessarily operate on a cooperative basis … precisely because they have to cooperate.
No, they just have less interest in being officialy in charge. That’s why so many have been satisfied to get their husbands, sons/whatever into power and get what they want through them. Lacking the male urge to officially be in charge, they do the sensible thing and let someone else to the dirty work and take the blame. ( Note : Not a slam at women; it’s a slam at power hungry women ).
Because we tend to do the dying ? Women developed reverance for life about the same time that long distance artillery and aerial bombing were invented; in other words, when even the winning side in a war took a pounding. Before then, women as a rule loved war. “Come back with your shield or on it.”
Check the tea for poison . . . a favorite weapon of female murderers.
Cerberus I said by and large my friend, not all.
I realise of course that there are indeed some nasty females out there :eek: but in the main it is us males that are the Really nasty buggers.
Der Trihs I don’t really think women have less interest in being officially in charge, I think it’s more the fact that we men have over the years denied them the chance, for example they didn’t have the vote until waaaaaay after we decided to give it to the. FWIW some countries (forget which) still deny this basic right to women.
I think you’re being a tad cynical when you state that women developed reverence for life after the invention of long distance artillery/bombing.
Lysistrata wasn’t all that keen on war y’know
Poison is a favourite of women and men.
So answer my question people, how would it be if women were in charge?
Based on what happened after female sufferage in the US, nothing. They just kept voting for the same idiots the men had been electing. You’d never notice the difference.
Women are less fixated on religion than men? In which universe is that? Go to ANY church or synagogue, from the most liberal to the most conservative, and you’re sure to find a LOT more women than men.
Even in the supposedly “patriarchal” religions, women hold a huge amount of power and influence. I guarantee that if you went to a Hassidic rabbi, a Shiite ayatollah, and an Opus Dei priest, and asked, “Who taught you the fundamentals of your faith, made sure you went to all the services, said all your prayers, and followed all the rules,” all three would have the same answer: “My mother.”
Indeed, if you went to the mother of a Muslim suicide bomber, you’d probably find an immensely proud woman who’d told her son for years what a hero he’d be if he blew himself up, along with a few dozen infidels.
Watch footage of Muslim women dancing and celebrating in the streets after hearing of the 9/11 attacks, and then tell me with a straight face that women are more peace-loving than men.
Lysistrata was a FICTIONAL woman. She reflected the sentiments of a MAN, Aristophanes, who created her. Aristophanes (and, presumably, some other Athenian men) thought the Peloponnesian War was a stupid, unnecessary conflict that was benefitting neither Athens nor Sparta.
astorian Iknow Lysistrata was a fictional character which I why I had a smiley face alongside my comment.
I guess when I said that women are less fixated on religion than men I meant women of all religious pursuasion not just Muslim. Whilst I agree that you will maybe find more women in church than men my theory on this is that these women have not yet realised that religion is a whole bunch of hogwash.
Incidentally there is also footage of children dancing in the streets following the events of 9/11, I suspect very strongly that these women are total loonies and that the children are merely copying the inane antics of their elders.
While, as a woman, I appreciate the glowing description of my gender in the OP, I have to say I think it’s horseshit.
I, as many of you know, am a neopagan hippie chick. We spend a lot of time extolling the virtues of a utopian matriarchy that probably never existed. I’ve been an intimate member to three different communities which were run by women, comprised of men, women and children. All three blew up in a storm of politics, infighting and general catty bitchiness. I have no doubt that a matriarchy on a large scale would simply ruin more lives on a large scale. Perhaps not more lives than a patriarchy, but not less either.
Women have every single fault men do. We also (as a group) have every single strength. We can even, thanks to modern technology, write our name in the snow when we pee. While I do believe that one can make some broad brush statements about the genders as a statistical whole (I don’t thing we’re “all the same”), individuals will blow the bell curve right away.
ANY government which excludes a large constituency from positions of power is doomed to fail eventually. Men will not sit idly by scratching their balls and watching football while we run the world, any more than we were ultimately content to sew the clothing and raise the children alone. People want a say in their own rule - it seems to be a human constant.
And to anyone who thinks women are made of sugar…remember we’re also made of spice.
A complete matriarchy would be just as bad as a complete patriarchy, though possibly in somewhat different ways. Sharing power and cooperating (that is, equality) seems to me to be the only way to get some semblance of a decent civilization. Being human, we will never achieve a perfect or peaceful society, but equality of the sexes will get us further than either matriarchy or patriarchy will.
The OP must be very young to be from England and not remember the Thatcher years. Now I like Maggie, but she could be a real hard-ass. Any politician, male or female, who tried the genteel tea-sipping group-hug approach wouldn’t last a second in office after a real crisis.
I recall reading how during the Cival War, it was legally allowed for men to buy their way out of military service, but almost none did, even the rich. Why ? Because no woman would have anything to do with them; even street prostitutes would spit on them. I recall reading about an Afghan tribe that has a traditional mother’s speech to her son that goes something like this : “Go forth my son and kill men and rape their wives; if your sisters are likewise despoiled, cut their throats.” Of course, there’s “Come back with your shield or on it”; from Spartan mothers.
For that matter, I recall a Chinese Empress who thought it was fun to have her political enemies hands and feet cut off and have them thrown into a pigpen.
It’s a favorite of women, and men who are well educated or highly intelligent; most male murderers don’t use poison.
My personal feeling is that a mixed gender government is superior; for that matter, I feel the same about most organizations. As a group, each gender has different flaws; in a single gender organization or subculture those flaws tend to feed on each other. In mixed groups those flaws tend to cancel themselves out more IMHO.
