That is nonsense. There are plenty of women who are cruel and evil-like Ilse Koch, the Bitch of Buchenwald or that Hungarian noblewoman who enjoyed bathing in blood of peasent girls (Bathroy I believe her name was). Not to mention that a large number of soldiers today are women and in the Middle East there have been women suicide bombers for example.
okay, so you’re equating women with administrative power (that is, “women” as you have chosen to generalize them) with a war fought by women soldiers, and from that already faulty logic extrapolating the idea that if women were in power there would be no more war? where do i even begin with this?
nevermind the fact that these ideas are rooted in a western male/female dichotomy that defines acts of violence and aggression differently when perpetrated by men and women. think of how differently the average person reacts when hearing about a man hitting a woman than a woman hitting a man - it’s a double standard. does anyone remember that chain e-mail that was going around some years ago, ‘26 things the perfect guy would do’? i believe one of them was ‘react cutely when you hit him and it actually hurts.’ if you think about it, that’s basically a woman asking for a license for domestic abuse; if the gender roles were reversed, no way anyone would react to that in the desired way. i don’t think women are any less aggressive, assertive, or that men are less capable of being compassionate or caring - the society we’ve grown up in has fabricated a set of standards that leads to identical actions being judged differently depending on the gender of the agent. fix that, and there’d be no reason to even have this debate
Elizabeth Bathory IIRC
No, because on average it’s measurably true. Unlike the idea that women (or men for that matter) are better at leadership. Or perhaps “less bad” would be a better way to put it; humans generally make terrible leaders.
I disagree with the first two, and women are only “less violent” when it benefits them to be so. Which doesn’t apply if they are the military. Women in power haven’t been nicer or less violent; they’ve been warlike or tyrannical or outright bloodthirsty maniacs, just like men.
I can, easily. We have female soldiers now - do you think they are unwilling to kill people?
Thank you.
The failure of your imagination is not matched by reality.
Now, it is true that testosterone is linked to greater aggression. But that only matters when it comes to some kinds of impulsive aggression, not what we are talking about here. A lack of testosterone might make female soldiers less prone to getting into bar fights, but it won’t keep them from shooting someone when told to do so. It won’t keep some woman in an office somewhere from giving the orders to bomb someone or to shoot dissenters.
And that’s what history shows; women in power have been perfectly willing to engage in conflict, and female soldiers are perfectly willing to kill. Lyudmila Pavlichenko for example was a Soviet sniper with 309 kills to her credit; that’s pretty ferocious if you ask me.
Ok, I get that there are women soldiers and other women as prone to violence as men. However, I think that for every one woman out there with these disfunctionalities, there is going to be a greater number of men with the same problems. History has certainly taught us that.
Also, perhaps to bring other societies in the past that were matriarchal and still violent into perspective. How many of them had to be that way because opposing countries were patriarchal?
Now, admittedly I do not know much about history. But one thing that’s been true, is that society from past to present has been primarily male dominated and we have always fought. Correct me if I’m wrong, but has there ever been a time when this world was female dominated?
No, it hasn’t.
I think it has. How many more men are there in the military than women? Across the world as well. I’m gonna bet it’s going to be pretty lopsided.
i would say that history has taught us the opposite - the examples given by others here seem to demonstrate that, if given the chance, a female potentate is not likely to behave very differently than a male one would. whether ‘opposing countries were patriarchal’ is probably impossible to determine objectively, and anyway isn’t important. the fact that ‘male-dominated’ societies have always fought doesn’t prove anything, and if you try to broaden the scope to ‘this world’ then you can’t come to any conclusions, since that idea has only existed fairly recently. look at female rulers in history - cleopatra, thatcher, hatshepsut, wu zetian - and the idea that females in power would end war is soundly disproven
First, demonstrate that there have ever been matriarchal societies. And second, demonstrate that patriarchal societies are not also forced into being violent regardless of their desires.
No.
Men are bigger, stronger, and have a far longer military tradition. Naturally more military people are male.
But that’s besides the point, outside of military dictatorships and failed states soldiers aren’t the ones deciding if there will be fighting or not.
Meh…when it comes to running a country gender matters little. Women have been just as tyrannical as men in this regard. There is nothing special about being a woman that will make them “nice” when in a place of power. The power trumps all.
Look at Golda Meir. Personally I think she was an amazing leader and the sort Israel needed in its early days. This was not a person you pushed around because she was a nice woman. This was a woman who would have you hunted down if you pissed her off (as she did with the Olympic terrorists).
In short, women are quite capable of ruthlessness and I suspect any woman who gets in a major position of power has a ruthless streak in her.
I see . . .
A sexist statement is inherently negative. Even if positive to one sex, it will be negative to the other.
Something you’re all forgetting: women effectively do rule the world. Most of our democratic societies have a majority of female voters, have organised feminist movement lobbying in the putative interests of women, and so on. If armies are mostly men, that’s because women might support fighting but don’t want to do it themselves. Warrior leaders attract female voters.
In men at least, low levels of testosterone and high levels of oestrogen have also been linked to aggression. More of an “abnormal hormone levels” thing than a testosterone thing.
I have the feeling that we evolved that way because we are smaller, and if we don’t stomp ass and kill the enemy male it could go badly for us and our kids. Wound the males and send them away, they heal up and come back to get revenge - kill them, no worries about the possible revenge of the males.
To a degree. However, I think that is as much of a lack of male competitive instincts; instincts that outside of some Neolithic tribe are horribly out of place. Men who engage in aggression have a strong tendency to treat it as if it was a matter of a status display in a tribe. They tend to be concerned (even if only unconsciously) about fair fights, about being seen, about their enemy knowing they’ve been beaten. For example, it’s one reason why male murderers are easier to catch; they are more likely to kill in front of witnesses than a woman (the presence of witnesses actually increases the odds of a man committing murder in the heat of passion), and tend to boast about it later.
Women don’t care about all that. So - barring ones motivated by sadism - women will typically kill as sneakily, efficiently and unfairly as possible. And if it’s a crime, they don’t boast about it afterward. They do it that way because it’s the smart way, and they don’t have instincts trying to make them do it the stupid way.
Enemy male?
Revenge of the males?
But, yes I believe women to be more ruthless, more vindictive, more fickle and less inclined to mercy for their opponent.
Not more violent per se, but I think these qualities would certainly not result in less violence, were they in sole power.
"When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains " - Kipling
I knew someone would call me out on this, but it’s plain to see that the violence caused around the world, and throughout history, was and is perpetrated mostly by men. Maybe it is sexist to think that women would do a better job running things, but does that make it necessarily wrong?
I think we’ve come a long way with the men we have in power, to live the type of lifestyle that most of us enjoy. Kudos to those who have made that possible. However, the biggest thing holding all of us back is the violence we inflict upon each other. Which again is perpetrated by men. If we remove that factor, people have more time and energy to spend on important things.