And, for what it’s worth, while men are slightly more likely to initiate domestic violence, women are considerably more likely to use weapons.
Scotty, you concede that there will not be less war?
We are now talking about everyday violence?
Could you explain how you see ‘women in power’ as a tool to reduce, bar-fights,
street robbery, hooliganism, terrorism etc…
Added to that, how many men have ever cut off the woman’s genitals for cheating on him?
“A man will cut your arm off and throw it in a river, but he’ll leave you as a human being intact. He won’t fuck with who you are. Women are non-violent but they will shit inside of your heart.”
– Louis C.K.
Who here has forgotten Joan of Arc?
At least with women in charge, you’d be able to tell when the next war is coming, it would be on more of a monthly basis and last about a week or so…Bwahaha 
.
Actually, this wouldn’t work, or at least it wouldn’t in the past. Since men are naturally stronger, we’ve dominated throughout history, for the most part. It’s only been since the feminist movement that females have decided to take some matters into their own hands. What a lot of women forget is that all the feminist campaigning in the world wouldn’t have done a damn thing if at least one man didn’t stand up and agree with it. Men caved into the demands mostly because they wanted their wives back in bed, but also 'cause men aren’t totally incapable of compassion. There was actually a law in the USA that stated a man could beat his wife as long as the stick he used was no bigger than his thumb (before the cock jokes start I’ll just say that yes, they must’ve had small schlongs 
). This was actually a serious problem, though, and a lot of men may not have excersized this right, but the fact that it was acceptable is proof of a larger problem. When women started clamoring for the right to go to work, at first men were very resistant. Males are ready and willing to become the woman’s slave, working in the hot sun and sweating their balls off just to make the girl happy. Why females wanted to do the sweating, I have no idea, but the guy’s just gave in eventually and said: ‘fk it, if she wants to work her a off instead of staying home and relaxing with the children, that’s fine by me!’ I realize the saying goes ‘a woman’s work is never done’, but the same can be said of a man’s, we’re just not snooty enough to make such a statement. I’ve done my fair share of ‘house work’, and especially in this day and age, it’s fUING EASY. I have no clue why such an easy job would be traded for a much harder one. Oh, that’s right, the jobs girl’s take require very little hard work :smack: how could I be so stupid, there’s no heavy lifting, and they spend most of the time talking to their freinds, I can almost hear the chattering now…(no offense to women, just a slightly peeved man talking who’s ready to sacrifice and is pied that females turn their nose up at my offer of servitude).
I thought Snopes and Unca Cecil had exposed that as a myth.
Whew…(wipes brow)…Thanks, DocCathode, I can finally rest easy, this isn’t to say that men didn’t abuse their wives (they do even today and throughout history), but at least we weren’t stupid enough to make it a legal, at least not any time recently. Leave it to good old Cecil to straighten us out.
The myth is that said “law” was the origin of the phrase “rule of thumb”. There have been some common law cases, at least in British law, where women could indeed have been beaten with a thin rod, though Blackstone strongly asserted that this was not the general case in his commentaries.
Great. The other type of sexism.
Worst. Thread. Ever.
Alice Schwarzer, a well-known german feminist who is, in my opinion, wrong in a couple of other topics, once said very nicely, that women aren’t better than men but rather had less opportunities to prove that (they aren’t better). I mean, have Margaret Thatcher, Condoleezza Rice and Angela Merkel made the world a better place? Would Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann make it a better, a less violent place?
I think there are two popular mistakes in those debates: The first one is, that people have a fixation about “people” and underestimate “systems”. But the type of women you are probably thinking about would never gain so much power in the current system. So people would lose their high hopes of a female-led world as soon as they have lost their hope for a magnificent “Change” after the election of Obama.
The second mistake is the underestimating of society shaped gender roles. There are/were a lot of male-led societies who shaped women as being nice, sweet, soft etc. as a compensation for a violent society. But women aren’t born that way, they are made it - and that is one of the reasons why every serious feminist refuses the idea of a “female-led world as a better one”.
And in a way people who are yearning after a female-led world because women are soooooooo nice and sweet and cute an stuff and machos who don’t take women serious because they are soooooo nice and sweet and cute and stuff are just the two different sides of the same coin.
Who raised the boys who grew up to be violent men?
Well, the world could do with a good cleaning. Some drapes. And my personal ambitions extend about as far as a six pack and a fishing pole. So, sure, why not? Yes, dear.
Not really a feminist statement, but to clarify ..
It is wartime 5000 BC, males come and attack the village, women and children in village, males are the aggressor. Women did not ‘go on the warpath’ men did. Women did not rape the men in the captured villages, men raped the women. Now, if you have the chance to kill or release a captured or injured man, which would you do? I seriously doubt that you would tenderly nurse him back to health and release him back into the wild so he could get his buddies and come back for a repeat..
Now hit the Soviet/German eastern front. You did not want to be female there/then. Rape was the most common activity post combat, and some women got it from both the Germans and the Soviets as they went through in waves. Tell me that you will tenderly care for some guy you find injured in a ditch after that. I don’t freaking think so. Rock to the skull, quick knife to the throat, quick loot for food and scarper off.
Okay, how ‘bout this, all the men and all the women take opposite sides of the planet (ladies can choose which side even, ain’t I nice), then we go to war quite literally. We’ll use Australia maybe as the main battleground (sorry Aussies). Only rule is you can’t use nukes. Then the winner can end these kinds of debates forever. I realize this thread is about which sex would have the least violence if left in charge, but you gotta’ admit there would be a lack of war anyway after such a theoretical battle took place. Only thing is, I’d have to get over my hang’ups about hitting girls, that’d be the hardest part, that and no women for the duration of the war. 
Right. Stop saying that it “may be sexist, but I’m not being negitive”.
It may *sound *positive to you, because you’re a man, so you think you’re “allowed” to say somthing like that. But I think if everyone thought that women would be better than men in ruling the world, they’re not only being negative towards men, but they’re putting a hefty burden on females in leadership positions.
There are women qualified to be leaders, just as there are men. It depends on the individual.
Sure, but if the “women’s side” won, they’d just keep having wars amongst themselves. Does no one watch Jerry Springer anymore?! Bitches ain’t afraid of a little bitchslapping, yo!
What qualities? You are making a vague generalization. You are saying all men are the same and all women are the same. You are saying that all men have the same qualities and all women have the same qualities.
You seem to think that women are not violent. I would like to see at least some literature that proves your vague generalizations.
Nah, they’d be having to much fun making us eat it, at least until one called the other a Ho…
If I may assert an “it appears to me” that is at least as well-supported as the OP’s claim:
It appears to me that the most important difference between women and men is that there is less variation in temperament and abilities among women than among men. The very high scores and the very low scores on standardized tests are dominated by men, as are things like heinous crimes and great scientific achievements. It is no accident that Hitler and Einstein were both male.
When you combine that with a focus only on negatives, men come out looking pretty bad. Yes, the men out on the tail end of the “evil genius” curve cause most of the havoc. But it is the men far out on the “good genius” curve who do the most good. The great art, literature, science, engineering…overwhelmingly from men. From this we may predict that a world run by women would be peaceful yet stagnant compared to the way it is now.
Some have argued that women are “on the average” better than men in this or that. Maybe so, but in a discussion of “who rules the world” it is the outliers who matter.
I make no claim as to whether the lesser variation in ability of women is inherent, or a function of social constraints imposed by on them by men, or whether such constraints ever really were imposed on them by men. Doesn’t affect my argument. It’s also possible that societies which become more tentative and less confident for externally imposed reasons may tend to give women more responsibility, precisely because they take fewer risks than men.
Scotty , as a male do you consider yourself to be more aggressive, trouble making and evil then women ?
If thats the case then why don’t you try to change yourself ?
If thats not the case, are you saying that most other males are your inferiors, because they can’t emulate your caring, sharing outlook ?
You might want to get yourself checked out if thats what you really believe.
Some of the most evil, sadistic people on earth are women.
Some of the most evil sadistic people on earth are men.
Its not if you have eggs or balls that shapes how you think, but whats going on in your brain.