Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me preface this entire statement by saying that nobody's capabilities are predefined by their gender. You have amazing capability in every skillset demonstrated by both genders. I pen this, only in that when something becomes too difficult for people to talk plainly about, it stops progressing. If you want to truly get better understanding on taboo topics, it helps to get people talking plainly so their own understanding can be reconciled with new information.
Ancient Vietnam was often lead by ladies. Even when it wasn't lead by a female, there seemed to be an understanding that males are the spokesmen in many more instances instead of the real power. I may misinterpret things a bit, but even today the lady is considered the walls of a household, and the male is the roof. A roof is on top and leads, but may be replaced. The walls cannot be replaced and no roof can stand without supporting walls. At any rate, the Trung sisters were famous for their war of old. The reality is, we remember the leaders that were involved in wars more than others, regardless of gender.
The decision or likelihood to go to war depends upon a great many factors, many of which the leader has no control over. For example, if a NATO ally is attacked, the United States will go to war. How about if Syria is thrown into ISIS? Trump has taken a passive approach there, but was fairly forceful in the Israel vs Palestine conflict. China's Xi has fought with strife and intrigues and building islands, and building up a little used military, all while demanding ever greater loyalty of his people. Merkel has overseen growing German military involvement in Afghanistan, Syria and now Mali.
So from a context of whether or not a nation goes to war, I don't really think gender is a factor.
I would say that when a female lady is in charge there seem to be more attacks on the person instead of the group. I think this has little to do with the nation leader themselves, and much more to do with individual experiences with groups lead by females on a much smaller level. Arguably, I would find there is less intellectual debate or variation in approach allowed in a female run group. This is likely a byproduct of males that at one point didn't want to follow a female leader. I would not apply that to leaders of nations though.
So if there is no difference, and you want to look at gender as a factor, I think each culture is slightly different. Really only you will be able to answer for yourself, and to avoid straw men as much as possible, look at leadership at the closest level you know. Who runs your friend groups?
Within your friend groups...who has tighter acceptance standards? Males or females?
Where is greater loyalty demanded?
Where is there a greater range of acceptable behavior and activities?
Which group has higher standards to remain a part of the group in good standing?
Which group is most likely to fight physically?
Which group is most likely to fight with social intrigues?
Which group is better at getting the details down to make sure something works?
Which group is more likely to instruct others and develop within the group?
Which group is more likely to introduce something new?
Which groups stagnated and died, which have stayed the course, which have flourished?
I've lived in 3 different areas. All three have different answers or conclusions. All three were in different decades which may also play a part.
Not something to get upset about, just something to ponder. Each will have their own answer. There is no right answer.
hahaha... ever been in a corporate environment with a few women? Put 5 women together for a while and see how things go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC1984
Men fight, then become friends.
Women become friends and then fight....although it's behind each other's backs.
^^My thoughts exactly. If you have ever had a daughter go through junior high and high school you would know this to be the case. It is non-stop drama and bickering. Corporate office settings are the exact same way if you have more than two women working together. I honestly at times, think it is a miracle anyone hires women. I know that is a bad thing to say and it is wrong but damn at all the drama distracting from getting a job done.
The biggest flaw I can think of in the OP's opinion, is that most wars have been based upon religious indifferences. For example, that is exactly what all the nonsense with ISIS and the other groups in the Middle East is based upon. Hitler and the Jews is another example and the list goes on and on. It really doesn't matter whether the leader is a man or a woman, the religions will still fight each other.
Given that men have about a fourfold higher propensity to initiate violence, if the world leadership were 50% women and 50% men rather than being majority-male, it seems there should be fewer wars, right?
Are you forgetting, that women world leaders have started wars? Do your homework, before posting and making sweeping generalizations about one demographic or another.
Quiz: Which female leaders of their country started a war?
Women Presidents or Prime Ministers (a partial list):
Corazon Aquino
Golda Mair
Veronica Bachelet
Benazir Bhutto
Gro Harlem Bruntland
Indira Ghandi
Margaret Thatcher
Vigdis Finnbogadottir
Cristina Kirchner
Bonus points for identifying who was referred to as "The Iron Lady" in her country.
How many Western industrialized nations currently have a female head of state, and which nations are they?
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 01-23-2019 at 03:51 PM..
^^My thoughts exactly. If you have ever had a daughter go through junior high and high school you would know this to be the case. It is non-stop drama and bickering. Corporate office settings are the exact same way if you have more than two women working together. I honestly at times, think it is a miracle anyone hires women. I know that is a bad thing to say and it is wrong but damn at all the drama distracting from getting a job done.
The biggest flaw I can think of in the OP's opinion, is that most wars have been based upon religious indifferences. For example, that is exactly what all the nonsense with ISIS and the other groups in the Middle East is based upon. Hitler and the Jews is another example and the list goes on and on. It really doesn't matter whether the leader is a man or a woman, the religions will still fight each other.
Not every teen girl is like your daughter/s or her friends. I've only seen this on TV, not in real life. Sorry to disappoint.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 01-23-2019 at 03:51 PM..
Not every teen girl is like your daughter/s or her friends. I've only seen this on TB, not in real life. Sorry to disappoint.
I didn't say they are all like that and it isn't my daughter. It is other girls she goes to school with. All of our friends that have kids in other schools have the same thing. It was there when I went to school as well. It is the stuff teenage tv shows are made of and it is everywhere. As a test, round up 5 teenage girls and have them spend the weekend together or hell, 5 women. I will absolutely garauntee you the eye rolling and talking behind each other backs will have already began before the weekend is over. I don't think you could put 5 women together and make it through one evening on the town without at least two of them starting the nonsense. You must live in a utopian society. lol
as above:
"I honestly at times, think it is a miracle anyone hires women.
I know that is a bad thing to say and it is wrong but damn at all the drama
distracting from getting a job done."
that is EXACTLY what my wife has been saying for 11 years.
she adores her previous male supervisors and actually
HATES her last two female bosses. and her current one.
Among the general population, women might be less likely to initiate violence, but politics is a highly self-selecting profession that prizes a certain decisiveness and tolerance for conflict.
Boudica, the first Queen Elizabeth, Maria Teresa, Catherine the Great. To cover before the time most of us were born.
Then there's Margaret Thatcher (Falklands War, approved of sending troops to Saudi Arabia in the first Persian Gulf War).
And do I even have to bring up women who see their children threatened? Same essential principle, only extended to non-family members.
Let's also add Golda Meir...war with neighboring Arab states and Indira Gandhi...war with Pakistan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
