Had women ruled the world since ancient times would it be a better place?

[luckyram]

Originally Posted by Applejewel

It would be a FAR better place! Without all the testosterone going around decisions would be made more rationally and less "Let's just kick their arse!", women would be able to come together and peacefully resolve any conflicts without anyone getting hurt. There would be no need for guns, WMDs, tanks, fighter jets, bombers, or warships.

Women would care a hell a lot more over whether their actions means innocent people would die or could get hurt. You'd never have a Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan scenario. Nor would you see anything like the cold war or an axis vs allies world war scenario.

You wouldn't have a need for things like the CIA because women wouldn't use spies or use shady methods to gather information or spy on each other. Women in general would greatly benefit, for them it would be like 50s America was for men except women would have the advantages and without the prejudice or racism. There would be no slavery or tyranny and oppression of any kind. Wealth would be far more evenly distributed, you wouldn't have the top 1% owning everything, women would not be anywhere near as likely to throw the likes of ethics and morals out the window as men do. Women would not be bought by lobbyists or bribed anywhere near what men are.

It would be a great place!

HAHAHA....LMAO!!!

The naivete is strong in this one......

[Minervah]

Originally Posted by BitterlyHopeful

You have to keep in mind that a caring, nurturing female would not be the type that would succeed in the political realm. It takes a certain amount of narcissism and aggressiveness to become a leader or to run and be elected to office.

As a professional ice skater as a kid, I grew up in an arena controlled by females. Daily I would see mothers throw their kids into walls, push them on the ground, pull their hair, slap them, etc., all for not performing well enough on the ice. No one stopped them, in fact, they would instigate the abuse just to keep their kid’s competitor off-kilter psychologically (“Sally is still doing pretty good, despite that extra weight she has put on.”). The ONLY time we kids knew we were safe was if a dad got time off work to come watch their child practice. On those days, the mothers would put on a show of being loving and nurturing. Why? Combination of putting on appearances and knowing that dad would yank their kid from the sport if they were forced to acknowledge what was going on in their kid’s life.

Obviously personal experience has tainted my opinion, but to me the whole “if women ran the world there would be (insert your utopia here)” is nothing but a bunch of cra*.

All one has to do is look at the story of Tanya Harding. She had a mother just like this and we all know how that story ended.

Women can be as fierce competitors as men but I think they have less ego and more intuitiveness which would make them better negotiators than men.

[Futurist110]

In response to your question here, probably Yes. However, the same would also probably true if (literal) eunuchs were the ones who ruled the world since ancient times.

[cachibatches]

Originally Posted by Ummagumma

There's direct aggression and indirect aggression. Men are more likely to resort to direct physical violence. Women are more likely to gang up upon, bully and mentally abuse their victims. Or kill via proxy or poison. Although there's plenty of examples of both behavior on either side.

Until the early to mid XIX century, women's weapon of choice was poison, and the vast majority of poison cases went unsolved. Giulia Tofana became famous for selling her poison to women who wanted to get rid of their husbands and helped to murder hundreds of people, but she's only known because she was caught. It's known that Catherine Medici routinely used poison on her enemies. Of course her position protected her from any prosecution. I read a book in my teen years on the history of forensic science, a very interesting read full of cases and references. I remember reading that the French scientist who discovered a method to test for alkaloid poisoning in the 1830s - undetectable until then - believed that there were hundreds of undetected cases of poisoning each year in Paris and vicinity alone.

In the modern times, you have people like Elena Ceasusescu, widely believed to be behind many political murders committed by her husband. Or all these women who murder their children and then blame a non-existent "black man" for it.

Anyone who's ever observed teenage girl group behavior will tell you that they can be extremely cruel, even sadistic to other girls. More so than the boys. They just typically go about this differently.

As a boy, when you had a problem with another boy, you called him names, got into a fight, one or both of you got your rear kicked, wiped the blood, and this was it. At least in my time growing up (70s and early 80s) holding a grudge after you "resolved your differences" in a fistfight was considered unmanly, and it really didn't matter all that much which one of you ended up winning the fight - you both had proven yourselves and whatever caused the confrontation in the first place was supposed to be over.


The girls however never quit. They'd hate each other with passion well into their 20s. At our school reunion 8 years after graduation, my ex-gf would still make snotty remarks about her former nemesis, even though their problems started in the middle school. The guys I had issues with in school would tell me stories about their gf's and wives and jobs and boats and share a beer. For us, all the rivalry remained in the long gone past.

I am sorry, there just are not as many women poisoning people as there are men shooting them and beating them to death.