Would The World Be More Peaceful If Women Were In Charge?

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/would-the-world-be-more-peaceful-if-more-women-were-in-charge-13322761

There is the "Hell hath no fury..." argument of course.

[davebro3]

well it could hardly be LESS peaceful short of armageddon...

[wolf63]

Yes

Women are more generally more likely to attempt a peaceful solution to a situation than men.  

Alas, we will never know

 

[ToraToraTora]

I think we'd just have wars over different things.

[gulliver1]

Definitely..... Just look how smoothly Ab runs on Sat & Sun.

[douglas9401]

I think it would depend on which women were round the table

There's quite a space between Florence Nightingale and Boadicea.

[jackthehat]

I don't think they would be quite as quick to send other mothers' sons to their deaths in pointless wars.

[Khandro]

It was almost solely women who were in charge of Sweden & they made a real Horlicks of the country. Counterintuitively it was under their watch Sweden became the rape capitol of Europe.

[Old_Geezer]

There is no obvious indication that it would be.  The female is said to be deadlier than the male.  It's just that they rarely need to be showy about it.

[Atheist]

I think that the 'rape capital of europe' was invented to demonstrate that Sweden's rapists were foreigners, rather than decent Swedes. Khandro, I think you speak before you analyse what you have read. I recently read that the Buddha was called the woke one. What do you make of that?

[ynnafymmi]

Didnt Sweden have enough rapists without importing more of the bastrads from sheet-hole failed states though Atheist?

[david small]

Er...Thatcher and Argentina spring to mind.

[johnny.5]

err Thatcher and the miners 

or

err Thatcher and the dockers 

[Old_Geezer]

Buddha would've been called woke at a time when the default definition was very different to that of today; today it m9stly equates  to being devoid of common sense continually making an effort to virtue signal to some groups yet being happy to deliberately seek to offend the majority.

[Old_Geezer]

... mostly...

[Prudie]

Reeves and the famers

Reeves and the pensioners...

We could go on but although I don't think women would take their countries into war except as a last resort (and I'd put the Falklands in that category) having worked over 30 years in male dominated industry I can say from experience that pretty much all women who get to be 'in charge' of anything are absolute self-centred superbitches.

[Atheist]

OG, you are defining 'woke' to suit your ends. Of course, 'woke' nowadays is a term used to insult people who think differently from the ones who use the term. If I call you a fascist, I am using a silly term meant as an insult rather than a means of intelligent discussion. And calling people 'woke' is the same. Sadly, the vision of a world-village arising from Berners Lees' hope is now shown to be mistaken. On the internet, village idiots can reniforce their self-image by meeting other village idiots. Paedophiles, flat-earthers, misogynists, extreme religionists..... can find reinforcement for their views and no longer feel alone.

 

[237SJ]

I think the world would be more peaceful.  Women aren't as territorial as men.  At the the end of the day, it's all about territory.

[Atheist]

237... I think that maybe for men it's territory; for women it's more likely to be for food, shelter, protection and safety for babies. That's a simplistic view, but on the whole I believe it's a valid point. There's more Andrew Tate and serial rapers and woman-beaters than a female equivalent.

[tomus42]

It's been said that if women ruled everything there would be no wars, just long angry silences where countries didn't speak to each other.

So yep, more peaceful I think.

[vulcan42]

I have a feeling, based on nothing more than hearing her speak, that American Flissa Slotkin might become the first Woman President.