Why do people think if women were in charge there would be no wars or suffering?
I hear feminsts spout this nonsense all the time
Bloody mary burnt people to a stake for religious reasons
Cleopatra owned slaves and was a warmonger
Queen Elizabeth beheaded people
Marget Thatcher started a war
Theresa May bombed Syria
Power corrupts women just as much as men but yet I have it believe that if women were in charge. The world would be perfect and peaceful all the time?
Why do people seriously think women are incapable of being corrupted by power as much as men are?
I'm not saying men are the better fit leaders by any means. I'm saying that women are just as capable as men to be corrupted by power. So is more me seeing men and women as equal more than anything.
- nineteenthlyLv 71 month ago
Well we don't know of course, but the problem with the examples you've given is that they're in a man's world, where to succeed, women have had to behave in a stereotypically male manner
- rickLv 71 month ago
Thatcher and Meier were two of the most bloodthirsty leaders in the last half of the 20th century. I think it was easier for them to send men to war, because women stayed home!!!
- ElanaLv 71 month ago
Oh, it's worse than that: If there were wars and suffering, it would be justified if women were in charge.
There are too many examples of women who were as or more aggressive than male counter parts to make such a gendered claim. It's pure idiocy.
As DCMD says: "It's childish nonsense."
- ZirpLv 71 month ago
Same reason people are racists. It's "easier" to blame genetics than to acknowledge that capitalism is to blame
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 month ago
Only feminists, women and some male feminists think like that. They believe "men are more violent", so they commit more violence. According to them, women are princesses, angels and goddesses who believe in peace and harmony.
But these people forgot that one has to be really aggressive when they have to face the threat from enemies. If you are a person from past who believes in peace, you definitely can't stand for yourself. Feminists don't know that life was very tough at that time and one has to show aggression.
Hmmm. Btw, female leaders like Hillary Clinton, Indira Gandhi were corrupt or violent in some manner.
- Anonymous1 month ago
History shows female heads of states have been more willing to send men off to die in wars than their male counterparts.
There is no factual reason for people to claim female leaders are less violent. Those who say so are simply being gynocentric at least, very possibly misandrist.
- EnguerarrardLv 71 month ago
I can't dismiss your complaint. Feminists were guilty of denial and wishful thinking, and an overly romanticized view of women in which all daughters are princesses.
All this doesn't mean that powerful women become as corrupt as the men. It does mean that power affords anyone the option to indulge in megalomania (aka narcissism). But, unless you advocate complete anarchy, I don't know how we can avoid making people powerful.
- 1 month ago
Because of their ignorance of history, and belief in "My gender is better" crap (along with the occasional self-hate sufferer who thinks his is WORSE).
It's childish nonsense. Anyone who talks that way can be dismissed with a wave of the hand, no arguments are needed.
After all, THEY have no arguments for THEIR crap, so you don't need any either.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Women in power are STILL working for the patriarchy. A matriarchy wouldn't be an authoritarian organization, that's the whole point. But -- I absolutely believe women aren't as corruptible as men. Even putting women in charge _in a patriachy_ leads to less corruption. The data and statistics back this up.
- DimpleLv 71 month ago
Well President Clinton was President for 8 years. His entire presidency was run by his wife.
So technically hillary already was President... and boy did she start some ****