Want war. Let the men negotiate. Want peace. Let the women at it.
We are finding out that world affecting conflicts for resources like oil will increase over time. The Ukraine is just one on a string of oily pearls that war will visit.
Men must recognize and admit that they and their testosterone driven characters are not well suited to peace negotiations and that softer and gentler women should be recognized as the better choice. Those might not include those unfortunate women that have been made into men by their systems.
i don’t think women are naturally peacemakers, that’s a myth. Nor are they any more skilled at conflict resolution than men. Women are just as capable as men of vindictiveness, anger and vengefulness. See a lot of feminism is based in this false pride whereby women, having not traditionally been in positions of leadership, have the advantage of being able to point the finger at men for fucking up the world while making the essentialist claim that they could have done a better job because they have less testosterone in their systems or whatever. But who’s to say the world wouldn’t be even MORE fucked up if women were running the show? i for one suspect it might be - less showy use of force a-la Putin or Obama perhaps, but probably even more animosity and tension between nations than already exists. Maybe one day we’ll find out for sure, but in the meantime women might be well advised not to presume they are better than men at something just because, having never tried, they haven’t yet failed.
Even granting everything the OP says as true, it becomes a sort of Prisoner’s Dilemma. if women are hardwired for peace, and men for war, then the best thing for me is if my country has a male leader and yours has a female leader. Second best is if we both have female leaders, worse is if we both have male leaders, and the worst of all is if I have a female leader and you have a male leader. This under the assumption that the female leader is likely to capitulate under threats of war from a male leader, and a male leader is likely to declare war to get what he wants, or to resist the other country getting what they want. Two male leaders will ‘agree’ to fight each other, and two female leaders will agree to work things out peacefully, which each side getting something.
Do the math, and the smart play according to the above is to always have a male leader- you have a chance of getting some or all that you want in every combination where you have a male leader.
But yeah, I’m closer to agreeing with UPF- I think there are differences between men and women, but they aren’t so great, and the consequences aren’t so easily predicted as to say one over the other would lead to a better world.
If with ‘leaders’ you mean those who represent a country, I suppose it doesn’t matter if they are male or female. They don’t make the decisions.
And those in the background who make the decisions are not interestred in peace if it does not fit in their interests. Thatcher and Merkel didn’t bring more peace to the world.
Just puppets on a string.
If the premise is that women are more peaceful than men, the conclusion will be that female leaders would lead us to a better world. But be careful! If the premise is false, the conclusion will be false too. The premise that women are more peaceful than men is false, and the conclusion that female leaders would lead us to a better world is false too. The premise has not been proved (and besides: the antithetic one has not been disproved). And the Stone-Age-Society is no example for a proof, (even more one for a disproof). “Jail stats” are also no example for proof. So female leaders would not lead us to a better world - quite contrary to. There will be merely one more kind of war which never has been seen: gender war (sexes war, sexistic war). The worst case!
Yes, that’s right. And the president of the United States is also a puppet on a string. Anyway: Politicians are not the most powerful human beeings. The most powerful human beeings are others, and they are male leaders, and they are extremely paternalistic (patriarchal). They are not against female politicians, but they are against female leaders.
That skips a pretty serious step- the step where you assume that 'we' are all compelled to select our leaders on the basis of what's best for everybody else. If Country A chooses a female leader because peace is awesome, and country B chooses a male leader because they want wealth and property, then country B bullies country A, country A capitulates to maintain the peace, and country B comes out on top. I'd rather be in country B in that scenario. Compare to nuclear disarmament- it would be pretty cool if nobody had any nuclear weapons. It would be awful if everybody but you had nuclear weapons. It would be super duper great if only you have nuclear weapons.
Again, all this is assuming this preposterous 'here's what would happen based on the gender of a world leader' set up has any truth to it. So yeah, I'm agreeing with you that the premise is false. I'm just saying that, even if you accept it, it gives little reason for everybody to push for female leaders.
The question of who actually makes the decisions is irrelevant. If the president isn’t the one who makes the decision, then the president isn’t the one who should be female according to the OP’s thesis.
It depends how I am using it. I do not believe in and am duty bound to ignore equality. I use the law of the sea on land as well and that places women and children ahead of me. That is the duty of any man.
Religions have yet to get the message and have an inferior moral view.