It's not Islam, is it?

Speaking about the war example, I'm not so sure a female leader would be any less likely to declare war.

It would be nice if having female leaders did lead to less war. But I'm not sure if such a thing is possible. Someone would have to get the middle east in line about their treatment of women. Asia also lags behind the western world in terms of women in political power.
 
Speaking about the war example, I'm not so sure a female leader would be any less likely to declare war.

It would be nice if having female leaders did lead to less war. But I'm not sure if such a thing is possible.
Female leaders, historically, have not been any less likely to declare war. If anything, they have been more likely to do so.
 
Hmmm. I wonder.

Who have you got?

Cleopatra, Budica, Joan of Arc, Pope Joan, Elizabeth 1, Catherine the Great, Margaret Thatcher (who doesn't count, because she wasn't a woman).

Oh and some Chinese bird.

Anyway, my idea was a nice one. I'll set them up. You shoot them down.
 
women are not any more or less likely to declare war than men; both are pretty bad overall, granted I'm a bit of a misanthrope
 
Let's see.

Currently there are 648 MP's in the UK. Of which 144 are women.

In the US of 535 congress members ~80 are women.

In India out of 545, 59 are women.

Is this pattern not repeated world-wide? I have every reason to think so.
 
Hmmm. I wonder.

Who have you got?

Cleopatra, Budica, Joan of Arc, Pope Joan, Elizabeth 1, Catherine the Great, Margaret Thatcher (who doesn't count, because she wasn't a woman).

Oh and some Chinese bird.

Anyway, my idea was a nice one. I'll set them up. You shoot them down.
Kleopatra VII fought in multiple aggressive wars, including a civil war in her own country, a war against the Pahlavan in Armenia, and in the final apocalyptic confrontation between the adherents of Antonius and the adherents of Octavianus.

One of the only things Boudica is known for is her war against Rome.

Jeanne of Domrémy was not the leader of a state. Neither was the probably apocryphal "Pope Joan".

Elizabeth I embarked on an aggressive and foolish war in Ireland, the Nine Years' War, as well as backing the Dutch Republic in its revolt against the Habsburg monarchy.

Yekaterina Velikaya was one of the most successful imperialists in history, invading Poland three different times, invading the Ottoman Empire twice, and fighting a war with Sweden.

Wu Zetian had her armies invade Xiyu, or more specifically, the Tarim Basin oasis-towns.

By no means has every female world leader ever fought a war, much less an aggressive war, but many of them have, and there seems to be no real distinction between male and female leaders as to which favors peace more.
 
No. I think that's right.

But my post previous to yours may indicate some of the reasons for this.

Spoiler :
(To spell it out, in case you ask - but feel free not to - leaders are very often figureheads, and while they have undoubted influence, it is probably highly tempered by the overwhelmingly male majority immediately below them.

And it is no accident that the dominant women often display masculine characteristics. So perhaps there can be no escape.)


What sort of policy would a more gender equal executive pursue? It may well be the same, which is what you would seem to suggest. I suggest it might be worth a try.
 
Nope!
 
That's not what your posts have been saying, it comes cross more like all men need to be remove from decision making positions.

I actually would like to see this, if only for an experiment. I'd like to see one election cycle in the U.S. (6 years including Senate) where only females can run.

I think the results would be interesting. I can't speculate what they would be, but it would be an interesting experiment.
 
Female leaders, historically, have not been any less likely to declare war. If anything, they have been more likely to do so.

How would one even quantify that?
 
Top Bottom