 user created polls & quizzes |
Rate this ballot.
Vote on the ballot listed to the left, and rate the ballot below.
Submitted by : lowerclassbrats Submitted on : Jul 17,2005 10:46:47 pm ballot title: If more nations were headed by women would the world be a more peaceful place?ballot number:77580
by griffon007
[+]
Women are more evil than men. They just don't act like it. ^LOL, Rightwing. Does this reflect your personal experience of women, or are you generalizing? #:>)
by griffon007
[+]
The Prime Minister of England would call the President of the U.S. a "cheap hussie" and all hell would break loose. Or two women would show up at the UN in the same outfit and BOOM! The Amazons werent very peaceful. Men have ruled for a long long time. In many many cultures. Our track record is prove that women couldn't do no worse in some cases.
by UncleRandy
[+]
the women that have ruled have often been more warlike than males ... Elizabeth the first, Catherine the Great, Mary queen of the Scots, Victoria, All of these either killed and persecuted for religion or tried to build empires ...in comparison there are less male rulers that have been warmongers. per capita there have been many male rulers ... a percentage of them have been warmongers .... far less female rulers ... and the majority have had wars in their name... sorry Sorry, your calculations are off. For every battle-axe queen you've mentioned, there have been literally dozens of peaceful women leaders throughout history. Don't make me list them! ;) Mary Queen of Scots wasn't a warrior queen, either. She was a staunch Catholic, but did not advocate violence. The Babington Plot was attributed - wrongly - to her, but she was beheaded anyway, by order of her cousin Elizabeth I of England. But Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, Mary Tudor, (her older sister) and Victoria were all psychos, I'll grant ya. :) as are most world leaders .... lol.. Do I need to remind you of maggie thatcher.. and the Falklands ... 5 billion pounds and many lives lost on a rock next to Argentina ... with a few sheep on it ... if she had given each brit there 2 million they would have left in a flash ... but she actively wanted a war actually most rulers approve of potential wars to show how 'in touch' they are with opinion ... its the opinion (media/ statecraft) that is juggled but female rulers are just as prone to agreeing with bloodshed .. as long as it isnt their own. No argument from me re: Thatcher. She was like Boudicca on PCP. :) But I'd disagree with you as to the majority of women rulers. Most were fair leaders and their reigns/tenures were peaceful, except when they were overthrown by invading marauders. |