IF WOMEN RAN THE GOVERNMENTS OF ALL NATIONS, WOULD THAT MAKE THE WORLD MORE PEACEFUL, OR MORE WARLIKE THAN IT IS NOW?

user ballots

Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes

Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz

TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase

Discussion
Bug Report

what if : political : IF WOMEN RAN THE GOVERNMENTS OF ALL NATIONS, WOULD THAT MAKE THE WORLD MORE PEACEFUL, OR MORE WARLIKE THAN IT IS NOW?

[+] serious ballot by neal_anderthal
created Thu Oct 21, 04
I say more warlike, and the evidence backs me up. We don't need to guess what women would do with governmental power - we can SEE.
Five major nations have been female-governed. Don't comment that the true number is at least 20, because we're excluding from this discussion military nonentities like Iceland and powerless figureheads like Irish President Mary Robinson. "Major" country is defined here as a country capable of waging a war that you'd notice. The five:
Margaret Thatcher, UK: That I think Thatcher was justified in going to war over the Falklands is irrelevant to the main point - no male PM of the last half-century would have done so. [OK, maybe Blair given his recent track record, but that's it.]
Golda Meir, Israel: Self-explanatory.
Indira Gandhi, India: India was actually a pretty peaceful place - until Indira got ahold of it. Many of her political opponents can testify to that. VERY many now-dead Pakistanis could have, also.
The final two were monarchs, but will be included because in their time monarchs didn't just reign, they ruled:
Empress Catherine of Russia: You don't get to be the world's biggest country by being Ms. Nice Guy. It's called expansionism and it ain't often pretty.
Queen Victoria of Britain: Replace the words "country" and "expansionism" with "empire" and "colonialism" in the preceeding paragraph and ditto the rest.
So there you have it. 5 out of 5 ain't bad.
And all these dames were post-menopausal, so they can't even blame it on PMS! [Oink, oink!]
What do you think?

More warlike
More peaceful
About the same

Ballot #55928 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

show your vote with comment?

v 1.5 © BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank:

similiar ballots:
77580. If more nations were headed by women would the world be a more peaceful place?
33615. If all the world's leaders were women would the world be a more peaceful place?
54497. A more peaceful world.
97957. Would the entire world be peaceful if it was all Islamic?
6327. Would the world be more peaceful(probably lazy) if everyone smoked weed?
102512. If PEACEFUL aliens from another world landed on Earth....
35062. If the whole world smoked cannabis.. Wouldn't it be a more peaceful place to live in?
95091. WHAT IF: Every single country in the world became industrialised first world developed nations? Any negative consequences from this hypothetical?
97101. What's the main internal threat to established governments in the Islamic world?
70984. If all the nations in the world were democracies, would there be world peace?

COMMENTS:
I made this ballot. Why they registered it to a "guest user" is beyond me, but just direct all hate mail to me.

by Neal_Anderthal on Thu Oct 21, 04 2:19am [+]

No difference. Wars would still start. Only, they'd be over stupid petty things.

by Les6Hithe6Wins6Again on Thu Oct 21, 04 3:00am [+]

I think any prime minister would ahve gone to the falklands, it's british territory with british citizens living there, if there ever a good reason to go to war, that would have been it, with the monarchs, that was a time when countries were fighting each other on a weekly bases, britain was colonizing the world long before queen victoria, but in todays world I think we would have more peace if we had women leaders.

by larrynelmira on Thu Oct 21, 04 3:43am [+]

all women aren't stepford wives, so you can't really categorize them as all thinking and acting in the same way.

by larrynelmira on Thu Oct 21, 04 3:49am [+]

being that i am of this gender, and dont get me wrong i am no trader to it, but i think we'd all be in an emotional state.

by dayumyumxanax on Thu Oct 21, 04 3:56am [+]

Thatch can hardly be used a representative of female sex. I would be annoyed if she was used as a representative of the human race.

by cretin_slap on Thu Oct 21, 04 6:05am [+]

you are not the same person are you neal, maybe it picked up on your isp

by mike1952 on Thu Oct 21, 04 7:19am [+]

Less big wars but more little bitch fights.

by thc2883 on Thu Oct 21, 04 8:00am [+]

Wars would be started for no reason and last about five days every month.

by _Beelzebubba on Thu Oct 21, 04 8:40am [+]

In regard to Margaret Thatcher: Reread my ballot comments and you'll notice is said I thought she was RIGHT to go to war over the Falklands. Are we clear on that, now? Actually I've never quite understood why feminists hate Thatcher so much. You'd think she'd be their poster girl: first woman to govern one of the world's best countries, what? But they despise her. My hunch is that it's because Thatcher broke the first law of feminism - She got her job by actually being competent, as opposed to getting it for merely being female. But that's probably a question for another ballot.

by Neal_Anderthal on Thu Oct 21, 04 12:53pm [+]

That I think Thatcher was justified in going to war over the Falklands is irrelevant to the main point - no male PM of the last half-century would have done so.

I thought you were saying no man pm would have gone to the falklands, reason I said it again.

by larrynelmira on Thu Oct 21, 04 1:12pm [+]

And I'LL say it again, Larry: I can't imagine Heath, Callaghan, Wilson, Major, MacMillan, Eden, etc. going to war over the Falklands. These were the male PMs I was referring to, get it? And the reason Blair is a possible exception is because he DID go to war - one in which no real British interests were involved.

by Neal_Anderthal on Thu Oct 21, 04 1:41pm [+]

I think you might be wrong neal, it was a matter of principle, the falklands were never inhabited when the brits landed there. It's part of UK ,like hawaii is part of usa, I'm sure they would have done something, I remember those days, the brits were all up and arms, the approval for going to war was like 90%, Maybe reason Argentina thought a women pm would not have gone to war maybe that is why they never did with the pm's you mentioned, but I would be willing to bet my house that those other pm's you mentioned would have done the same thing.

by mike1952 on Thu Oct 21, 04 3:29pm [+]

I can not imagine the world being in worse shape than it is now with a woman running the show...Men have proven very well how NOT to run the world...Would it be more peaceful? It depends upon if two women leaders were caught on national TV wearing the same out fit and then...Oops, nevermind....

by Barbara_Baby_Cakes on Thu Oct 21, 04 4:00pm [+]

Mike1952: "The Falklands were a part of the UK"? You and I might agree to that. But the Argentineans vehemently DISagreed, which was how the war started in the first place. You might be right that the Argies thought a woman wouldn't have the guts for war. You might even be right that any of the male PMs might have gone to war. We'll never know. But we DO know that a female PM went to war. That's my only point.

by Neal_Anderthal on Thu Oct 21, 04 4:04pm [+]

Barbara_Baby_cakes: You've got a point there, and that's my main argument as to why women don't belong in the military. We have seen how the sparks fly when only TWO women happen to show up at the same place and time wearing the same outfit. Catfight city! Now think: military uniforms. What's going to happen when 100,000 or so women get together all wearing the same outfit? Oh, the horror!

by Neal_Anderthal on Thu Oct 21, 04 4:12pm [+]

I almost for the first time agreed with you bbc

by larrynelmira on Thu Oct 21, 04 4:52pm [+]

ok neal, I was thinking you were saying something different.

by larrynelmira on Thu Oct 21, 04 4:53pm [+]

would you vote for a women president or prime minister?

by mike1952 on Thu Oct 21, 04 4:57pm [+]

another exageration , most women could care less if someone else had same outfit, they would laugh about it. Apparently women do not a female president or we would have one, we are majority of the population. I can't blame anyone for that not happening but other women.

by danica22 on Thu Oct 21, 04 5:38pm [+]

Mike1952: The answer is yes. But, being neither a feminist nor a liberal, I would not vote for her ONLY because she's a woman.

by Neal_Anderthal on Thu Oct 21, 04 7:32pm [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | Contact