MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Do you think there would be as many wars...

Do you think there would be as many wars if women were the world leaders?

posted 6 days ago by Jinx (3721)
27 replies | jump to latest

I often think about how different the world would be if women were the ones in positions of power. That is not to say that I think the world would be great . . .just different.

When I was growing up with my brothers whenever they caught a frog or a bird, lizard etc. they wanted to torture it or use it to prank someone or kill it. That's pretty fundamental in boys. Little girls want to take care of the animals they find for the most part, that's pretty fundamental to girls. Of course there are exceptions. I'm not trying to pick on anyone.

Most wars are usually fought over land by men who want to conquer, which I also see as more of a male trait.

[–] Kowalski (75520) 6 days ago

OH GOOD...MORE POLITICAL BULLSHIT BAIT.

[–] Jinx (3721) 6 days ago

This isn't about politics.

[–] Bloodshot77 (13762) 6 days ago

It might be a little sexist though. What would women fight about? Who stole their man?

Signed, million man.

[–] Jinx (3721) 6 days ago

The world is sexist but I wasn't intending this to be anything other than a thought experiment.

[–] Bloodshot77 (13762) 6 days ago

Yeah, I'm just messing with you. I know you didn't mean anything.

Signed, million man.

[–] Kowalski (75520) 6 days ago

NO IT ISN;T...BUT IT WILL TURN UGLY AND POLITICAL SOONER OR LATER.

[–] samoanjoes (56645) 6 days ago

Slightly less.

[–] PSville (636) 6 days ago

Same number of wars or perhaps more. Recent events and strong participation of women in politics demonstrate women can be as warlike as men: camel Harris, nuland, Hilary clinton, liz cheney, baerbock, liz truss (trash), Ursula von de leyen, albright, thatcher etc. their careers and obedience to the establishment are important than the lives of civilians and servicemen.

[–] Jinx (3721) 6 days ago

I don't know who those people are other than Liz Cheney? I wasn't thinking of any current women leaders I was imagining if all of the major world leaders were women instead of men. Basically women are just manuvering around in a mans world you know what I mean?

[–] Kowalski (75520) 6 days ago

SEE?.....POLITICAL ALREADY.

[–] PSville (636) 6 days ago

This one is indeed political, not like the other one by Melton.

[–] PSville (636) 6 days ago

Camel Harris is a leader, the current vice-president, and she hasn't done anything to stop the wars in Ukraine and Lebanon/Gaza, in which her country is 100% involved. Thatcher declared war on Argentine back in the early 80s. von de leyen is President of the EU and she rejects negotiations with Putin but approves of military conflict. Women don’t seem more peaceful at all.

[–] Jinx (3721) 6 days ago

What kind of power does a vice president have?

[–] PSville (636) 6 days ago

The power to take important decisions along with the President of course. But in the USA right now they are both puppets: biden and Harris, who serve the weapons establishment and big corporations that have interests in Ukraine.

[–] Jinx (3721) 6 days ago

I wouldn't be surprised if you are right but you ruined any credibility you could have had by purposely messing up their names and pretending that they have power.

[–] PSville (636) 6 days ago

They have power but not the guts or the will or the dignity to oppose to the various lobbies. They obey them, because they agree with them. Trump, Vance are different though and decisive. They obey certain lobbies of course, but have a personality of their own, strength of character and don’t yield easily.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77364) 6 days ago

It would be exactly the same, plenty of women are greedy, aggressive assholes as well.

[–] Jinx (3721) 6 days ago

I'm not saying that they aren't but we aren't exactly the same, there are major differences.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77364) 6 days ago

Wealth (land, money, natural resources and etc.) are stuff we all want, man or woman.

Nothing wrong with a little bit of sef-interest, you gotta provide for the people you will eventually leave behind.

[–] sslssg (34211) 6 days ago

Who declares wars? Politicians perhaps?

How is this not political????

[–] KiwiJim (1176) 6 days ago

It’s not political if you’re Helen Keller and someone writes “it’s not political” on a blackboard or whispers it in your ear.

The mods no longer give a flying fuck, why should we?

Let the dump burn.

[–] KiwiJim (1176) 6 days ago

Sooooooo

Who’s seen any good movies lately?

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77364) 6 days ago

I started streaming Yellowstone on Peacock and it’s quite a good, fine story, some violence and pretty cool actors👍

I watched Tyson vs. Paul this weekend, it was a big letdown.

[–] thesamoanjoke (14224) 6 days ago

I watched Logan (2017) yesterday....I have to admit that I was tearing up at the end.

it is a 9/10 movie

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77364) 6 days ago

That’s a good movie✌️might be a tops for Marvel characters.

[–] Kowalski (75520) 6 days ago

I WATCHED LEZ BOMB....NOT TOO GOOD....AND I ALSO WATCHED LOGAN...LOGAN ROCKS.

[–] capuchin (3182) 6 days ago

I think there would be. Nation-states operate in their own perceived interests. (Ironically, they don't always match the perceived interests of the people living in that nation-state. Hence the manufacture of consent.) This is why most of the time, a nation's foreign policy won't change too drastically regardless of which party is voted into power. An electorate hoping that it will is usually rather disappointed by the outcome. Foreign policy is usually the area of greatest consensus between mainstream political parties. This holds true in most democracies I can think of.

And the same is true at the level of individual politicians.They don't change much in this regard. It's economic and geo-political realities that ultimately alter foreign policy -- a declining nation won't be able to throw its weight around as much, for example.