A more peaceful world if women in charge?

Submitted by anthony on Fri, 2012-02-10 02:22

Article here. Excerpt:

'Would the world be more peaceful if women were in charge? A challenging new book by the Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker says that the answer is “yes.”

In The Better Angels of Our Nature, Pinker presents data showing that human violence, while still very much with us today, has been gradually declining. Moreover, he says, “over the long sweep of history, women have been and will be a pacifying force. Traditional war is a man’s game: tribal women never band together to raid neighboring villages.” As mothers, women have evolutionary incentives to maintain peaceful conditions in which to nurture their offspring and ensure that their genes survive into the next generation.

Skeptics immediately reply that women have not made war simply because they have rarely been in power. If they were empowered as leaders, the conditions of an anarchic world would force them to make the same bellicose decisions that men do. Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Indira Gandhi were powerful women; all of them led their countries to war.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I personally don't believe the world would be more peaceful with women in charge. Women simply tend to use emotion and manipulation instead of violence to control. That's not to say they wouldn't use violence if they had a million soldier army at their command.

Many women would make great leaders, but it's because these women are logical, truly egalitarian (anti-feminist), and mindful of the needs of the people.

The conclusion the article comes to is surprisingly fair, however.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Sat, 2012-02-11 20:44

Men have always done the dirty work, because women expect them to. Now, when men are no longer in the picture and doing the fighting for them, who do you think will then get involved by necessity? Yep. Some people just can't think things through.

MAJ

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by digital_dreamer on Sat, 2012-02-11 21:24

"Traditional war is a man’s game: tribal women never band together to raid neighboring villages."

Because men were expected to do the dirty work and were more expendable. It's the same reason men clean out the sewers and kill the bugs. War occurs in the context of a tribe's needs, because a tribe believes its need will be met by sending men to war. These include the needs of the women as well as the men. Men were assigned the dirty business of a war that benefited everyone.

One change that might help is to go to an all-female army. Men are expendable; women are not. Ergo, our politicians would be reluctant to send women to war to come home in body bags. In the end, this will likely not work because our enemies would put together an all-male army, which would likely give them the advantage. In high-tech wars, however, that may not matter as much. But you still need men to develop the technology. Sounds fair to me: men develop the technology, women die using it.

But hey, I'm all for letting the women go to war, come home maimed, and become yet another homeless vet while we men stay at home, take care of the kids, and live six years longer. It's their turn.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Sat, 2012-02-11 22:32

One thing that would prevent war is for all armies to have women, and only women, in combat units, invasion forces, etc.

It would matter very little who was in charge. The refusal to send women to their deaths would prevent war.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Arty on Sun, 2012-02-12 20:10