The lioness

R

Rowen

Registered Senior Member
I was recently in a debate that brought up the issue of females in leadership roles. We were discussing the uses of war. The group was split on the issue of were men and women different when it came to making decisions regarding world affairs in a leadership position? My question presented to all is do women reason out problems differently than men and if the world had more women leaders would there be as many wars?

-When the lioness roars the children are starving-

Rowen
 
Some would say there would be less use of military. but there would still be political fights. you know embargos and whatnot.
 
I agree that there would still be politcal diagreements thats a part of human nature, but I feel that these political disagreements would not build up to physical total war.

Rowen
 
I don't think that the number of wars would really decrease with women in leadership roles. A woman can be just as big a bitch as a man, haha.

I think that the only reason we seem to think that there would be less wars is because traditionaly the strongest female in our lives is our mother, and they, more often than not, are nurturers, but then that's usualy because we're their friggin' kids.

Aside from that though, women in leadership generaly aren't that different from men. I don't think that the face of politics would change very much.
 
i dont think you can say that

i think if star ran the country they would still be going to war but if ummm bluesoul ran it they wouldnt

same for guys

its more a question of economic and mental upbringing than gender
 
Please read the links I provided. Male and female brains are different. Men and women do think differently, and are better and worse at different things.
 
The links weren't very conclusive, Adam, but anyone can see the differences in a man and a woman's thinking if they just look at them logically. So, I'll go on logic. I could spend an hour looking through sites for evidence... but I'd rather not.

If we had all woman leaders, politics certainly would be quite a bit different. There would be a less war, and a lot more humanitarian effort. Women are less violent. Just look at the amount of men murderers vrs women murderers. And, from personal experience, even the most "mean" woman is actually pretty nice, tender, and friendly an emotional layer down. Ok, that's not true of them all...

Women are also less dominant, while men are pretty much about conquering any adversaries they encounter. So, more peace talks and diplomacy is a good thing. Women love talking things through. :rolleyes:

Only bad thing is that I've noticed that women can be pretty irrational and illogical, as well as overly emotional. I can see them playing their emotions in politics to a bad effect. I don't know how an emotional woman president would have reacted to 9/11. Woman aren't really natural leaders as much as men are, either.

Anyway, women leaders would be a lot better for the world.
Some people might argue that society's problems are caused by men... and they might even be right.
 
Women are just as natural leaders as men. It has only been entrenched within our culture that they are not.
Who says that using emotion in decision making would be a bad thing. People should analyse problems from numerous perspectives. One could not fully know the true meaning of the word rose if they were blind and lost their sense of smell. The same applies to solving problems on any scale. One must use logic and emotion to come to a resolution. This was one of the main points I had for wanting a balance within the political community. Women do not consider emotion to be an inferior sense. Men, however, believe that emotion is inferior to cold logic, which has the capacity to cause great evil within this world.
One should not go to extremes. Pure emotional actions are just as hideous as pure logical actions.
The biggest issue I find with men is that they are intimidated and agitated by the thought of being ruled by a women. Men cannot understand that its not an issue of dominance. Women do not want to dominate, but to be equals.
People always find the unknown absurd.
This fact saddens me.

-we still struggle to heal the blind man-

Rowen
 
Women are also less dominant, while men are pretty much about conquering any adversaries they encounter. So, more peace talks and diplomacy is a good thing. Women love talking things through.
Click to expand...

Umm, okay.

Crack + posting on Sciforums = bad idea.

I've never met a woman who was not incredibly controlling and manipulative. Dominence? Because men see power mainly in physical terms, they fail to realize how easily manipulated they are.

There have been brilliant and ruthless female leaders - Elizabeth I, Lucretia Borgia, Hatchupset, Sigrid the Haughty, Cathrine the Great....

And yet there have been more male leaders than female. Are men more inclined to seek dominence through political manipulation? I think so. And now that women are fairly free of the burdens of childbearing, what will the future hold?
 
Originally posted by Xev
I've never met a woman who was not incredibly controlling and manipulative. Dominence? Because men see power mainly in physical terms, they fail to realize how easily manipulated they are.
Click to expand...

My view is that there are many men who know quite well they are being manipulated, but allow themselves to be. Their reasons for doing so do, however, vary quite widely.

And now that women are fairly free of the burdens of childbearing, what will the future hold?
Click to expand...

Has the underlying psychology of power changed all that much? So far, I've seen little evidence to suggest it has, except perhaps in minor ways. Time will tell.
 
xev this might intrest you

i was watching a TV program that said the glass celling may be there to stay simply because WORKERS (including female workers) dont WANT female bosses

this was females on the show saying that female manages are bitchy, vendictive and jealouse (if the worker happens to be better looking:p)

interesting spin:p
 
Crack + posting on Sciforums = bad idea.
Click to expand...

Hmm, itching for a flame war?


I've never met a woman who was not incredibly controlling and manipulative. Dominence? Because men see power mainly in physical terms, they fail to realize how easily manipulated they are.
Click to expand...

Wow, never? Interesting opinion. Could you give me some examples of how they manipulate people? It seems very strange that while all women you've met are manipulative, I've met only a few who really are. Granted, my knowledge of real manipulation mostly comes from drug deals and the like, where women get screwed(literally) and manipulated, at least in my town.

In my last post I did play into woman stereotype a lot, because I believe in it, generally. We're both using stereotypes: You, the "bitch" stereotype; me, the nice nurturer stereotype. Both are right, at times. Of course, everyone is an individual, and I'm not going to try and argue that all women are like that.

Women are overly controlling and manipulative with their boyfriend/husband, and their children, but that's about it, in my experience. Not always very successful at controlling them, either. And, dominance is caused by testerone. Some women may have more testosterone than men, I guess...

A couple other interesting women leaders...

Over-emotional: Mary I, also called "Bloody Mary". Bad childhood.

Manipulative: Cleopatra, used her body to control first Julius Caesar and then Marc Anthony.

As far as the real question: Do we both agree that women would make better leaders, on average?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top