If women were in charge would history have been so different?

Watch
caravaggio2
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
I have often heard it said ( always by women) that if women were in charge there would have been no wars and that violence is a male trait and not female. Do you hold with this?
I am not so sure and think I am more of the opinion that it was in human nature for one nation ( or wandering tribe originally). to want to dominate another for scarce resources etc food water land etc.
What do you think?
0
reply
scjman
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
(Original post by caravaggio2)
I have often heard it said ( always by women) that if women were in charge there would have been no wars and that violence is a male trait and not female. Do you hold with this?
I am not so sure and think I am more of the opinion that it was in human nature for one nation ( or wandering tribe originally). to want to dominate another for scarce resources etc food water land etc.
What do you think?
Yeah, I don't hold with this view either. There have been plenty of warrior queens-Boudicca, Zenobia of Palmyra. There have also been queens just as ruthless as their male counterparts- Queen Mary I is a very good example of this and Countess Elizabeth Bathory of Transylvania is another. Women are humans too and therefore have just as many flaws as men do
0
reply
PumpkinNox13009
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
I don't like the way that some people separate female and male as if we are all that fundamentally different. when it comes down to it we are all human. maybe there are some Evolution thing that makes female in general more caring due to the role of caring for the next generation, but gender definitely does not define our personalities...War, greed, vengeance...it's all basic human nature. I mean, you don't see a dramatic change towards world peace since women rights have improved in the 20th century lol
2
reply
Eva.Gregoria
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
There would be far less wars but many countries just wouldn't be speaking to each other

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
rascar
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
Have the great female leaders of history only achieved by having to act like a bloke?
Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I.

The baby boomer males who are in charge of things have not done the best of jobs, so I wouldn't be adverse to women having a 5 year trial period.
0
reply
username931319
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
No, it'd be essentially the same.
0
reply
gr8wizard10
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
Margaret Thatcher

/thread
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
Only certain types of people seem to become important leaders. So I'm gonna say no.
0
reply
Creat0r
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by caravaggio2)
I have often heard it said ( always by women) that if women were in charge there would have been no wars and that violence is a male trait and not female. Do you hold with this?
I am not so sure and think I am more of the opinion that it was in human nature for one nation ( or wandering tribe originally). to want to dominate another for scarce resources etc food water land etc.
What do you think?
No because it didn't stop wars. Relatively more women supported Nazism than men in the 1930's.

Look at how people vote today, women are just as much varied as men when it comes to voting, otherwise they'd all be voting Green wouldn't they?
0
reply
the mezzil
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by Abdul-Karim)
Margaret Thatcher

/thread
What about her?
0
reply
mansergh19
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
Like most of the other posters on this thread, I highly doubt that history would have been very different had women been in charge overtly. But I would also like to point out that women have exercised great power throughout history, just in rather subtle ways - and given the opportunity, they have often been just as brutal as their more obvious male counterparts.

Take Theodora, empress of Byzantium in the sixth century. Her husband, the emperor Justinian, was a fairly passive ruler in the early years of his reign, choosing to flee the capital during the 532 Nika riots rather than put down his rebellious subjects. At his wife's urging, however, he went back on this decision and ordered the deaths of about 30,000 people in order to quell the revolt. The real agent here was of course Theodora, but she got what she wanted (the suppression of the people of Constantinople) by using men to do her bidding. This pattern is quite common, especially among the wives of powerful men.

It's also important to remember the influence of mothers on men throughout history - for, in the words of one old adage, "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." Without delving into the debates of psychohistory, it is clear that the mother-child bond (or, in some cases, lack thereof) has played a significant role in shaping historical action. The first example that comes to mind is the relationship between Matilda and her son, Henry II of England, in the twelfth century. Even the most cursory glance at Henry's reign reveals that he learned critical lessons about statecraft (when to make and break alliances, for instance) from his mother's experience in the civil war against King Stephen a generation earlier. In this way, we could say that Matilda got what she had always wanted - a crown - through her son, much as Theodora gained a throne through her husband.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you give consent for uni's to contact your parent/trusted person in a mental health crisis?

Yes - my parent/carer (138)
33.91%
Yes - a trusted person (107)
26.29%
No (110)
27.03%
I'm not sure (52)
12.78%

Watched Threads

View All