It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Would The World Be Better Off With Females Leading World Governments

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 06:51 AM
a reply to: rigel4

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 06:55 AM
a reply to: bucsarg

Hell no! They're dangerous, just look at Merkel for example...

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 06:56 AM
a reply to: stumason


Hello btw

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 04:27 PM
a reply to: bucsarg

I've thought about & discussed this very topic many times with my coworkers & family. And my answer is always "Yes, to a point".

Nearly every study shows that women are far less likely to commit crimes in general (except shoplifting, I think), particularly violent crimes. And they're less likely to be in organized crime groups. So I'd guess most women would wage fewer wars, make fewer side deals with cartels/warlords, and push for a stronger social safety net. And even when women get violent, they usually only target the person or people that they dislike. But bloodlusted men have no problems killing innocent bystanders (even kids), or with killing an entire country because we don't like its leader. So I'd expect more assassinations and less full-scale wars.

Women also seem less likely to try a coup or hostile takeover than men, especially when they feel fulfilled by a job or organization. Of course, this isn't always true. There are women who are far more cunning, ruthless, racist, and controlling than men could ever be. I've had the bad luck of learning this first hand. But I think those women would be isolated if every governing body was female-dominant.

Unfortunately, I also think having a female-only power structure could have disastrous consequences for the fields that women don't generally care for. I mean things like engineering, information technology, weapons development, etc. Also, women tend to be less likely to experiment with random (and potentially dangerous) things; & less likely to randomly dig massive holes in the ground. Guys love stuff like that, which is why we're so keen on mining for minerals & precious stones, looking for petroleum & natural gas, etc. Women are usually more caring for the environment & wildlife, so they would be less likely to destroy a small ecosystem for potential wealth. Whereas most guys would have no problem destroying a hill or mountain if there's a good chance we''ll strike gold, oil, or even a large enough copper vein (bye bye wildlife).

So I'd guess this hypothetical society would have stronger social programs, stronger (and stricter) educational programs, less infrastructure & weapons development, and far more of an emphasis on clean technology. But I'd imagine the rules & regulations would be much stricter in every aspect of society, especially if they could involve safety.

In time, I'd imagine many men would rebel or simply abandon that society. So I think something close to a 50-50 ratio would be best. That would probably have the best balance.

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 05:13 PM

Male, female... doesn't matter. A politician is a politician.

They're all the same lying snivelling little weasel corporate puppets on a string that had to slit throats along the way to get to where they're at.


Am I being too obvious that I can't stand politicians ?

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 05:42 PM


posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 12:46 AM
This OP is patriarchal thinking.

Females are no less likey to go to war. Rice, Reno, Clinton, Albright etc.

The problem is systemic/economic not gender based.

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 08:50 AM
a reply to: bucsarg

Look at Germany. It's a mess.

Genitals don't matter after all.

Forget the live-giving polemic and show me one example, where a woman in charge actually did make a difference..

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:32 AM
Hillary Clinton is the classic example of female politicians. Dishonest, greedy, manipulative and entitled. I know this would cover most of the people in Washington but she has it down to a science. Whatever is driving her it is certainly not in the interest of the people of the US. She sells us to the highest bidder foreign and domestic.

To answer this question, NO! No better than this present crop of "leaders".

If you vote for a person on the grounds of the color of their skin or their gender then you don't deserve to vote! Then you are as much of the problem as the people that you vote for. These are not qualifications to run an amusement ride let alone a country. Voting is a privilege assuming you are not so stupid to vote for anyone with no qualifications other than being of a certain color or gender. Would you vote for a goat being the first non-human to hold office?
edit on 2-7-2015 by buddah6 because: lobotomized through superior pain meds.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in