i heard a comedian address this once...

i don't think it is true that if women ran the world, it would be more peaceful. 

it would probably go something like this...

'hello, america, this is england.  why are you bombing us?'

'oh i think you know why we're bombing you...'

LOL! Yeah...but that exchange itself would go around in circles leaving no time for actual war strategies.

Or, maybe it would go something like this.

"Oh, you think so? Why then?"

"You're bombing us because you're being ridiculous."

"I'm ridiculous? You're the one who did____"

"Yeah, but I only did___ because you did___"

" Hmm. I see what you mean. Maybe I was wrong"

"It's not all your fault. I shouldn't have reacted that way. I should have behaved better."

" Yeah, me too. Maybe we should just put it behind us and move on."

"Okay. I'm sorry. I'll pay for the damages so you can rebuild, and I sincerely regret any injuries. That should never have happened."

"I'm sorry too. For everything"

"Friends."

"BFF's."

"I'll invest in your economy."

"Thank you. I'll send you some of of our gross domestic product.."

"Wonderful. Where'd you get your purse? It's really nice."

"From one of our best local designers. I'll send you one!"

"You're so sweet! Maybe we could work out an import export deal on those purses. They'd be a real hit here. Would you like another glass of wine?...and I think we need some chocolate. How about you?"

"That would be fab." (((hugs)))

(of course. I am joking....the more I think about it though...maybe they should make an instant switch and let all the first ladies run things from now on...on the other hand...meetings and summits often seem to go much like the above exchange...the one last year in Hawaii for example...everyone hanging out at a resort, not a care in the world. I don't understand how they make decisions to go to war. It's senseless to me.)

I stand up against gender stereotyping...that extends to saying men are (by nature) macho, war mongers and women are (by nature) sensitive, peace lovers. It also means rejecting that one gender is better at communication. )It can be done differently without one being better than the other)  I would also reject that gender means you are a backstabber...

The non-violent world with women at the helm gender myth has not proven so historically true when it has been put into practice. We can start with Deborah and move to Cleopatra and Joan of Arc.... all those queens.... and all the way to modern day.

Indira Gandhi - war with Pakistan over Bangladesh.

Margaret Thatcher- The Falklands

Golda Meir - Yom Kippur War

There are 19 women leaders currently. I would not label any of them as push overs and I think any of them could lead their nation into war.

For me, it is more about who a person is not their gender. Those who lead governments understand their may be a need to militarily protect their country or initiate a military action... so I think most are capable - regardless of gender

You're right. It's a stereotype...I'm sorry. Being a woman myself, I was trying to make fun of it all when I wrote the above hypothetical exchange.  I  probably shouldn't have started this thread actually, if it will upset people. I was just hoping to have a dialogue about what the world might look like if women made most of the major decisions. We don't really know, because women are a minority in politics and leadership.

Kimmio,

I saw the OP "Would there be fewer wars...at least pysical violent ones? I tend to think most of the "fighting" would be done in arguments, not violence. But I don't know because it's never been the case that women ran world affairs."

I was answering saying, "I don't think so" and why.

The humour was certainly obvious. I did not think anyone intended anything but humour. Maybe my response did not show that I saw humour as my own funny bone feels missing with a loved one getting medical tests... Maybe I just want women and girls to know there have been and are women world leader's (more than they are taught)...

Have I seen intelligent grown women physically get into it? Hell yes! There would be no phrase "cat fight" if it didn't happen. I have seen it in bars after too much to drink and other places over parking spaces, over men, over what they deemed a catty comment, over "defending a friend"... over the hottest item in some sale....

My post, that I was replying to your post, seems to make no sense as your post was then heavily edited.I will let mine stay, even if it now makes no sense. But, seeing your edit,  let me add.... It did not upset me, not in the least

I dunno. Maggie Thatcher went quite willingly to war in the Falkland Islands. Indira Ghandi and Golda Meir weren't terribly dove-like.

What irritates me is the inordinate amount of time and press devoted to what women in politics wear and how they look. It's wyrd, distracting, and not-very-subtly patriarchal.

No problem. I understand what you're saying, and thanks for responding thoughtfully. I changed my mind about what to write. A woman's purogative? ;) lol

Btw. SG...the disappeared post you replied to...really? I have never actually seen a real cat fight with grown women. Only on TV...and back in high school. But not since. On the other hand, my boyfriend picked a fight with a guy, I don't know who threw the first punch, but he was raring to go--this was years ago, but he was in his thirties-- while sober, for making a rude remark to me. I thought it was totally unnecessary, and I was bewildered over why he would waste his time and energy fighting over some stupid remark,  and I  felt disappointed in him for getting himself a black eye over it (shoulda seen the other guy...lol ..kidding, actually I think my bf got the brunt of it)...seriously though the whole thing was ridiculous to me...however,  he thought it was a nice, valiant, thing to do and wanted me to appreciate his efforts. What can I say? He loved me enough to defend my honour, even though I didn't want him to. It was a long time ago...but it did astound me at the time. It's wasn't like him, it had never happened before, or after that, but I guess the rude remark really got to him that day.

maternity leave would last a lot longer.

Yup, and there would be no problem for female MP's bringing kids into parliament on a work day if need be. I didn't read the full article, but saw a headline about that the other day.

i read a cute quote once, i can't remember it word for word, but it was along the lines of if women ruled the world there wouldn't be any wars, just a lot of jealous countries not talking to each other.  it's a sterotype, i know, but funny none the less. as for the question presented, i don't know.  u2 sings the song peace on earth and there is a verse in the song that says "no one cries like a mother cries for peace on earth. she never got to say goodbye, to see the colour in his eyes, now he's in the dirt.  peace on earth.  as a mother i truly feel that.  i know women can be ruthless, but violent.  sure, some, but the majority, i say no.  sadly, there aren't more women in power, surrounded by other women to guide them, so until then, we'll never know.  good topic.  wish i had more to add, but a facebook spar today has left me all "talked" out *lol*

you're telling me.  poor elizabeth may.  what a strong and smart woman.  eloquent.  after the debate i can't remember reading very much of how strong her platform was, but mostly about what she looked like and what she was wearing.  argh!

'Running the world' to me involves much more than just political positions.  It includes businesses, households, etc.

I don't think women running everything would be the best senario.  I do think it would change things simply because many decisions have been made over centuries to suppress women.  I would see an ideal world as a 50/50 split over all areas.

I'm also fed up with the focus on what a politician is wearing simply because she is female.

Is it too simplistic of me to hope that we would choose our politicians, not based on gender, race or sexual preference, but based, instead, on the policies of the party which they represent?

And really, who cares what they are wearing? As long as they're not naked!

I agree Somegal about not choosing politicians necessarily because of thier gender alone. But I am wondering if there was a majority of women in politics if it would change the way in which politics is done, the nature of politics itself. Systems, structures, and protocols have been invented by and perpetuated by men.

I agree Somegal about not choosing politicians necessarily because of thier gender alone. But I am wondering if there was a majority of women in politics if it would change the way in which politics is done, the nature of politics itself. Systems, structures, and protocols have been invented by and perpetuated by men, and more often than not often we are unaware of how this dynamic affects the fabric of our society, our assumptions, our expectations, and our cultural identity.

I also agree that running the day to day matters essential to our contribution in the world involves more than political positions, but at the end of the day, the most major decisions affecting the infrastructuure that dictates how our society operates is male dominated.

Posting as I read...

I am amused at the discourse between you SG and you Kimmio. Kimmio you altering your stance so suddenly for the sake of peace is just like the parody near the beginning. I do it myself, so I understand. I think it's ok to have such views. And SG's views are understandable from her perspective too, and many women share them. But I don't agree.

I also think, though unfortunate and injury causing and very example-like of typical male (testosterone induced) behaviour and totally fitting for the theme of the thread, that it was sweet your man stood up for you in that way. I guess that it was near the beginning of your relationship, and thus he was showing you he could protect you. Women want that in a man. They usually want a man that can protect them, rather than a man they have to protect.

There was an episode of Star Trek where women rule and the men are physically smaller and diminuative. The leader comes on to Riker, because he's so different from their own men, he is more her equal, yet she still wants to dominate him, dress him up in flimsey clothes and put jewelry on him. He gives it a try, but in the end, that was not for him. I can't recall if their culture had less war. These women were sort of like Amazons.

On the news yesterday mornign they were talking about BC's premier and played a clip of her speaking on the radio. I thought she sounded macho and no nonsence. It seemed to me that all women in political power have to assume this sort of toughness in a male dominated world. Thatcher had her power suit (yes clothes do play a part in this) and her stiff helmet hair. This was her battle uniform, and other women in positions of power have followed "suit" since. Shoulder pads included. Shoulder pads make the shoulders broader, more square, more like a mans. That's what they're for. So these women in power are acting more like men, to gain acceptance in their new roles.

What would be interesting, and I was musing this to my husband yesterday morning, would be if a really feminine woman became premier or prime minister, how she would sound addressing the nation:

"Good morning Canada! It's so nice to be on the radio talking to you all on this beautiful day. I have so many great plans for our wonderful country! Thank you so much for bringing me to power, we're going to see some great changes!" in a cheery warm voice, long hair and a frilly dress. That would be different.

And I do think things would be different if the world were run by women not trying to win acceptance by men, but being natural. And I agree that bearing children does change how you view soldiers. I mean, before I had one of cource I still was against soldiers going to war and dying, had strong views about it and wept and became a hippy, but after, oh boy, suddenly every soldier was someone's baby, someone's beloved hard won victory, and precious piece of life. For them to be wantonly killed was an unthinkable affront against nature and the effort women put forth in bringing them into life. How could anyone do that to their own mother?

Yes I think there would be more peace.

Riker and Mistress Beata

Riker's rediculous outfit

One could clearcut Riker's chest ;3

Hi Elanor...when it actually happened though, I didn't find it sweet, it stressed me out and I was actually mad at him after for getting himself hurt over a remark that I felt could have easily been ignored...I learned that chivalry on TV is one thing, but physical fights in real life are unpleasant to witness and feel helpless to stop, esp. when a loved one is getting hurt. if he had tried to defend me from physical harm, I might have felt differently...but you know the saying "sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me" I guess I saw it that way.

I find it amazing how sexist men I know say they'll "never understand women" but — in the same breath — declare that they are all sorts of annoying except briefly during sex.

Sexism seems to be a form of brain failure… and inability to connect attitude and reality. It's a frustration that something a guy wants with his crocodile brain comes with emotions, intellect and spituality that confuse the whole issue — and him especially because he can't see life any way than through his own eyes. It's a relationship handicap. 

i'll never forget her

a thoughtful book by Marge Piercy, A Woman on the Edge of Time

for those of you who enjoy role-playing games, there is afun one called Awesome Women Who Kick Ass written by TS and Queer Theorist Caoimhe Ora Snow.

heh sg....just wanted to say...hope everything is ok.  (re the tests)

She has a great name. Too bad when she was around, I didn't pay much attention to politics.

Kimmio, yeah, I understand. I would have felt the same in your shoes.

For the second time today, I have lost my post by accidentally going "back" before I was finished. I retyped the whole thing in Chemgal's thread, and this time, I'm not sure I can remember it all. It was quite long. I wish they'd fix that.

Ummm... I think ... women can never rule unless they were the dominant sex, larger and stronger than men. Or if there were no men. As it is, men would always take over.

I remember being very excited when Kim Campbell took up her office, but then, having no interest in politics, I didn't take note of anything she did or how it was for her. Though I do remember talk about what she wore.

I had more... just realized I gotta cook!

OK,

And in an all female society, it would still be the most dominant of the women, who would rule. This reminds me of the Amazons.

I think maybe I have never been interested in politics because I've always thought of it as a man's thing, like auto mechanics or football. And I always wanted to be feminine. I find politics boring and confusing.

Watching Kim Campbell's interview, I'd like to read her book, and find out what it was like for her, succeeding in a "man's" world, but not being interested in politics I don't think I could read it.

I recently read a biography of Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire, and she was into politics in her time, the 18th century. At that time, there were really only two interests for the aristocracy, the book says: social life, and politics. In politics, young Georgiana found a venue to have some impact in the world, where she was otherwise restricted to being a hostess. She also found influence through fashion design. As she grew older though, she gave up her level of activity in politics, due to pressure from men, and the revolution going on in France. ANd she had sway instead, from behind the scenes, influencing the men in her life, who were in politics. ANd she was sucessful in this. I found  the passages about political workings hard to read though, and I skipped over them for the most part.

The desire for power is more or less gender independent.

As for mothers and war, many mothers for hundreds of years have pushed their sons to go off to war to defend the honour of their family as well as for the service of their country.  Different mothers see their chilkdren differently.

So let us admit we all carry stereotypes which can interfere with our seeing people and situations as they are, just as we are attracted to simplistic reactions even when we know they are probably not the best responses.

And, when it seems there are few grounds for hope, most of us, me for certain, dream of grand 'what ifs".  Our current system was developed by males, but there are too many females who have bought into it to hope it would be enough to just change the gender of the majority.  It could be a start, but it would not be enough.

Power? I don't think as many women desire power as men do, that's just this woman's perspective.

True and sad about mothers in some cultures pushing their sons into war. Eastern Europe comes to mind. I forgot about that.

It seems to me there's a bit of naivete here in not appreciating that corporations now run the world; their ideology is "The Economy". Men play an enormous part in that but women do too — it's not a gender issue, though. It's not really about power in the conventional sense either: brute power is simply a tool (subordinate to consumption) and our armed forces attract and admit males, females and gays (though not without gender and sexual identification issues and conflicts, admittedly, but there are other conflicts there, not least to do with command structures and dehumanisation).

"The Economy" is the ever-present elephant in the room, whether we're looking at wage slavery, brand or employer loyalty, ethical issues, personal relationships, sexuality, health and wellbeing, education, every necessity from water to subsistence foodstuffs… and has insinuated itself even into faith and spirituality, from selling "self help" books and crystals to those politic sermons that take care to sustain the support of church congregants. 

"The Economy" is less what it once was and what the work meant: a system of ethical relationships to ensure the provision of life's necessities to all… than a system to centralise power and wealth in the hands of corporate shareholders and their favoured overseers. It patronises governments that clear way for it and deposes ones that obstruct it. It has already produced an oligarchy. And the oligarchy is shedding members as it gains more and more global power and separate coporations merge their interests to exert more and more control. 

Meanwhile, we continue to bow down to "the Economy", fully persuaded that our lives depend on it. We rever it the way Christ taught us to revere "god" and our "neigbour"… and Jesus taught us that we cannot serve two masters, or run with either depoending on the way the wind blows. We are subscibers to the imperial values that found it convenient to kill Jesus. It seems that very few of us take the resurrection seriously in any sense of the word. Our view of it certainly excludes any notion of companionship with Jesus as as life force, not in "real life", no way.

I know that about corporations. Stated such in the emotional differences thread, before Arminius kindly pulled my outlook socks up and got me looking on the positive side. It is pretty scarey. Much of what we need to know to affect a positive change is hidden from us.

Recently watched a documentary by David Suzuki where he was talking in these terms about the economy, also read Brandwashed, good insightful truths in there, and just last night finished watching "Thrive" a documentary about who runs the world and touching on the positive in what we can begin to do about it and envisioning a positive future. http://www.thrivemovement.com/ You can get the film here too.

Good points about Jesus there Mike. Still I think it requires a lot of insider information to do the right thing, and even those of us interested cannot get to the bottom of everything, nor can we often escape the system in order to do what is right. For example, my garden did very poorly last year, neccesetating me to buy regular produce at the grocery store.

I would stress that the people in suits running the world, the Rothchilds, Rockefellers, Morgans etc., and most big business people, are men, though I'm sure their wives have an influence too.

I don't mean to say that men are bad, I like men quite a bit, and I think you have a good perspective yourself. I wish more men in positions of power were like the men we have here on Wondercafe.

Thank you Elanorgold, so kind of you to say.

If women ran the world, I have to believe it would be a better place.

I say this as someone who works for Canada's leading coffee shop chain.

What I've seen during my three years pushing the stuff, men are generally much more hopped up on caffeine. Although I haven't done the studies, I feel comfortable in projecting this as a global trend.

If women ran the world I have to believe it would be a more relaxed, less tense, kind of place.

Oh that's lovely of you to say too MC. And you're welcome. : )