I saw someone post a reply with that same question a little while ago, but it was disregarded and people moved on. I remembered it and thought about it last night. Much to my dislike, me being a man, I thought of several reasons as to why there would be no war if only women inhabited the world. 1. Would that ever even be an option? Women seem to be more emotional, less violent and, in general, more sympathetic than men. To me, this seems to be the perfect reason for there never to be war; because it would never get to the point where war was necessary, the women would just talk the things out. I dunno, I just can't see one female leader declaring war on another one. 2. Would women even be capable of going to war (physically)? Don't be offended, but women simply aren't suited for mainly physical activities; (that's why there are men) that is simply a fact of life. I know I'm generalizing, but the majority of women I've seen are simply not capable of doing the tasks required to go through a war (imagine an army of Paris Hiltons, isn't that just humorous?). Not much more to say on this topic... just think about it. 3. Are women even capable of going to war (emotionally)? Mainly the same points as point 1. I could probably think of more if given the time, but I think I've already shown my point. Because of these things, the only position that, as a logical human being, I can take is the one that says, 'Yes, men are the cause of war.' I suppose that's all, discuss away!
There would never be any competition for resources? No overbearing systems in place? No incidents of bad diplomacy?
Yes, there would be, but my point above is that, even if there was, I can't see anything like that escalating into a war, much less both sides being able to sustain a war.
There are plenty of women in the military. There are women in Congress who voted to attack Afganistan. Margaret Thatcher was a woman (arguably, I 'll give you that). Cleopatra was a woman.
15%; I see your point. Yeah, but they're not fighting, plus they're surrounded by men. No, she was a man Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!! She was the leader because of blood(contrary to today; you can't expect someone like that to be elected by a country with only women). In this feminist world, I can't see all the women in a country wanting to fight against another country full of women, can you?
Most certainly. Have you never known an under-handed bitch of a woman that will stab you in the back at the drop of a hat? I have.
I feel that if woman were responsible for society then maybe I would've been pity-laid already... god help me..
You've got a real attitude ya know that pal, I am starting to steam Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Lol so true I saw it with my mother and sister too often and now my wife is the queen of the kitchen and gets very snappy if my sister in law or I don't submit to her rule. :jason:
Haha..well if that's the case, at least all the theists will STFU then; knowing that all their theories and beliefs are pretty much disproven! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's a pretty bold statement considering the company you're in. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
They aren't. Women in Afghanistan have it as bad as ever, they still have to wear a burqua, and the Taliban have not been destroyed. I can see no cause for condescension on your part, as you haven't a clue.
