I think we'd have less wars if more women were in elected office

[fried eggs]

I hope this doesn't sound sexist, but I really believe that. Is there any data on this topic?

[cali]

1. I don't.

Don't know of any data but I think it's a huge leap.

[HappyMe]

11. I agree.

Decisions like that aren't solidly black or white. It kind of makes women sound simplistic.

[FreakinDJ]

13. Dianne Fienstein and her War Proffiter husband

Are a good example

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Margaret Thatcher

[treestar]

2. Does this apply generally?

If the head of Syria were a woman, there would be no civil war? No gassing?

[NuclearDem]

3. Well, first woman ever voted into Congress was the sole no vote against WWII

And one of the 50 no votes against WWI.

Of course, that doesn't really mean much these days, since we have plenty of war hungry women in congress now.

[ellenrr]

4. I think yes, if women's voices were more prominent, not necessarily or exclusively in elected office

bec. once a woman gets into office - think thatcher - or Merkel-
she has been vetted, she is not going to be thinking in a different way.

I think we need to think differently, and women look at the world differently. Not all, but more women than men.

It is not genetic imo but both genders are conditioned.

[Warpy]

5. Depends on the women

Conservative women just vote with their menfolk. Those menfolk are so much smarter and braver, dontcha know.

[Brainstormy]

6. Unquestionably

war has more to do with testosterone than geopolitics

[Rozlee]

23. Testosterone does get its share of blame for aggression.

The caveat being that women have testosterone too and that many scientists opine that women in power got there due to higher levels of it. I think in many ways it does a disservice to women and girls in academia, sports, law, medicine and other fields that just worked hard to get where they are without negative aggression. It kind of takes me back to my days in the military of the 80's when so many of the sexist homophobic old timers thought women joined the service because they were a) "nymphos" who wanted access to a lot of men, b) ugly women who were desperate to find a husband and c) "mannish" women who might or might not be lesbians. Some animal behaviorists think the relatively peaceful bonobos are an example of how society would be if it was run by females. But, matriarchal chimps might only be anecdotal evidence. I'm sure that someone somewhere has done some kind of study measuring the testosterone levels of women in certain levels of power. But, how it relates to war and territoriality I'm not sure. I know that anabolic steroids result in unpleasant things like 'roid rage and that they're androgens that act like testosterone. I hate the thought of bashing one gender and accusing it of being responsible for most of the problems of the world, especially, since, like kittens, they're so cute when they're little. And being a grandmother, I won't go into how hawt some of them are when they grow up.

[Brainstormy]

25. I hate the thought

of bashing one gender, too, and certainly didn't mean to ascribe all the world's problems to men. Seems these days that it's impossible to acknowledge any differences between the genders without being accused of sexism. That being said, I stand by my opinion. Enjoyed your thoughtful post.

[Rozlee]

38. Oh, I'm not saying testosterone doesn't have its problems.

Just ask anyone who's been the mother of teen-aged boys and young men that are in the prime of it. Not to mention the overwhelming numbers of killers, domestic abusers, rapists and violent criminals who are males in our society. 87% of murderers in the US are men. 91% of prison and non-prison rapists are also men. I wonder if the biggest reason we're condemning Syria is because they've delegated us to the #2 spot as the murder capital of the world.

[Precisely]

42. the hormone and history of culture

[JustAnotherGen]

7. I don't know

In the 2008 Primary debates - Former SOS Clinton had one simple strong word for if we were attacked again and it was: Retaliate.

She gave the clearest response and it has always stuck with me.

Conversely - If Tammy Duckworth were commander in Chief - I somehow think EVERYTHING military would be measured and weighted heavily. She knows that war and armed conflict do things to men and women that can never be undone.

[el_bryanto]

8. The Creator of Wonder Woman, William Moulton Marston, believed this

He said something along the lines of Woman won't want to waste men by getting them killed in war - from a feminine point of view men are more enjoyable alive.

I looked for the quote but couldn't find it online - he also said, “Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don't want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women's strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.”

Bryant

[riverwalker]

21. they DO exist

The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.”

but are virtually ignored, other than brief media attention they are forced to give by public demand.

Antoinette Tuff
Diana Nyad

Women like these terrify society, always have.

[onehandle]

9. Everything would be better with more women in office. nt

[bigtree]

15. +1000

[Precisely]

39. ^^^^^

[Capt. Obvious]

10. Not at all

The only difference would be money going into purses instead of wallets.

[Brickbat]

12. Women like HRC and Margaret Thatcher?

Oh. You mean anti-war women.

Actually, it depends on what position they hold, legislative or executive:

Michael Koch and Sarah Fulton of Texas A&M University examined the national security behavior of 22 democratic countries between 1970 and 2000. They found that a 1 percent increase in the proportion of women in a legislature led to an approximately 0.1 percent decrease in defense spending as a percentage of GDP. And the higher the percentage of female legislators, the less likely the country was to go to war.

But in the executive branch, the results are the opposite. Female chief executives increase a country's defense spending by an average of more than 3 percent. Female defense ministers preside over 2.5 percent growth in military budgets and their troops are more likely to fight.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/25/iron_ladies

[fried eggs]

67. They're trying to fit in

or another theory is that currently, elections favor hawk-type women. Women who prefer peace are discouraged from running or appearing weak.

[bullwinkle428]

14. Unfortunately, there are lots of Palins, Bachmanns, Nikki Haleys, Christine

O'Donnells, LIZ CHENEYS, Marsha Blackburns, etc. out there.

[Precisely]

35. Unfortunately those are mostly the ones

who make it through the vetting of the game as it's now played. That right there shows there's an imbalance.

[fried eggs]

68. exactly!

[Precisely]

69. .

[TM99]

16. You mean like Shaheen and Boxer

who both are gung-ho for the current war in Syria and voted yes to the latest Senate resolution?

Or perhaps you mean Pelosi who is 'whipping' up votes in the House for the new war?

Or perhaps you mean Feinstein who says the NSA doesn't spy on Americans?

Or perhaps you mean Clinton who supports "a strong and targeted response to the Assad regime's horrific use of chemical weapons" and voted along with other female Reps and Senators for the IWAR?

Yes, doves the lot of them.

[calendargirl]

17. Sure

Because instead of the red button we'd all be pushing for chocolate and Midol. Yes, I think it sounds very sexist.

[HangOnKids]

37. So you reply with a sexist post of your own?

Chocolate and Midol? Really?

[Paladin]

18. Nope. (nt)

[Silent3]

19. And fewer wars if more English majors were elected.

Give it a moment.

[Brainstormy]

26. I got it

more English majors. "Less" political science majors.

[Romulox]

20. In Congress, Nancy Pelosi is leading the drive to war. nt

[kenny blankenship]

36. And Dianne Feinstein to profit from it!

[DavidDvorkin]

22. It does sound sexist

Because it is sexist.

[Precisely]

34. No it's not

Wouldn't the world be different if women were paid as much and present in business, power and daily life like men are? Imagine it.

[DavidDvorkin]

44. No, the world would not be different

The kind of women who occupy top positions in business and government are no different from the men who occupy those positions.

The equal pay argument is entirely separate and has nothing to do with this discussion.

[Precisely]

45. Of course it would

And of course the equal pay argument is completely relevant to the OP's imagining of more women in political office.

That would require more women in every kind of office.

The blind spot in this thread will be refusing to imagine any scenario not already familiar, with a few women fitting in to the system as it is now.

If there was equity in pay, opportunity, advancement, etc. it would be a different world.

[HappyMe]

48. Yes, it is sexist.

It is sexist to assume that all men always want war. It is sexist to assume that all women never want war.
Pay has nothing to do with this.

[Precisely]

55. Who said "all"? Who assumed? It ain't that simple. Duh.

You haven't noticed the gender-based imbalance of power that exists now?

[Blue_Tires]

27. Well, if more women were in elected office, all conflicts would be settled by mud wrestling

[PotatoChip]

56. !

.... .....

[grilled onions]

28. There Would Be For Food For Thought

Women would think twice about a yes vote for war because for many their sons(daughters too),nephews,nieces, would be in their minds as "stars" in the next war extravaganza.
Their emotions may have them thinking in a different way then the "shoot at the hip" population.
Of course many who can't seem to wait for war are the very ones who make sure they are in the back of the line.

[eissa]

29. I wish this were true

Sadly, we've seen just as many women support the war effort as their male counterparts. And I can just imagine an elected woman having to prove she's not "weak" by bombing some third-world shithole.

[ZombieHorde]

30. I don't think so.

The utopian changes people thought would happen when women got the vote never happened. Apes act like apes, and we're all apes.

[ocpagu]

31. Not necessarily.

If you elect someone like Margareth Thatcher, you could even have more wars...

[haele]

32. Well - women have testosterone, too. Some naturally have more than others.

In fact, studies have shown that women's testosterone levels rise during pregnancy and orgasm.
And higher estrogen levels don't exactly give women a more nurturing, supportive attitude, either.

It's all a mix of nature and nurture. Some men are very diplomatic, caring and nurturing, some women are angry and aggressive - and in most people, it's the situation they are in and their personal motivations that determines their reaction rather than if they're "more feminine" or "more masculine".

Look at it this way - I love my Senator Barbara Boxer, and agree with most of her voting record, because socially and economically, she's a good "liberal" BUT....
Some of her political associations are ones I am adamantly opposed to, and she will, on occasion, vote to support them even if they don't fall within a peaceful, liberal standard - because her motivations are still not mine.
Just because she's a strong woman, and I'm a strong woman, and most of her political views match mine, does not make her less "warlike" overall.
Being a more nurturing personality - a "Mom" figure - might make her more thoughtful when it comes to war and conflict, but it does not mean that if she feels her philosophical priorities, ethics, or allies are "under attack", figuratively or literally, she won't lead with taking aggressive action when addressing the situation.

And you have to remember, she has spent most of her career in Politics, a career one has to actively seek and fight to keep. You don't just work your way up to your position of power by being a talented, dependable employee that uses diplomacy, training and dedication to improve their personal value to the employer as a way of getting to a desired position of power.

There's a whole lot of aggressive, competitive activity - a whole lot of "attack" and strategic thinking required to get elected.

Haele

[Precisely]

33. Women or people with different priorities and skills

for listening, empathy and long-range thinking. Who wouldn't destroy generations in wars for profit.

[NCTraveler]

40. I think an arguement could be make either way.

It would be nice to think that there would be less war and that testosterone plays a role in a societies aggression.

On the other hand, would they want to prove they are not the stereotype, ending in a more aggressive stance. Kind of like a Democrat being elected President and feeling he needs to prove that the party is strong on national security, walking away from party principals in order to do so.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. indira gandhi and margaret thatcher prove you wrong. institutions have much more power

than individuals in those institutions

[Dash87]

43. I doubt it. War is a fundamental flaw in human intelligence.

We're still bound by the curse of being animals - the urge to dominate, invade, destroy, and hurt others lingers in all of us. Greed is also a fundamental human flaw.

We're able to minimize the lives of others through slogans, exclusive groups, and flags. Worse yet, 99% of us are unable to visualize life through others' eyes. We cannot empathize with others, understand the pain of others, or be bothered to band together for the greater good.

War is humanity's greatest failure. Whether it's a male or female, the fact is the same - we've failed each other. Our overwhelming greed will ultimately destroy us.

[Precisely]

46. "the urge to dominate, invade, destroy, and hurt others lingers in all of us"

animals also breed, nurture, educate, protect, feed, communicate and perpetuate their young. Which gender is more connected to those activities? Which generally has the urge to "dominate, invade, destroy" and which to protect from destruction?

[Dash87]

50. While men are naturally more aggressive towards each other,

Greed and lack of empathy are a human failing. Women, unfortunately, are just as greedy, emotional, and destructive as men when given the opportunity.

The platitude 'women are the gentler and kinder (nurturing) sex' is a gender stereotype, not reality. In reality, women have done as much to abate humanity's self-destructive behavior as men have. Both are equally complicit in it.

Basically, humanity as a whole is greedy and self-destructive. It's our very nature, due to our unfortunate inability to see even a day in future for certain problems we have, or at times think things through rationally.

[Precisely]

57. What platitude.

Read the post.

"In reality, women have done as much to abate humanity's self-destructive behavior as men have. Both are equally complicit in it."

Sorry but that's not reality. Since men are in charge, it's impossible to make that claim.

[Dash87]

59. It's an unfortunate reality. When it comes down to it,

relying on one sex to be more rational, less emotion-driven, and more empathetic is a lost cause.

We could hope that, with women in charge, wars would suddenly end and order would be restored to the world. Unfortunately, wars are caused by the same shortfalls that all women and men alike have. I've mentioned them above.

More women in charge is an important goal we should make. However, it won't end wars. The only way it may lessen wars is by more diverse leadership (which has to do with mixed experiences and viewpoints, not innate differences between the sexes). This has many benefits, but as a whole men and women are both as deeply flawed as each other.

[Precisely]

60. Self defeatist logic

[Dash87]

61. How so?

[Precisely]

62. Stating false expectations

[bklyncowgirl]

47. I don't. Women in power tend to act very much like their male counterparts.

Sadly, women in power tend to act very much like male rulers. e.g Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir all 20th century women who led their countries in time of war and were as aggressive as any male leader.

I could go back further to Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I and Isabella of Castile or even further but there's a big difference between a monarch and an elected president or prime minisiter.

[Nye Bevan]

49. YES. Women such as Condoleeza Rice and Sarah Palin.

So much better than warmomgers like Alan Grayson. And Jimmy Carter.

[LittleBlue]

51. I used to think that

Until seeing what Hillary, Pelosi, and Feinstein have been saying.

Though I would agree that women are less warlike, for whatever reason many of the women that become high-level politicians seem to lack this trait.

[liberal_at_heart]

52. It is hard to generalize people but I do think that more women are more relunctant to send

thier children to war than men are. Men just accept that losing sons and daughters to war is a part of life. Women do not accept this as just a fact of life. They fight to stop it.

[DrDan]

53. I have thought this for a long time and tend to agree

getting testosterone out of politics would be a good thing I believe.

[BainsBane]

54. I think it's possible

We won't really know until we have something close to parity.

[MNBrewer]

58. What do Reps. Pelosi and Wasserman Schultz and Sen. Feinstein think of your hypothesis?

[Cerridwen]

63. Not women. Those things historically and traditionally

associated with women; and usually disparaged as weak and therefore "womanly."

Compassion, community, emotion, tempering "objectivity" with the previous listed.

It's not than women are born with those characteristics in greater numbers than men are. It's that they have historically been encouraged in women and discouraged as "weakness" in men.

Were the Christ known as Jesus to appear in the form that was described in the finally accepted canon of texts known as "The Bible," he would most assuredly meet the 21st Century version of crucifixion.

[Initech]

64. No. We would have less wars if we didn't allow money to rule politics.

[npk]

65. You must have missed the movie "War of the Roses."

Because women never forget things and just file it away, save it for a time and date in the future.


BTW, yes I am kidding!

[sibelian]

66. Well, I don't know about that, but I think some of the wars might at least make more sense....?

I've made the observation several times in other places that my nation (UK) always seems to do best when there's a woman on the throne. The Elizabethan and Victorian eras are well-known for their prosperity, rapid development and enlightenment, at least in some areas. However, both eras had plenty of wars. Elizabeth had no problem with war.

You could possibly say the same about the second Elizabethan era as well....?

Dunno. In short, I think the answer is "probably not".

[sabrina 1]

70. I don't. Look at Hillary? And history doesn't bear this out. See Britain's first Queen Elizabeth.

Or 'Bloody Mary' or her older sister.

I haven't studied it deeply but it seems to me from my memory of history, that the wars and conflicts continued unabated under women as well as men.