# Ladies, do you think the world would be better if women were in charge?



## Marcus588 (May 4, 2014)

Since caveman days men have controlled the world. Do you think that had women been in charge we would stilll have seen things such as war and all that? Would we have seen an equivalent to the likes of Hitler, or Stalin or Mao etc?

And do you think had women been in control of the world today we would have as many conflicts as today?


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

Deleted? Come on! It was funny. Good lord Americans, get a sense of humour.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Marcus588 said:


> Since caveman days men have controlled the world. Do you think that had women been in charge we would stilll have seen things such as war and all that? Would we have seen an equivalent to the likes of Hitler, or Stalin or Mao etc?
> 
> And do you think had women been in control of the world today we would have as many conflicts as today?


:rofl:

... no


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

She didn't say that according to historians. Here's the link. 
Did Marie-Antoinette really say â€œLet them eat cakeâ€�? â€” Ask HISTORY â€” History Q&A

"Marie-Antoinette (bride of France’s King Louis XVI) supposedly sniffed, “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”—“Let them eat cake.” With that callous remark, the queen became a hated symbol of the decadent monarchy and fueled the revolution that would cause her to (literally) lose her head several years later. But did Marie-Antoinette really say those infuriating words? Not according to historians. Lady Antonia Fraser, author of a biography of the French queen, *believes the quote would have been highly uncharacteristic of Marie-Antoinette, an intelligent woman who donated generously to charitable causes and, despite her own undeniably lavish lifestyle, displayed sensitivity towards the poor population of France."*

That's what happens when people believe whatever they're told without looking into it for themselves. 

I feel the world would be better if people would stop fighting over religion,money,and property. 

It has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with there being too many sh*tty selfish people in the world.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

I find this thread ludicrous, not only does it imply that men are inherently violent / genocidal / etc but it also implies that women are incapable of the hard decisions that many nations throughout history have been pressed to as a result of their times. 

Women along with men both make wise as well as horrid decisions in authority. Female leaders and rulers in history as well as in our modern world asserts this fact. The idea of the 'fairer sex' being non violent is a very ill-informed statement especially with many women throughout history having proven themselves just as bloodthirsty as men if the need arised.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

If women "ruled", things would be different, but who knows if they'd be any better or worse? One thing does seem clear, though. If we had consistently been a matrilineal society with women making the decisions about relationships and reproduction, much of the conflict over paternity and inheritance, property, ownership, and even fidelity would be far less. Some subcultures that practice(d) this do very well.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

intheory said:


> Yes, I've been told that many times, over the course of my life, from various different sources.
> 
> I have no problem with reexamining and questioning history.
> 
> ...




oh,I remember you now. 

:rofl:


----------



## Convection (Apr 20, 2013)

Marcus588 said:


> And do you think had women been in control of the world today we would have as many conflicts as today?


What did Robin Williams once say? "If women ran the world, there would be no war. Just every 28 days, some tense negotiations."

There is no evidence that women are somehow inherently more benevolent or kind than men, and that with them in charge, things would be more peaceful. Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive societies on the planet. Know who the immigrant domestics there fear the most? The Arab women. The lead wife (usually the eldest or first to marry the husband) can and often does dispense household justice with an iron fist. Boudicca led a Celtic revolt against the occupying Romans and tortured the hell whichever ones she caught, including the women. Do any reading about Ilse Koch; if even half the things she did in the concentration camps were true, it should make your blood run cold.

The point is, given access to power, many women are as dangerous and cruel as men. I think it is human nature, not a gender divide.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

ScarletBegonias said:


> oh,I remember you now.
> 
> :rofl:


What does this mean, Scarlet?


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Having attended women's basketball games. I do not believe that there would have been less wars.
MN


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

jld said:


> What does this mean, Scarlet?


It means I remember her from other threads and found it amusing that she replied exactly the way I thought she might.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

ScarletBegonias said:


> It means I remember him from other threads and found it amusing that he replied exactly the way I thought he might.


Intheory is a woman. Am I misunderstanding something?


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

jld said:


> Intheory is a woman. Am I misunderstanding something?


no,i am. I forgot she's female. I'll update my post to reflect that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

ScarletBegonias said:


> She didn't say that according to historians. Here's the link.
> Did Marie-Antoinette really say â€œLet them eat cakeâ€�? â€” Ask HISTORY â€” History Q&A
> 
> "Marie-Antoinette (bride of France’s King Louis XVI) supposedly sniffed, “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”—“Let them eat cake.” With that callous remark, the queen became a hated symbol of the decadent monarchy and fueled the revolution that would cause her to (literally) lose her head several years later. But did Marie-Antoinette really say those infuriating words? Not according to historians. Lady Antonia Fraser, author of a biography of the French queen, *believes the quote would have been highly uncharacteristic of Marie-Antoinette, an intelligent woman who donated generously to charitable causes and, despite her own undeniably lavish lifestyle, displayed sensitivity towards the poor population of France."*
> ...


I really know nothing about this Marie-Antoinette...but I sure know there is 2 sides to every story.. and I think with any history, whomever has more power (politics) likely has destroyed the REAL truth on many many accounts.. it's really hard to know what to believe ..or take *as fact*.. I try to keep an open mind -Unless I lived at that time.. who is to say...

So when I take an interest in something, any belief in history, I ALWAYS want to hear every side.. to try to piece that puzzle together.. as best as it can be...making some sense of it...given the players, the politics, how religion influenced the minds of the masses, etc.. 

Like the Salem Witch Trials (another example) ....thank God there were people who had some sense in their heads to rebuke such evil.. and eventually the true story came forth..although it was too late for those they hung.... I think the closest thing to that was told in this movie... Sobering ... 

 Three Sovereigns for Sarah - A True Story Of The Salem Witch Trials [VHS]: Vanessa Redgrave, 

I think History has done a hatchet Job to Thomas Paine also because of his book "the age of reason" -nothing to do with his character at all, just his beliefs... he is finally getting the respect he deserves... it amazes me - it always depends on who one is listening to about a certain figure - to their perspective on it... and most just BELIEVE what they are taught, without doing any research at all.. 

I love to research !


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

History is certainly questionable as far as quotes are concerned. That's why I enjoy when the historians bring up the actions of the person as support of what may or may not have been said.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

RandomDude said:


> I find this thread ludicrous, not only does it imply that men are inherently violent / genocidal / etc but it also implies that women are incapable of the hard decisions that many nations throughout history have been pressed to as a result of their times.
> 
> Women along with men both make wise as well as horrid decisions in authority. Female leaders and rulers in history as well as in our modern world asserts this fact. The idea of the 'fairer sex' being non violent is a very ill-informed statement especially with many women throughout history having proven themselves just as bloodthirsty as men if the need arised.


You gotta give women credit. You know alot of times on these foresenic files or these FBI shows the woman was the devilish ringleader in a horrific murder or crimes. Having men kill their parents, friends, having their trusting and loving husband setup and murdered.

So they can be as much more more of a monster than ANY man. I believe and know there would've been female hitlers as well as Napoleons and some geonocidal maniacs among them too.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

If you want to see some women can be just as coldblooded and evil as some men,watch a marathon of Snapped


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

ScarletBegonias said:


> If you want to see some women can be just as coldblooded and evil as some men,watch a marathon of Snapped


You gotta worry just a little bit if your wife says all sweetly..."Hey honey, you gotta come watch this with me"


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> You gotta worry just a little bit if your wife says all sweetly..."Hey honey, you gotta come watch this with me"


DH and I had a really terrible flu at the same time once and we watched an entire day of Snapped. lol It was like a train wreck,we were hooked on watching.


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

I will take the word of this genius...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo

For those religious, fast forward to 2:30

Man has screwed up this world SO much over the history, yes I think women would do a MUCH better job.

And you better believe that if there is a god, he is a man. Based on the results this world is completely screwed up.

PS. I'm a man


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Not in today's world. The climb to power in today's world warps even the best of them. 

Now if we could wave a magic wand, find the best and brightest and anoint them as being in charge without them having to politic to get there...then we would stand a much better chance of the stewards of our world actually taking care of everything and everyone in it!

Color me jaded.


----------



## jaharthur (May 25, 2012)

You mean they aren't?


----------



## BradWesley (May 24, 2013)

Anon Pink said:


> Not in today's world. The climb to power in today's world warps even the best of them.
> 
> Now if we could wave a magic wand, find the best and brightest and anoint them as being in charge without them having to politic to get there...then we would stand a much better chance of the stewards of our world actually taking care of everything and everyone in it!
> 
> Color me jaded.


OK, I have the body paint ready, now if you'll just stand still for a few minutes


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

If women are in charge:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCdrUW--Jic


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

women have all the pu$$y and at least half the money anyone who thinks they don't control the world is just.......................silly.


----------



## nuclearnightmare (May 15, 2013)

ScarletBegonias said:


> If you want to see some women can be just as coldblooded and evil as some men,watch a marathon of Snapped


or "Deadly Women"

(ID cable network)


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

nuclearnightmare said:


> or "Deadly Women"
> 
> (ID cable network)


When you realize there are SO MANY of these women amongst the general masses, and they are coddled, protected and covered for. :scratchhead:


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

RandomDude said:


> The idea of the 'fairer sex' being non violent is a very ill-informed statement especially with many women throughout history having proven themselves just as bloodthirsty as men if the need arised.


Yes. People are people.

And people are capable of some pretty bad things.

There is, however a tendency for some strange reason to romanticize some of the more horrid women in history.

Take, for example, Gabrielle (Coco) Chanel, who obtained her first perfume factory by denouncing the owners as Jews and seeing them hauled away in cattle cars. 

She wasn't just a poor woman trying to get by during a tough time. She was a true blue, dyed in the wool, Nazi at heart herself. None of her Nazi pals are remembered fondly today. 

We don't make biographical movies about them outside of the context of documentaries. But we're willing to set that standard aside for poor Coco.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

I knew there had to be a reason I wasn't fond of Chanel products. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BradWesley (May 24, 2013)

ScarletBegonias said:


> I knew there had to be a reason I wasn't fond of Chanel products.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


There were quite a few Nazi sympathizers, who benefited from it.

Chanel is just one of the dirty secrets.


----------



## firebelly1 (Jul 9, 2013)

Yeah - I can't say the world would be better if women were entirely in charge (other than me - I should totally be Queen of the World), but I do think the world would be a better place if women were better represented. I would like to see more women in Congress, for instance.


----------



## over20 (Nov 15, 2013)

Marcus588 said:


> Since caveman days men have controlled the world. Do you think that had women been in charge we would stilll have seen things such as war and all that? Would we have seen an equivalent to the likes of Hitler, or Stalin or Mao etc?
> 
> And do you think had women been in control of the world today we would have as many conflicts as today?



If women were in charge we would have MORE conflicts because females are more emotional.....I am VERY happy that men are in charge. The sexes are blessed with different strengths. We are different in function, equal in importance.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Where is the emoticon for vomit?


----------



## over20 (Nov 15, 2013)

Anon Pink said:


> Where is the emoticon for vomit?


I am sorry you are feeling sick...


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

BradWesley said:


> There were quite a few Nazi sympathizers, who benefited from it.
> 
> Chanel is just one of the dirty secrets.


Another was Braun.


----------



## over20 (Nov 15, 2013)

tom67 said:


> Another was Braun.


That would be Mike Braun right?


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

over20 said:


> That would be Mike Braun right?


Or his juiced up brother Ryan


----------



## over20 (Nov 15, 2013)

tom67 said:


> Or his juiced up brother Ryan


I am going to stick with Mike..for obvious reasons....


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

Anon Pink said:


> Where is the emoticon for vomit?


:lol:


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

over20 said:


> If women were in charge we would have MORE conflicts because females are more emotional.....I am VERY happy that men are in charge. The sexes are blessed with different strengths. We are different in function, equal in importance.


I don't know about you, but I think that would be a STRENGTH if anything.

I would MUCH rather go to Darfur/Nigeria or Sudan and save innocent people from Genocide vs letting them be killed and go to war in areas of the world that have economic and money interests for corporations.

Morals within our Politics/leaders would be a GREAT thing.

Will EVERYONE still have big SUVs and big screens? Possibly not, but in reality....people don't need that garbage anyways.

Besides, as it is today, it's just a matter of time before Americans have to sacrifice for the good of this country. It's coming, give it time.....


----------



## firebelly1 (Jul 9, 2013)

over20 said:


> If women were in charge we would have MORE conflicts because females are more emotional.....I am VERY happy that men are in charge. The sexes are blessed with different strengths. We are different in function, equal in importance.


Yikes. That is a broad brush and I think demeaning to women. So can't agree with you. But here's what I think women can bring to the table: we are more cognizant of household finances, children's issues, and women's issues. Women in Congress is what made it possible for a gynecologist to be considered a primary care provider and for birth control to be included in standard covered medications. Women are more likely to stand up for the rights of children and advocate for better education and child care. Women are the primary consumers in households so they are more cognizant of how budgetary decisions affect households. Our lives are different than those of men and we bring that perspective. 

Women can be competitive, but I think we are more likely to consider other people's perspectives and more likely to strive for consensus rather than trying to one-up the other guy. We are more likely to cooperate and less likely to let ego get in the way of decision-making, unlike men. My two cents.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

I don't really think there would be much difference.


----------



## convert (Oct 4, 2013)

Wasn't it Margaret Thatcher that said " If Women were in charge wars would never end"?

Not sure here.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

I thought the Iron Lady in the context of this thread, and how most of the female leaders I'm aware of, Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandhi, and yes, Hillary Clinton, have the reputation of being hard-asses.

That begs the question, though: are they hard-asses because they're women, or are they successful female leaders only because they're hard-asses?


----------



## firebelly1 (Jul 9, 2013)

convert said:


> Wasn't it Margaret Thatcher that said " If Women were in charge wars would never end"?
> 
> Not sure here.


Yeah - Margaret Thatcher is the woman that gives me pause when asked the question. It's more accurate to say that if women LIKE MARGARET THATCHER were in charge wars would never end. 

I think women have thus far had to be hard-asses to fit into the male establishment. But I see that changing in the corporate world at the lower levels and I hope that trickles up.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

JMHO

women that I have worked with are the most vandictive people I ever saw.

I can't imagine a women in charge of a nuclear weapon. that b*tch said what kapow


----------



## ariel_angel77 (May 23, 2014)

No, I do not.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

intheory said:


> No, I think men and women both have great qualities to offer.
> 
> When women get power; they can be very cruel and domineering. Or very selfish and self centered. "Let them eat cake" was said by a woman of the poor French peasants who couldn't afford flour for bread. (Marie Antoinette, Queen of France)
> 
> I think we should co-operate.


There is no proof that Marie Antoinette actually said what she is accused of saying: 

"It’s one of the most famous quotes in history. At some point around 1789, when being told that her French subjects had no bread, Marie-Antoinette (bride of France’s King Louis XVI) supposedly sniffed, “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”—“Let them eat cake.” With that callous remark, the queen became a hated symbol of the decadent monarchy and fueled the revolution that would cause her to (literally) lose her head several years later. But did Marie-Antoinette really say those infuriating words? Not according to historians. Lady Antonia Fraser, author of a biography of the French queen, believes the quote would have been highly uncharacteristic of Marie-Antoinette, an intelligent woman who donated generously to charitable causes and, despite her own undeniably lavish lifestyle, displayed sensitivity towards the poor population of France.

That aside, what’s even more convincing is the fact that the “Let them eat cake” story had been floating around for years before 1789. It was first told in a slightly different form about Marie-Thérèse, the Spanish princess who married King Louis XIV in 1660. She allegedly suggested that the French people eat “la croûte de pâté” (or the crust of the pâté). Over the next century, several other 18th-century royals were also blamed for the remark, including two aunts of Louis XVI. Most famously, the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau included the pâté story in his “Confessions” in 1766, attributing the words to “a great princess” (probably Marie-Thérèse). Whoever uttered those unforgettable words, it was almost certainly not Marie-Antoinette, who at the time Rousseau was writing was only 10 years old—three years away from marrying the French prince and eight years from becoming queen."

Did Marie-Antoinette really say â€œLet them eat cakeâ€�? â€” Ask HISTORY â€” History Q&A


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

chillymorn said:


> JMHO
> 
> women that I have worked with are the most vandictive people I ever saw.
> 
> I can't imagine a women in charge of a nuclear weapon. that b*tch said what kapow


Everyone's experience is different. I've worked under a lot of men and some women.

There have been good and bad with each group.

However the most incompetent, vindictive and mean spirited ones were males.. not all the males.. only a few.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

How many wars have been started by women? 

How many armies can we find in history that were made up of women? How many armies of women have slaughtered entire city states and large populations; or marched across continents with the sole purpose of slaughtering as many humans as possible to gain power, resources and assets?

However, I'm not sure that the world would be a better place if it were run by women. Maybe it would be best if men and women equally ran things. Then we'd benefit from the different perspectives.


----------



## over20 (Nov 15, 2013)

chillymorn said:


> JMHO
> 
> women that I have worked with are the most vandictive people I ever saw.
> 
> I can't imagine a women in charge of a nuclear weapon. that b*tch said what kapow


:iagree:....


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Cleopatra, Queen Mandukhai, Margaret Thatcher, plenty come to mind EleGirl. Sure, most wars were started by men but bear in mind most rulers were men throughout history. These women proved themselves just as capable as men when it comes to waging war and even war atrocities; it was by Boudicca's order that entire towns were exterminated, men women and child.

That's reality and the simple truth: Women are just as capable as men for good or evil. The idea of "world would be better run by women" to me is fantasy, as much a fantasy as that futurama episode DEATH BY SNU SNU!


----------



## Almostrecovered (Jul 14, 2011)




----------



## bkaydezz (Jul 9, 2012)

chillymorn said:


> JMHO
> 
> women that I have worked with are the most vandictive people I ever saw.
> 
> I can't imagine a women in charge of a nuclear weapon. that b*tch said what kapow


I just giggled so much 

KAPOW :moon:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## bkaydezz (Jul 9, 2012)

Urm. 


Nope.


----------

