If women ruled the world

Still waiting for the first one. Lash

I agree 100% Lash. It's a pity women aren't better represented, with closer to a 50/50 split, it would be less likely that women would have to become 'manly' in order to gather enough votes. Feminine input would certainly be a moderating influence in some of the most troubled areas of the world, if for no other reason than that we don't want to bring children into the world only to have them slaughtered to appease some one's vanity. By the way, not to chage the subject, but did you get a chance to read any of the Sr. Fidelma books yet? Take care.

This is weird. I was sure I'd sent you a message about one of my discussions which ties in with this, but I just checked and I can't find it. Oh well, if you see this and have the time, check out "The Difference between men and women is...." Lash

I agree. And sadly we have to sit by and see husbands, sons, brothers, fathers and friends killed in unnecessary fighting. If we could focus more on how we are the same, instead of being hung up on our differences, how much nicer the world would be? Our differences in ideologies, government, color and economic background should add interest and variety not reasons to kill.

I agree totally. Equal rights is still a work in progress in many countries that claim to have it, and a pipe dream for too many others. As long as so many societies hold onto their ideals of aggression and patriarchal viewpoints, women will continue to be that second class citizen, who has to sit by and watch sons, husbands and fathers killed for no reason.

Well said and thank you. It's the societies that prevent women from playing vital roles that need them the most. If that were to happen, I think we'd all breath a sigh of relief over the changes to the most troubled areas in this world.

I agree with you that men and women are capable rulers. There are not enough women represented, and I really believe that there would be a significant difference if they were. From the examles you chose, Cleopatra and Boudicca both ruled at a time when the main focus was dealing with and surviving invasions from Roman armies. We can't know how there rule would have differed if that was not the case. Queen Elizabeth I ruled at a time when Europe was being torn apart by religious persecution. She believed in tolerance, and her era is still known as the "golden era". Women for the most part are more maternal, are nurturers and I think better at finding common gound where others see only differences. In some of the most troubled areas of the world, if the ruling men listened more to their wives, mothers and sisters, and shared rulership, I think there would be a huge difference to the problems we not have in those places.

I am not sure I can agree with you. Boudicca was ruler after her husband was murdered by invaders. She had no choice but to fight or surrender. Women will fight to protect their young and their people. Cleopatra was much the same as her country was invaded by the same Romans. As for the English Queens, Elizabeth the first was noted for fostering cultural growth and sponsoring the arts. She was never able to marry as she knew that any man she married would take control. Queen Victoria was married and her husband was known to be the real ruler as she did everything he wanted even though she was the ruler. Those are the two most notable English Queens, both were women doing so called male jobs in a patriarchal world. It is not just qualities but also the way they are shaped by their culture. Male rulers are noted for starting wars to achieve desired results in preference for any other method. Men rarely choose diplomacy over war if they can get away with it. They are noted for ruthlessness. If you have a mild female ruler in a patriarchal society with strong ruthless male advisors you may well find that their actions appear much like men and have to wonder if the woman would do the same thing without those men manipulating to get what they want.

I agree, that if there were a handful of women rulers in a world that is predominatly ruled by men, that they would have to rule like a man...or get bowled over in the process. However, if ALL the world's leaders were women, I think you would see more cooperation and negotiation, simply because women are more nurturing and protective of their people and families. The majority of women do not have the bloodlust for war as the primary means to settle differencces. We want to keep our families whole, and to see our children grow up. I personally think there would be more emphasis on cooperative efforts to address the global problems of hunger, health issues, education and energy. Our armies could be trained to solve, not trained to fight.