Politicians don't make everything happen, the people also make a difference. Would a country consisting only of women attack another country? Only the most militant countries have significant numbers of women among their fighting forces. I just read of a very nervous French woman on a plane, asked to hold the hand of the person next to her who happened to be English and the woman on the other side also offered her hand, and she was Arabic. To me this seemed odd because the English and French had been colonial powers in the Arab world, but in the world of women that didn't matter at all; One was in need so all would help her.
In the male dominated world we are in, one thing has surprised me every time it has happened. The ease with which a country goes to war, for no obvious reason at all. Five weeks into the 'hot' stage of the war in Ukraine a peace arrangement had been agreed upon, but just the objections of the British and the Americans were considered enough to veto the peace agreement. The Ukrainians didn't want the war and the Russians were only there to stop NATO from placing nuclear armed missiles up real close to them.
And the extent of the war. Hundreds of thousands of fit young Ukrainian men were press ganged to the front to probable death or disability, in a war they had no hope of winning. Almost two years on they are still dying. 500,000 dead and almost as many with severe permanent disabilities. Most of them didn't volunteer, maybe the neo-Nazis did, those in the right sector or Azov battalion, but I don't think most wanted to get chewed up by shrapnel. Can't anybody say 'NO', can't everybody say 'NO'.
that hot-headed Joe Biden wants a war with Iran and Yemen and China as well as the proxy war with Russia.
Biden wants war with Iran and its proxies... Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas and more. Biden wants war thith Russia too. China is standing by with bated breath to take over when the dust settles.
The US accepts the one-China policy that Taiwan is part of mainland China. I think Biden is going to have to keep his war going in Ukraine to keep money flowing to the weapons makers, and perhaps start a war in Africa or Central or South America, ... because nothing frightens Neo-cons like not having a war.
Men do talk about policies and can have an intelligent conversation. With women it's like the sort of soft cover fiction they read, or soap operas. "I like that sweet Joe Biden and hate that domineering Donald Trump."
I think its all about the power rather than the gender. Male rulers are simply more common. Women in power do the same thing as men in power- seek more power by whatever means necessary, including war. In fact- Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings Researchers looked at the actions of European rulers from 1480 to 1913 Queens were more likely to wage war and win new territory than kings The team believes this was mostly down to their management style Female rulers are 27% more likely to wage WAR than males | Daily Mail Online Now it could be that a democratic nation of only women might go to war less due to a more empathetic populace opposed to war ...but also that populace would be more willing to conform to the opinions of others. This would make an all female populace not only more empathetic, but also more controllable via mass media influence. Its also likely that a populace of all women would empathize with eachother more than some faraway people, adding more weight to the social control option. That is to say, a population of woman would be less amenable to war, but also less resistant to it. If a few particularly aggressive and/or power hungry women in positions of influence pulled the right strings, it will be easier to convince a population of all women to engage in a war that they would prefer not to, so long as they could be convinced that other women support it. However, we also have to ask whether a population of all women would be able to win a war. Women rulers may war as much or more than male rulers, but they always have sent THE MEN to do the fighting. Certainly modern technology levels the playing field A LOT since women rulers warred ...but not completely. Men are still stronger, faster and more aggressive on the battlefield. And if evolutionary psychology has any merit, its going to be a lot more difficult to get an army of all women to leave their defensible positions and assault those of the enemy, when they could more effectively fight defensively from the position they already have. Assaulting the enemy tends to be man stuff, due in no small part to it being a very not smart thing to do. Women have repeatedly proved themselves in combat, but always as snipers, pilots, drivers, infiltrators ...never so far as I know as front line assault troops, and those are still necessary for winning wars.
When I talk politics with a woman which is rare and only if they choose to, then if they don't already have the same opinion as I have, then the debate turns into who they like and who they don't like. Logic, cause and effect all mean nothing to them.
