Originally posted by Viking
Well ... I don't think that statement is backed up by much scientific research. I think the real issue is that very few women have been in a position to start wars. Of those few at least Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher started wars in the last 50 years (although Thatcher was provoked into war by Argentinian military action). The notion that "if the world's nations were led by women there would be no wars" is a myth. You only have to look at the female politicians of today to understand that they are just as bad in every way as the male politicians.
Food for debate...
Why are males driven to dominate? …To the point of controlling every Country?
There have been women in history that ruled a country either by royal blood lines or popular election but it is the exception and not without male power majority in the background.
We have an intellect capacity that puts us on par with males but not the gender instinct to dominate them, gender to gender, in the main.
We have the intellect capacity to rule countries and have proven that. It is indisputable.
I am not making a judgment call as to which is better... male or female, just observing historical behavior. Personally, I view the two genders as two halves of a whole. How can one be better if each can not survive from generation to generation without the other? I see the two genders as different yet equals in terms of being human.
I do not consider my gender to be inferior to male... we are not.
Getting to the bottom of the issues, I think, is the key... to peel back the layers of the onion to reveal what lies at its core.
Males are wired, by testosterone, to dominate... to the point of controlling every country.
That includes an instinct to dominate us... the females of the species.
Every woman knows of this behavior of males... first hand. We live with the reality of it every day.
The focus of the discussion is females serving in the military.
Lazs states he thinks it's a bad idea...
empirically, and by study of history, I feel understand why he said it. Thus I am referring back to my previous post about instinctive male drives for possession of the gene pool and denial of other male's access to the gene pool. Some people refer to it as typical male horniness coupled with male-on-male ownage and it is a very real hormonally driven instinct to survive by instinctive domination.
Think we women don’t have an empirical understanding of men?
Think again... it dominates our reality and lives... and always has, and likely it always will. Intellect is the path out of life driven by base instincts that no longer serves a viable purpose.
It is yet to be determined whether there remains a viable purpose for some instincts.
Frankly, I can't imagine life without males, as is... we are
symbiotic; albiet, with socialized domestication.
Gender instincts affects us all but in the modern age, this is not an all encompassing "You Tarzan; Me Jane" reality in which we live today.
TIGERESS
