Why is it only men who start wars?

Question

Men seem to be more pro-war than anyone. Do you believe a world run by women would have less violence?

Answer 1

It's men who start wars because it's men who run everything.  I think if women were in charge we would solve more things through diplomacy.  Women don't hold grudges and operate on a t*t for tat basis like men do.  However, I think women who get elected to high office tend to be the more masculine, aggressive types, so they may act exactly as men do if put in the same situations.

Answer 2

Men have started more wars historically because its men who have been in positions of power.  THe idea that there would be less violence with women in charge is speculative.  There have been in world history aggressive and violent female dominated societies.

Answer 3

You've obviously never studied history.  Queen Elizabeth I told the English navy to steal from the Spanish Armada, which directly led to the battle that destroyed most of the Armada.  Catherine the Great had no problems sending troops into battle.  Women rulers have gotten into wars just like men have.  

Answer 4

Q:  Do you believe a world run by women would have less violence?

A:  Yes.  Men tend to be more competitive, and women more cooperative.  This is actually borne out in studies exploring the differing voting patterns of men and women.   I'm not suggesting that war and conflict would be completely eliminated, just that they would be substancially reduced.

Answer 5

I think it would be exactly the same.

Think about it, do you really think that the wars that are occurring right now are direct acquisitions of the government? As if "Men like war let's war" "Or let's solve this killing?"

Don't you think there is "something" more?

The government is ran by money.Therefore the government is trying to make money and is dominated by it.

Aside those people who seek money or are brainwashed, no one is pro-war.

Why did Bush won again even if everyone hates him XD? Did he win because no one voted for him? Or because someone would get benefit from his wars?

Think about it >_>, no one wants war.

Putting women will not really help if what i said is true.

And what about countries with people that seek war like muslim ones? Will putting a women solve it?

Nope.

Do you really think that putting a female president will ban atomic bombs? no lol

This is life xD, it may get better it may not, it will never be perfect because humans are not perfect.

Answer 6

no I don't think that we would have less violence if women ran the world.If women ran the world I think women would murder their mates and get away with it,if women ran the world all men would be out of a job,If women ran the world it would be legal for women to kill their husbands.

Dios nos libre! If women ran the world.

Answer 7

A world run by women may have less violence, but i also believe it would be less advanced. This is in no way to be taken as a go at women, but men have a greater instinct of exploring and conquering. Hence a more agressive stance (claiming of territory). And anyway, you can say that it is only men who start wars because men are tend to be the senior heads of state. If things were reversed, men could turn around and say " why is it only women who start wars?"

Answer 8

Possibly. I think women are naturally not as macho-acting and egotistical and are therefore less likely to take any action for a mere "show of force", as many male leaders have done. Although... women are more hormonal...  =/

Answer 9

Sure, a world run by women would have less violence.

This is what I'm talking about, MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT. This is one, guys are more into violence and explosions and such, and women are more into...well less intense stuff...USUALLY. There are exceptions where women like violence too, but that is rare.

Women have started wars too, but I know you're talking about generals. But some wars were caused because two men were fighting for the love of a lady or were fighting because a woman had provoked the war by doing somethng.

Sure, go ahead and call me sexist, I could care less.

Answer 10

Just to be a Devil's Advocate, consider this:

One tenet that is held, especially by women since feminism began, but it goes back farther than that, is that "behind every great man there is a great woman (or women)".  

If this holds true, then every war mongering man, as some feminists will have you believe, is spurred on by one or more war mongering woman.  Nancy Reagan played a great part in Ronald's government, both of the Bush woives are there, influencing their husband, as was Hilary Clinto, Madame Nhu in Viet Nam, Jiang Quing egged on Cairman Mao, Nicolai Caecescu had his wife, Jelena, right there with him and so on.  

All either started wars, continued wars, or committed atrocities against their own people, and all were just since WW2.  This is a long standing thing where the power behind the throne influences the leader, and it is often a woman.

Answer 11

What about Margaret Thatcher? Didn't she send in troops to fight the Falklands War?

And while we're on British female leaders, Queen Elizabeth I wasn't exactly a pacifist either...

So to answer your question, no.

Answer 12

Gdot5, whatch ur ***. or else your gunna get booted of yahoo answers. women have just as many rights as we do, its just that they have not yet fully been inserted into the government YET. (enfosis on the YET). and for your question, no, i think it would be jus the same. haha js look at hilary clinton, she`s queit the enforcer :P

Answer 13

they have a cultural thing about them.  AND the queen of Spain and

other nations most definitely started their share of wars!!!

[and so did the gang of 4 in China]

Answer 14

It's the rich men who will stand to profit that start wars. Then they send the poor men to go and fight them.

Answer 15

If the men in the world would let the women rule, then they would.  It isn't that men are pro-war, it is the people that put them in that position of power, or they elected themselves into the position.  (as in dictatorship)  If there were women in those positions, I am afraid that you would see the same outcome.  Golda Meier was prime minister of Israel in the 70s, and she implemented wars.  Her gender had nothing to do with her decisions.

Answer 16

Caterina Sforza.  Bloody Mary.  Catherine the Great.

You really have done no research into history.

Answer 17

Queen Elizabeth the 2 started 18 self proclaimed wars it was in a nutshell more like an excurssion with only 3 of them actually resulting in gun battles but still 37 ppl died under her rule through out history alot of women in charge have become ruthless vigilanties. like Cleopatra. Alot of south americans believe that Adolf Hitlers wife actually started the war against jews.

Answer 18

Lol...do you know any woman?

J/k. I don't know about violence in general, cause there will always be violence in society, but I think that we would definitely have less wars if there were only woman in power. Woman are more likely to stop and think about the repercussions and the innocent lives that will be affected (sort of that maternal instinct I guess). Men are more worried about their egos, respect, and looking powerful. I'm not hating on men, I love men, but it's true.

Answer 19

Well men start them women finish them.

So yes i do think women will make a dramatic impact on humanity as soon as we get red of corruption, war monger nations, and stop making war a profit, and make peace more profitable,

Then Yes indeed, but if all that was done, don't think it would matter who runs the show, maybe it will be better if we all had a say in humanity.

When mankind sees profit in peace there will be no war,

and there will be peace indeed.

Answer 20

Golda Meir would have started the Yom Kippur war had Henry Kissinger not talked her out of it.

Answer 21

yeah there would be a lot less violence, but a lot more countries "not talking to one another".

men have a tendency to be more into the whole war thing. they love fighting for a cause and protecting the ones they love, namely women. (who can blame them?) i think there is something empowering and exciting about war to them... its like women and shopping. ;-)

Answer 22

I believe men are noted for fighting, but I also believe a world may have less violence run by a woman.

Answer 23

Nope

http://groups.google.co.ke/group/alt.sup...

Answer 24

It is political leaders who start wars.  When women are political leaders they are just as likely to start wars as men are.  There have been very few female political leaders in history, which makes it difficult to judge, but I don't believe that in general women leaders would be any less likely to start wars than men.

If there have been fewer wars started by women, it is because there have been far fewer women than men who were in a position to start wars.

Answer 25

We're more aggressive and less tolerate of things going on behind our backs. If you're going to build a nuclear device behind our back and hide it, you're going to get in trouble with a man. I can't say how a woman would react, but if she didn't then I can't imagine what would happen.

Answer 26

Just like Macbeth, the woman was the one who pushed the man because she didn't want to do the dirty work. Same deal in reality. I doubt if anything would change if women ruled. It wouldn't be tea and buscuits i can tell you that.

Answer 27

That is the dumbest statement I have ever heard in my life

I would suggest learning a bit of history and how almost every female leader has started a war!

Think Cleopatra, Catherine the great, Elizabeth, and the thousands of others.

Next time take a moment and learn a bit more before you sound ignorant.

Just remember it is better to be thought a fool than to open you mouth and remove all doubt.

Answer 28

When you bring life into the world, you tend to value it more.  Women would be less likely to send men and women to die, unless the homefront was directly threatened.  Then I think they would fight as much as men.

Answer 29

Apparently, you've never heard of Queen Elizabeth.  Men are in power and have been far more than women so it is unfair to use this as a statistic for an argument.

Answer 30

Like those women suicide bombers in Iraq this week? Trust me, make Hillary president and then when she bombs Iraq you can re-ask this question. Didn't M. Thatcher involve herself in some minor military scuffles?

Answer 31

Oh no you did not!

Are you saying that a woman in power would be less likely to use force, than a man given the same circumstances?

If you want to know why men start wars more often than women, it is because it has been our traditional role.  Men are expected to fight because historicaly women tended the home.  

If the historical role of women had been warriors then they would be the ones fighting, not men.  That is your answer, men fight because that is our traditional role.  Give us another one, we will do that.