Gender Issues

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

That offends me, and all other paperhangers.

That's okay. I know you're confused and underslept.

"women hold more negative views about war and military intervention than men." Okeydokie. Accepting that, for the purposes of debate, as fact, how do you get from that to 'women are indecisive'? It says, in fact, the opposite. It says they're decisively against war. Does that mean they'd lack resolve in defending themselves? You don't have any evidence to say so. You've made a number of leaps that aren't supported by the facts presented.

And notice, I'm actually trying to use the facts presented, barring a side excursion into wordplay about 'trees", which you clearly didn't find funny. I'm sorry that struck you wrong. It's just that you seem so secure in assuring us that you have learned much in your political science classes, and are therefore expert in presenting a summation of what is, after all, a pretty wide ranging field in a topic that is itself immense. If you told me you had a graduate degree in 'Gender Studies' I would be similarly amused. I take all assertions of authority, on the web and otherwise, with suspicion. It's probably an INTJ thing. I haven't asked for your class list, GPA, SAT score, reading list and copy of your last graded paper, have I? Because if you were Betty Freidan, posting from the afterlife, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me. What your argument is, does.

And I have LOTS of experiences not germane to this thread at all, if that reassures you.

But I'm not just trolling, if that's what you'd like to say. I'm just debating, because it's taking me FOREVER to read the entire "fan chick" or whatever they called it, thread, and I crave a little live interaction.

Not at the expense of your bloodpressure, however. I'm sorry I've been so annoying to you.

When I reflect that the only thing you REALLY know about me is that I'm incredibly annoying, it causes me to reevaluate my behavior, somewhat. I shall try to be less so, within my limitations.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It was the same when I was trying to work out for myself whether or not torture should be legal. I took the side that I knew no one would agree with and argued from it at great length, after creating a whole thread on the subject, in order to figure out what my views on it actually are. I still haven't completely formed a view of my own on this, yet.

Cool, I always hated it when at school you had to defend the side you did not agree with, but it was very useful. Nowadays, I find it is usually easier to take the unwanted side, because it makes you look for real evidence whereas otherwise you usually get stuck using only emotional arguments.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The main thing that's still holding me back from really believing fully that women shouldn't be allowed in politics is that there have been some glowing examples of marvelous female leaders. Just a few that I know of, but those few are so good that they make me very hesitant to finally decide that women shouldn't be in politics.

You go girls! (okay that sounds extremely bad )

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Speaking of which, it has been great to meet you for the first time, Mari!

Aww, thanks! Always nice to hear that! And know that I enjoyed the discussion as well, allthough you did manage to give me thorough headache at times

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I wasn't taught about women in politics specifically being generally more nurturing than men. But there is a lot of evidence I have already produced on this thread that women are genetically less aggressive and more nurturing than men, so if that is, as the evidence suggests, a genetic trait throughout the vast majority of women, then it logically would influence women in politics too.

You became soft We started with: "most women are nurturing and most men aggressive." but we already got to the point that women are just less aggressive and more nurturing than men. So instead of like this:
nurturing <--- women ----------- men ---> aggressive
we arrived at:
nurturing <--- women -> ------- <- men ---> aggressive
if you get what I mean...
Anyway, I think we made some progress here people!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

That offends me, and all other paperhangers.

That's okay. I know you're confused and underslept.

"women hold more negative views about war and military intervention than men." Okeydokie. Accepting that, for the purposes of debate, as fact, how do you get from that to 'women are indecisive'? It says, in fact, the opposite. It says they're decisively against war. Does that mean they'd lack resolve in defending themselves? You don't have any evidence to say so. You've made a number of leaps that aren't supported by the facts presented.

One of my sources did say that significantly more married women support war than unmarried women.

But I never made the general statement that "women are indecisive."

Again, I'm afraid that your ignorance about politics is showing through from your post. You have said that you accept that "women hold more negative views about war and military intervention than men," for the purposes of this debate. That again shows you are ignorant of the basics of Political Science that were taught in PS 110. One of the earliest, most basic Political Science classes you can take. If you were an elected official, as I feel very certain now you aren't, you would know your basic facts rather than saying you accept these basics "for the sake of debate."

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And notice, I'm actually trying to use the facts presented, barring a side excursion into wordplay about 'trees", which you clearly didn't find funny. I'm sorry that struck you wrong. It's just that you seem so secure in assuring us that you have learned much in your political science classes, and are therefore expert in presenting a summation of what is, after all, a pretty wide ranging field in a topic that is itself immense. If you told me you had a graduate degree in 'Gender Studies' I would be similarly amused. I take all assertions of authority, on the web and otherwise, with suspicion. It's probably an INTJ thing. I haven't asked for your class list, GPA, SAT score, reading list and copy of your last graded paper, have I? Because if you were Betty Freidan, posting from the afterlife, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me. What your argument is, does.

That's all fine. But maybe you haven't been looking at my statements closely enough. My assertions as to what the Political Science Branch says have never been based on my word alone. I referenced a professor whom I told those here about by name, and two Political Science textbooks, among several other sources. I have never depended on my own personal experience alone for any point I have raised here, to my knowledge. Please present quotations and post numbers, if you feel I'm wrong in saying this.

And I have LOTS of experiences not germane to this thread at all, if that reassures you.

It doesn't .

But I'm not just trolling, if that's what you'd like to say. I'm just debating, because it's taking me FOREVER to read the entire "fan chick" or whatever they called it, thread, and I crave a little live interaction.

I can definitely understand that . I feel exactly the same way, about threads.

Though I note that this is another evidence against your having the credentials and job occupation that you cited yourself as having. You said earlier that you were strapped for time. That would make a lot of sense, if you were an elected official evaluating political science, and with all the other credentials you said you had. But if you are able now to have the time to read through the whole fan chick thread, well . . . I'd say you likely have more time than the average elected official.

Not at the expense of your bloodpressure, however. I'm sorry I've been so annoying to you.

When I reflect that the only thing you REALLY know about me is that I'm incredibly annoying, it causes me to reevaluate my behavior, somewhat. I shall try to be less so, within my limitations.

Thank-you for that. I appreciate it. And I am willing to get off your back and change form, debating with you once more (after my time frees up) in a normal, friendly fashion. I do appreciate your stopping the personal attacks.

But I will only get off your back and call a truce if you take back your untruths about your identity and apologize to the Entmooters on this thread. Then I really will get off you, and we can restart on better terms, Earl.

Think about it. Everything you do and say on this site is likely to work against your story, because you've claimed an identity for yourself that you can't live up to, at present. But I promise you that I will lay off if you take back your story. I would also respect such a choice very highly, because doing that takes courage.

Another option is just reentering Entmoot with a new username.

~Lief

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

if you need me to make up an apology for my supposed sins against the moot. I'm content to let my identity develop here in natural fashion, without a change in username. If you don't believe my credentials, well, that's your lookout. Suspicion of the claims of strangers is healthy, far be it from me to discourage THAT. But I don't need your validation, and if you enjoy detecting, detect away. Bringing such joys are part of my lifework.

You didn't see anything funny about the whole "Leif motif' that made me giggle about the "branch" of political science? See, I really thought that was intentional on your part. Whups.

[Lief Erikson]

Well that one's up to you, sisterandcousinandaunt.

Originally Posted by Mari

Cool, I always hated it when at school you had to defend the side you did not agree with, but it was very useful. Nowadays, I find it is usually easier to take the unwanted side, because it makes you look for real evidence whereas otherwise you usually get stuck using only emotional arguments.

That's very true.

Originally Posted by Mari

You go girls! (okay that sounds extremely bad )

I don't think so . I was very impressed with them, and if most women in politics behave as those women did, wow.

Trouble is that because of the genetics of gender roles, I think the available evidence is pushing toward the reverse being true. But oh well.

Tough one . . . (for me)

Originally Posted by Mari

Aww, thanks! Always nice to hear that! And know that I enjoyed the discussion as well, allthough you did manage to give me thorough headache at times

That makes me happy .

[Nurvingiel]

I want to wait before responding to your post-- I really think you're abusing the term "genetics"! Okay, now I'll wait before responding to your post so as not to tempt you away from your school work.

Go! Work on your essays!

Do as I say, not as I do,
Nurv

[Gwaimir Windgem]

women have been found to hold more negative views about war and military intervention than do men . . .

BREAKING NEWS!!!

Lief Erikson, renowned activist of the Mootish Commonwealth has uncovered an ancient manuscript which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Pope John Paul II was a woman!

"We expected it," commented religious leader Freddie Phelps, Sr., pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church. "I've known that it was a fag church all along. Only makes sense that their hell-dwelling leader would turn out to be a woman in disguise. Oh, by the way, God hates fags."

"For me, it was a surprise," says famed Catholic theologian Hans Kung. "I mean, sure, I figured out the guy wasn't infallible, but not a guy, either?"

Pope Benedict XVI has refused to comment.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

BREAKING NEWS!!!


Pope Benedict XVI has refused to comment.

HE KNEW!!!

[Nurvingiel]

Ha! That's awesome Gwai.

[Mercutio]

This looks like it used to be an interesting thread.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

This looks like it used to be an interesting thread.

I suspect our friend Butterbeer would say "And therefore doomed."

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I suspect our friend Butterbeer would say "And therefore doomed."

Butterbeer is a Mooter of much wisdom.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

OK, your position is that women are usually more likely to vote against war, and that's a bad thing.

This can only be based on the assumption that war (violence, aggression) is on the whole a good thing.

Well, I think that us winning a war when we're involved in one tends to be desireable.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Ever see a bar room brawl develop? Usually two males get into an argument about some absolutely trivial thing, any females around try to restrain it, but male stupidity triumphs.

Good for the women, in these situations. This doesn't surprise me at all.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Scale that up and call it human history.

I tend to see that as an oversimplification .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Sure it does. Your position seems to be womens are too unhostile so we cant allow them to vote because they’ll keep us out of wars.

First of all, I wasn't talking only about entering into wars. I was also talking about winning them once we're involved in them. The latter is critically important.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

This position is flawed on two levels. 1. Not all wars are necessary. And unnecessary wars are horrific wastes of human life and capital. So to have a counter balance to pure 100% testosterone when it comes to making decisions based solely on aggression is a good thing in my book.

I never said our politicians should make decisions "based solely on aggression." Hopefully we'll have elected some men that aren't mad.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

2. Plenty of men think like wimpy women and also want peace.

I agree that plenty of men also want peace. And there you have your counter to your "pure 100% testosterone," "decisions based solely on aggression," argument. Men aren't going to all be nutcases. While men do tend to be more aggressive than women, that doesn't make them incapable of making good decisions. A goodly number of women also are willing to do what it takes in situations where war is necessary. However, most women aren't because they don't tend to be so genetically equipped, psychologically or physically, for warfare as men are. It's because men were biologically intended to be capable of fighting to defend the family that we tend to also be physically bigger and stronger than women. The aggression and psychological preparation to lead and fight if needed are part of the same set-up. This also goes to leadership too. Throughout human history, men have held leadership positions in almost every society. According to the Gender Organization, this is biological, and more recent changes to the trend are the result of socialization (I linked that in the Gender Issues Thread- I can dig it up again, if you like). Our nearest primates are all the same, with males leading. It's the genetic, biologically organized structure, and is one that is the way it is because it works best. One can see it also functioning beyond governments and in families. I read a statistic that of the women voting for war, more of them are married than are unmarried.

Women are every bit as essential to the human race and as valuable to it as men are. As you and GrayMouser have pointed out, they lend another perspective that is very helpful, and a man-woman team working together is excellent. It can function together in wonderful ways, both genders adding together their unique qualities to make a stronger whole.

I don't tend to approve of women holding positions in the government or voting that involve national security, however, because women tend to drag on war efforts, both before wars and during them.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Therefore the true extent of the logic you propose is to limit decision making to one solitary figure: YOU. Because YOU apparently have the best interest of everyone in mind by promoting war more than peace and that way those pesky women AND those pesky wimpy men wont influence politicians to do the wrong thing. Now unleash the dogs of war!

I think that most men are more aggressive than women, but that this does not make them incapable of trying to achieve peace or in succeeding. I do think that women have a great range of useful social skills, though, and empathy and often a strong ability to understand where people are coming from. So in diplomacy, they may be more effective than most men (though granted, certainly not all). Don't know.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But why just against women? Isn’t that simple discrimination?

It's not just against women. I'd use the same argument to strengthen the opportunities of women to hold various kinds of jobs that maximize their biological abilities, and would make it harder for men to get through. Diplomacy, for instance, might be better conducted if more women were involved and fewer men. Condoleeza Rice (not that I have anything against her as Secretary of State) might be better in the UN than John Bolton has been, you know. Not that I know a whole lot about John Bolton, but I think he tends to be too aggressive and harsh on the agency, without enough effort to cooperate with foreign leaders. Though I don't have a strong opinion on this, really. And I haven't reviewed statistics or anything from which to draw this conclusion- it's just a guess.

The same argument goes against homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption, as well. That argument is partly based on genetics and gender roles, and the innate differences between men and women.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What if you find that there are other groups who have even HIGHER rates of voting for peace then women? Just because they aren’t biological youll just let them interfere with those spineless politicians and risk us not going to war?

I do think that some ideologies that oppose war may harm our national security interest. But on what basis would you legislate against these ideologies? If you took the route where you are legislating against any ideology you feel opposes the national interest without any standard from which you're legislating, then you really do have a dictatorship. Besides, people can change in ideology. A person's ingrained biology isn't going to change, though, and tends to be continuous throughout genders though with ever-present variation. Biology isn't going to change and tends to be there across the board wherever you look. The differences between men and women's perspectives on war have been shown to be continuous across multiple nations, cultures and religious groups. Of course if you have some religious group that opposes violence of any kind all the time, then that is a rather different story, but in major nations across many cultures and geographic areas, these differences have been shown to exist.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Perhaps land ownership proves the genetics necessary to make such decisions.

Show me the studies that say so, and we'll talk about it.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So perhaps we should go back to the original way we used to do things in this country. Only males with significant land ownership have the right to vote. Because clearly their genetics prove their ability to righteously represent all the other folk who aren’t capable of holding such an awesome responsibility… And they will never be flawed or abuse that privilege by definition right?

I think that men will be flawed and will abuse their privileges. As might women in similar circumstances. That isn't the issue. Capability is.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So you base your rules about voting on the results you want to achieve in effect. That’s the opposite of democracy isn’t it? Sounds more like you are rigging the system to me.

Sounds like by your reasoning, we should allow all children to vote too. The reason we don't have them voting is because we know that most of them (not all, but most) are not biologically capable of voting in an intelligent manner.

I am not here saying that a woman voting is the same as a child voting. Women are mature adults and children are not. A woman would make incomparably better decisions in a voting booth than a child. So let's get that potential misunderstanding out of here before it is spoken. My only point is that we already have precedent in our laws for discriminating against people's voting based upon biology and because their votes would not produce the results we desire.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Hm studies show women vote for peace X% more than males. So therefore we must eliminate them from the picture in order to achieve our goals of maximizing the likelihood of war. That’s scary backwards reasoning Lief. But hopefully its just that and not the even worse scenario of: how can we take the vote from women? I know! Lets point out that they like peace more than war!

It is important to our national security that we have the ability to stick out wars we're engaged in and to win them. It's also important that we have the ability to engage in the right wars. I know that men won't always get us into the right wars or be able to win them once we're in them. And being more likely to enter the right wars means also being more likely to enter the wrong ones. But unfortunately, we'd also be more likely to lose whatever war we fight, or to be attacked if we delay. I do believe that many men support peace and I think that that is very important to our national security too- it keeps us from overtaxing ourselves or being as likely to hit the wrong targets. But I think men tend to be better designed than women to make these leadership decisions. This is not a constant- some women are far better at making these kinds of decisions than some men. And some men's aggression does make them stupid. I think that as a whole though, the genders are designed to function in this way and there are a great deal of evidences (of which I have listed several above) that indicate this.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But you ARE saying that every war that men support is a necessary and just war. And that’s where you are wrong by a landslide.

If I was saying that, I agree with you that I would be "wrong by a landslide." But I did not say that, to my knowledge. And I don't believe it.

That would have been pretty dumb of me though, if I did believe that . All you'd have to point to is any war from history, pretty much. Both sides were supported by men and so each war for both sides was a necessary and just war, right? Lol! I really would be a dumbell if I held to that.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But the question remains was it necessary to begin with? And should we still be there in the capacity we are?

I know that what I said does not answer those questions. My response to the first one is that whether it was necessary or not, it looked necessary to all concerned, and so getting in, based on the information we had at the time, was the best thing we could do. My response to the second is that in my view, all options available have always been bad options. There have never been any good ones. But staying in Iraq in our current capacity is still the best option of the bad ones we have available to us.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I don’t think you will achieve your goal by banning women from the voting booths.

I agree. I think that that would probably help, but I don't think it would be anywhere near enough to alone achieve our goal of winning this war.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Youd need to first declare marshall law perhaps and certainly to thoroughly restrict the press. Because the press combined with modern technology is the key. They are the ones that convey the horrors and abuses and corruptions inherent in ANY conflict to the public day in and day out. And they therefore cause the public to loose heart in the conflict based on what they see and hear. The support for such an undertaking wilts quickly under their constant scrutiny. Remember, we didn’t have these issues during world war II when we were fire bombing entire cities and unimaginable debauchery was going on on all sides. So before you start banning women, come down hard on the press and limit their access big time. That will get you war votes more than anything I assure you.

I mentioned media as one of the big weapons Al Qaeda is using against us. If I came to oppose some of the freedom of the press that currently exists, I would see that as a separate issue from women's voting. My position on women's voting is about biological design and the overall psychological differences between the two genders. If I came to desire the restriction of some of the media's present freedoms, that would be because our civilian population does not have military training and so cannot be expected to hold out when the media presents it with graphic images of violence every day.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Is this a reference to Hilary Clinton? Do you think she would do crazy out of control stuff to prove to the right wingers how aggressive she can be?

I was not referring to Hillary Clinton. I was making a general statement that comes from what I was taught in Political Science 110.

[Jonathan]

In the US, females make up almost 51% of the population, a majority. Thus, the female tendency to "drag on war efforts" etc. should be the accepted procedure in national security matters. The innate male "aggressiveness" must be considered a divergance from the standard (female) genetic composition.
Lief, it is the men who shouldn't be allowed to have too much influence over national security! Wars would be less frequent and last shorter. And that's the way it should be, because biology + majority judges it right!


Seriously though - gender issues, genes, biology - these are all things that can easily lead to discrimination. To give men and women different degrees of influence in various political areas, is discriminating. Everyone has an equal right to decide things about their own country, especially on such important matters as going to war or not.
We can't and mustn't let ourselves be ruled by the tyranny of biology because that would be treading on our freedom and sense of equality.

[Mari]

Lief, you're back! Long time no see

Don't really feel like thinking everything you said through (you said a lot) but I would like to point out that in a votingsystem, if you want women to vote in favor of a war, you have to show that there really is no other option then to wage war.
If your logic isn't good enough to convince them of that, that doesn't mean that women can't say yes to war, it means that the government can't present the necessity of war good enough.
But that's what I believe. And with the example of the disasterous Iraq-war I don't think many Americans, female OR male will vote in favor of (for example) a war against North-Korea.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

In the US, females make up almost 51% of the population, a majority. Thus, the female tendency to "drag on war efforts" etc. should be the accepted procedure in national security matters.

I agree that our military leaders should take it into account. I don't think, though, that they should have to take it into account.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

The innate male "aggressiveness" must be considered a divergance from the standard (female) genetic composition.
Lief, it is the men who shouldn't be allowed to have too much influence over national security! Wars would be less frequent and last shorter. And that's the way it should be, because biology + majority judges it right!

The trouble is that men were genetically designed to lead and to wage warfare. We were psychologically and physically prepared for it, whereas women weren't. I grant you there is variation and that this is an overall point that doesn't apply to some specific cases. But these are genetic traits we were designed with, and it was done in a way that would benefit our species best. So to say that women should have exactly the same voice in areas that men were designed to dominate in doesn't make sense, and neither does it make sense for men to have equal voice in areas where women are genetically best prepared for the task.

Our biologies "judge this system right," or at least judge it to be the best model for our species. And majority opinion is not going to always find what's best for our species or our country, by the way .

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Seriously though - gender issues, genes, biology - these are all things that can easily lead to discrimination. To give men and women different degrees of influence in various political areas, is discriminating. Everyone has an equal right to decide things about their own country, especially on such important matters as going to war or not.
We can't and mustn't let ourselves be ruled by the tyranny of biology because that would be treading on our freedom and sense of equality.

I believe that taking our biology into account our laws would not be a "tyranny", but rather would help our country a lot. I also believe that some of our freedoms today should be "treaded on," as they are harming our society. I further believe that our sense of equality is very misplaced. Women and men are equally valuable and equally essential to the human race, but their psychologies and abilities tend to flow in different directions, which is part of the reason why (from a purely practical perspective) both are equally essential to the human race.

Originally Posted by Mari

Lief, you're back! Long time no see

Great to talk with you again too!

Originally Posted by Mari

Don't really feel like thinking everything you said through (you said a lot) but I would like to point out that in a votingsystem, if you want women to vote in favor of a war, you have to show that there really is no other option then to wage war.
If your logic isn't good enough to convince them of that, that doesn't mean that women can't say yes to war, it means that the government can't present the necessity of war good enough.

I agree. I just think it would take a lot more to convince women that it's time for war than it would take men, and I also think it would take a lot less to convince women to end a war than it would take men. Which I don't think is a good thing, as I think that men were genetically equipped for the fighter/leader role, and that they'll therefore tend to make better decisions in cases that involve that role, overall.

Originally Posted by Mari

But that's what I believe. And with the example of the disasterous Iraq-war I don't think many Americans, female OR male will vote in favor of (for example) a war against North-Korea.

I expect that you're right.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So to say that women should have exactly the same voice in areas that men were designed to dominate in doesn't make sense, and neither does it make sense for men to have equal voice in areas where women are genetically best prepared for the task.

If you're trying to say that I can't pick out fabulous clothing for myself and others, you're wrong.

WRONG. o(>.<)O

I defy any woman (who's not a professional fashion designer...) to shop better than I do. DEFY, I SAY!

[Lief Erikson]

Lol.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree. I just think it would take a lot more to convince women that it's time for war than it would take men, and I also think it would take a lot less to convince women to end a war than it would take men. Which I don't think is a good thing, as I think that men were genetically equipped for the fighter/leader role, and that they'll therefore tend to make better decisions in cases that involve that role, overall.

Accepting that you're right, isn't it a good thing that it takes more time to convince women? It means the government has to really think it's arguments through and they can't rush into a foolish war. It might teach them some precaution. (Is that correct English?)
And before you start saying that sometimes there is no time for thorough consideration, like for example after Pearl Harbor, it is my believe that in such extremities, women are fully capable of saying yes to war. Mainly because Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks happened in a country they felt more or less safe. You defend what you feel is yours. And after attrocities are commited against them or their country(men) people are easier up for a war.

[GrayMouser]

And because men are more likely to choose war, men of both sides are more likely to choose war. Both Nazi Germany and pre-War Japan were extremely maculinized warrior societies- women's place was in the domestic sphere, things like war were too important to be left to them etc.- and both were extremely aggressive.

It's been pointed out that advanced democratic nations don't go to war with one another- the "no two countries which have McDonald's have ever gone to war" case. It could be argued that one of the reason's for this is that democracies have resulted in less aggressive cultures, and that including women in the political sphere has been one reason for this.

And since in spite of doom-sayers, Western-originated liberal democracy has survived the test of time, triumphing over the challenges of dictatorial militarism, Fascism, and Communism, then maybe we should keep laying our winning hand, and even try to expand it as much as we can, instead of regressing to the level of our (failed ) opponents. I'd be much happier if the less aggressive sex had more influence in places like Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan.