Would The World Be Safer If Women Dominated Global Politics?

Transhumanist philosopher, David Pearce theorizes that, There is one crude and spectacularly effective way to reduce global catastrophic risk. For evolutionary reasons, almost all wars are started and waged by men. Enacting legislation that allowed only women to stand for national public office would probably save hundreds of thousands of lives this century ÔøΩ possibly more.

If women dominated global politics, would the world be a safer place? Not necessarily. This line of reasoning probably comes from the perception that women are more nurturing. Women may also appear to be more willing to work for the greater good, and more willing to resolve issues through mediation and conflict resolution, rather than releasing missiles on anything that moves.

I agree that most women are nurturing and most women like to talk, but women can also be strategic and stealthy. Some women are capable of being warmongers, channeling bestial instincts, and operating and executing in covert ways. Take Delilah for example. She wasn't commanding the militia, but she was persistent in her quest to convince Samson (an army of one) to reveal his secret, which he eventually did. Seduction and nagging might be more powerful than an AK-47. In addition, radical Islamic women volunteer as suicide bombers (and are welcomed) because, obviously, they appear less suspicious.

Pearce's theory might be dependent on predisposition and culture. In many societies across the globe, children are conditioned to take on particular gender roles. Little girls are given strollers, dolls and ovens, and little boys are given water guns and cars. In other cultures, little boys go to school, and little girls never see the inside of a classroom. By their nature, little boys build Lego castles, and then destroy them. Little girls build Lego castles, and stand back in admiration.

Our conditioning and socialization process, and where we grew up, might have an effect on the way we handle aggression and confrontation. Hence, if more women were given the opportunity to participate in global politics, we might see just as much conflict, wars, and attempts at dictatorship, depending on the woman that's leading.

There have been a few female leaders who had no problems going into battle, seizing nations, and using the military to make a statement. The list includes:

ÔøΩ Zenobia of Palmyra, also known as a Warrior Queen, violently and successfully conquered Egypt and the western two-thirds of the Asian part of Turkey (Anatolia). She was also successful in controlling vital trade routes in the Middle East, including Lebanon, Syria and Palestine during her reign.

ÔøΩ Queen Bloody Mary I, ordered hundreds of Protestants burned at the stake for being Protestant.

ÔøΩ When the Argentine dictator General Leopoldo Galtieri ordered forces to invade the Falkland Islands, Margaret Thatcher didn't miss a beat in deploying troupes to liberate the nation.

ÔøΩ Under Operation Blue Star, Indira Ghandi ordered the military to remove Sikh Separatists from the Golden Temple in Amritsar.

Despite the fact the men are generally more aggressive, some women can be just as aggressive. While taking a Krav Maga class, my pretend attacker had no problem slamming me to the wall. When I kindly reminded her this was pretend, she kindly questioned, You signed up for this s*** right? True. On the other hand, when I kicked a different woman in the knee, I apologized and actually felt bad for hurting her. If some females are aggressive and confrontational in non-violent, pretend situations, given the opportunity to wield global, political power, they just might rule with an iron fist.

Moreover, just like I signed up to be slammed, some leaders sign up and are executing agendas they have no control over. If this is the case, the gender of the leader is irrelevant to the execution of warfare, legislation, and policy fostering a corrupt, unpleasant and less than safe global community.

People are not defined by their gender. They are defined by their character and moral code of ethics. These are the factors that determine an individual course of action. This is true of males and females. Both genders are equally capable of operating in self-interest. Both genders can be equally brutal, and both genders can be equally compassionate. It just boils down to the individual.

Editor-in-Chief's Note: Ebonie Jones is an Editorial Contributor with MNI Alive

Photo Credit To Xfinity