Why do some people suggest that females are more warmongering than men?

Question

Example ...

LuLu (female): "Gosh, look at human history. Look at all the wars men have waged."

Billy (a male): "WHUT!?!?! Are you KIDDING ME!? Have you already forgotten about Queen Boudicca, or Cleopatra? OH and if Hillary Clinton was president, she's be on the RAG every month! She'd be invading a new country every WEEK!"

LuLu: "Now Billy, that's just silly talk. Sure, there's been some women who were horrible warmongers, who killed many, wrought destruction ... but let's be realistic here. Out of all the wars waged, 90% of them were waged by men. Men created the nuclear bomb. And George W. Bush was a male."

Billy: "You're a stupid feminist."

LuLu: "You just insulted me, therefore you lose by default."

Billy: "Make me a sandwich bi---."

LuLu: "Oh wow, real original. Like I've never heard that one before. You know why you're resorting to such non-sense Billy? Because you just got told by a woman, and you can't handle it."

*Billy walks away in shame*

Billy, who had to leave because he couldn't control his testosterone, left his wallet on the table. Before he remembers, I pick up the wallet, find a couple $20's, and casually stroll off to Starbucks, where I buy myself a grande americano misto in a venti cup.

And that my friends ... is survival of the fittest.

Answer 1

Because (some) women want to kill their own pre-born babies in the womb and call it a "choice"

That is about as warmongering as you can get!

Answer 2

"Look at all the wars men have waged."



The fact that "LuLu" brought up that premise makes her argument both incorrect and sexist. Wars are started by a small minority of elites, typically involved in politics (politicians and special interests), military, and business. These include women, but are predominantly male due to the historic ratio of males-vs-female in these dominant positions. This small minority that decides and helps orchestrate wars make up less than .01% of the world population.



In other words, the masses don't start wars and to put all of the wars in history on the shoulders of three billion people simply because they have a penis is irrational. Rice was valuable in the Bush administration, just like Clinton is valuable in the current administration, and those are just the "well-known" women, not the ones behind the scenes. Women are becoming more predominant in all of the previously mentioned powerful roles. When the time comes when they make up half or more of the positions of power it will still be unfair to place the blame on half the population that have vaginas.

Answer 3

I posted an answer to a very similar question a few hours ago.



History is filled with warlike women, but looking just at female leaders since World War 2 there is plenty of evidence that women are easily as inclined to start wars e.g.



Sirimavo Bandaranaike (Sri Lanka): world's first female president, and notoriously intolerant and oppressive.



Margaret Thatcher (UK) was famously aggressive, and not at all averse to war and conflict, notably the Falklands, Northern Ireland, the miners and poll tax protesters.



Indirha Ghandi (India): became Prime Minister of India in 1966, the first woman ever to lead a democracy, the world's largest. A few years later she annexed the kingdom of Sikkim and exploded India's first nuclear device. Not a peaceloving woman.



Golda Meir (Israel): did her bit for peace in the Middle East - NOT



Chandrika Kumaratunga (Sri Lanka): internationally criticised for her antagonism towards the Tamil people.



But the prize has to go the the feminist government minister in Rwanda:

"Minister of Family and Women's Affairs Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, gave lectures on female empowerment and child care but as a member of the Tutsi community showed no mercy for Hutu women. During the war in 1994 she announced to the Hutus that there was food and medical aid in a stadium in the town of Butare. "It was a trap. Instead of receiving food and shelter, the refugees were surrounded" by militia. She told the leader: "'Before you kill the women, you need to rape them.'' In fact she "had led the soldiers to see rape as a reward" http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/15/magazi…



There is no doubt that war can bring out the very worst in human nature, but the story of Pualine Nyiramasuhuko demonstrates that being a feminist is no guarantee of equality, or even the most basic humanity.



Obviously not all female leaders are warmongers, but none of these women were peacemakers to say the least which disproves the old feminist chestnut that the world would necessarily be more peaceful if women ruled.

Answer 4

You must have very little friends if you can provide such a fallacious argument you are as only slang could properly dictate a f****ing idiot added to the fact you would actually go to starbucks to celebrate anything also proves your stupidity you forget to mention that behind every war monger is a plethora of generals and advisers.



You act as if men in positions of power start wars because they somehow get some enjoyment out of them they don't ww2 alone destroyed almost 80% of european infrastructure yet the costs of letting a dictator like hitler continue mopping up smaller less powerful european states killing or enslaving their native populations was simply the greater of two evils.



You are an idiot you use a stupid male in your fallacious argument because not only are you incapable of having a logical argument with a real person you are also incapable of having a logical argument with yourself.

Answer 5

You do realize men have been leaders most of the time, right? That does, you know, affect things JUST a little bit, don't you think? Who knows who's more warmongering? Of the female leaders throughout history, they ain't exactly a lot of pacifists either. Logic has taken a leave of absence throughout this entire story.



If the whole wallet thing is true, you're also a thief.

Answer 6

(the chorus hums "When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again"....)



Dear Jesus, Madam - haven't you heard of feminism? what is that but actively perpetrating a war amongst humans, women against men, men against women, children against fathers and also, by default, against mothers (ever notice how these same kids have no respect for their mother?)? It's the Pol Pot dream come true - No 1. - Destroy the family as the basic unit of society.



Then your very own government weighed in, at the behest of the feminists, and launched a war against 'male v female violence', resultingin an all-out campaign against , not just men who bash women - but all men!



And you say ...what? That women aren't warmongering?



Now - can I have my share of silly comments to disparage without disproving, like all the other guys?



What do y

Answer 7

No, you can't blame men for creating the nuclear bomb. Yeah, a man discovered how you can shoot neutrons at uranium-235 nuclei and make insane explosions, but the fact that he was male is irrelevant. You might as well blame science itself, or Jews (seeing as how Einstein was Jewish) or Germans.



Anyway, let's not make this a point-scoring contest of "who is more eviler". None of us have ever waged any wars so none of us can carry any of the burden for these conflicts.



Edit: I agree with SEAL ROCK, you sound like you've got a chip on your shoulder.

Answer 8

What's this diatribe about anyway, yes men tend to be more violent than women, it is true. I dont get why you are trying to make Billy look like a fool though I sense some man hate in you. And pfft survival of the fittest? it does nothing but prove that you are nothing but a petty thief, your are no better than he his,

Answer 9

Men have staged all wars but men have effectively ended wars too. Whatever bad we create, we fix it except feminism. Feminism is a shame that men couldn't stop, otherwise, we would have been perfect. But I propose forced hysterectomy for the b*tches like some country to fix THAT problem called feminism.

Answer 10

They are

Answer 11

...survival of the most ridiculous