Editor's Note: Joseph Nye is a former U.S. assistant secretary of defense, is a professor at Harvard and the author of The Future of Power. For more on Nye, visit Project Syndicate or follow it on Facebook and Twitter. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Joseph Nye.
By Joseph Nye, Project Syndicate
Would the world be more peaceful if women were in charge? A challenging new book by the Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker says that the answer is “yes.”
In The Better Angels of Our Nature, Pinker presents data showing that human violence, while still very much with us today, has been gradually declining. Moreover, he says, “over the long sweep of history, women have been and will be a pacifying force. Traditional war is a man’s game: tribal women never band together to raid neighboring villages.” As mothers, women have evolutionary incentives to maintain peaceful conditions in which to nurture their offspring and ensure that their genes survive into the next generation.
Skeptics immediately reply that women have not made war simply because they have rarely been in power. If they were empowered as leaders, the conditions of an anarchic world would force them to make the same bellicose decisions that men do. Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Indira Gandhi were powerful women; all of them led their countries to war.
But it is also true that these women rose to leadership by playing according to the political rules of “a man’s world.” It was their success in conforming to male values that enabled their rise to leadership in the first place. In a world in which women held a proportionate share (one-half) of leadership positions, they might behave differently in power.
So we are left with the broader question: does gender really matter in leadership? In terms of stereotypes, various psychological studies show that men gravitate to the hard power of command, while women are collaborative and intuitively understand the soft power of attraction and persuasion. Americans tend to describe leadership with tough male stereotypes, but recent leadership studies show increased success for what was once considered a “feminine style.”
In information-based societies, networks are replacing hierarchies, and knowledge workers are less deferential. Management in a wide range of organizations is changing in the direction of “shared leadership,” and “distributed leadership,” with leaders in the center of a circle rather than atop a pyramid. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt said that he had to “coddle” his employees.
Even the military faces these changes. In the United States, the Pentagon says that Army drillmasters do “less shouting at everyone,” because today’s generation responds better to instructors who play “a more counseling-type role.” Military success against terrorists and counterinsurgents requires soldiers to win hearts and minds, not just break buildings and bodies.
Former US President George W. Bush once described his role as “the decider,” but there is much more to modern leadership than that. Modern leaders must be able to use networks, to collaborate, and to encourage participation. Women’s non-hierarchical style and relational skills fit a leadership need in the new world of knowledge-based organizations and groups that men, on average, are less well prepared to meet.
In the past, when women fought their way to the top of organizations, they often had to adopt a “masculine style,” violating the broader social norm of female “niceness.” Now, however, with the information revolution and democratization demanding more participatory leadership, the “feminine style” is becoming a path to more effective leadership. In order to lead successfully, men will not only have to value this style in their women colleagues, but will also have to master the same skills.
That is a trend, not (yet) a fact. Women still lag in leadership positions, holding only 5% of top corporate positions and a minority of positions in elected legislatures (just 16% in the US, for example, compared to 45% in Sweden). One study of the 1,941 rulers of independent countries during the twentieth century found only 27 women, roughly half of whom came to power as widows or daughters of a male ruler. Less than 1% of twentieth-century rulers were women who gained power on their own.
So, given the new conventional wisdom in leadership studies that entering the information age means entering a woman’s world, why are women not doing better?
Lack of experience, primary caregiver responsibilities, bargaining style, and plain old discrimination all help to explain the gender gap. Traditional career paths, and the cultural norms that constructed and reinforced them, simply have not enabled women to gain the skills required for top leadership positions in many organizational contexts.
Research shows that even in democratic societies, women face a higher social risk than men when attempting to negotiate for career-related resources such as compensation. Women are generally not well integrated into male networks that dominate organizations, and gender stereotypes still hamper women who try to overcome such barriers.
This bias is beginning to break down in information-based societies, but it is a mistake to identify the new type of leadership we need in an information age simply as “a woman’s world.” Even positive stereotypes are bad for women, men, and effective leadership.
Leaders should be viewed less in terms of heroic command than as encouraging participation throughout an organization, group, country, or network. Questions of appropriate style – when to use hard and soft skills – are equally relevant for men and women, and should not be clouded by traditional gender stereotypes. In some circumstances, men will need to act more “like women”; in others, women will need to be more “like men.”
The key choices about war and peace in our future will depend not on gender, but on how leaders combine hard- and soft-power skills to produce smart strategies. Both men and women will make those decisions. But Pinker is probably correct when he notes that the parts of the world that lag in the decline of violence are also the parts that lag in the empowerment of women.
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
Maybe true!
Being a woman myself I still think that Women can make or break deals. Also can we forget the female suicides in the Middle East?
Ah...
but YOU forget the photos of female soldiers giving the thumbs up signal over dead detainees at Abu Ghraib.
I think it is a nice academic exercise...but any woman who would want to be in power...would obviously have the same failing of any man who wanted power. It's the fact that they want power that tells you everything you need to know.
Cleo, in the military, all people have to conform or be forced to endure horrible hazing. Women who show any amount of "soft feminine" behavior would be treated terribly by their male comrades. While the the behavior of those female soldiers at Abu Graib was deplorable, the peer pressure to fit in with the most dominant members can make beasts out of anyone. In the military, no woman can afford to appear weak.
@FittingIn
You're right. How silly of me. It's not the woman who committed the war crime...it's everyone else' fault.
@Roosevelt – I think to ignore the statistical facts of violent crimes anywhere in the world show that men are at least 2 times more likely to resolve things viloently than women. Not that it is impossible for a woman to be violent that is not what I am saying. I am saying women are in general more patient in communications, nuturers, and tend to compromise faster than a man does. I think the world would have less war if women were in charge. We would not do away with war but I think women in power could reduce violence globally within 10yrs of becoming world power leaders.
I think you make their point, 'fitting in'. Any woman that wants to be a soldier is going to act like a soldier. Any woman that wants to be a politician... is going to act like a politician. It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with what you want.
That's the sad irony in this world; people who would make the best leaders are too humble to place themselves in charge.
very well siad
Utter BS BK.
"If women ruled the world, there would be no wars but instead countries would nag each other to death." -Stanley Roper
Actually, Robin Williams once said "If women ruled the world, they wouldn't make a bomb that killed you; it would just make you feel really bad every 28 days."
Well that don't hurt as much.
There will more QUARRELS like a bunch or squirrels fighting over a nut though but; at the end of the day we are ALL ONE happy family like it or not.
Just think about that.
That's about the most truthful statement I can think of. They'd just nag and irritate each other to death
thanks
Same difference. If a woman leader of a democratic country feels that by pandering to more nationalistic population she will go for it.
Yes and no.. Woman show little of respect in terms of respect. They talk a lot but do less. most woman will run late on average or take their time doing something. Average woman would nto like to get their hands dirty and would go to war over something very very retarded even they dont go to war much. So, I would suggest a mixture of Man and woman would be best for all governments due to man as stated above.
Part of the picture is missed here. Women are more patient when it comes to dealing with men. I know lots of women. It's safe to say that half the people I know are women. My experience is that women have little to no patience for, you got it, other women. Men are really no different, but women are cliquish, catty behind other womens backs, judgemental and critical, and more inclined to abuse those of their peers they view inferior. So much for women ruling the world theories.
I was with you until you turned the suicide corner and lost me.
Historically, ALL Black battles have been won with WOMEN in the forefront. When Black mothers rise up NOTHING can stop them. I force every man with d********k to follow suit or else? You don't want Black mothers calling you a coward Sis*****Si in the neighborhood. It's like a knife through your heart. I can't say that about white women though.
Oooooops! Typo!
I stand corrected I meant: It forces every man with ............. and NOT "I force every man with ...."
I have lived the above and know it to be true. I have raised 2 sons and 1 daughter – the hope for more balance in politics is in their hands and their children's hands. Much of my generation, I am 55, here in the US will continue to "cling" to its old ideas and gender roles for the most part but my children do see things differently. I have hope.
I hope you had your boys setting/clearing the table, vacuuming, cleaning the bathrooms and learning to cook as much as your daughters were fixing the cars, doing the yard and working after school jobs. If you didn't, your sons and daughters will have learned gender roles and inequality very well...from you.
I'm 52 and female, and back when it wasn't even a popular notion, I changed the oil in my own car, I pushed a lawn mower to help out, I worked after school, paid my own way to college, and learned to bait a hook. so have hope. Not all women are hopeless bimbos as you seem to think.
Oh please you actually think that women would be better at ruling the world? aren't we all part of the human race? To elevate one group of humans over another be it race or gender smacks of elitism and a tinge of the kind arrogance that brought the Nazis to power during the 1930's, if people start to believe this kind of nonsense we certainly will have another world war; suffice to say those who are fit to lead should lead; not because of some perceived notion that somehow one's gender or race better qualifies a person to lead.
Well, we certainly have "elevated" men's ability to run the world and look where that has gotten us.
The whole problem stems from the male rejection of his Divine Feminine. We all start out as female. Yes, all males begin life as female, until a chromosome piece breaks off to form the "Y" chromosome. Hatred and fear of women is the underlying problem in our world today.
It won't be, because the first time another country diplomatically scorns a female president, she will carry that grudge until her term is up.
Boye you make a good point.
Women by nature like cobras.
They can hold a grudge so deep to unimaginable depths and NEVER learn to move on and fight another day.
Corrections; I meant to say: Women by nature ARE like cobras.
Boye I need some sleep after hard days works.
test
My test passed too... confirmation that CNN censors the word doo-kie, when the hyphen is removed.
How long before CNN censors the phrase "meanie head"
Good examples of this are Secretary of States Clinton and Rice. Secretary of State Rice was the highest level adviser that recommended the clear, hold, and build strategy that was successful in defeating the insurgency in Iraq (often oversimplified as the "surge"). Secretary of State Clinton has done a remarkable job opening up new trade agreements with East Asian countries. Considering they are two of the few that have "broken through the glass ceiling", I wish I knew how much talent we denied from ever reaching the top. Fixing our meritocracy to allow women to the top of government and industry will better allocate half the people of our country. That kind of talent has got to help expand peace, among many other things.
Half my post didn't go through. What I was trying to say was that only the top talent of women has broken through the glass ceiling to find positions in high levels of government and business. If our meritocracy fixes itself and puts women in a more equal role, we will unleash large amounts of talent that currently are misallocated in too low of positions. This will result in better policy, more food, better allocation of resources, and less war.
Less war under rice? Are u nuts? It is ridiculous to suggest that there would be less wars if more women were in power. Take a serious look at history and u will see that women have always been involved in wars. It does'nt matter whether we have a man or women in power, what we need is someone with atleast half a brain.
Albright was as big a wrmonger as any of them. Weomen already have the power to change things and they don't. I would not expect any thing to change.
Yes, tomorrow night when you force your wife to go down on you, she will take a great big bite and your life will definitely change. I hope she exercises that power instead of throating your nasty, stinky sausage while you do absolutely nothing for her.
To Powertochange: My heavens, what a bizarre and bitter response - a response which had nothing to do with the comment by KeithTexas, which you answered.
Uh...
I think you may need to recheck your historical facts.
It can be argued, actually quite convincingly, that if you wanted a more peaceful world...you should have put Powell in charge and NOT Rice.
I think you should look for another set of women to make the point you are trying to make. There is too much information contradictory to your assertions out there.
Thank You, Thank You, Thank You. I enjoy those things called..... what are they now..... facts? Oh yes.
I was not saying that Rice was a peacemaker. I was saying she was very qualified. If you read my post, I was not talking about women being psychologically better fit for leadership but rather that the US is causing more wars by not using a meritocratic system where men are considered equal to women.
Indeed Americans have missed history in missing Gore and Powell. Rice was a liability. Women have being the scene power not to be understimated.
"Would the world be more peaceful if women were in charge? "
Nope...imagine nuclear-capable countries (like pakistan, India, France) with female Commanders-in-chief....suffering from PMS? Is the world gonna be safe? I think not....
@ Just for kicks – Is that to say men don't PMS? I think you'll find that men actually do have mood changes due to hormones.
In Scandinavia, where populations are small, men and women have to participate in decision-making and governing of the countries. The female quota explains why we have a high percentage of women in private and public sectors. I personally see that the gender shouldn't be an issue but the qualifications of the candidate are decisive in assuming a task.
When Sarkozy became president in 2007, he had 7 women in his cabinet of 15 members. Rachida Dati, the fierce justice minister with Algerian roots quit in 2009. Two outspoken women, Rama Yade, the Senegalese-born sports minister and Fadéla Amara, the minister for urban policies of Algerian origin, were sacked in 2010. This shake-up was also seen as an end to Sarkozy's policy of symbolic openness to his political opponents and to racial minorities in France. Christine Lagarde left for the IMF in 2011.
Forgot to mention Michèle Alliot-Marie, who started in Sarkozy's cabinet as minister of interior affairs but went over to the ministry of foreign affairs in 2010. She had to resign in 2011 due to her relationship with the ousted Tunisian autocrat Ben Ali. She holidayed often in Tunisa and had even offered him French help to crack down on the protesters.
What we are learning as women become entrenched in the upper tiers is they are every bit as greedy, jealous, spiteful and deceitful as any male. They excuse this behavior as "still a mans world" but many industries it's not. In IT females are moving up far quicker than males.
There is no proof whatsoever that this is happening. Women are NOT gaining that much in the work world. Now maybe they are in incremental steps in certain companies in the U.S., but that is about all that is happening. You cannot believe every article that is printed because many times these articles are politically based and biased such as this article about Pinker.
OMG yes! This would be a completely different world with women in charge and it would be a GOOD thing.
I would ask the people in the Falklands how they feel about the Argentine President before I jump to any conclsuions.
First of all Britain should get the heck out of the Falkland Islands.
The Falkland Islands is NOT an extension of Britain and its colonial masters and its British settlers. Get the heck out! What part of this basic augment don’t you understand? Without US military assistance to Britain during the Falkland Islands War, Britain would have been mercilessly and disgracefully be defeated by Argentina.
Um... WHAT U.S. military support to the Falklands War?
ﺶCHEﺶ What are you talking about "colonial masters"? The Falklands were discovered by a POM, settled by at least 3 different nations, NONE of whom were Argentina. I'm aware Argentina didn't actually exist at the time, it's part of my point. When the UK declared it theirs around 1833 (the Spanish, NOT ARGENTINIANS, had already pressed their claim about a decade before), they booted out all settlers from different nations. It was discovered by a POM, settled by POMS, developed by POMS and is totally 100% absolutely BRITISH. Go read a history book.
I think you'll find Argentina is upset because of the reserves of OIL the Falklands Government, not the UK, will now have at their disposal. Argentina only wants the money.
Blow hard all you like – tell lies – support extremist regimes, it matters not Che – you're opinion is just that, though rather more ill informed than others.
I think this is less about actual gender and more about gender-behavior towards leadership. The author makes a good point that we, as a people, are moving into a more technological world. A world where networking and communication are key. Regardless of gender, our old ways of leadership will eventually be irrelevant to the empowered, globally communicative, technically-inclined people of our country, and/or our world. Considering that it is viewed more "feminine" to be collaborative and inclusive, I think this article is pointing out that these are some of the skills necessary for modern leaders. Perhaps a woman could offer that. Perhaps a man could break the stereotype and offer that, as well. It doesn't matter what's between their legs, but between their ears.
In short, I think some of y'all are missin' the point.
Well said!
your comment still smacks of elitism, you are obviously biased and think that women or at the least "feminine" characteristics are superior (or better than)to males or "masculine' traits; Catherine the Great of Russia suppressed Polish nationalists and conquered parts of the Crimea and Turkey; she behaved no better than her male counterparts.
No, it would not be. Humans are humans. There are many bloodthirsty, greedy and corrupt women as there are men.
Nail on the head!
that's a load of BS. study after study proves that men are far more violent and corrupt than women are. there's a reason the middle east is the way that it is, and why scandanavia is the way that it is.
humans aren't the problem. men are.
Sounds like you really hate men, you think the world would be better off without men? Hitler hated Jews and murdered 6 million, he also thought the world would be better off without the Jews. you don't sound very enlightened, lady. Oh by the way, Hitler also backed up his claim with scientific studies too and we all know he was the most vile and evil dictator of the 20th century; a tyrant with blood of 6 million Jews on his hands.
Are you referring she is been induced and brainwashed by Oprah? Any proof?
As a man, I can tell you this for a FACT. White men (co-workers) hate women more than any other race. They show NO respect for women. I'm yet to figure out why this is so.
Wow Jackie,,,sounds like you're showing a bit of a vile rage in your post. Isn't that calling the kettle black? LOL
As observed from village life I have noticed that behind many murders done by men there were women in the form of sister, wife and mother who pumped them.I can't comment how bad women are as compared to men in the world or local politics.
I remember the pictures of the machete hospital massacres carried out by African tribal women. Horrible, horrible thing. A better world? A different type of leadership? Explain Thatcher or Elizabeth or Victoria to me, please? Know how you make a woman? You take a man, and then you remove reason and accountability. Know how you make a politician? The same damned way. The problem isn't one of gender, the problem is one of character; power tends to attract people who should never be vested with authority. It doesn't matter whether the leadership is male or female, because the same tendency towards corruption exists. Remember that story about the Mexico City police force replacing its corrupt male officers with women? How well did that work out? Exactly: the women turned out to be just as corrupt as the men.
If the CEO's of Americas Industrial Military Complex started disappearing one by one then the wars might slow down. America creates most of the wars in the world now, I would be happy if they stopped, today would be fine.
Bring our soldiers home, we have no business sacrificing our young to the “Gods of War” We are not a Christian nation, we are a warring nation.
Very well said, Keith. How true that rings!!!
Keith: What wars did the U.S. start? WWI? WWII? Korea? Viet Nam? Desert Storm? Afghanistan? Admittedly, we started the recent war in Iraq, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
May be you have not started them but certainly fueled them to start.
More peaceful....except for the all-out war once a month...of course, if they're menopausal, we'd pretty much have war constantly.
Such is to be expected from someone like you with that Tea Party mentality!
and yours is typical of Occupy Wall Street crowd; you probably also blame Jews for everything bad that happens too; typical Occupy Wall Street crowd
you shouldn't use Patton's name; he probably would feel insulted
Hey, I HATE the farkin' Tea Party...I am married to a woman who is menopausal, and she has changed from a nice peaceful lady into a little warmonger who fights with everybody around her...I am just being REALISTIC.
She probably put up with 50+ years of crap to get to this state, she's finally had enough.
CPNMIKE
According to fm it's all your fault. So typical of the feminazi crowd. Behind EVERY female flaw is a man oppressing, exploiting, degrading, blah blah blah blah blah blah the poor woman.
By the way fm, it could just be that capnmikes' wife has indeed changed her behaviour. It may just be that as an individual she has indeed become combative and angry. At least she has menopause as a legitimate excuse.
What's yours?
This reminds me that the 2007 elections in France were not good for neither France nor the rest of the world. Segolene Royal would have been a far better French President than the current Sarkozy is. In fact, Jean-Pierre Le Pen of the Front National Party would also have been a far better President than the current one!!! Then again, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was a horrific leader in Great Britain. In Germany, Angie Merkel is not any better!!!
Margaret Thatcher. No, it won't, unfortunately. But hey, why not?
You haven't given them (women) a chance to prove themselves though.
And I'm NOT talking about Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Michele Backmann's psycho wingnuts in their efforts to ONLY FAT ASS white folks.
To ONLY PLEASE white folks!
Che were your born a racist or did it take a special effort?
If I posted BL&CK ASS in the same context as your white ass I'd be confirmed as a racist.
So just like fm, what's your excuse?
On the whole, women have a lot less tolerance for 'playing the game' in war than men do. Men like to keep hostilities going so they can play with the cool toys longer. Simplistic? Yes. Realistic? Also yes. The planet is patriarchal, and as such, women have had to adapt and succeed, in a male devised and male administrated world. Those who are successful are labeled with nasty names. Those who call their male counterparts out for bad behavior, or hold them accountable are called bad names too. What does that tell you? That old saw about male ego and lack of self esteem is just as true today as it ever has been. For the most part, women only want equal, not better, not worse. If a woman possesses the ability to lead, then she should lead. I think that it would be refreshing to live in a world where conflicts were handled with a lot less saber rattling and puffing of chests.
As kind of an introverted male, I think we could do with much less chest pounding. But female control of things is no panacea. Men specialize in physical bullying. Woman specialize in emotional assasination. And I've seen a lot of this in the workplace, and at the hands of mothers and wives. Something about a mother pulling a child out of a bathtub by the hair does not reinforce the "woman as nurturer" myth.
Want peace? We in the US can take the lead. Replace ALL combat units with women. Affirmative action is in order here... After hundreds of years of all men combat units, the change should be radically imposed. And then, lets see what happens in actual combat. My theory is that pretty soon the war (any war with this progressive new military) would be over. We may not like the way it turns out – technical stuff like who won and who lost – but at least there would be peace.
Hope your NEVER in charge.
Heads up, the outcome often MATTERS a great deal. Peace at ANY cost could led to doom.
If your post was sarcastic then I remove my criticism.
I think the prevalence of women in social media (vs. traditional media) supports this theory. Check out Penelope Trunk and Laura Roeder as just two examples of the amazing women out there. These women create tremendous value firmly grounded in their female perspective. The quotes from Mark Zuckerberg's cover letter on the Faceook IPO really reflect the strong link between social media and politics.
Do these trends represent the birth of world peace? I sure hope so.
I may be the only one here old enough to remember the role Cleopatra played in dealing with Antony, Octavius, et al... but she was just one of many women who, when in charge, set things on fire. When you look at actual cases of women in top dog positions throughout history, they themselves rarely have led the bloody charges, but they sure didn't hesitate to sic their big dogs on whoever had them ticked off.
You seriously sit there and say you are 'old enough' to remember Cleopatra? I think we can toss your observations to the trash can where they belong due to your obvious lack of ability to see through delusions and understand reality. You may be old which I will admit your ideas truly are, you are in NO way OLD enough to 'REMEMBER' Cleopatra. And please remember, all you read about her was not written by women but by MEN so their view is certainly biased and tainted with extreme doubt as to their veracity and accuracy.
Gosh Don... You have a truly amazing humor deficit. I find your style of response both aggressive and tinged with anger. No wonder you don't have a very good view of the temperment of men vs. women... you are clearly using yourself as the model of comparison.
Wow Don, way to miss a little tongue-in-cheek humor about someone's age.
The skeptics say women have not made war because they have not been in power. I think the bigger picture is that women do not make VIOLENCE, as a whole, near to the level that men do, whether those men are in power or not! Every day men who are not in power are killing or harming their wives, girlfriends, daughters and strangers. We are mortified when we see cases on the news of women killing because the instances pale next to the number of violent episodes enacted by men.
And women are killing their babies. Worse than monsters. So that's not the case.
"Women do not make violence......"
What a load of S@#T. According to the femnazis, violence can come in non physical forms as men have been apparently imposing this kind of emotional, mental abuse upon poor women for centuries.
We all know that women are never devious, cunning or manipulative, they NEVER play with the emotions of those around them (mainly other women) to get a power trip.
Women are just as versed in the fine art of violence as men. They may very rarely inflict physical harm with there own bodies, to men at least, but they are very capable.
after all the wars men have started (and some women too) I really would like to see what would happen if most of the countries had women leaders. maybe it would lead to more collaboration and less confrontation. it certainly couldn't be any worse than what we have witnessed through history with men in power....
obvioulsy it would be a more peaceful world if women were in charge – mothers don't want to see anyone's children get hurt – those aren't women in Syria armed to the teeth brutally murdering innocent people . . .
Apparently the author has never seen a 'cat' fight. I suppose it's just my opinion, but I do think that a culture that justifies personal violence (usually claimed to be defensive) will also justify war-and cultural norms are pretty much independent of gender.
And how many cat fights devolve into the use of guns and death of the other opponent?
Women leaders would be MORE violent than men! As soon as that 'evolutionary incentives to maintain peaceful conditions in which to nurture their offspring' is transfered to the Country as a whole, then any other Country will be deemed a threat to their children. The result is that instead of defeating an enemy Female leaders will push for their extermination so that they are no longer a threat.
Women also do not have a scaleable response to conflicts. Ever been in a fight with a woman? Once confict starts they go straight to the nuclear option. No such thing as a measured response.
History seems to indicate that power brings out latent hormones in both men and women... to very similar effect. Domestic situations do not form a realistic basis of comparison at all when compared to positions of military or political control.
Of course, it's also true that the world would be even more peaceful if hamsters were in charge, so really, what's the point of this tired old topic?
If the world were ruled by women, all wars would be passive aggressive, catty remark wars designed to harm the other country's self esteem.
Meow
Eliminating Muslim clerics would make a more peaceful world. These evil creatures are the main instigators of all violence, hatred, terrorism, vengeance and discrimination. Unless these guys experience the same pain, suffering and anxiety as their victims, nothing is going to change.
Where are the facts and proof to show this. A years back a radio personality was banned from England because a woman, who was in the same position as our useless Janet Napolitano deemed that if England allowed him to come there would have been violent uprisings within the country.. So, like i said where is your proof Mr. Nye?
I don't think so. Women to be accepted by the Men Club have to prove they are tougher than men. Margaret Thatcher is the best example and in the US you have a few women leaders in the Republican party who very crazy and certainly I wouldn't like to see Hilary Jewish Lobby Clinton as president of the US.
Being a man I have worked for both men and women in the work place. Also judging by the almost ingrained constant need by men to belittle and brow beat anyone who does not agree with them, in other words BULLY, I feel a world run by women wouold be considerably less tied up in overaggressive testosterone driven conflicts and would be controlled more through reasoning and understanding. If you have an army and your idea is to win and destroy your enemy then a man is who you desire to be the leader but when you desire to govern and control then a woman is much better suited to do the job. In my studies I also feel there are many sociological as well as psychological studies that support these same ideas. So, a woman President I feel would be much more suited to be the main leader or in our case President than a man. She would complement as well as temper the agressive nature of her military leaders as well. But with the mindset of many men, especially those of the conservative persuasion, I feel there would be a great deal of difficulty in getting this concept accepted currently. I know I will get a lot of static for this, but until the conservative among us, who primarily make up the military industrial conclave, evolve into a more compromising and conflict avoidance individual we will never truly see this take place and as a result will see many more wars than are truly necessary and many more than would result if we had a woman at the helm. Ok men, let lose with your mindless testosterone attacks, I alreayd kkmnow what types you are and the degree yoou willl feel neutered but until you understand YOU are the problem facing the world, all the rest of us in the world are in jeopardy as a result of your failure to evolve and understand reason and fact.,
Hi Don... Your posts all clearly indicate that you have a dislike of men. I mean, that's ok, but it seems pretty severe in your case. I have to wonder if the sourness you are exposing comes from having a mean daddy... uncle... teacher... coach? Whatever it is, it's a bit abnormal, and I want you to know there are people who care. There's no shame in seeking counceling... please do so.
He speaks the truth and you can't handle the truth, Pt. Do I smell Aramis????
Hi toad... The line, "can't handle the truth" of course comes from the unstable character Nicholson was playing in a movie about the intolerance of a colonel toward litigators who had effectively trounced his failed attempts at logic. And you, appropriately, have used it as well.
@Don; I have worked for both genders also and I see not either of them being better. It's not the gender that makes a person but their overall character, compassion, and respect for others. I worked with some nasty females in my day and some great men. It goes both ways.
Pinker's blowing smoke to gain attention and a paycheck. He'll sell more books if he thinks he has the 1970s feminists on his side.
Only if those women were not being shoved around by men who just can't wait to kill each other.
For real.
You mean women like thatcher, marcos, bachmann, palin, o'donnell, angle, bryant, whitman etc. etc. etc.? I think NOT.
I used to think more woman leaders would lead to more peace. Then Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Christine O'donnell made the scene. That kind of scared me off that idea.
I've never heard of a woman who designed or invented a gun, or a tank, or fighter plane . . . I'm just sayin' . . .
Those weapons are all designed to kill from the outside in. Women kill you from the inside out...
hi Bruce... all the examples you cited were from times when defense industry positions, and related scientific studies, were exclusively the domain of men. There are now women studying and actively engaged in fields related to some rather horrific forms of non-conventional warfare. If a pathogen is invented that accidentally (oops) ends all human life on earth, it is increasingly more likely that it will have been bred in the petri dish of a lab-smocked female. I guess that's called social progress.
This article raises a good point, but I think the larger issue is about women's rights in general.
Nations where women are given insufficient rights tend to have more violent men. If women had sufficient power, they can act as a pacifying force. I'm a man but believe that the biggest problem in the third world is lack of womens rights because it not only breeds more violence, but causes overpopulation since the women there need to have more offspring to ensure that someone will take care of them in their old age.
I am sure that is the case for most men when emotional problems arise they all can find comfort in their Mother's warmth, their spouse, or their female friend. Women were born with High Degree of emotional sensitivity than men.
And their brain wiring system are highly harwired and developped toward the right side of the brain hemisphere.
"Female" and "male" type management traits can be exercised by people of either gender. For instance, there are many powerful women that demonstrate brutal alpha male characteristics. The emphasis on diplomacy rather than force and violence can be used by either gender as well. The enlightened diplomatic "female" leader, whether male or female, can work wonders in the world.
"tribal women never band together to raid neighboring villages." Un-arguably true. What might be missed is the women in the tribe egging the men on to undertake these raids.
Women like routine and conformity to their interests. Women have no problem condemning a man to years in prison for a brief touch of their breasts. This insensitivity and lack of proportion demonstrates profoundly that women in power would lead to an environment of massive conformance to mandated trivial rules where violation leads to serious injury. How many men can attest to the outrage experienced when they failed to leave the toilet seat in the right position. More peaceful, get real.
Joan of Arc... Elizabeth I... Boudica... Margaret of Anjou... When necessary women will fight, and lead the fight if in such a position. And for much the same reasons, and with much the same vigor as men.
That is true. History has shown repeatedly that when women are in positions of great power they will use and abuse the power equally. The old saying, "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" does not say anything about exceptions for differences of gender.
Thank you.
Yes, just check with Egypt, Syria, Iran, etc. LOL
Sarah Palin, had anyone in your crosshairs lately?
Hi, Ptruly. That reference you made to "lab-smocked females" makes me wonder how you really feel about women in general.
It's ok, though, in my opinion, the human race is circling the drain on this world, anyway.
I'm outa here.
hi Bruce... Since the topic is centered on gender, it is necessary to specify which gender is involved when making a specific reference. Would you have preferred "girls" or "ladies"...? I hope not. Please, would you and those of your condemnation-prone ilk stop trying to imply that there is a perjorative involved in any discussion in which you find yourself struggling to prevail.
And incidentally, Bruce, until recently nearly all deadly scientific research was conducted by lab-smocked males. I suppose now you wonder how I feel about men in general.
What's the next joke...
Have you ever been in an argument with your wife, girlfriend, coworker, or any female. Have you ever seen two women fight. Female comedians tell jokes on how they argue and fight. This is no joking matter. We do need more diversity in politics women have valid ideas, needs , and wants. But to say the world would be a safer place. MANUER . Men and women both are very selfish and self centered. When humans do not get their way problems arise.
I always thought world would be better off in women were in charge. Think of the possibilities:
A: More jobs created by massive amounts of new shoe factories.
B: Federal and State Governments closed on various flavored "Ice Cream" holidays.
C: All bomber and missile systems converted to deliver seedlings of bright colorful flowers.
D: All male newborns would be subject to mandated African penis-lengthening "rock & rope" techniques
E: Male ambassadors of the US would be required to kneel before female heads of state, kiss their feet, grovel, and offer up a box of chocolates before engaging in diplomatic activites
Well, not the one in the picture, but most...yes! Women are mothers and that instinct to preserve offspring is primal and trumps the rest.
One word, testosterone, the hormone of violence. If you think women are as violent as men, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
That's kinda sorta untrue, fm. Enough studies have been done on men's very highly variable levels of testosterone to show that hypogonadal men (with lower than normal levels of testosterone) are much more likely to have destabilizing emotional difficulties than men with normal or even high levels of testosterone. In the case of women, there is also great emotional destabilization when hormone levels take a dive during menopause. The testosterone/violence correlation myth tends to be perpetuated by people with certain social agendas.
Have you spent a day in a domestic violence/restraining order courtroom? If you had, you wouldn't be talking about how 'peaceful' women are!
I am being ruled by a woman at home....and man it is no peace as this this article is incorrectly claiming....
Mike – sure hope you don't have to go to the neighbor wife for a piece er uh I meant peace.
Ouoooooch!
All men of good will extend their sympathies to you for your pains!
We feel your pains as well!
From the "Brothers": More power to ya!
Some of the most parinoid and controlling bosses I had were women.. I think the answer is Always BALANCE.. We are out balance.. We need both men and woman, not one or the other.
Yeb, my son said the SAME thing just yesterday. I thought for a moment he's under shi***t or something or losing his mind. Honestly, he's not the one that usually complains though until yesterday. That woman may have gotten to him real bad. Now I know. I may have to be back to parenting again. This wasn't part of his training regiment growing up. Thanks.
I know that gender roles dictate that women are more docile, passive, maternal, weak, peaceful...but I do not believe that to be the case, not even for a second. We're humans too, you know. Our species is a brutal one. Women are just as prone to violence as men are. They've had it beaten out of them more often through careful social conditioning but the moment that is taken away the world will see just how pathetically stupid gender stereotypes truly are. Does this mean the ever single woman is violent? No. Just like it's ridiculous to claim that every single man is violent. And there SHOULD be more women in power if only because our species only looks out for our own demographic and women's rights will definitely improve once more women are contributing to the way the show is run. But to say that the world will be more peaceful if it is one day run by women...yeah, that just makes me laugh.
While I do think gender changes leadership style, I don't think we can say that women are less likely to go to war. While some of the greatest and most peaceful monarchs in history were women (like Queen Hapshepsut), some of the bloodiest were as well. Think of Mary 1st, Boudica, zenobia, etc.
Society would be 95% better with feminist women in charge. Abortion rights, contraception, health care, and equal rights. These things are a large part of what makes this country great and not a s**ty third world country full of religious men. Religion is a disease. Spirtuality is the change. Move on.
Women- by all evidence and every study are more moral than men. Religion was created to control mens immorality. Women in power- who are NOT personality disorderd would make the world a much better place.
Women should not even be allowed to vote, much less rule countries.
Stop blaming women for the fact that you're not attracted to them and just admit you're gay.
Intelligence and logic have no gender. And human nature is often both the blame for failure and cause for success
Whether or not female leaders would be as prone to warmongering as male leaders is open to debate, but one thing is not...the vast majority of violent crime in every culture is committed by men. It is clear and indisputable that men are vastly more prone to violence than women, at least in the non-political arena. In fact, it's kind of absurd that women have always taken the rap for being "flighty and emotional," when in fact men are actually far more flighty and emotional...willing to totally self-destruct or destroy others over ridiculously minor or imaginary provocations. It's just that the emotions associated with masculinity...anger, arrogance, cruelty...have less of a social stigma than the emotions associated with femininity. Why? Because you can indulge male emotions and still be "tough," and nothing terrifies a poor scared little boy in a man's body more than being seen as "not tough."
Except for the 1 time a month. Yea yea I know that's probably been said 500 times by now.
"THEY SAID WHAT ABOUT MY HAIR? NUKE THOSE B@$TARDS!"
Merkel, she can talk it out. No need to fight it out, it's just stupid. Words, contracts better. At any rate, I think it's because women have periods, so there's no need to show that one can take it, we get it once a month. So, that's why it's better just to talk it out. Of course when it comes to war, women demand extreme loyalty, discipline, and can be worse than men, in that respect, but to avoid confrontation, talking things over works better, than using blows.
Oh, and leadership skills, are generally genderless. You need a bit of both passiveness and a bit of aggressiveness, mix the two to the perfect match and you're ideally perfect. As such, a leader should just exhibit leadership and be genderless. It often benefits to have a male and female perspective, often both are needed to make the right or perfect decision.
But aren't many of the characteristics we tend to stereotypically associate with being a woman connected to the lack of power that group of people has traditionally had over others. It seems to me that not being in control, or needing to be in control, is directly related to who women are as a group. And I'm not suggesting that women should either have more power or not, but it seems that if women had more power they would inevitably start acting more like men. Which is kind of what has happened over the past few centuries.
Animal Farm
What?
I didn't know animal have a FARM? Hit me!
It's a notion worth trying out for a decade or two. Once women realize that the world is just plain screwed up, they will hand it back to men. But the men don't want it back either. Hot Potato! Hot Potato! Hot Potato!
in this new age of technology and displays of where men belong and where women belong is simply based on many factors. Traditionally it was simply a no brainer where the two stand in there roles. Then Shifting up women being as equal as a man it became. The changes over the years because of that changed on how women think and stand as power goes and literally it is been effected and will. Women came a long way to be where they stand today in society. Differences in the two that stand between women and men is gender. Women can do what men do. Think, control, actively be in their own strength in possible. I do believe men are Irrational in some areas of destructing(battle games, domination war those to me are self destructivness your harming one way or another mentally or physically,people around you And women generally don't want to destruct but to fullfil a self sense of overall good for everyone and anything and sometimes that would lead to destruction but not in a way that men perceive as in irrational destructiveness. Those misunderstanding of those roles it simply there but not understood. Women still stand in traditional roles as some traditional men do too But It's fading dues to the changes in several areas of change and a growing new age in society.When you do see those traditional types you can only say that there rare and to see now days because truthfully it will be rare to see or have in a time of a rapid new generated changing age But overall the two simply merging into the same roles and categories as far as strength, control and power should be described as the level of knowledge, tatics, strategies,compromising whats called the half way juggling (I say) and level of strength to pursue there goals and team leader ship should be in the role for a better world, better future and better relationships either privately or openly. For men and women regardless of gender, race, age, or it's role. So in debate who says a women can't do a man's job. Ajnd who says a man can't do a women's job?
You write like an engineer, incomplete sentences, and no sense of what you are trying to say.
I was an engineer for years and I agree with you. Communication skills are not a part of an engineer's training. Also, engineers in companies are often moved into management jobs based entirely on technical skills, where they make lousy managers because they lack communication skills. I suffered for years with a boss like this until i gave up and quit.
Mr. Jim! That what you got, because she was talking by hands. ha ha
@Jim Everything you possess is built by a engineer........man or woman
Man or woman.....power is power and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This sounds like one of hundred other "studies" and theories from the 70's before the ERA failed.
Do we really need to revisit the age of inane books?
Step 1 to equality: register for the draft like every male.
For every man that starts a fight a woman is behind him egging it on. Women love to fight as much as men but they just do it and act as thought they're innocent. At least men have the guts to face each other; women will do it behind your backs and lie about it. I wouldn't call that better. lol.
YES !!!
It is widely recognized that women also feel a deeper connection to the Earth, and are predominant in the environmental movement. And in many spiritual communities as well. Women are taking the real lead to a better world. If men would just kindly step aside, stop making bombs, stop polluting, stop destroying, and learn how to make nice, it would be a better world.
Yes, lets all plant flowers and let our enemies know that in the back pocket of the pants we have around our ankles there is a tube of grease. That is peace by a womans standard.
Real world, real conflicts. If it comes to women in charge i have little doubt it will be people like Lady McBeth running the show. Will the world really be better off?
I don't think we can just group all people of gender, race, political party, etc. under one umbrella...that lets stereotypes and judgements leak through. We can all think of great (and not so great) people of different races, so we shouldnt let a topic of gender cloud our eyes. Women MAY make a world of difference but we won't know for sure until they DO become our leaders.
Humanity is incomplete because the concept of embracing femininity in all of its stages and ages is resisted.
That's funny!
You must be joking. When the American Indians were first encountered by Europeans the leaders of the 'explorers' were Queen Elizabeth and Queen Isabella. Slaughter and enslavement followed.
I've seen plenty of cat fights in my day.
"tribal women never band together to raid neighboring villages"... In a war, do you send your strongest forces or your weakest? Of course women didn't participate in old fashioned war where you had to kill your enemy with your hands, they'd get slaughtered. Notice how much women are pushing for combat positions in the military? Women definitely want to fight wars.
The female is known to be the more ferocious of any species. More peace? Not likely. Just more gender bias, that's all.
We can arrange a sleepover with Hillary and Putin. She'll seduce him and have her way.
Then she'll bite his head off and eat it.
I have to disagree that women in charge would make the world more peaceful! Remember Margaret Thatcher? She was one of the most bigoted and racist rulers in modern day history! Arrogant, hostile, disrespectful to others cultures and very self centered. O' and then there's Hillary Clinton who we all seem to love. But during the 2008 presidential election she stated that if she was president and Iran threatened Israel, Iran would be obliterated! Not the Iranian government but all of Iran! Peace be with you Hillary! Hahahaha!
Remember Argentina's female President? Well, she is trying to re-open old wounds once more by attempting to re-start the 30 year old Falklands war. Talking about peaceful women! You've got to love them! During the 2008 presidential election in the US, when asked how would a McCain-Palin administration handle the ongoing conflict in former Russian Republic of Georgia, she replied "we could go to war with Russia!" Well, just imagime for half a century every previous administration from Truman to Reagan spent tireless days and nights maintaining a cold war so that a nuclear annialation of the world would be averted. Yet, Sarah Palin was willing to go to war with Russia in a heartbeat while it has thousands of nuclear ICBM's pointed at every US states and nuclear submarines right off our Atlantic and Pacific coast. Well, all I can say is thank God for Obama/Biden!
During the civil rights era in the United States, thousands of southern women dressed themselves in white sheets and spat in the faces of African-Americans demonstrating for racial justice and equality. And many of them celebrated when African-Americans were lynched by their white supremacist husbands and the KKK.
But if I had to acknowledge one woman who fits the bill, it would have been First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. For example, during her husband's tenure in the early 1930's, there was an outcry from around the world for the US government to intervene and pass legislation making lynchings of African-Americans in the south a federal crime. But when pressed with the issue, President Roosevelt refused to act not because he approved of the lynchings but because he felt that his chances of being re-elected would have been slim since most of the members in congress who supported him were from the deep south and he was afraid to alienate them. But Eleanor Roosevelt who seemed to believe in her husband's famous quote " we have nothing to fear but fear itself," demonstrated no fear as she became the one force in Washington who spoke out against these outrageous lynchings and put pressure on her husband's administration to pass an anti-lynching law. Sure, they sure don't make them like First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt anymore!
If you read ths whole article with wonder in your eyes, you are an idiot.
"But it is also true that these women rose to leadership by playing according to the political rules of “a man’s world.”
A silly comment! They did not rise to leadership by playing according to the political rules of “a man’s world.” They rose to leadership by playing according to the political rules of the powerful. Women in general may be more peace-loving than men, but at the extreme both are equally vicious and megalomanic.
Women have to hold the most sacred place and be the role models who stop creating violence within themselves and to others. Stop the violent internal thoughts, stop wanting your family members to be violent, stop being violent to your friends and familie.. Scratching the sides of cars, gossiping about other women, beating men , verbally assaulting others.., keeping your men in them military because you don't want to go out and find a job.. I can go on.. and on... Women can and have been some of the most violent people i know.. If we just handled our 50% of the violence, i have a feeling it would end completely..
Margaret Thatcher comes to mind, as does Golda Meir. And currently we have the little she-devil from Argentina stirring the pot. Any woman with the moxie to become the leader of a major-league nation is no more likely to be 'peaceful' than a man in the same position.
minus some structural modifications women and men are exactly the same minus one thing, hormones. Look up estrogen and testosterone then take those effects to the extreme (remember this is a world WITHOUT the influence of the other gender) and THAT will be what the world will be with only women or only men.
Currently, the data is skewed because of influence from the other gender, so all assumptions using the current sociological model are void as we already know society greatly influences behavior (ask a suicide-bomber). To have a clearer picture we would need to find single gender societies, both from birth and joining one in adulthood. The only models we have that are close to single gender societies are middle eastern societies which are heavily male dominate.
This kind of sarcastic, biased kind of article projecting men are voilent and only peace will be brought out right by women is so ridiculous. Three Indian states, one union territory and one political party is ruled by women. They are in power rapping the society. I think there won't be peaceful world if women in charge but there won't be peace but there will be fulsome world if women in charge.
Philiplazar
Philiplazar@yahoo.in
Men maybe more warlike and tribal, but I believe that is because men have always been the protector and provider, which is what leads to war. Look at a lot of single mothers in our culture today. They can be very violent when it comes to protecting or providing for their young. As the genders become more equal I believe women will become increasingly aggressive towards each other and men. Just look at all the "mean girl" and cyberbullying amoungst girls which is going on today.
While a significant number of males may have a problem with physical violence, there are still clearly a large number of both males and females to select from who don't have this problem. So I'd suggest that any aggression problems with leaders is a problem of the selection process, and not with the gender of the leaders selected.
gimme a break!!! women can't even decide what clothes to wear, makeup or no makeup, take all day to shop for the simplest things, drive terrible, flip flop on major decisions for months, what to make for dinner, etc. I say take back their right to vote, to drive and to education, the Taliban have it right!!! Hitler was right, women are only here to reproduce.
Sense the 1% are changing our laws and in control of our media and government, ask them. A women just might be in control whether you like it or not. She will greedy and cold hearted. A puppet for the wealthy.
Maybe so, but there would be some intense negotiations happening a week per month....
Based on freudian psychology males relationship with their mother can strongly affect their aggressive tendencies. If women were more like the stereotypical nurturer, then there would be less violence in the world.
تجمع اهالي بغداد .. يستنكر مسلسل اغتيال الناس الابرياء التي تقوم به قوات الحكومة العميلة بين الحين والاخرفي معظم مناطق بغداد المحتله .. التي كان لها ولايزال شرف مقاومة الاحتلال الامريكي واعوانه الاذلاء خدم الصهيانية وخدم بلاد فارس ..
شبكة المنصور
الجبهة الوطنية والقومية والاسلامية – تجمع اهالي بغداد
استنكر تجمع اهالي بغداد في لقاء صحفي على لسان متحدثه الرسمي .. الشيخ عبدالكريم الشمري والذي تحدث عن هذه الجريمة البشعة قائلا;
مرة أخرى تكشف قوات الحكومية العميلة عن وجهها الكالح وعن انحدارها الأخلاقي والإنساني السئ الذي وصلت إليه تلك أجهزة العملية .. التي تجردت وتبرأت بعضُ عناصرها تماما من الانتماء للدين والوطن مؤكدين صدق انتمائهم وولائهم الى قم وطهران ..كونهم بالاساس عناصر من فيلق القدس الايراني واطلاعات ايران الاجراميه التي تغلغلت في اجهزة الجيش والشرطه.. وبقيت هذه العناصر حاميـًا وحارسـًا ومشاركاً لكل جرائم الاحتلال وسوطا يلهب ظهور الغيارى الأحرار في عراق الجهاد ومستهدفة الناس الابرياء وخاصة في مناطق حزام بغداد الجهاد .. مثل مناطق ابي غريب والرضوانية الغربيه و الرضوانية الشرقيه ومنطقة اليوسفية ومنطقة التاجي والطارميه والراشديه ومنطقة المدائن واخيرا ماحدث في منطقة هور رجب ,, و ماسيحدث في المستقبل القريب في مناطق بغداد الاخرى.. التي كان لها ولايزال شرف مقاومة الاحتلال الامريكي واعوانه الاذلاء خدم الصهيانية وخدم بلاد فارس..
واضاف الشمري قائلا : لاغرابة في ان نرى اونسمع بين الحين والاخر جريمة قتل جماعية تستهدف الناس الابرياء الامنيين في بيوتهم في بغداد أوفي اماكن اخرى من العراق .. فهذا مسلسل مبرمج مدروس بعنايه تقوم به عناصر من فيلق القدس الايراني المسيطره على المفاصل الرئيسية لقوات الحكومة العميله والذي تتحرك بحرية تامه في المناطق التي تشرف عليها تلك القوات العمليه امنيا وبدعم من حكومة الهالكي العميله وعن طريق مايسمى بدائرة مكافحة الارهاب والتي هي اساسا منبع للقتل وللارهاب في هذا البلد الصابر.. وهذا ماحذرت منه الامانه العامة للتجمع في بيانها الرقم 128 بعنوان (بأي ذنبٍ يقتل العراقيين) من ان هناك مسلسل قتل جماعي مستمر في استهداف الناس الابرياء. ولا نظن يوما ان أفراد هذه الأجهزة وتوابعهم من المتورطين في هذه الافعال الاجرامية الدنيئة يتوقفوا عن القيام بها.. بل نحن في الامانة العامه لتجمع اهالي بغداد على يقين تام انهم مستمرون على هدر القيم والحرمات واستباحة دماء بناء شعبنا العراقي الكريم..!!
واستطرد الشيخ حديثه قائلا : ثبت لنا باليقين التام بان جريمة اغتيال 25 شخصا من بينهم خمسة نساء من اهالي قرية البوصيفي في هور رجب منتصف ليلة الجمعة في الثاني من نيسان الجاري قد نفذتها عناصر حكوميه اقتحمت خمس بيوت بسيارات عسكريه نوع همرونفذت حكم اعدام جماعي باسلحه كاتمه للصوت .. ولااعتقد ان احدا من العقلاء في داخل العراق وخارجه يصدق الادعاءات المفبركه الباطله لحكومة الاحتلال برميها التهم المتكرره عند الانتهاء من كل عمليه اجراميه .. على مايسمونه بالمجاميع الارهابيه ..
وفي ختام حديثه قال الشيخ الشمري : إننا في تجمع أهالي بغداد نستنكر هذا العمل الإجرامي الخسيس وهذه المجزرة البشرية الاجراميه البشعة .. ونطالب جميع أحرارالعالم اينما كانوا وكل الشرفاء الغيارى .. لاسيما الهيئات والمنظمات السياسية والإنسانية وجمعيات حقوق الإنسان ذات العلاقة في المنطقة والعالم بالوقوف الى جانب شعبنا العراقي الكريم باستنكاروادانة هذا العمل الجبان والدنيء ومحاسبة مرتكبيه وإلى تحمل مسؤولياتها الاخلاقيه والقانونية والانسانيه تجاه مايحدث من ظلم عظيم لابناء شعب العراق..! وأن يضعوا حداً لهذا التلاعب بمصير الشعب الآمن وبارواح الابرياء التي تزهق يوميا دون ذنب اومبرر.. كما اننا نحمل قوات الاحتلال الامريكي وحكومته العميلة المسؤولية الكامله على ارتكاب مثل هذه الجرائم البشعه ..!!
’’الله اكبر ’’الله اكبر ’’عاشت المقاومة الوطنية العراقية الباسلة ’’ عاش العراق العظيم’’
رحم الله شهدائنا .. شهداء العراق .. شهداء فلسطين .. شهداء العرب والمسلمين
الموت والخزي والعارالى المحتلين الغزاة وأعوانهم العملاء الأنجاس’’خدم قم وطهران ..
Wish I could read Arabic but the caption says enough.. Sectarian infighting amongst Muslims is probably more danger to the world than anti western feeling in Islamic nations
So if you say a bad word you can be censored, but you can post this crap and it is allowed? I guess if you could write in Farsi and tell all ----- to go -- themselves it would get by.
Woman are just as brutal if not more so then men. I have served under two female captains and they showed absolutely no more peace keeping ability then their male counter parts in fact quite the opposite. For what ever the reason....
Hillary Clinton is full of cow flop. She would ake a good president of a wino club fer women. When women are on the rag, they make stupid decisions!
I don't think it will be any less paceful. Besides I highly doubt it can happen very much, some women get the power, but mostly it's just men. Although probably not many men would ever admit, a women in power is not what they like to see. So they will work against the women if it looks as if though she is getting too far or is not supporting the men's interests.
lol, thinking amazons, just killing men off
Have worked for several women. The word, Tyrants comes to mind.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــ
عودة المجرم الارهابي المدعو ( ابو علي البصري ) المستشار الامني لنوري المالكي
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
بعد هروبه بطائره خاصه وبدون تاشيره الى خارج العراق بعد افتضاح عملية هروب الارهابيين من تنظيم القاعده المرتبطه باستخبارات الحرس الثوري وعددهم ( 12 ) ارهابي معتقلين في سجون القصور الرئاسيه في البصره حيث اشرف على عملية هروبهم الى ايران باشر المجرم ابو علي البصري في مهامه كمستشار امني لنوري المالكي بعد عودته السريه مع تكليفه بمهام جديده هي الاشراف على الخلايا الخاصه لحزب الدعوه وهي مليشيات مسلحه مقرها الرئيسي في محافظة بابل والجدير بالذكر ان ابو علي البصري تم تعينه مديرا للامن والمعلومات في مكتب المالكي بناءا على توصيه من قاسم سليماني كون المذكور عمل في جهاز السافاك سابقا وعمل فتره طويله في جهاز استخبارات الحرس وبعد تعينه كلف حصرا بالاشراف على عمليات التعذيب للسجناء من اهالي نينوى وديالى وضباط الجيش العراقي السابق والبعثيين المعتقلين في السجون السريه التابعه للمالكي وكان هذا المجرم يمارس التعذيب بحق السجناء حتى الموت وترمى جثثهم خارج حدود مجافظة بغداد .
الخبر الثاني :
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ
المرافق الشخصي لابراهيم اشيقر الباكستاني وحقيبة ( Emergency bag )
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
وردتنا معلومات من مصدر مقرب من مرافق ابراهيم اشيقر الملقب ( الجعفري ) مفادها ما يلي :
سئل المصدر مرافق " الجعفري" عن سر حمل هذه الحقيبه عند مرافقته للجعفري في كل تنقلاته اجابه بما يلي :
1- الحقيبه تحتوي على مبلغ قدره ( 200 ) الف دولار .
2- اقلام ذهب .
3- ساعات يدويه ثمينه .
4- مستمسكات شخصيه خاصه بالجعفري ( منها عدة جوازات سفر ) .
وتبين للمصدر من خلال الاستفسار من مرافق الجعفري ان حمل هذه الحقيبه تحسبا من وقوع امر طارئ وبدورنا نفسر هذا الامر الطاري ( تحسبا للشلعه السريعه )
هؤلاء هم قادة العراق " الجديد " الحراميه ولا نستغرب ما يفكرون به لانهم اشباه رجال جعل منهم المحتل " رجال" .
Why all my comments being censored? I have never broken the rules.
Still censored. I used no cursing, was not disrespectful.
CNN censors words they don't want shared.
Women can only get promotions in corporate America if they behave and think like men.
What a waste of a life writing this book. Women are just as ruthless as men. Look at Sarah Palin, she'd blow the world up given the chance.
Woman in power are as ruthless as man. Its a wrong notion that world will a safe if women are in charge. India and Pakistan both initiated their atomic weapon programs under woman prime ministers. Mother of all family troubles in India are mother-in-laws. Hope Hillary Clinton remembers her being called mother-in-law during a visit to Pakistan.
I think if men stoped trying to compare GUN SIZE the world would be a much better place! Yes there are some crazy females, but there are some really smart ones who would be much better at makeing peace with people.
Women are great at making peace. Margaret Thatcher made peace with the Irish. Let's not forget how Cori Aquino made peace with the muslims in the Phillipines. How about that Danish chick who got elected in Denmark who had the solution of sleeping with all of the worlds leaders to make peace? I believe Bill Clinton was in office then.
The only society that I know of that was always female run was the Amazonian culture. Though surrounded by myth and legend a constant is that they raided and killed for supplies. Just like any warlord in history...people are people
well, sure, there have been women as leaders down throughout history (in other countries). The United States didn't even let their women vote until the 20th century. How retarded is that?
Black men had the vote 50 years before that, and to follow suit, they had a black president first. It's this Abrahamic paternalism that dictates that a women is not capable to do the job because they're too emotional and weak, and they couldn't stand up to powerful dictators from other countries. They're no-stop whining about the black, just imagine if Hillary had won. Those old men would be melting in their shoes, they are the one's that couldn't handle it. She would have "cleaned house" on them guys. Too bad America, you missed your chance.
I nominate Jennifer Beals
Pinker is full of it. The romantic nonsense that Pinker spouts is part of the problem. It has been my observation that no major war has been fought without the tacit if not the enthusiastic approval of the women in the warring society, and the only time war ends in victory is when the enemy's women and children are successfully targeted. Wars that only involve combatants go on forever, for instance Afghanistan and Iraq. These two wars we cant win because we hamstring our fighting forces, our only option is to quit whilst we are ahead. These are the cold hard facts, the facts of life your mother wont tell you, but your father should.
Very true.
If the world were run entirely by women we would have never left the trees for the savanna, and if it were run just by men, we would all be dead.Our existence can be taken as evidence of some form of power sharing.
Change the word "peaceful" to "chaotic upheaval" and I think it would more accurately describe Hillary's foreign policy results. The online community organizing of hers assumes that the powers that be will tolerate peaceful protests. When they do not, as in Syria, they are like lambs sent to the slaughter. A woman helped send them there without any backup. If this is what women call a more peaceful world we will learn again what it took men 10,000 years to learn. Tyrants will kill whether you carry a weapon or not.
Men would not the mistake of wearing a red jacket.
There are fruitcakes and warmongers of everying gender, and just consider Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin having positions of authority eroding human rights here and abroad.
Anyone who thinks the world would be a more peaceful place if women were in charge has never worked in an office full of women.
Snipe, backstab, connive, then hug each other.
Oh this is absurd! If women ruled the world, sure we'd have peace but we'd still be in caves wearing grass huts.
Thats a bunch of typical ignorant male prejudicial garbage. Go live in hovel in Afghanistan if you don't like women.
How soon we forget about the Muslims mothers that were publically praising their suicide bomber sons and daughters. Peace is not created by gender, but from people that respect life and each other.
Right on.
Sure it would. Every 28 days there would be a nuclear war breaking out, followed by a national day of mourning, followed by three weeks of incessant b#%^*ing. If a woman can't tell if a toilet seat is up or down in the dark, how is she going to run the country?
You know why women are moody every 28 days? Because we have to get rid of your stinkiin semen garbage that you dump in our bodies the other 25 days.
Probably, but when war did break out, would there be a margaret thatcher to save the world?
If the women are at stove in the day and in the bed at night certainly we will have only peace in this world.
Again, just an utterly amazing amount of hatred.
More stupid government if Hillary Clinton in charge
I disagree. Although pretty much everyone I know disliked Hillary just because of Bill, she had experience with one of the best presidents the United States ever had. I think it is a shame that Hillary lost the '08 election just for someone else's screw up, although I don't care about morality as long as they do a good job.
More peaceful world if women in charge? You've gotta be kidding me! Judging from my household, it is very unlikely.
Women are the irrational aggressors and I wouldn't entrust any power to them.
Wow, that is possibly the most hateful, discriminate thing I have ever heard. Seriously dude, you must be hanging out with fresh-outta-prison-for-mass-murder types of women. It depends on the person, although statistically, women are less likely to spark violence. And that whole "irrational aggressors" thing, I believe you are referencing imperialist conservatives.
Holy Cow. An article and book designed to make half the population feel better than the other half – effectively saying that modern man (as a species) has no capacity to learn. This ought to offend everyone. As for the "men love war" thing, who does the author think was supporting the men when they counseled for war? To defend the family a woman can rightfully expect quite a lot from her mate, and demands it, too. The men agree and go about the task.
What a load of crap.
I can live with war... just dont make me witness Drama.
There will be less darkness if the sun is out.
I would like to see the data that show we live in a less violent world than previously given two world wars, the genocide in Rwanda, widespread abortion, etc. Only at an ivy league school could someone develop such a stupid view of human progress as to say that we are getting better.
Haha, are you kidding? Hillary Clinton is one of the most war-mongering person in government today. She's on record on youtube of saying she wants to "obliterate" Iran.
Did peace loving, umbrella holding "Neville Chamberlain" bring real peace and prevented WWII by offering bites of Czechoslovakia to the tender care of nazi lord? or he created a more aggressive Adolf Hitler?
Yes, if this would have more women like Margaret Thatchers, it would be all peace and harmony.
mmmm passive aggressive leadership is exactly what we need. Why confront international enemies directly when you can simply snub them at the next UN meeting? You don't have to kill Bin Laden if gossiping about him behind his back works just as well! And who needs economic progress as long as everyone had fun. Next you'll suggest having toddlers as world leaders bc they love every body they meet.
Get inside Women Prison then talk people, Women are as destructive as Men but slightly peaceful see 2 side of a coin negative n positive attracts.......... Was Condoleezza Rice was peace maker???????? Google her war crimes asap
you are the first liar Mrs Clinton which peace you are talking about did you do anything to help and make peace in syria????????
This is offensive.
Indira Ghandi, Mary tudor, all the women who continue to vote for warmongers....stand down Maggie.
Male dominator cultures (not all men) have degraded the quality of human life on this planet and are designed to wage psychological warfare on the feminine psyche to promote male worship. It's nothing more than a power grab. Both men and women are caused to lose faith in the feminine. These cultures deliberately engineer mistrust and hate towards women and women's bodies, as is evidenced in many of these comments. It is very difficult for a women to actualize her higher capacities in this type of society, and if she is not careful, she will end up playing the destruction game like the men or being vengeful and catty. When we think less of women, this is what you get. It is self fulfilling. When in man's world, you'll be forced to fight as a woman like Margaret Thatcher because the men refuse to behave themselves. A marauding male army is unable to listen to reason so oftentimes force is the only way to contain them, whether it generates from a women or a man.
So, women's 28 day cycles and her discharges are "bad" yet men's daily testosterone cycles and emissions are "good" huh? Men's moods swing daily, but of course, since they are men, its OK. And maybe women are in such bad monthly moods because they have to deal with disrespectful men as well the garbage men inject into their bodies.
If you don't like women, go live in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.
Why can't men just help women out instead of continually criticizing us? It does not make sense to subjugate , insult and oppress half of the human population. We're supposed to work together.
And women nag when men don't listen. You guys need to take responsibility for the outcomes of your behaviors and the effects it has on women.
http://www.buzznoida.com/scategory/security-safety-equipments/209.aspx
Fire Safety Equipments dealers in Noida, Fire Extinguisher dealers in Noida, Fire Safety Equipments suppliers in Noida, Fire Extinguisher suppliers in Noida, Fire Fighting Equipments dealers in noida, Fire Fighting Equipments suppliers in noida
Wow, amazing weblog layout! How lengthy have you been running a blog for? you make running a blog look easy. The entire glance of your site is excellent, let alone the content material!
Thanks for every other excellent article. Where else may just anyone get that kind of info in such an ideal manner of writing? I've a presentation subsequent week, and I'm at the look for such info.
A person necessarily assist to make significantly articles I would state. This is the very first time I frequented your web page and so far? I surprised with the research you made to create this particular submit amazing. Excellent job!
Its like you read my mind! You appear to understand so much about this, like you wrote the e-book in it or something. I think that you just can do with a few p.c. to power the message home a bit, however other than that, that is fantastic blog. An excellent read. I will certainly be back.
Excellent article. I've saved your website so I can revisit your future news. Keep up the great work!
hi!,I really like your writing so so much! percentage we communicate more approximately your post on AOL? I need an expert on this house to unravel my problem. Maybe that's you! Looking ahead to see you.
Wow, awesome weblog layout! How long have you been running a blog for? you made running a blog look easy. The total look of your website is great, let alone the content!