Katherine 2 of Russia, Hatshepsut of Egypt, Empress Dowager Cixi of China

Bierce was a genius.

I have written a couple of published op ed pieces that advocate for requiring each state here in the US to send one male senator and one female.

Females, in general, seem (at least to me) to do a better job of "running" things.

I have no understanding or data about how to be they run a country better, But through my study on women, i am very much sure if women is in the driving seats of the human civilization, we would not have any of the world war or less current conflicts.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Thanks, i have been long looking for a discussion forum like this. Lets see what good it can be for me.:smile:

Somehow I don't see NJ as being first, though. — tim wood

Neither do I.

And I don't think California is ready for that either.

I have written a couple of published op ed pieces that advocate for requiring each state here in the US to send one male senator and one female. — Frank Apisa

I think we should have a biological male, biological female, trans male, trans female, asexual, fluid sexual, homosexual man, heterosexual female, homosexual trans female... from each state. We'll need a lot more chairs. We might need one person of each race, sex, gender, nationality, and region too. Gonna need a lot of chairs.

Anyway, big thumbs up for the idea!

Helen of Troy and the Trojan War :chin:

Women are good, good enough to start a war.

Women are good, good enough to start a war. — TheMadFool

I remember seeing a cartoon long ago of Golda Meir and Indira Ghandi, each with a machine gun in her hands, with the by-line : "Women's work is never done'.

I don’t quite follow your line of thinking here?

For starters wars and conflicts around the globe have dramatically decreased over the past century. You’ve made a sweeping statement that has no supporting evidence.

Men tend to be more aggressive (speaking statistically - but the difference isn’t huge). So that would possibly back up your claim. Given that there have been very few women leaders and that currently we’re living in one of, if not the, most peaceful period of modern history (last 500 years or so) I don’t see how this indicates women would’ve made any significant difference if they were in positions of leadership or not - Thatcher still went to war and so did Elizabeth I, but that isn’t a true reflection of who they were only the problems they were faced with in the times they lived.

If you have, as you say, ‘no understanding or data’ regarding how women run a country in anyway different from a man (if you had the data it would only represent a small slice of reality) and then say you’re ‘very much sure’ either way seems a little preposterous don’t you think?

I don’t honestly think having men or women in leadership makes any significant difference, yet during our current time it does have a societal impact on countries where equal opportunities are not currently present. In the far future I doubt anyone will care much about whether or not their leader is male or female, and I think that attitude is fairly well established in many modern societies already.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

*sigh* so clever. in the same way wood starts fires, yes? — tim wood

:smile:

Thanks. And thanks for the spoof, too. I got a good, and much needed laugh at it this morning.:smile: