Would the world be more morally governed if it were run by women?

Would the world be more morally governed if it were run by women?

  • Yes, more moral

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • No, less moral

    Votes: 5 27.8%
  • No change, it'd be the same

    Votes: 12 66.7%

  • Total voters
    18

Dr.Drock

Senior Member
Aug 19, 2009
9,680
949
48
Not much more besides the thread title, but more morally governed by woman rather than how it's currently run by almost all men?
 
Women fight with a more "take no prisoners" attitude. It is more personal and there is no end, no truce.
 
See I disagree, I think it'd be better. We men have egos, and that most certainly goes into how the world's governors make their decisions. Not that women don't have egos, but not usually on the level of men.


Plus they have a more natural nurturing instinct as mothers, for instance it seems more likely for a woman to love her children than a man.
 
See I disagree, I think it'd be better. We men have egos, and that most certainly goes into how the world's governors make their decisions. Not that women don't have egos, but not usually on the level of men.


Plus they have a more natural nurturing instinct as mothers, for instance it seems more likely for a woman to love her children than a man.

It might be better in some ways but worse in others, you said women are more nurturing than men, you are correct so that could mean we would be pumping even more money into countries in Africa like Somalia and fighting wars in countries like the Congo where women are raped in record levels.
 
See I disagree, I think it'd be better. We men have egos, and that most certainly goes into how the world's governors make their decisions. Not that women don't have egos, but not usually on the level of men.


Plus they have a more natural nurturing instinct as mothers, for instance it seems more likely for a woman to love her children than a man.

It might be better in some ways but worse in others, you said women are more nurturing than men, you are correct so that could mean we would be pumping even more money into countries in Africa like Somalia and fighting wars in countries like the Congo where women are raped in record levels.

It would be different but, in the end, i dont think it would be any more or less moral.

Like you say, women and men are differnet on some subjects but in the end both are human.
 
See I disagree, I think it'd be better. We men have egos, and that most certainly goes into how the world's governors make their decisions. Not that women don't have egos, but not usually on the level of men.


Plus they have a more natural nurturing instinct as mothers, for instance it seems more likely for a woman to love her children than a man.

It might be better in some ways but worse in others, you said women are more nurturing than men, you are correct so that could mean we would be pumping even more money into countries in Africa like Somalia and fighting wars in countries like the Congo where women are raped in record levels.

But maybe that war in Africa isn't going on, but you make good points.

As do you Plymco.

There is no wrong answer to this question as we're all just making guesses on a never to happen hypothetical, just sounded like an interesting topic to ponder.
 
Women fight with a more "take no prisoners" attitude. It is more personal and there is no end, no truce.
Wimmen would nuke each others countries for the dumbest things like one girl wearing the same dress as them or daring to look at their Man.

Bitch!
 
See I disagree, I think it'd be better. We men have egos, and that most certainly goes into how the world's governors make their decisions. Not that women don't have egos, but not usually on the level of men.


Plus they have a more natural nurturing instinct as mothers, for instance it seems more likely for a woman to love her children than a man.

Wow.

That is so far off base I have no idea where to begin.

Ever hear of the praying mantis?
 
Not much more besides the thread title, but more morally governed by woman rather than how it's currently run by almost all men?

Fuck no, women can vicious, cruel, underhanded, and criminal in nature too.

Ever hear of Mary I (Bloody Mary) Lady Bathory, Margret Thatcher, Catherine II, Elizabeth I, and Queen Isabella?
 
Last edited:
See I disagree, I think it'd be better. We men have egos, and that most certainly goes into how the world's governors make their decisions. Not that women don't have egos, but not usually on the level of men.


Plus they have a more natural nurturing instinct as mothers, for instance it seems more likely for a woman to love her children than a man.

It might be better in some ways but worse in others, you said women are more nurturing than men, you are correct so that could mean we would be pumping even more money into countries in Africa like Somalia and fighting wars in countries like the Congo where women are raped in record levels.

I would go for that.
 
Not much more besides the thread title, but more morally governed by woman rather than how it's currently run by almost all men?

Remember cleopatra.

Can you imagine women suffering from hot flashes in control of nuclear bombs :lol:

Screwing with Gods chain of command has consequences.
 
Not much more besides the thread title, but more morally governed by woman rather than how it's currently run by almost all men?

Remember cleopatra.

Can you imagine women suffering from hot flashes in control of nuclear bombs :lol:

Screwing with Gods chain of command has consequences.

Gods chain of command?



Oh boy....................................




:cuckoo:
 
I don't believe it would be. I tend to believe then men make better leaders than women, and that men are naturally made to be the leaders.

For instance, there are Kings and Queens, and most of the time the King's Title is in authority over the Queen. Even with our own Presidents. That doesn't make one or the other less or more moral or more or less important - just different roles. Both are equally important, just different.

I also believe it all starts at home and of course has to do with our relationship with the Lord - it's all spiritual. Men, Biblically speaking, are made up to be the leaders for the most part. (It's a wonder why we have so many problems in the home today; and no, I'm not saying I haven't made mistakes, because I have in that regard.)

But from my understanding, men would prefer to be respected first, and then yes of course "loved." The position of respect and leadership and the wife standing by him, even when he messes up, is one of importance. And he will mess up, as we all do. Harder done than said, but when done, really helps a ton of messes I think.

These verses in the Bible amazed me when I first read them. They seemed to fit perfectly and also made sense of why we have so many family problems today. And again, I think it all begins with family and moreso our relationship with the Lord and learning from Him first what to do.

Ephesians 5

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing
.


Another verse in the Bible... kinda funny, but also is true:

Proverbs 25:24 It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman and in a wide house.


I guess overall I think part of our decline has to do with the disrespect we (not all ppl, but many) can possibly to give the opposite sex. It's what Satan wants. If he can break up the family unit all over the place, it just trickles down and around and all over into other relationships, and leaderships, etc. Just my thoughts, but learning as I go.


.
 
Last edited:
If you world to be more morally governed, then you need to learn to morally govern yourself and teach others to do likewise.

Then the world's problems will take care of themselves.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top