Matriarchy or Patriarchy?

Old Salt

Old Salt

Senior Member
Location
New Brunswick, Canada!
I, for one, would vote for a Matriarchy! I am a pacifist and believe that female leaders would be less likely to send their children into harm's way. Forget Margaret Thatcher. She was the exception to my rule! What do you think?

Inspired by a thread that threatened to get out of hand! Civil exchange of opinions please!
 

Last edited:
I am always poised ready to strike!! and sorry also GIRLS AND BOYS and nowadays all the rest of the in betweens right?
 
For me Matriarchy or Patriarchy wouldn’t make any differenc. I don’t think there is any evidence that female leaders are less likely to send their nation in to conflict.

To send people into conflict isn’t always the sole decision on a leader depending on a political system, and how that political system is used.

in i think 2013 the British Priminister proposed going to war in Syria, but the British parliament voted against it. In the British parliament at the time there were about 450 male members of parliament and around 200 female.
 
Last edited:
Magna-Carta said:
For me Matriarchy or Patriarchy wouldn’t make any differenc. I don’t think there is any evidence that female leaders are less likely to send their nation in to conflict
Click to expand...
Probably not! That's where my romantic view of womanhood might have given me the wrong idea! I can't help it. There have been so many gentle, loving, yet strong women in my life I tend to assume most are like that! I guess I have been very lucky!
 
Old Salt said:
Probably not! That's where my romantic view of womanhood might have given me the wrong idea! I can't help it. There have been so many gentle, loving, yet strong women in my life I tend to assume most are like that! I guess I have been very lucky!
Click to expand...
Ok, I think I see what you are saying. :) Maybe I dont have a romantic view of womanhood
 
Last edited:
chic said:
I'm not so sure that a female ruler would be less likely to send people to war. Queens and Empresses did it plenty in the past. Just my thoughts. :unsure:
Click to expand...
not necessarily ; I think they had male PM's nudging their elbows all the time - Victoria certainly did and a very vocal hubbie too
 
I don’t think we can forget Margate Thatcher when it comes to sending people into conflict, so I’ll mention her here. Argentina invaded the Falklands whose people on that island wanted to remain British. I wonder, could it be argued that that a matriarch might be more likely so send the military in that case?

A quick check on the interweb shows Angela Merkel sending the military to Afghanistan; Indira Gandhi military intervention in the Bangladesh Liberation War; Golda Meir, Israel’s from pre-emptive strike against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan; Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia ordered the deployment of troops to support the African Union Mission in Sudan; Park Geun-hye authorized the deployment of South Korean troops to Iraq.

How far would we want to go back in history regarding female leaders?
 
Old Salt said:
Come to think of it, who in their right mind would support Patriarchy given our record, so just give me a "like" or a raspberry and let's put the subject to bed! :):) Just selfishly wanted to voice a long held conviction!
Click to expand...

I wonder if the leader analogy was the wrong one? Leaders, male or female have achieved that position for a reason, and might have little to do with matriarchy or patriarchy.
 
davey said:
I think my point still holds water - women leaders may be more frequently nudged than males
Click to expand...

I would feel somewhat uncomfortable with this statement. In part it seems to be generalising the genders too much. I would have thought, or even hoped, that a leaders decision would be based on political environment, the situation at hand at the time, and others factors. Including in part a leaders own personality, separate of gender; and their own unique approach to decision-making.

I think to say women are more likely to be nudged or influenced, particularly in a leadership role, does women a disservice.
 
Magna-Carta said:
I wonder if the leader analogy was the wrong one? Leaders, male or female have achieved that position for a reason, and might have little to do with matriarchy or patriarchy.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe I would make it a condition that any potential leader had to have children between 18 and 25! Nah, as I said I was being an uninformed and thoughtless idiot and you convinced me with with your statistics! :(
 
Old Salt said:
Well, maybe I would make it a condition that any potential leader had to have children between 18 and 25! Nah, as I said I was being an uninformed and thoughtless idiot and you convinced me with with your statistics! :(
Click to expand...

*chuckle* :)

Don't put yourself down so much. Opinions are opinions, and we all have the opportunity to change and modify them through social discussion, or even through the presentation of facts. All credit to you for doing that.

Some people put up a brick wall up when it comes to changing their opinion, even when presenting them with overwhelming facts to the contrary. They would prefer to ignore what is being said and then leave the discussion. You don’t seem to be one of those people. So good for you @Old Salt

It was a worthy thread you started.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top