I think that historical queens were surrounded by male advisors... as are modern female leaders. I'm not saying that females don't bear any responsibility, because of course they do! And I'm not saying that women can't be crazy rulers/leaders, because of course they can! But I don't think there would be as many wars if there wasn't such a male thirst for it. I don't think females have the same kind of conquer and destroy attitudes in GENERAL that men have. Men LIKE battle. Women, seem more geared toward cooperation. OF COURSE these are huge generalizations, and there are always cross-over characteristics. My point is that I think the heavily/overly-weighted male influence and leadership is destroying our world. I think mankind needs to stop shooting guns and aggressively controlling as a form of communication and validation and power, and start realizing its connection to all else. The best leadership would be a broadly conscious and respectful one... and probably requires a balance of genders to help keep energies in check. But it wouldn't be the struggle that it is if people in general were more conscious of their connection to all else. I think we're heading that way. Destroying our world and each other should help expand awareness for those that survive and come after.Arising_uk wrote:Maybe but I think the 'Celts' not all that peaceful and the historical queens and modern female leaders don't show that there'll be much difference.Lacewing wrote:Probably more so than it has any chance of being right now. Nice to think about, isn't it?More love, less war.
Imagine each country headed by a group of women (without being heavily influenced by males). Do you think countries would be warring or cooperating? Things might be very different, indeed... and that consideration alone offers an interesting comparison to what we think is so "normal" and inevitable right now.