How is saying "If there were women in charge. They would be no wars" not misandristic excatly?
Yes because they has never ever been female leaders in the past who have started wars or commited evil artrocities. It's not like queen Elizabeth ever had people beheaded right? Bloody mary never burnt people at stake for religious reasons right? May never bombed syria right?
I bet Cleopatra was never ever ever evil to her people and never had slaves. Thatcher never started a war in the falkin islands.
Nah.. men are the only evil ones right. Men are the ones who commit wars only. Women never do because women are superior.. right feminists who are apparently for gender equality?
No.. I'm not saying I'm against a woman being in charge and only men should be in charge. I know certain Feminists are gonna make out I am. What I'm actually saying is that women are just as capable as men on charge to do evil acts and start wars. So why do Feminist pretend only men do evil stuff and women don't
But saying "If women were the ones in charge. They'd be no wars and only peace" is stupid. being born with a vagina doesn't automatically make you better as a man. Men and women are just as capable of having power corrupt them.
There* would be no wars
- Common SenseLv 71 year agoFavourite answer
I think some people missed your irony. As you indicated, female leaders have't hesitated to send men to die in wars. Painting men as more violent leaders and saying women would be better and more peaceful isn't factual, it's an attempt to disparage men and elevate the perception of women. Once could certainly argue that's misandrist.
- FoofaLv 71 year ago
It's clearly a misreading of historic female leaders if nothing else. You can add Golda Meir and Benazir Bhutto to that list of militant females (and Hillary Clinton for that matter). But it's taking a gender generalization and using it to denigrate the other gender. It's just a stilly think to say.
- 1 year ago
There'd be potpourri wars.
- ʄaçadeLv 71 year ago
You seem to have misquoted or perhaps misunderstood the popular saying.
What people are meaning to say is :
"If there were women in charge of rock bands, there would be no drum battles."
But of course this is ridiculous because it tends to deny the giving Nature and empowerment of women leaders (i.e., women Drummers).
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- .Jerry.Lv 71 year ago
"How is saying "If there were women in charge. They would be no wars" not misandristic exactly?"
That can clearly be offensive. Just like a lot of the population of Sweden that are so afraid of appearing racist that they will deny the direct link the an increase of rape, and now violence with the rise of Arabic/Muslim immigrants. But then they have NO COMPUNCTION whatsoever to blame "men" ... as if the Swedish men suddenly all became violent rapists for some reason during this exact same timeframe of immigration.
The reality in both situations (In Sweden and as in your question), is that "men" are the politically correct scapegoat that society is allowed to sh*t on, sadly.
- ElanaLv 71 year ago
It's clearly goofy and demonstrably not true.
And yes, it has unrealistic expectations of women. I'm not sure if that is misandry (hatred of men), or simply over-trust (navete) of women.
- ZirpLv 71 year ago
It's just naive
- Anonymous1 year ago
The statement if factually inaccurate. There have been several wars started by women in charge of countries.
- DIEGO.Lv 71 year ago
this is a good question.
- Anonymous1 year ago
Because it makes no attack on men. By the way, aside from not being misandristic, it's also not grammatical. You've made one sentence two by putting a period instead of a comma after "charge," and you've improperly written "they" where "there" should go.