If most of the world’s countries have female leaders, would there finally be world peace?

Not guaranteed, but probably a lot closer than we are now!

Maybe. Roll the dice!
Just because the sisterhood is strong doesn’t mean it’s perfect.

I think its more on there personality and much more, regardless of gender.

I waas wondering this last night as we discussed a novel about the Civil War. I have come to believe that there is some inherent impulse to war but I can’t decide if it’s mainly just in men or in all of humanity. It would be instructive to put it to the test.

Let’s assume that women are less likely to go to war and that the “impulse to war” is a predominantly masculine trait.

What would we simultaneously have to assume about the trait of leadership? Or the social pressures in climbing the leadership ladder to the top position of country leader. I think it would be reasonable to assume that world leaders probably exhibit more traditionally masculine traits, even as women.

To me, the question comes down to “how much femininity can a female world leader retain”? Even if a lack of war is a feminine “inherent impulse”, would someone with this trait be elected by the populace? Would they desire national leadership? And would the process of becoming a national leader temper some of their natural feminine traits?

I think that for women world leaders to promote world peace, we would culturally have to shift to accepting, supporting and even seeking more traditionally feminine traits in our leaders (perhaps traits such as being collaborative, nurturing, empathetic, etc.). Until we do that, we will elect people who have a more traditional masculine sense of leadership, which will likely contain war as a popular method for social control.

For now, my answer is no to maybe a teeny bit. In a very long-term sense, I believe that yes, having more women world leaders (and embracing a more feminine sense of leadership) will lead to world peace.

I agree with @Cupcake . We might get peace if having more woman leaders was reflective of a change in values. In the past, female leaders have been adept at managing wars and empires, as was the case with Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria and Catherine the Great.

I think the question assumes that female leaders are more likely to subordinate their nations interests to those of others. I don’t think there is any evidence to make the assumption. In fact I have known women who were so protective of their interests that they could be vicious in protecting them.

So probably not.

I think @Inspired_2write is closer to the truth. I base this on an observation that, for the most part, only certain personality types seem to go into politics. I think this is why it never seems to change. Back in the 60’s/70’s I thought “Wait until we are in power, then things are gonna change”. But they didn’t, not really. Those who pushed for change within society did not feel the urge to pursue political careers where the laws that make a difference are written and those who did aspire to politics did not promote social change but maintenance of the status quo. (where those with power maintain a more privilege)

Based on how I have seen women treat each other I would think the world is F***ed.

@josie How do you see women who would subordinate their nation’s interests to those of others?

Women hate each other. So…..