- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1160 Hour
- Reading permission
Who consumes the resources that wars are fought over?
How is it that women are consumers of resources, but do not partake in the violence and conquest of wars for additional resources and expansion?|
As for women being unable to flee armies quickly enough because they have responsibility for children and elderly, those are only women on the losing side. Historically, when a triumphant army returns home with plunder and prisoners, they are greeted by their women as conquering heroes.
In the USA we have added women to the ranks of the most powerful positions in society -- politics, business, and academia. Earlier in this thread, a responder named kwok ho voiced a popular belief that women in positions of leadership will make the world a more peaceful and reasonable place. Yet that is not the case in the USA. After decades of adding women to leadership positions in society, we invaded a country that didn't attack us.
We have more women serving in the highest ranks of the military, in the Congress, State Houses, and in the White House than ever. Yet even today, young women are not raised, expected, or lawfully required to perform military service in defense of the United States. By contrast, boys in the USA are raised and expected to serve. American males, unlike female citizens, are required to register for the draft. For American females, military service is an activity of self-fulfillment that they may choose or reject depending upon their personal aspirations. Males are required to be ready to serve as a duty of citizenship and frequently prepare themselves for the contingency that they might be conscripted (http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm). Part of that preparation includes developing aggressiveness and a capability for violence, as often seen in athletics.
So men aren't naturally more violent than women, and, as shown by the USA Invasion of Iraq, women are not less violent than men.