Würden weibliche Oberhäupter Kriege verhindern?

Ein Artikel dazu, wie die Welt mit einer weiblichen Führung wäre:

This is life, we decided, and history proves it. Strong men in invincible armies extend national boundaries and extract tribute from wimps. Male presidents declare war, male generals send male soldiers to kill and conquer weaklings. Torpedoes, bombs, gun muzzles, tank turrets—phallic weaponry seeks the death of all rivals. Civilization is outlined by male-generated violence.

But what if, just what if… that was all changed?

What if empathetic, chatty, risk-adverse girls were suddenly boss of the playground? What if women ruled the governments, all governments, as Prime Ministers, Presidents, MPs, congresswomen, senators, with absolute commander-in-chief authority?

Pearce’s most recent imaginative, ambitious, and pacifist scheme—sent to me via email on February 9th and casually advertised to his Facebook friends—is to install, in 25 years, in every nation on Earth… only women as political executives and representatives. (…)

In Pearce’s words:

There is one crude and spectacularly effective way to reduce global catastrophic risk. For evolutionary reasons, almost all wars are started and waged by men. Enacting legislation that allowed only women to stand for national public office would probably save hundreds of millions of lives this century—possibly more.

I’d estimate the reduction in global catastrophic risk and existential risk would by its implementation lie at between 50% and 95%—actually closer to the latter percentage figure, but let’s be conservative. Can we imagine an all female executive and legislature authorizing, for example, the design and use of nuclear weapons systems?

Pearce admits his idea will be regarded by many as “absurd” but he insists that, “no proposal with such a spectacular benefit of risk-reduction should be dismissed out of hand.” I agree. The potential results deem it worthy of attention. Let’s examine his plan!

Interessant ist auch der dort dargestellte Gegeneinwand:

Women make a lot of emotional, spontaneous and irresponsible decisions. In general, of course. I think if women were heads-of-state in all nations on earth, warfare wouldn’t be reduced at all. In fact, it may be even worse.

Oder:

Critiquing Pearce further, let’s note that history’s violence isn’t 100% masculine—several XX leaders have used militaristic aggression. Zenobia of Palmyra led her chariots into battles against the Romans. Boudicca of Britain also spear-headed revolts. Joan of Arc was a battlefield heroine. “Bloody” Queen Mary burned 300 Protestants and persecuted the Irish. Catherine the Great waged wars against the Ottoman Empire, Sweden, Lithuania, and the Cossacks. Indira Gandhi ordered the attack and subsequent massacre at the Golden Temple in Amritsar. Margaret Thatcher sent sailors to The Falklands and soldiers to Northern Ireland.

Und eine biologische Betrachtung:

The genetic source of most human predatory behavior has been identified: the Y chromosome. Competitive alpha male dominance is perhaps the greatest under-lying threat to what we call civilization. Human history to date can attest to the gruesome effects of testosterone-driven male behavior.

Pearce’s portrayal of testosterone as an evil ingredient has been challenged in recent years, but he maintains a deep distrust of the hormone. Recently on Facebook he asked his friends, “Can we reduce global testosterone production to safer levels?” as he referred them to a recent Utrecht and Cambridge study entitled, “Extra testosterone reduces your empathy.” He also describes the monoamine oxidase-A “warrior gene” as “sociopathic”—this allele (that exists in one of three Western men) has been linked with aggression.

Dem möchte ich zudem noch hinzufügen, dass momentan kein großer Krieg droht. Das Konzept der atomaren Abschreckung ist ebenfalls sehr effektiv darin einen (umfassenden) Krieg zu verhindern, weil er nicht mehr zu gewinnen ist. Die scheint mir – ausgehend davon, dass Menschen Vorteile nutzen, wenn sie leicht zu erlangen sind – eine durchaus effektive Weise Krieg zu verhindern.

Zwar würde ich zustimmen, dass Frauen im Schnitt weniger risikobereit sind und auch der Wettbewerb unter Männern höher ist, aber das sind nicht zwangsläufig Faktoren, die zu einem Krieg führen. Insbesondere dann nicht, wenn andere Arten des Wettbewerbs, wie etwa wirtschaftlicher Wettbewerb möglich sind.

Hinzu kommt, dass das Geschlecht an sich noch nichts über die Aggressivität einer einzelnen Person aussagt. Geschlechtereigenschaften liegen im Schnitt vor, nicht unbedingt bei der (phänotypisch einem Geschlecht zugeordneten) Einzelperson.