Shanti Mangala says the notion that a world run by women would be more peaceful is "sexist, idiotic drivel" (via Instapundit).

She's responding to this article from BusinessWeek Online via Yahoo News.

When I look at the news these days, I can't help but wonder: Wouldn't we be a lot better off if women were in charge, given all the violence and atrocities perpetrated by men and male-run governments in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, and Iraq? Would U.S. troops be in Iraq today if, say, Hillary Clinton were President, and not George W. Bush?

I'm with Shanti on this one.

One of the things that most irritates me about this article is his stereotyping of all women as some kind of fuzzy, peachy beings, who always speak softly and are oh-so nice to each other all the time. I think it is mainly a very Western point of view, or at least the view of a person who is wilfully ignoring or trying to gloss over the complexities of a woman's nature.

The notion of a peaceful utopia if women were in charge is demeaning, sexist, and dumb.