We are indeed, all individuals. That is a narrowing gainsaid too often repeated to be useful. What is at issue is the category attribution and the drawing of categories that are far too broad to be useful either.
There are things that men do more often than women and vice versa and many cross overs. Sitting on a loo for example is twice more a woman's action than a man's.
As a man I find it mildly offensive - to reason - when someone says something profoundly stupid out of sheer laziness. So the statement that it is men who export violence onto others, cause wars etc, annoys me and even annoys my horse - his mane in a lather. It ignores facts.
Virtually every woman who has led a country has waged war, either on another country or on her own people. Off hand I can think of only two who haven't and they are the Irish and Icelandic Presidents, who wielded no power in any event. The Pakistani female President did. The Israeli female Prime Minister did. The British female Prime Minister did. The Indian female prime Minister did. The Indonesian female president did. Should I go on. Back further in History? The British Queens - every single one of them. The Russina Tsarinas? Even the Egyptians of a long past era - female Pharess - watch out.
Of all the countries in history, most have had a war of some sort, but not in every male leaders's term. Indeed, most countries have avoided war most of the time and when led by a man.
In strict numerical terms men-led countries have had more wars. But proportinately, there is better chance of peace with a male leader than with a female.
