Meta's Sandberg: No women-run countries 'would ever go to war'

Vivien Killilea/Getty Images Entertainment

• With the war between Russia and Ukraine still raging, Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:FB) Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg has some thoughts on how the global situation might be different if more women ran the world's countries.
• In an interview with CNBC to mark International Women's Day, Sandberg said, "No two countries run by women would ever go to war." Sandberg spoke during an event held Tuesday in Dubai.
• Sandberg added that with more women heads of state, the world would be both "safer" and "much more prosperous." Additionally, Sandberg criticized Russia for blocking access to Facebook (FB), and said that in the current environment, it is paramount that social media access remains free "so that people do get information from around the world" that is valid and real.
• “Social media is bad for dictators," Sandberg said. "That’s why Putin took us down."
• Meta (FB) shares climbed almost 5%, Tuesday, even as Piper Sandler analyst Thomas Champion cut his price target on the company's stock to $240 a share from $301, but left his overweight rating unchanged.

Comments

[marcoyolo]

This demonstrates the maniacal ambition of feminism. Violence is the inevitable consequence of clashing ideas in pursuit of resources. To think there would never be war if women were in charge is asinine. Furthermore, war is not the only government enforced suffering we want to avoid. Government can also oppress their own people. Women are very drawn to the idea of control and safety and these instincts can very easily devolve into paranoia and create very oppressive environments within a country.

[User 49655511]

@marcoyolo

or a household

[kata]

@marcoyolo

got to tell you, I have known women who had no good sense at all and men who had a heightened sensitivity of control and safety so the stereo types of what Woman or Men are like, if one can decide which is which, to paraphrase our newest SCOTUS applicant, is just plain sophistry and makes little sense.

Both men and women can be oppressive which is why we are a nation of laws not men and follow the rule of law no matter what gender or race and it would have been nice if our representatives would have asked her to state exactly that because she has taken oaths that say so and I would like to know if she rules accordingly. Her testimony didn’t support that at all.

[brettze]

how we wish there is a Ms. Putin, ?

[User 16760062]

No need to ever have wars if the soldiers are aborted before leaving the womb. Ouch I went there

[biggdogg]

Checking back in to see if she's been banned from FB for spreading misinformation?

[The Pitchfork Rebel]

Right, women never argue or fight.

Where does such stupidity come from?

[Colt57]

How little she knows about history.

[Victor Justice]

This little, spoiled, girl should know her role…and shut her mouth!

[sealteamsnacks]

From my life experiences woman are more savage to each other, fake to each other, than they are with men. Being a woman does not me war wont happen, hell Hilary Clinton is the most pro war politician in the scene right now.

[jcat90]

@sealteamsnacks Bitchiness is not the same as aggression.

[bruno blontrock]

@jcat90 Yes it is.

[jcat90]

@bruno blontrock Thanks for your input.

[thucydides123]

Maria-Teresa of Austria and Catherine the Great of Russia were two of the three monarchs who partitioned Poland. And yes, they held real power.

[xamd]

@thucydides123
yep, didnt go to war against each other, in fact i think your example proves Ms Sandbergs idea better. They werent agressive against each other, it was all rather peaceful. Not a very good outcome for Poland, but that was happening back then It wasn t the last partition of Poland. Nor am I saying that neither monarch didnt wage other wars at other times, Catherine certainly did, but not against each other.

[thucydides123]

@xamd Hardly an argument for the peacefulness of female rulers that they allied to conquer a neighbouring country. One reason it's hard to come up with examples of female rulers fighting each other is the tiny sample set of female rulers of neighbouring belligerent countries. So it's hard to generalize anything from an almost non-existent sample set. That said, Elizabeth I did have Mary Queen of Scots beheaded, and one could conjecture that the principal reason they never led England and Scotland into war against one another was due to the instability of Mary's reign in Scotland. To the extent that they were destabilising each other's countries and promoting civil conflict in each other's realms, one might say they engaged in a very modern kind of warfare.

[jdhawk]

Doofusberg - don't you think women are doing enough damage to human kind already without putting any women in charge of entire nations.

Does the figure 73 million mean anything to you?

Yeah, in your FB cocoon I am sure it doesn't That is the number of babies world-wide whose lives were snuffed out by their own mother while still in their wombs.

Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year. Six out of 10 (61%) of all unintended pregnancies, and 3 out of 10 (29%) of all pregnancies, end in induced abortion. Source: www.who.int/...

73 million is more human beings lost than were lost to any war or for that matter to any single disease. In fact, it is more than were lost from all diseases combined!

And let any of you mass murders be in charge of an entire country - I think not.

[You Sir, Name]

@jdhawk wow

[addyshake]

Funny how analyst follow the price to cut and upgrade price targets 🤣

[combatcorpsmanVN]

If the answer to prevent war is to elect women to run countries. If that's a really good idea, would someone contact Putin's mother, wife, and paramours and tell them to get the latest Monster of the 21st century to stop viciously murdering innocent women and children

Momma Putin really needs to get her ass in gear if Sandberg's conclusions are even remotely close to reality.

[Siss]

Sandberg and Zuck need to go. They are both like Supreme Leader Palpatine in Star Wars. She shouldn't speak for women and he shouldn't speak for anyone. We all know they would start a war if they thought it would make them more money. The misinformation they have spread has already resulted in human death and discord. I think the world would be a far better place if Facebook was blown-up like the Deathstar. How does a platform that makes an ungodly amount of money off of envy, conspiracies, and crappy ads begin to believe it represents free speech? Where is Luke and Leia when you need them?

[Wall Street Centauri]

@Siss Facebook has no coercing power. No company has. Only the government does. Palpatine had a government. Governments have armies that can legally kill and police that can legally arrest you.

[addyshake]

@Siss would be great if you leave for hate for FB on the side for a moment and focus on what she said, she does make a valid point btw :)

[addyshake]

@addyshake your*

[stephenelkins]

Two female leaders go to war -

Men - ooo cat fight!❤️

[kb9wnt]

@stephenelkins Epic cat fight.

[Wall Street Centauri]

It's not true, but there's some truth in it. There have been women leaders who went to war like people said. There have not been I think any two women leaders leading a war against each others' countries, but Sandberg is talking about the future, not the past.

There have not been many women leaders so looking at the past is not that important, it's not representative.

The question is CAN two women leaders in theory go to war? And the answer is absolutely yes. But it's also true that it is less likely. And the reason it's less likely is that statistically, it's one of the same reasons there have not been many women leaders in the first place - that ambition, the ruthlessness, the alpha male thing. Thatcher had all that, even though she was a woman, so it is fair to say that women who will go to war against each other in the future are more likely to present more classic male characteristics in their characters. That much I think is true.

[xamd]

@Wall Street47
That, I could actually agree with you on after some more discussion through on it. It is an interesting idea you bring up I have also thought about, that the job molds the person NOT the person molds the job. We get into some sticky points though, like when you start assigning stereotypes like all politicians are corrupt because that is what the job calls for. All successful business people are sharks, greedy and arrogant because that is what the job calls for. And the most obvious, all police and military are prone to violence because that is what the job calls for. I am sure most people would have problems with that. Still... its a strong point worth some good sociological empirical information. Thanks for bringing it up.

[The Pitchfork Rebel]

@Wall Street47

First of all, we haven't had women "leaders" or men "leaders". We've had elected representatives and more often than not, rulers. Winning an election doesn't make you a leader.

Secondly, going to war either requires the consent of a legislature or an autocrat.

There haven't been two women going to war because you simply haven't had two female autocrats in the same place at the same time with combustible international issues.

Give two women the right circumstances and they'll go to war. Sandberg is a typical Silicon Valley misandrogynist.

[Wall Street Centauri]

@The Pitchfork Rebel a prime minister or a president is by definition a leader. I don't disagree with the rest, except that there is a thing called Testosterone and men are more aggressive per se. . Many studies have been done on the relationship between more general aggressive behavior and feelings and testosterone. Studies have also found that testosterone facilitates aggression by modulating vasopressin receptors in the hypothalamus.

[Kyatoro]

We keep hearing about feminism, maybe we should start talking about masculinism?

How come women can now denigrate men as if they were better than us? I believe we reached an other extreme now where women can say any stupid comments about men while a man that would say the same would receive social justice and insults from these same persons.

[rubble]

Profoundly stupid. No wonder her companies stock has been cut in half.

[mpcascio]

Moronic statement.

[jcat90]

@mpcascio What's lead you to believe that women are as aggressive as men?

[mpcascio]

@jcat90 I watched Game of Thrones.

[jcat90]

@mpcascio Well what a fantastic example of real-world historical events!

[Florian Steinberg]

I am calling BS on that claim. Everyone who was worked with a lot of women knows that they are just as vicious as men, only in a different way. Pretty sure they would also engage in war in some form.

[kata]

@Florian Steinberg

the female of the species is often the more deadly.

[docstox 12]

@Florian Steinberg To go with your comment, women I knew who worked for other women, said they were much happier when they worked for a man.

[jcat90]

@Florian Steinberg "only in a different way" .... you mean like less likely to start a war?

[DigitaleKunst]

Is she just assuming Putins Gender?