No women no war or kill the women first and the war will stop sooner. It sounds preposterous, but there is a good argument for that. In recent wars, the casualties among civilians (women) increased while at the same time the combat victims (men) decreased. Thus the proportion of women to men killed in a war steadily increase while at the same time the wars became less violent that is the total of casualties decreased. One can easily conclude the more women killed in wars the less violent our world becomes.
Admittedly, I’m well aware that this is just a „cum hoc propter hoc“ fallacy. Nevertheless Ian Morris devoted a whole book to just that fallacy arguing that the world became less violent because of bigger states and bigger wars.
There is but further supporting evidence to my argument. Think about it. The cultures that commit infanticide in particular among female babies, that is countries that have an excess of men are the most peaceful countries in world.
From my assertion, I would not venture to infer that the world should be peaceful and male, the same as Michel Houellebecq in his book The Elementary Particles concluded that the world should be exclusively female. No, for some reproductive reasons, we still need women AND men. But still I’d like to think about if the world would have been more peaceful if someone killed Marlene Dietrich and Eva Braun, Hitlers mistress in WW2, or someone would kill Erdogans wife and daughter.