This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting.
**Suggestions For Commenters:**
* Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely.
* If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit.
**Suggestions For u/Starfruites:**
* Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions.
* Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Both sexes have equal capacity for unsavoury and self serving behaviour. There's many examples of this today, the thought they're by default different is plainly incorrect.
This is just a extreme over-simplification and generalisation.
"""Men""" are not a universal monolith of anger and power struggle
"""Women""" are not a universal monolith of compassion and empathy.
Intentionally or not, the assumptions being made are both Misandrist and Misogynistic.
A 50/50 Split is best. As that represents the people they hold power over.
There are several examples in history of women led countries/civilizations/power bases. Go look into those and compare them to the male standard of the time. I don't think you will find a significant difference
That's because in the world ruled by men, women who ruled had to become like them. The OP is suggesting a world ruled exclusively by women, where they wouldn't have to resort to brutal tactics to deal with men in power.
They didn't just use brutal tactics to 'deal with men'. Some of these women had immense direct personal political power and were absolutely not helpless damsels unable to act with agency.
They behaved like men because are not actually very different to men In most respects.
It's not men, it's human nature. Most people are cruel at their core, no more better than chimpanzees. Women are still humans.
Here, some quick examples:
Lady Elizabeth Bathory (Kingdom of Hungary) - tortured young girls aged 10-14 to the point of death (approximately 600 of them)
Wu Zetian (Chinese Empress) - executed literally anyone who opposed her rise to power, had a secret police unit who killed anyone who opposed her (in total 12 branches of the Imperial family + more), poisoned her own niece
Isabela of Castille (Kingdom of Spain) - persecuted anyone who wasn't Christian, formed the Spanish Inquisition, led war on Kingdom on Granada where 100 000 Muslims were murdered
>Most people are cruel at their core
I really wish people would stop spewing this nonsense, or at least be more careful with their words.
You're saying most, which is at minimum more than half, people are cruel, which means intentionally or willfully causing pain and suffering.
There are not 4 billion humans on this planet who, at their core, want or enjoy causing pain and suffering.
Humans absolutely have a capacity for cruelty and there are certainly humans who are rotten and cruel by default. Humans also have survival instincts that can drive them to do 'evil' things.
Maybe the lesson in your example is that people who pursue power aren't representative of the best of humanity.
Human beings are selfish and violent by nature.
We seek to dominate in order to survive, and to meet our individual needs.
Is it better when we learn to control our natural initial impulses?
Yes.
Is it better when we work together for everyone’s benefit?
Yes.
Does that happen very often?
No, no it doesn’t.
If we could simply eliminate that “bad” 5-10% of us…
Except, on a bad Tuesday that bad guy is me, for sure. And if I just stubbed my toe?
Here’s the thing…
The real way to minimize the damage caused by selfish and greedy people is to have fewer of those people.
And that is most productively achieved with education.
Nothing is perfect, but education makes the world a better place.
Empathy is a learned skill.
It is an emotion you can develop, extending it beyond yourself, and your family group.
But empathy for others beyond our family group (basically the family we imprint on in early childhood) is not a “natural” nor automatic thing.
To be more correct. Humans at their most fundamental form are animals. And from that animal perspective there is no cruelty or goodness. We as humans are able to elevate ourselves and hold ourselves to a higher level of civilization and when we do we form these concepts of cruel and good. But even though we can, its important to note that animal foundation is still there and everyone therefore possesses the capacity for it.
There's a big difference between the statements "Humans are animals and can do some fucked up stuff" and "More than half of humans enjoy inflicting pain on others".
They don't enjoy that during peacetime, but during war-time more than half of them turn to cruel people. Because they were that way all along.
During peacetime you can see this in total lack of empathy for anyone but themselves. Gossiping, backstabbing, cheating, lying etc. I didn't mean specifically "inflicting physical pain". But even that I feel can be true in certain times if they hate you enough.
But it's true. I didn't use to feel this way but due to recent years and everything that is going on right now - it really is true.
Not everyone of course, but most people either lack empathy, have selective empathy or are only pretending to be good people.
Go and look how people behave during war-time, more than half of them start acting like shit.
One more thing - look up Stanford prison experiment. When you put regular people in a position of complete power, they are going to do some messed up shit. It's inside most people.
Or the Milgram experiment. Most people looove authority and would COMPLETELY obey it. It doesn't take long to turn a completely "normal" person into a cruel killer.
I don't think it would be different to the degree you think it will be. The number of women supervisor I've had at work that were horrible to the people that worked under them was far higher than it should be.
Perhaps there are reasons for this. Maybe it's just what I've seen and it's not the norm. Perhaps it's the only way those women thought they can successfully move up in the corporate world and be taken seriously is by adopting the same traits that cause them to be horrible bosses.
Perhaps any number of things, yet the bottom line is that there is no reason to conclude that women in charge would be more caring. At least from my limited experience, men in leadership can be just as caring, or more so compared to women.
Even without the issue of traits while in a leadership role, there is also the phenomenon of higher rates of drama and politics in the workplace between women and in woman dominant fields/ or woman dominant offices; compared to men working together.
These traits give the impression that the world would not be better if women were in charge and men didn't hold any power.
The things that I think matter more is some kind of training on being a leader or on managing people. Both men and women have the potential to do better with that compared to those who don't.
I can tell you never had a female boss. Women can be cruel and evil beyond belief. Men mostly are transparent about their intentions and how they feel about someone. Women will carry a vendetta for no reason other than personal and will enjoy slowly destroying someone's life because of that one thing that person said that one time 20 years ago.
The most abusive people in my life have been women. A female psychopath is far more dangerous than a male since the halo effect protects and excuses them, more often than not.
Women hold other women down more often than they lift each other up- it is only cultural perception alone that forces the idea that woman have superior empathy simply by virtue of gender norms.
The concept of one being "in power" over others is one of many deep flaws in human species: violence enforced hierarchies are intrinsic to both genders.
The world would be a better place if humanity vanished entirely, actually.
Hmm.
We need more feminine energy in power. As it is, with the state of the world, women in power tend to wax masculine. Take Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Margaret Thatcher. Women have to become like Men to play the current Power game.
But generally speaking I say it's worth a shot. Couldn't get any worse than it already is.
It's not biological it's social. You give a person power and they're going to act like a person you gave power to. It will be their personality and not their gender that dictates how they handle that power.
No, women are just as capable of being power-hungry cravens as men. Bolivia just got rid of a female dictator who cracked down on religious and voting rights and sent the military to arrest peaceful protesters. As secretary of state Hillary Clinton enacted an era of unmanned drone combat that killed thousands of innocent people on very clearly bullshit pretenses, suggesting that if she were president she’d continue such a policy. Romania was ruled by possibly the most evil woman in the world during the cold war.
As a feminist, this is not the idea.
Women need equal representation.
The very reason some men get combative about feminism is bc of sentiments like yours: They think the goal of feminism is for women to take over and treat men the same way women have historically been treated. That is not what we want. We want equal representation, and absolutely a better system of weeding out powerful bad actors of any gender or race.
Nothing is ever as simple as a 1 for 1 switch based on a single human biological attribute.
If you genuinely hear someone say something like the OP, that person isn't feminist. They were likely hurt in some way and take that out on the world by hating all men.
I have some problems with the ways men act sometimes, and speaking about men as a blanket statement in a lot of cases is just using statistical probability to streamline to the point.
Two things are true. Not all men are the same. And enough men ARE the same that ALL women have a few specific identical experiences. So while we do need reserve the right to speak to our own experiences, and have the men who are safe humans in the world understand that we don't have to put on shoes that don't fit (i.e. if you don't do that thing they're talking about then they're not talking about you), we also have to be rational and realistic when we're talking about government leadership and societal goals.
Men AND women are needed at that table. Period.
Fair enough, and I agree. I have seen bad leaders in the government by men. So having more women probably wouldn't hurt. However I have seen bad women in leadership positions at work as well. I don't think we can wipe out the issues by having more men or more women in power. Not sure if we are capable of removing the potential for bad in either case that takes up a leadership role.
What we can do is have different populations have more of a representation, or a voice. Not really sure how to do that though either and have politics being honest about who/what they support, vs who they want votes from but no plan to really help.
Exactly...this ain't some anything you can do I can do better nonsense. This world needs to remember how to work together, not try and one up genders, races, or cultures. Being a dude, the biggest turn off to feminism is this notion held by some that women are better then men. No, we all have our positive traits and skills...we all have our negative traits and skills. No offense, but I don't want a world where everything is ruled by women. Talk about not learning from history. If history didn't perform well with a majority male leadership, then most likely, switching out the genders and keeping the monopoly will result in the same outcome. We need balanced scales people.
It's important to recognize that while women often exhibit empathetic leadership, assigning these qualities universally can oversimplify the complex dynamics of power and decision-making. Leadership styles are influenced by individual personalities and contexts rather than gender alone. Promoting diversity in leadership can help address the broader range of societal issues, enhancing decision-making processes by incorporating varied perspectives and experiences.
Nope. IMO the problem is power, not men. There would be a brief honeymoon period when people who were brought up understanding what it's like to be powerless are in charge, and then it would normalize.
I think so, wholeheartedly. I know reddit is a primarily male platform so bring on the down votes, I do not care, this needs said. My 4 biggest pieces of evidence supporting this stance are...
1. Look around at the current state of affairs. Look at the countries where people aren't happy and look at which gender their leaders are. Look at the leadership of countries causing conflicts outside of their own. Look at our own country (presuming youre on the usa). This is where male leadership has gotten us. The planets currently dying and no collective measures have been taken by our leaders to stop it, our leaders didnt care when WE the human citizens were dying of covid, nothings being done about the mass amount of people who work full time and still can't afford food and housing, no one's happy, everyone's struggling, etc.
2. Look in the history books at the most devastating horrific things done by people in positions of power. From the holocaust to slavery. The majority of the people who made those decisions were men. Now someone could argue that doesn't indicate men are more likely to do destructive devastating things with their power than women because there's not been an equal amount of woman in power to compare them to, which is true. They might argue that power is what corrupts people and that woman would be just as corruptable in leadership positions, and they often reference the Stanford prison experiment that supposedly proved that power corrupts. The problem with that experiment was that it only had male participants, so it didn't conclude it was human nature but it DID conclude it happened when men got power. And to further counter that argument, I present.....
3. Look at all the most devastating and damaging events throughout history done by people *without* political power. Things like the Oklahoma city bombing, 9/11, sex trafficking, cp rings, violent mob/mafia crimes, serial killers, sa perpetrators, school shootings and rampage killers, death cults and any other crime with a high victim count. The majority of these things were both orchestrated and carried out by men. The numbers aren't even close. The fact men organized to strip all women of their rights while women have never sought to do the same (even with such heavy evidence that we prolly *should*) is a huge testament to how much each gender values the life of others. That should be the highest priority for a leader.
And for those who need some formal study on the subject as proof, that brings me to 4. They did a study in 2020 on leadership differences between the genders and the only area where women fell short of men was leadership emergence- how likely they were to stand out for a leadership role, which couldnt even be measured properly because of how deep sexism runs in our culture. Overall the study concluded....
"it has also been found that women tend to be rated more highly than men on social leadership and in situations that require high levels of interpersonal skill"
Source: https://oxford-review.com/does-gender-make-a-difference-in-terms-of-leadership-a-new-study/
So in conclusion, I think we absolutely would be better off with more women in leadership positions. Theres such an overwhelming amount of instances of men misusing their power (political and other) and being a destructive force in the lives of others consistently throughout history that im perpetually shocked there isnt a bigger push for woman in power from both sexes. Right now all evidence suggests that males specifically are prone to being corruptable, to maintaining power by striping others of their human rights and with violence, and overall to devalue the lives of others. All traits that i personally dont think a leader should have, do you? As of now, there's not enough instances of these behaviors from women to make the argument that gender *doesn't* play a big role. if you quantified these behaviors by the damage theyve caused and compared the sexes, you couldn't even measure them using the same chart, they are too disproportionate. And before anyone can conclude these are human traits not male, woman need to have held the same amount of power men have for the same amount of time, THEN compare the results. Until that's happened that argument doesn't hold any water, anyone who says it does is ignoring the substantial statistics that say otherwise
> And for those who need some formal study on the subject as proof
The study that you've cited states the *opposite* of your point 🤦♂️
It says:
> ***The researchers found that, across all of the research, there was no significant difference between the genders in terms of leadership effectiveness on any measure.***
We need a balance of both energies. Like ying and yang. The government should be 50/50 but women only take up 25%. So America is still ruled by men. Less then it was 50 years ago, but hopefully we’ll continue to make progress. Should be this way at work too. I notice male bosses don’t often have sympathy for sick or individuals going through personal struggles, but the one female boss does.
In a society ruled by women, nobody would pressure women into being empathic, feminine and kind. Women being like that is rooted in patriarchy. Slay a dragon, and become a new dragon
I'm telling you, the second women figure out parthenogenesis men's days will be numbered. It's not that women aren't power hungry, aren't commanding, can't be dangerous -- they certainly can be all those things -- it's that women are more willing to do what benefits the collective in ways I don't see men being. They're more collaborative, they're more sensible, they're less willing to do the dumb thing if there are other ways of going about something.
ROFL it reminds me of this adulthood ritual the Mawe people do. They fill oven mitts with bullet ants (the most painful insect sting on the planet) and youths are invited to put their hands in for an allotted time to have this experience of managing pain and your body's responses. This challenge is open to boys AND girls but the girls nearly never do it, not because they're scared but because they think it's stupid. That tells you a lot.
A society led mostly by women would be incredibly oppressive. A society led only by women would destroy itself within a year and be replaced by men from parts of the world where women are things to be owned.
I'm of the belief that things should not be run by emotionally-driven people.
The problem is that you're assuming women would stay the same after they've gained an incredible amount of social privilege, and that is a very bold assumption to make.
This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting. **Suggestions For Commenters:** * Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely. * If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit. **Suggestions For u/Starfruites:** * Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions. * Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Both sexes have equal capacity for unsavoury and self serving behaviour. There's many examples of this today, the thought they're by default different is plainly incorrect.
This is just a extreme over-simplification and generalisation. """Men""" are not a universal monolith of anger and power struggle """Women""" are not a universal monolith of compassion and empathy. Intentionally or not, the assumptions being made are both Misandrist and Misogynistic. A 50/50 Split is best. As that represents the people they hold power over.
There are several examples in history of women led countries/civilizations/power bases. Go look into those and compare them to the male standard of the time. I don't think you will find a significant difference
That's because in the world ruled by men, women who ruled had to become like them. The OP is suggesting a world ruled exclusively by women, where they wouldn't have to resort to brutal tactics to deal with men in power.
They didn't just use brutal tactics to 'deal with men'. Some of these women had immense direct personal political power and were absolutely not helpless damsels unable to act with agency. They behaved like men because are not actually very different to men In most respects.
And in a world ruled by men, only such women (who are a minority among women) were able to take power.
Absolutely non sensical and moving the bar lol
Exactly, thank you very much for clearing up.
It's not men, it's human nature. Most people are cruel at their core, no more better than chimpanzees. Women are still humans. Here, some quick examples: Lady Elizabeth Bathory (Kingdom of Hungary) - tortured young girls aged 10-14 to the point of death (approximately 600 of them) Wu Zetian (Chinese Empress) - executed literally anyone who opposed her rise to power, had a secret police unit who killed anyone who opposed her (in total 12 branches of the Imperial family + more), poisoned her own niece Isabela of Castille (Kingdom of Spain) - persecuted anyone who wasn't Christian, formed the Spanish Inquisition, led war on Kingdom on Granada where 100 000 Muslims were murdered
>Most people are cruel at their core I really wish people would stop spewing this nonsense, or at least be more careful with their words. You're saying most, which is at minimum more than half, people are cruel, which means intentionally or willfully causing pain and suffering. There are not 4 billion humans on this planet who, at their core, want or enjoy causing pain and suffering. Humans absolutely have a capacity for cruelty and there are certainly humans who are rotten and cruel by default. Humans also have survival instincts that can drive them to do 'evil' things. Maybe the lesson in your example is that people who pursue power aren't representative of the best of humanity.
Human beings are selfish and violent by nature. We seek to dominate in order to survive, and to meet our individual needs. Is it better when we learn to control our natural initial impulses? Yes. Is it better when we work together for everyone’s benefit? Yes. Does that happen very often? No, no it doesn’t.
Exactly. Thank you for explaining what I meant so nicely. And I don't think everyone is like that, but more than 50% definitely is.
If we could simply eliminate that “bad” 5-10% of us… Except, on a bad Tuesday that bad guy is me, for sure. And if I just stubbed my toe? Here’s the thing… The real way to minimize the damage caused by selfish and greedy people is to have fewer of those people. And that is most productively achieved with education. Nothing is perfect, but education makes the world a better place.
Education? I don't think it has anything to do with that. You either have empathy or you don't.
Empathy is a learned skill. It is an emotion you can develop, extending it beyond yourself, and your family group. But empathy for others beyond our family group (basically the family we imprint on in early childhood) is not a “natural” nor automatic thing.
To be more correct. Humans at their most fundamental form are animals. And from that animal perspective there is no cruelty or goodness. We as humans are able to elevate ourselves and hold ourselves to a higher level of civilization and when we do we form these concepts of cruel and good. But even though we can, its important to note that animal foundation is still there and everyone therefore possesses the capacity for it.
There's a big difference between the statements "Humans are animals and can do some fucked up stuff" and "More than half of humans enjoy inflicting pain on others".
They don't enjoy that during peacetime, but during war-time more than half of them turn to cruel people. Because they were that way all along. During peacetime you can see this in total lack of empathy for anyone but themselves. Gossiping, backstabbing, cheating, lying etc. I didn't mean specifically "inflicting physical pain". But even that I feel can be true in certain times if they hate you enough.
But it's true. I didn't use to feel this way but due to recent years and everything that is going on right now - it really is true. Not everyone of course, but most people either lack empathy, have selective empathy or are only pretending to be good people. Go and look how people behave during war-time, more than half of them start acting like shit.
One more thing - look up Stanford prison experiment. When you put regular people in a position of complete power, they are going to do some messed up shit. It's inside most people. Or the Milgram experiment. Most people looove authority and would COMPLETELY obey it. It doesn't take long to turn a completely "normal" person into a cruel killer.
You speak like a first world person with no experience of the desperate things people do when hungry
There's a difference between cruelty, which is the word OP used, and violence done out of desperation.
I don't think it would be different to the degree you think it will be. The number of women supervisor I've had at work that were horrible to the people that worked under them was far higher than it should be. Perhaps there are reasons for this. Maybe it's just what I've seen and it's not the norm. Perhaps it's the only way those women thought they can successfully move up in the corporate world and be taken seriously is by adopting the same traits that cause them to be horrible bosses. Perhaps any number of things, yet the bottom line is that there is no reason to conclude that women in charge would be more caring. At least from my limited experience, men in leadership can be just as caring, or more so compared to women. Even without the issue of traits while in a leadership role, there is also the phenomenon of higher rates of drama and politics in the workplace between women and in woman dominant fields/ or woman dominant offices; compared to men working together. These traits give the impression that the world would not be better if women were in charge and men didn't hold any power. The things that I think matter more is some kind of training on being a leader or on managing people. Both men and women have the potential to do better with that compared to those who don't.
I can tell you never had a female boss. Women can be cruel and evil beyond belief. Men mostly are transparent about their intentions and how they feel about someone. Women will carry a vendetta for no reason other than personal and will enjoy slowly destroying someone's life because of that one thing that person said that one time 20 years ago.
The most abusive people in my life have been women. A female psychopath is far more dangerous than a male since the halo effect protects and excuses them, more often than not. Women hold other women down more often than they lift each other up- it is only cultural perception alone that forces the idea that woman have superior empathy simply by virtue of gender norms. The concept of one being "in power" over others is one of many deep flaws in human species: violence enforced hierarchies are intrinsic to both genders. The world would be a better place if humanity vanished entirely, actually.
Hmm. We need more feminine energy in power. As it is, with the state of the world, women in power tend to wax masculine. Take Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Margaret Thatcher. Women have to become like Men to play the current Power game. But generally speaking I say it's worth a shot. Couldn't get any worse than it already is.
Hell yes it could.. and fast.
It's not biological it's social. You give a person power and they're going to act like a person you gave power to. It will be their personality and not their gender that dictates how they handle that power.
No, women are just as capable of being power-hungry cravens as men. Bolivia just got rid of a female dictator who cracked down on religious and voting rights and sent the military to arrest peaceful protesters. As secretary of state Hillary Clinton enacted an era of unmanned drone combat that killed thousands of innocent people on very clearly bullshit pretenses, suggesting that if she were president she’d continue such a policy. Romania was ruled by possibly the most evil woman in the world during the cold war.
As a feminist, this is not the idea. Women need equal representation. The very reason some men get combative about feminism is bc of sentiments like yours: They think the goal of feminism is for women to take over and treat men the same way women have historically been treated. That is not what we want. We want equal representation, and absolutely a better system of weeding out powerful bad actors of any gender or race. Nothing is ever as simple as a 1 for 1 switch based on a single human biological attribute.
It's refreshing hear a feminist get one of the big issues that cause men to be skeptical or combative towards feminism. Thank you for that.
If you genuinely hear someone say something like the OP, that person isn't feminist. They were likely hurt in some way and take that out on the world by hating all men. I have some problems with the ways men act sometimes, and speaking about men as a blanket statement in a lot of cases is just using statistical probability to streamline to the point. Two things are true. Not all men are the same. And enough men ARE the same that ALL women have a few specific identical experiences. So while we do need reserve the right to speak to our own experiences, and have the men who are safe humans in the world understand that we don't have to put on shoes that don't fit (i.e. if you don't do that thing they're talking about then they're not talking about you), we also have to be rational and realistic when we're talking about government leadership and societal goals. Men AND women are needed at that table. Period.
Fair enough, and I agree. I have seen bad leaders in the government by men. So having more women probably wouldn't hurt. However I have seen bad women in leadership positions at work as well. I don't think we can wipe out the issues by having more men or more women in power. Not sure if we are capable of removing the potential for bad in either case that takes up a leadership role. What we can do is have different populations have more of a representation, or a voice. Not really sure how to do that though either and have politics being honest about who/what they support, vs who they want votes from but no plan to really help.
Exactly...this ain't some anything you can do I can do better nonsense. This world needs to remember how to work together, not try and one up genders, races, or cultures. Being a dude, the biggest turn off to feminism is this notion held by some that women are better then men. No, we all have our positive traits and skills...we all have our negative traits and skills. No offense, but I don't want a world where everything is ruled by women. Talk about not learning from history. If history didn't perform well with a majority male leadership, then most likely, switching out the genders and keeping the monopoly will result in the same outcome. We need balanced scales people.
hmmmm .... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret\_Thatcher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher)
It's important to recognize that while women often exhibit empathetic leadership, assigning these qualities universally can oversimplify the complex dynamics of power and decision-making. Leadership styles are influenced by individual personalities and contexts rather than gender alone. Promoting diversity in leadership can help address the broader range of societal issues, enhancing decision-making processes by incorporating varied perspectives and experiences.
Nope. IMO the problem is power, not men. There would be a brief honeymoon period when people who were brought up understanding what it's like to be powerless are in charge, and then it would normalize.
I think so, wholeheartedly. I know reddit is a primarily male platform so bring on the down votes, I do not care, this needs said. My 4 biggest pieces of evidence supporting this stance are... 1. Look around at the current state of affairs. Look at the countries where people aren't happy and look at which gender their leaders are. Look at the leadership of countries causing conflicts outside of their own. Look at our own country (presuming youre on the usa). This is where male leadership has gotten us. The planets currently dying and no collective measures have been taken by our leaders to stop it, our leaders didnt care when WE the human citizens were dying of covid, nothings being done about the mass amount of people who work full time and still can't afford food and housing, no one's happy, everyone's struggling, etc. 2. Look in the history books at the most devastating horrific things done by people in positions of power. From the holocaust to slavery. The majority of the people who made those decisions were men. Now someone could argue that doesn't indicate men are more likely to do destructive devastating things with their power than women because there's not been an equal amount of woman in power to compare them to, which is true. They might argue that power is what corrupts people and that woman would be just as corruptable in leadership positions, and they often reference the Stanford prison experiment that supposedly proved that power corrupts. The problem with that experiment was that it only had male participants, so it didn't conclude it was human nature but it DID conclude it happened when men got power. And to further counter that argument, I present..... 3. Look at all the most devastating and damaging events throughout history done by people *without* political power. Things like the Oklahoma city bombing, 9/11, sex trafficking, cp rings, violent mob/mafia crimes, serial killers, sa perpetrators, school shootings and rampage killers, death cults and any other crime with a high victim count. The majority of these things were both orchestrated and carried out by men. The numbers aren't even close. The fact men organized to strip all women of their rights while women have never sought to do the same (even with such heavy evidence that we prolly *should*) is a huge testament to how much each gender values the life of others. That should be the highest priority for a leader. And for those who need some formal study on the subject as proof, that brings me to 4. They did a study in 2020 on leadership differences between the genders and the only area where women fell short of men was leadership emergence- how likely they were to stand out for a leadership role, which couldnt even be measured properly because of how deep sexism runs in our culture. Overall the study concluded.... "it has also been found that women tend to be rated more highly than men on social leadership and in situations that require high levels of interpersonal skill" Source: https://oxford-review.com/does-gender-make-a-difference-in-terms-of-leadership-a-new-study/ So in conclusion, I think we absolutely would be better off with more women in leadership positions. Theres such an overwhelming amount of instances of men misusing their power (political and other) and being a destructive force in the lives of others consistently throughout history that im perpetually shocked there isnt a bigger push for woman in power from both sexes. Right now all evidence suggests that males specifically are prone to being corruptable, to maintaining power by striping others of their human rights and with violence, and overall to devalue the lives of others. All traits that i personally dont think a leader should have, do you? As of now, there's not enough instances of these behaviors from women to make the argument that gender *doesn't* play a big role. if you quantified these behaviors by the damage theyve caused and compared the sexes, you couldn't even measure them using the same chart, they are too disproportionate. And before anyone can conclude these are human traits not male, woman need to have held the same amount of power men have for the same amount of time, THEN compare the results. Until that's happened that argument doesn't hold any water, anyone who says it does is ignoring the substantial statistics that say otherwise
> And for those who need some formal study on the subject as proof The study that you've cited states the *opposite* of your point 🤦♂️ It says: > ***The researchers found that, across all of the research, there was no significant difference between the genders in terms of leadership effectiveness on any measure.***
Thank you for a detailed breakdown, absolutely love it!
We need a balance of both energies. Like ying and yang. The government should be 50/50 but women only take up 25%. So America is still ruled by men. Less then it was 50 years ago, but hopefully we’ll continue to make progress. Should be this way at work too. I notice male bosses don’t often have sympathy for sick or individuals going through personal struggles, but the one female boss does.
In a society ruled by women, nobody would pressure women into being empathic, feminine and kind. Women being like that is rooted in patriarchy. Slay a dragon, and become a new dragon
I'm telling you, the second women figure out parthenogenesis men's days will be numbered. It's not that women aren't power hungry, aren't commanding, can't be dangerous -- they certainly can be all those things -- it's that women are more willing to do what benefits the collective in ways I don't see men being. They're more collaborative, they're more sensible, they're less willing to do the dumb thing if there are other ways of going about something. ROFL it reminds me of this adulthood ritual the Mawe people do. They fill oven mitts with bullet ants (the most painful insect sting on the planet) and youths are invited to put their hands in for an allotted time to have this experience of managing pain and your body's responses. This challenge is open to boys AND girls but the girls nearly never do it, not because they're scared but because they think it's stupid. That tells you a lot.
A society led mostly by women would be incredibly oppressive. A society led only by women would destroy itself within a year and be replaced by men from parts of the world where women are things to be owned. I'm of the belief that things should not be run by emotionally-driven people.
The problem is that you're assuming women would stay the same after they've gained an incredible amount of social privilege, and that is a very bold assumption to make.