Should All The Leaders Of The World Be Women Now?

Due to the natural qualities of nurture and empathy in them , I would say women as leaders would mean a substantial decrease in conflict and strife in the world.

Imho, this is actually necessary for the survival of the world considering that most belligerent nations have wmd, and women leaders would be more circumspect with the usage of such weapons than men who are usually trigger-happy due to social conditioning and innate agression. So elevaton of women leaders would be a strategic step in this regard and should be promoted by the UN itself.

Women leaders also seem to have better performance records in administration than men. Statistics from India shows that women administrators have resulted in better housing and infrastructure development compared to men,as women usually understand the issues households face than men.

Also considering that women form half of humanity, it is time they are given their due in administration and leadership which their numbers warrant. This is also in tune with the democratic process.

 

One of the problems with this is that typically the sort of women who gravitate toward positions of power are just as power hungry and corrupt as the men who gravitate toward these positions.

If there are women who would genuinely make better leaders than men, I'd be all for them being leaders, but it would also be a mistake to assume that a woman would automatically exemplify both the stereotypical virtues of femininity as well as a range of other characteristics that would make them good leaders.

 

In prehistoric societies--you know, in our pre-agriculture, hunter gatherer days--women often were the leaders of their little clans.

Men didn't really come into power until we stopped living a nomadic lifestyle and adopted the beginnings of modern society.

I have a geeky interest in human evolution and our prehistory and all of that. This was something I learned recently. Now I'm curious as to why and how this dynamic flipped. Prior to agriculture and permanent human settlements, war was pretty much unheard of. As our population grew and settlements horded resources, war became an almost necessary evil. At a time when wars were fought with strength and aggression instead of with tactics and technology, men made ideal warriors. My assumption is that war facilitated the need for men in positions of power.

This is something I'll read up on when I have the time.

 

I'm cool with it.

 

What I am saying is that women are more prone to peace and order generally speaking than men who are innately aggressive. There are biological factors at work here. Considering that belligerent countries possess wmd , women would be more circumspect and prudent in employing such weapons than men. Wars waged with wmd in modern times can result in strategic failure and elimination for the nations involved. MAD is a term used to denote such a catastrophic event.

So women leaders are better for world peace in the present context and conditions. .

 

Just out of curiosity............yes, but from point zero(society)

A matriarchal society..........who knows?

Read some interesting books in my teens(Thea Beckman), always wondered.

Mzzls

 

I worry women would create a totally nanny state.




New Zealand was just awful place to be during COVID. Article I pasted came up when I searched nanny state COVID New Zealand. Whole place got infected anyway.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C. S. Lewis


So yes women's the woman's nanny state vs dudes the robber barons.

 

There are always exceptions.

 

I'm not buying this. I get the idea that women and men have general differences, but not that by electing women to higher office that we will necessarily get better leadership or less chance of war.

By your reasoning:

Women are more peace loving and would make better leaders

Marjorie Taylor Green is a woman

Therefor, if Marjorie Taylor Green, a woman who has stated publicly that she believes California's wildfires were started by a space-based laser controlled by the Jews, would make an excellent president.

Even if we accept the idea that any woman would be more peace loving than any man, being peace loving does not guarantee peace. Indeed, as long as their are other nations that are aggressive, being peace loving may actually increase the risk of war.

 

No. It should always be a mix. Though politicians stink no matter their gender

 

Thought I would stir the pot. Not all liars are politicians but all politicians are liars. Some women might be better than some men, but God help us if one like my wife would become president. She would start WW3 every month when her period would start. And when she went through menopause her mood swings were a sight to behold. Almost like two different people. Either everything was perfect in the world or it was my fault it was raining. Just saying.