How different do you think the world would be if it was ruled by women?

No, it wouldn't be. There are many examples to the contrary. New Zealand under Jacinda Ardern has been downright cruel to it's entire diaspora of almost 1 million. Women are a key mainstay of Vladmir Putin's propaganda television broadcast machine. Women are often the instigators or enablers of state cruelty and brutality. Aung San Su Kyi in Myanmar let her people run amok on the Rohingya Muslims. Back in the UK there's Priti Patel and Theresa May and the 'Hostile Environment' etc. Men in power are awful but women are no better

You’ve described a representative democracy…which we have.

What on earth makes you think that? Minority government and 22 million votes wasted at the last election.

Who does Boris represent?

You’ve described a representative democracy…which we have. To think there won’t be “opposing sides” is really a criticism of why two party systems dont work. Limiting different parties/factions is actually anti-collaboration, so what we need are multiple parties and the U.K. is close to that with Lib Dems being a real 3rd “side” to offset the Conservative and Labour sides.

Parties exist through collaboration of voters with similar interests. They then elect MPs. Having a Parliament is all about collaboration. The different MPs have to collaborate to write and pass laws.

Margaret Thatcher was just one woman surrounded by lots of other other men in power though so we were hardly ruled by 'women' when she was in power.

A different form of democracy? One without "opposing sides", with collaboration as an aim and proportionate reflection of all the different demographics and interests?

Women just dont have the same ego and drive to dominate as men.

What? I have encountered many extremely dominating women. they just use different techniques to assert dominance.

What is better than a democracy? Genuinely curious.

I wonder, if women were in charge, the concept of "rule" would actually be a thing.

All of you citing Thatcher etc - these politicians were operating within a system devised by men in which men's rules ruled. If women really ran the show, I think we'd have evolved very different political systems that those that prevail, which are structured around concepts of adversity - winning, beating your opponent etc.

I agree with much of what @lljkk says. If much of what happens on this site is anything to go by, such a world would be heavily beset with all sorts of issues. Many posters here are heavily driven by emotion, and the lack of critical thinking and engagement and making statements of the bleeding obvious as if they were startling insights is striking.

When I think of the women leaders where I work, I am afraid most of them are just as bad. No idea if we have been unlucky or if it is representative.

No, I don’t think women would do any better than men at ruling the world. We are just as likely to start wars. We instinctively get territorial and fierce about our children, and female rulers often see themselves as the mother of their nation so they do bring aggressiveness to the table when in charge. Women are just as likely as men to be corrupt and act out of self interest when in power.

Have you read the book Herland? It’s amazing. Written in the 1930s I believe and explores the whole idea of a female only society and what happens when men accidentally stumble across it. It’s quite simplistic but very wonderful especially when read within the context of the time.

I’ve worked in very female dominated workplaces for most of my adult life.

Some workplaces were very supportive, good communication, teamwork and getting along.

Some workplaces were miserable with bitchyness, relational aggression, gossip and a queen bee bordering on the psychopathic.

So, I’m not convinced that the world would be better if ruled predominantly by women.

I think egalitarianism and balance would make the world a better place.

Do you think it would be a calmer more rational world?

Given how over-sensitive anxiety-ridden reactionary projecting-own-issues MNers are? Are you joking? "Hysterical" in the very worst sense of the word comes to mind.

I like to think there would be much less violence, X fingers, if women were more represented in all areas of leadership. But if that's replaced by even heavier burdens of paperwork, anxiety-exalting-neuroses, hyper morality linked to snooping on neighbours and all sorts of public behaviour, kneejerk and emotional decision making: I'm not sure it would be net better world than world is now. Worth a try, but my hopes are very low.

I would also fervently hope that the misandrist streak of MN doesn't represent what a world ruled by women would be like. Plus we all know that power corrupts. I can't see why women in power wouldn't be as susceptible to ego-mania & corruption as the blokes.

I think the world would be better run if the values associated with women were more widely respected and so evident in the corridors of power

Putting one's self second, being really concerned about the welfare of all your charges ( how does that happen when politics is about being first in a vote )

Avoidance of physical violence

Ability to listen as well as talk

Assumption that you may be wrong

Pragmatism

Sadly you only have to look at the petty direction that most Mumsnet posts turn to realise that women call totally balls anything up, too.

I don't know what it would be like. I believe that every change has positive and negative aspects for everyone and therefore it's impossible to predict more than say that it would change the way we organise the world.
I don't believe that it would be necessarily better or worse, just different.
To be honest I would much prefer a more balanced approach to having only women in power.

Those saying the world wasn't peaceful during thatcher's etc. reign - that's not women ruling though is it? They were lone women amongst a patriarchal system that's been millions of years in the making.

If, however, you were to wave that wand, put women in charge without any competition - just each woman playing to their own strengths, best woman for the job and so on, that might be worth something. You'd have to take testosterone out of the equation, which of course you could - we don't need men to procreate, just their sperm (so man farms?) - that might make a difference.

Truth is, we do need both in balance to achieve our best as a race. That's why we haven't yet.

It depends how it comes about. If women becoming the power is due to their competing with men, then they have to compete on men's terms so you get Thatcher, Meir etc.

If a magic wand were waved and suddenly women were in charge then you would have women competing with other women like women do, which is less physical but much much more psychological.

There might be fewer wars but I don't think it would be all skipping hand in hand into the sunset. The same ruthless types would tend to seek power. I mean, I don't think life would be all that much better with Priti Patel in charge of the UK.

I think the "dominant" class/race/species whatever will always be the same. Power corrupts.

I think the trouble is that anyone who wants to be a "leader" is bound to have similar traits. Some female leaders (past and present) have been pretty awful IMO.

Less ego would be a good thing

Testosterone encourages territorialism. Men mostly have more testosterone. Men are mostly hard wired to fight their corner. Women mostly aren't. Mumsnet expresses that as Willy waving.