If women could step into world leadership roles right now, what would you change?

[TamanTun]

I’m sick of old men running the world and it all going to shit, what would you change?

I'm not sure women would do any better. I have come to the conclusion that the world is far too complicated for anyone to truly understand what's going on or what the impact of their policies would be. Governments should aim to have a range of opinions and experience and power shouldn't rest in the hands of one person. Having said that. I'd make sexual offences attract much more punitive prison sentences, ban porn and surrogacy and improve early years provision and address the pay and pension gaps that women who have children incur. (Basically I'm Georgia Meloni at this point which is a bizarre position for a life long lefty).

Women wouldn’t do any better of a job. There’s far too much red tape these days.

There is a certain kind of ruthless psychopathy required to rule the world.
There are women with those attributes too, and they'd be the women who ended up ruling the world, so I don't believe anything much would change.

Anyone who has tried to be a good leader, man or woman, gets assassinated by the ruthless warmongering power hungry.

Red tape isn't a bad thing. Red tape is the rules that makes things fair.

Do you want rules saying there shouldn't be asbestos in child's play sand? and that trading standards should shut down dodgy vape shops? and that shops should have to give you a refund if they falsely advertise? Because all those rules get labelled "red tape" when actually they keep people safe and keep things fair for honest traders.

I think there are plenty of cases where the current world leaders are doing a very bad job (USA). I'm not saying all women would always do a better job, but I'd start with free universal childcare, women's rights and women's healthcare.

If Thatcher was anything to go by, I'm not sure it would make any difference. But I generally agree that I'm sick of men running the world and most things in between.

physical castration of sexual offenders, harsh penalty for sexual based crime. knife carrying = minimum 5 years jail. financial crime, remove all internet/phones etc, ankle tag and put under house arrest so they can fund their own jail.

volunteer work needed to be completed to 30 hours a week for unemployment benefits, Litter picking, graffiti removal, helping old people, planting seedlings etc.

NHS protection, introducing geriatric hospitals for bed blockers, protection of women's rights, 3 strikes and you're in jail for 10 years minimum for domestic abusers.

physical castration of sexual offenders, harsh penalty for sexual based crime.

The countries where these things do happen are run by very misogynistic men.
The countries where women rule don't implement these harsh penalties.

Would you grant exceptions to the knife carrying penalty on religious or cultural grounds to any group?

@parietal

100% behind you on red tape, as regulations and laws that protect our rights as individuals and for our health and safety are always good things.

But,

I'm not saying all women would always do a better job, but I'd start with free universal childcare, women's rights and women's healthcare.

So you’d do exactly what other leaders do, set up society to benefit their own in group. Men have set it up to benefit men. In western countries, it’s usually rich white men passing laws to benefit rich white men.

I can’t say this would be doing a better job.

So much wrong with this.

Mutilation of genitals is barbaric and doesn’t work. A eunuch can still get an erection and rape.

Carrying a knife having a 5 year prison sentence is completely unrealistic and ignores the causes as to why some young people feel compelled to carry knives.

You would end up with overcrowded prisons making nonviolent criminals into rapists and killers.

The idea of forced labour for the unemployed is going to reduce the supply of jobs, making unemployment even worse.

I love this question!
I would establish a Ministry of Nans in every country, this would be a decision making board made up of representative elderly women who oversaw all legislation, and every decision would require a 70% majority vote. The Nans would be democratically voted in, and would not be politicians as such, just approval level. They would have the power to look at exsisting legislation if the electorate requested it. Their terms of reference would include that childrens well-being and safety must always be the primary concern of any legislation, amongst a few other things.
Surrogacy, porn and prostitution would of course be outlawed.
Violent and sexually violent crimes would be seen as crimes against humanity, and perpetrator's would be made to work in food production in nice conditions (residential) while learning meditation and yoga and other personal development programs until they are genuinely reformed. They would also learn to cook and clean to professional standards.
Teachers (I am not a teacher) would be encouraged to get multiple degrees and come from all walks of life and would be the highest paid professionals.
All weapons would be melted down and made into playground equipment and scooters for the disabled and infirm.
Gender stereotyping would be deeply unpopular and male and female persons would remain distinguishable in law and service provision.
Domestic violence offenders would also work in food production as above.
At the age of transition to adulthood, there would be a beautiful traditional ceremony for boys and girls that supports their evolution from child to adult, they would recieve a years basic pay to study or travel or volunteer to work out what they want to do with their lives.
People would only get 1 hour of access to the internet per day, not including their jobs, and the Ministry of Nans would approve content on the internet where concerns arise.
Mothers would be assumed to have the final decision making authority regarding their children, subject only to the Ministry of Nans in exceptional cases.
Lots more but that was fun, thanks :)

This isn’t really addressing your question but I’ve worked on some big infrastructure projects and I can say that in my experience the best teams, i.e. the most agile, innovative and enthusiastic, the ones that pull together and really deliver, are always a really good mix of age, background (that includes sex, race and even nationality) and experience.

Liz Truss did such a fine job, didn't she? In 45 days she managed to tank the economy and send share prices crashing.

Rachel Thieves is really improving the economy for everyone...

...and a lot of the problems we are all experiencing today money grabbing utility companies comes from Margaret Thatcher's privatisation policies. The CEO and senior managers at Thames Water lining their pockets instead of spending on maintaining infrastructure.

This idea that having a vagina is some sort of magical solution to world problems is totally bonkers. Women are just as incompetent as men. Cock. Vagina. I really don't care. Show me some good policies and economic results.

I can't say I've been much impressed with Paula Vennells of the Post Office Scandal or Cressida Dick.

There'd probably be less warmongering. Women don't have willies to wave.

And if you stay at peace with your neighbours, you can spend money on stuff that makes peoples' lives better, rather than weapons.

(I used to do a lot better on the Civilisation game when I didn't go to war with my neighbours)

And definitely not requiring people to "volunteer" for benefits. If that work has an economic value, pay people to do it.

The most famous female leaders in history are:

Queen Tomyris
Cleopatra VII
Boudica
Joan of Arc
Queen Isabella I of Castile
Queen Elizabeth I
Rani Lakshmibai
Catherine the Great
Queen Nzinga
Margaret Thatcher
Zenobia of Palmyra
Ahhotep I
Empress Dowager Cixi

Every single one of them went to war.

The idea that female leaders don't go to war because they don't have penises comes from people who have very little understanding of history.

Women also commit more DV than men according to the biggest metastudy to date. Conducted by over 100 academics from 20 universities who analysed over 10,000 previous studies.

Women can't make dramatic change within the patriarchy and shaped from birth in our male centred society.

But I'd like to see UBI and free childcare hours able to be claimed by parent to provide care at home instead if they wish to. We'd all be happier if we had the means to work for passion vs work to survive.

I agree with this, it’s been my experience too from work and volunteering with various organisations. The best teams were always the ones made up of people who assumed they had absolutely nothing in common when they first met!

Er I think you need to cite this please as it seems very unlikely.

Men commit vastly more crime then women, commit almost all the murder, almost all the sexual crime. 2/3 women a week are murdered by the partner or ex partner in the UK, men murdered by women are incredibly rare in comparison.

Yet we are supposed to believe that domestic violence is more likely to be commit by women? Please.

I think I would turn britain into el salvador, I don’t think enough people go to and stay in prison. I wouldn’t assume a world run by women would be much different. The character traits that get you into power and keep you in power are probably quite universal.

Family violence scholars from the United States, Canada. Mexico and the U.K. were invited to conduct an extensive and thorough review of the empirical literature, in the most important topic areas, including: prevalence rates, dynamics, risk factors, impact on victims and families, criminal justice policy, assessment, prevention, and treatment. They were asked to conduct a formal search for published, peer-reviewed studies on these topics through standard, widely used search programs, and then catalogue and summarize all known research studies relevant to each major topic and its sub-topics. In the interest of thoroughness and transparency, the researchers agreed to summarize all quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 1990, as well as any major studies published prior to that time, and to clearly specify exclusion criteria. Included studies are organized in extended tables, each table containing summaries of studies relevant to its particular sub-topic.

In this unprecedented undertaking, a total of 42 scholars and 70 research assistants at 20 universities and research institutions spent two years or more researching their topics and writing the results. Approximately 12,000 studies were considered and more than 1,700 were summarized and organized into tables. The 17 manuscripts, which provide a review of findings on each of the topics, for a total of 2,657 pages, appear in 5 consecutive special issues of the peer-reviewed journal Partner Abuse.

https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/

There's actually more studies conducted over the last five decades which show DV rates to be similar between the sexes as there are studies showing male prevalence.

The only source that seems to consistently contradict this is government crime data, which is what people usually cite. We can't know the reason for sure but DV charities repeatedly report from their own extensive research that men are much less likely to report DV than women - Mankind say 2.5x less likely.

So if the published figures say women commit 40% of DV it's not hard to see how the true figure could be much higher in reality. The reasons given for not reporting were that men don't want to he seen as 'weak', don't want to lose access to their children, and also simply because there is no available help for them in many cases (certainly the case in the past where men have called their local authorities and been told "sorry, can't help"). Basically, boys don't cry etc.

Men still commit more murders and cause more grievous injury but the biggest metastudy to date of peer-reviewed data found that women perpetrate at higher levels.