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

[BrieAndChilli]

Do you think it would be a calmer more rational world? Would we apportion resources more fairly?

I’m not sure if women would then become as power mad as today’s male leaders seem to be - maybe being a leader attracts a certain type of person rather than being male traits?

I do actually, even as a comitted feminist. It pains me to say theres a difference between the way men and womem behave, but there is. I see it time and time again at work. Women just dont have the same ego and drive to dominate as men.

I dont know if this is innate/testosterone mediated or still tondo with social conditioning and the way they are bought up but its definitely there. I see it already in my 17 year old son. I am quite tough but him and his friends are already so hard-nosed.

Being ruled by ALL women would be as bad as ALL men. We have to have a balance of views and personalities else it doesn't work well for anyone.

Less posturing, less refusal to admit errors, less violence.

I think it would be BETTER but, I think there could be different problems. Smaller ones though.

Where toxic masculinity causes aggression, toxic femininity (shame) causes passive aggression and i've been on the receiving end of passive aggression =. (Excluded, isolated, ignored, put down).

Very unpleasant but better than a physical attack or war.

@MyNewAdventures

Being ruled by ALL women would be as bad as ALL men. We have to have a balance of views and personalities else it doesn't work well for anyone.

We rarely have that balance.

Well Golda Meir, India Ghandi and Margaret Thatcher didn't have entirely peaceful administrations.

Seriously, have you read some of the threads on here involving disagreements between women? It ain’t all cuddly.

Much less murder.

You obviously don’t remember Margaret Thatchers reign.

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.

Less ego would be a good thing

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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’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.

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.

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.

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.