Stupidity in governance

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

It's well known that women have generally far more emotional intelligence than men, especially older women. Women tend to look at the implications of any proposal from the holistic stance of what's in the best interest of the family, organisation, society and do on. They see the impacts more on people generally.

So why are men and women treated equally in this regard by our systems of governance? Why do men's views carry the same or more weight when evidentially they are not skilled enough for that imperative and huge aspect of the job?

So for example, why do male politician's views on anything concerning the emotional and well being impacts of proposals carry the same weight as females? Why isn't the emotional impact of any legislative proposal compelled to be taken account of and within that, that women's wisdom recognised as pre-dominant - whether about self id, universal credit, abortion and rape laws or going to war?

Surely leaving the impact assessment to those without the skill to carry it out is beyond stupid?

Patriarchy?

They don't hold equal voices though, there are far more male politicians than female, and those who are female are, I'm sure, very aware that they are in a male dominated environment and will adjust their views accordingly, in order to remain in the position they're in.

As we've been seeing in the recent trans stuff, how many women (who, let's face it, are the ones directly affected) have been heard?

So not only does patriarchy subjugate women, it's also stupid as in that subjugation and ignoring, it puts the well-being of the whole - family/ organisation/ society / planet at extreme risk

Well as I remember it Labour put into law that all legislation would need to have a gender analysis done before it could be passed. I think the fawcett society took the conservative lib dem govt to coutt because 75% of those affected by a particular round of cuts were women. Cant remember the outcome though.

Mens voices are heard because there are more of them in power.

Yes. Patriarchy costs.

I don't think an impact assessment can have been conducted to professional standards on Universal Credit for example. Or if it was, it was ignored.

Of course, I know the answer to the question. However what I am probing is different ways to think about the patriarchy - in economic terms - any organism that is distressed will not thrive.

I think male voices and female voices should carry equal weight. I don’t think female voices should be considered more highly. However, males voices currently carry so much extra weight and females voices are shaped and limited by men so even Equality looks like a dream.

In the post, I wasn't referring to all aspects of the job - just the parts involving emotional intelligence.

TBH I believe women should rule the world as they wouldn't have made such an almighty f*up as the disordered men in power globally - that said, I'll settle for proportional representation. :)

My dear old dad has been saying women should be in charge all my 60+ years. He was a GP and from his experience in the community thinks women are undoubtedly the superior sex.

My dear old dad has been saying women should be in charge all my 60+ years. He was a GP and from his experience in the community thinks women are undoubtedly the superior sex.

It's good to have the confirmation. Tell your dad he's a very wise man - he can have a place at the table!!