Why women should rule the world

[SapphosRock]

Interesting article showing the positive response from female leaders to the Coronavirus pandemic. They are literally saving lives while the men (particularly Trump) are in denial and floundering:

[[https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2020/04/13/what-do-countries-with-the-best-coronavirus-reponses-have-in-common-women-leaders/
www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2020/04/13/what-do-countries-with-the-best-coronavirus-reponses-have-in-common-women-leaders/]]

I mean, my cat would have done a better job of handling the coronavirus crisis in the US in the sense that at least she wouldn't have actively made it worse. Trump is sort of a special case. There's been a lot of discussion about whether he has dementia, but honestly, he was unsuitable to lead anything long before that became a potential factor. The only reason he's had any success in life is because he had a rich dad.

Female leaders do seem to be handling this crisis better than the men on average, though some male leaders are doing well. Anecdotally when out and about (for my permitted shopping and exercise - don't have a fit, corona police) the people I've seen blatantly not taking things seriously, refusing to maintain distance, arguing with anyone nicely asking them to follow the rules etc have been men.

"Doesn't that raise the question of how the patriarchal badgers were able to grab power in the first place and hold onto it for so long?"

Obviously that's the bulk of evidence that men are the shittier, greedier human beings overall I mentioned earlier.

If your moral system has been groomed to see gabbing power and hoarding it away from others as some kind of universal good it may be hard to see men's 'might makes right' behaviors as a net negative for humanity.

Poor Dr Fauci looks like the personification of everyone who's ever had to work around a completely incompetent manager.

insideandout3, I was referring to:

"women are measurably better than men by any social, political, medical, sexual, environmental, military or familial standard"

It would have been rather nice if a horde of Amazons had ridden roughshod over the world, liberating women as they went, a few hundred years ago (and, indeed, today in some parts of the world).

Your conception of all militaries existing necessarily to "ride roughshod over the world" is a common male conception of prioritizing aggression over defense.

the people I've seen blatantly not taking things seriously, refusing to maintain distance, arguing with anyone nicely asking them to follow the rules etc have been men.

Same. When I was out for my daily constitutionals over the weekend lost count of the number of men I saw with their tops off, drinking in groups, sitting around with other men and arguing with the police who were trying to move them on. More fool them as men are more likely to die from this thing.

Your conception of all militaries existing necessarily to "ride roughshod over the world" is a common male conception of prioritizing aggression over defense.

I would have settled for a matriarchal Switzerland. I'm asking because I view your assertions as almost making women complicit in their own oppression (i.e. they could have acted but chose not to because of differing values). It's quite possible I've misunderstood.

When I was out for my daily constitutionals over the weekend lost count of the number of men I saw with their tops off, drinking in groups, sitting around with other men and arguing with the police who were trying to move them on.

My neighbor has been lifting weights with his shirt off in the shared parking area! Not sure who he's trying to impress there.

Your post doesn't make sense to me, though your attempt to blame women for not fighting back enough against men committing violence is something I've seen lobbed at many rape victims.

though your attempt to blame women for not fighting back enough against men committing violence is something I've seen lobbed at many rape victims.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, that was the way I viewed a potential logical conclusion of your assertions. I don't personally believe that and didn't think you did either, which is why I was trying to explore them in more detail.

To add: if women are inherently superior in all the ways you've listed then the oppression of women throughout history is a sort of Epicurean paradox.

I do think Theresa May would be doing significantly better. I'm not on the same page as her on most things (shocker, some women have differing opinions!) but I think she showed competence for many things in the Home Office. I'm not saying I agreed with those things. I mostly didn't.

It shows the failure of this government that they are not actively getting those who have been shown to be competent at management and administration in the past more involved in this crisis. Fuck knows, with the highest death rate in Europe, lack of PPE, lack of tests, shitshow around ventilators, clearly lying all the time - anyone who has any competence should be brought in to help.

I also think May would be doing better (also not a fan). Nobody is saying that all women would be doing better, I don't think, just pointing out a general trend - I know that when I first heard Johnson was being hospitalized and that someone would have to take over in the interim my first thought was "please don't let it be Priti Patel".

Posted this on another thread, just my opinion:

The prime minister / president / chancellor doesn’t make all the decision though. For all countries, it’s the government working together to solve the problem, so a combination of both genders. Therefore, this thread is pointless.

with the highest death rate in Europe

But we don't have the highest death rate in Europe.
We do have the highest number of deaths today, and for the previous few days, but only because Italy, Spain and France have peaked and gone down.

"Epicurean paradox"

So like if women are better at making the most of human socialness for species success than men are, then women are responsible for not stopping men's violence?

The prime minister / president / chancellor doesn’t make all the decision though. For all countries, it’s the government working together to solve the problem, so a combination of both genders. Therefore, this thread is pointless.

I agree with everything but the last statement. You can still have a wonderful exploration of the reasoning behind an idea which you view as fundamentally flawed.

So like if women are better at making the most of human socialness for species success than men are, then women are responsible for not stopping men's violence?

That's less paradoxical, this relates to the original statement of "[if] women are measurably better than men by any social, political, medical, sexual, environmental, military or familial standard" but women have also been subject to systematic oppression on a large scale then either the original statement is false, we have very different definitions of 'better' or female oppression is voluntary.

Thank you for taking the time to reply, the idea of female supremacy and how it reconciles with what we observe in the world is a topic which I find fascinating.

I think you've established that your definition of "better" means "more able to conquer others", and since women's victories over men's will to dominate haven't been about brute conquering you can't conceive they exist.

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions, for safety in the streets, for child care, for social welfare, for rape crisis centres, women's refuges, reforms in the law. If someone says, 'Oh, I'm not a feminist', I ask, 'Why? What's your problem?” Dale Spender

I think you've established that your definition of "better" means "more able to conquer others", and since women's victories over men's will to dominate haven't been about brute conquering you can't conceive they exist.

My definition of 'better', in military terms, is somewhat different, I would define it as the extent to which it is able to permit those with common goals and beliefs to live their lives accordingly. I don't measure strength and efficacy in terms of conquest but rather in terms of liberation.

Which woman would you like to be PM?

Patel, McVey, Wrong-Daily or Swinson?

Dare I suggest Sturgeon 😂

No, I won't. But I've been generally impressed with the way she has handed this crisis in Scotland (and I'm no SNP fan).

Her briefings compared to those in Westminster are night and day.

European nations with a Queen at the head were more likely to go to war than those with a King

Not necessarily because they were more war like

It has been argued that it may be partly down to the division of labour between kings and queens and the married status of the queen

Not necessarily because they were more war like

I agree and find it fascinating to think that even those with a supposedly divine right were constrained by a myriad of invisible strings. I think that even that level of immediate complexity wasn't the entirety of what restrained their decisions and conflict could just as readily be the result of unwitting decisions made by the long deceased.

It is fascinating

Im reading about the plantagenets at the moment

And they are constantly starting barnies...the queens must really have been going some to outdo them!

The prime minister / president / chancellor doesn’t make all the decision though. For all countries, it’s the government working together to solve the problem, so a combination of both genders. Therefore, this thread is pointless.

Yes, it's always a group. I think this is really why the US has performed so poorly, it's not just that Trump is inadequate, it's that he has created a situation where the whole government has become ineffective and unable to work well. And the Americans were already a bit like that.

Doesn’t that raise the question of how the patriarchal badgers were able to grab power in the first place and hold onto it for so long?
Isn’t that obvious? If you have a patriarchal (aka. hierarchical) society up against an egalitarian one, the hierarchical one is going to win because it is trying to win. The egalitarian one isn’t trying to win, so loses.