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/]]

Which is why PHMT. if it’s hierarchical (which it definitely was in the past) the vast majority of men are going to lose out. And they still do, being the primary victims of violence.

I've read the thread through twice, and I have a burning question, because I've definitely missed something.

Why are badgers relevant and what are we defining as patriarchal about them?

So much respect for Jacinda Ardern. My type of Prime Minister. Just taken a 20% pay cut for 6 months and most of New Zealand ministers have done the same, to show solidarity to citizens. Acknowledging that this won't make any difference to the financial impact of Covid 19, but for me, she gets the 'tone' right every time.

The idea that humans lived in idyllic egalitarian groups before a terrible hierarchy was ushered in is a very simplistic narrative. And it is a relatively recent invention.

The reality is more interesting and challenges the linear stories we tell ourselves.

newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5409/are-we-city-dwellers-or-hunter-gatherers

That's an interesting link, NonnyMouse, saving that one!

How are you doing, btw, Sapphos? I feel like I haven't seen you around since before Covid madness hit.

Good article:

edition.cnn.com/2020/04/14/asia/women-government-leaders-coronavirus-hnk-intl/index.html

Points out, amnong many points, that the only Nordic country without a female leader has ballsed it up.

Hey TheProdigalKittensReturn I'm doing good thanks. Haven't been around as I had a baby 3 weeks ago who has been keeping me busy! Funny old time to bring a child into the world.

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

An interesting aspect to this is the role of technology. It pushes and pulls and reshapes the paradigm of what war is. At the time of the Plantagenets, gunpowder weapons were so primitive that they were yet to make the big impact on siege warfare; meaning a good castle still offered the option of passive defence, reducing the size of an army necessary to lay claim to an area of land. This allowed smaller upstarts to wage the wars you're currently reading about.

RomeoLikedCapuletGirls what you've said is why I'm sceptical about a world initally unchanged, save for women at the top of government being vastly different from our own on a geopolitical level. Even if the traits that give rise to hierarchical leadership are found more often in men than in women, it only requires a few hierarchical women to move society in that direction and they will be the ones seeking power.

FloralBunting, sorry for the confusion, badgers is a stand in for more vulgar words, rather than a literal Meles meles.

Funny old time to bring a child into the world.

Yikes, but also congratulations! Hope you and baby are both well.

This allowed smaller upstarts to wage the wars you're currently reading about

Just got as far as them using the first cannons in battle...which apparently came as a bit of a shock to their opponents

Congratulations SapphosRock - is it a good thing or a bad thing that you are not getting a constant stream of people coming to admire your baby? I can't decide.

@Gronky - I'm enjoying reading your arguments.

sapphos

Congratulations 🎉💐

TheProdigalKittensReturn it's long, but well worth the read. Took me a few days to get through it in small chunks.

which apparently came as a bit of a shock to their opponents

Despite them being not that effective initially (in terms of not being as much of a game changer as later designs and compared to other siege engines), I can hardly imagine the terror from the appearance alone, it must have seemed like apocalyptic devilry.

Contratulations, SapphosRock

Thank you, aliasundercover.

Congratulations SapphosRock!

Aw thanks for the congrats

is it a good thing or a bad thing that you are not getting a constant stream of people coming to admire your baby?

I'm trying to stay positive as there isn't any choice so I say it's a good thing. Certainly no pressure to get dressed or tidy up every day.

Points out, amnong many points, that the only Nordic country without a female leader has ballsed it up.

Has Sweden ballsed it up though?

I've only skim read the thread so forgive me if this point is redundant or has already been made. But the idea that the world would have been better if it was run by women from the start seems to ignore the circumstances that go into making women better leaders in the first place. All of the arguments about women being less egotistical, more collaborative, less driven by the desire to hoard power and wealth, better at communicating, more empathetic etc are valid in my opinion, but surely these qualities have developed as part of the female socialisation demanded of us under patriarchy. Unless there is some reason to believe that these traits have a biological basis, then if we had always lived in a female dominated society or even in a truly equal one, it seems likely to me that women would not be socialised to have these traits over men. If the qualities that make men poor leaders and which make women better leaders are down to socialisation under patriarchy, then it seems reasonable to me that they only manifest themselves because of patriarchy. Does that make sense? I think if at this point in history women took over all or most positions of power then we'd see a significant improvement to many aspects of life, but I'm not sure we can extrapolate backwards from that as to what a world run by women from the beginning would have looked like.

It’s all well and good in the short term but what happens long term? What happens to all the people immediately affected by more extreme measures? While I agree that some female leaders have so far done really well I think it’s too soon to pass judgement on which leaders have made the best decisions. This will only be clear in a few years time when we begin to realise the full impact of the pandemic.

It seems likely to me that, for a woman to become leader, she generally has to be highly competent, whereas men like Johnson and Trump were elected because of some kind of personality quirk that people found appealing? Incompetent women who make it to the top are a rare breed.

Also, governments might be making the decisions, rather than individuals, but men like Johnson and Trump have huge influence over who is selected to have more power within that structure.

Congratulations, Sapphos. I'm delighted to hear some good news.

I'm also quite disappointed to learn that there is nothing specifically patriarchal about badgers, it was appealing to my absurdist humour. As you were.

Good point, GrabtharsHammer. If feminists say that the only reason women are cooperative, less aggressive or egoistical is purely due to patriarchal socialisation alone, then if there is no patriarchy or if patriarchal influences had never shaped human society, then we can't assume women would have collectively done a better job or would even express such traits.

It's good to see such sensible female leadership from various countries during the current Covid-19 crisis.

However, my own view is that you tend to get poor outcomes overall if there isn't diversity of opinion or thinking. I don't think women are necessarily 'better' at governing than men or vice versa.
All male governments could perform badly because there are similar mindsets and personality traits that can exacerbate conflicts. When you include a number of female leaders and politicians into the dynamics, that could shake up the status quo as they bring in their own perspectives and approaches.

I also think an entirely female government might also be disadvantaged by other types of issues. That's why it's good to have a healthy mix of female and male politicians so that groupthink doesn't set in.

UK politics is also disadvantaged by the fact that many politicians come from very elite backgrounds and educational institutions. This also creates very stagnant groupthink and culture. If you have more politicians from different economic and social backgrounds, they bring different ideas and perspectives, which means that there's a better chance of finding more realistic approaches to problems.

I think including Trump in the analysis skews everything so far as to make it impossible to interpret properly. Do we honestly think Obama wouldn't step up to the task if he were still in power because he is male?

Leo Varadkar made a fantastic early call locking down Ireland ahead of St Patrick's Day which also hasn't been mentioned. I think it's far more likely that women have to be better to reach the top, than that women are naturally better at leading. Fortunately we still have fantastic male leaders as well who break the bluster and grandstanding model of Trump.

It is a reasonable assumption that the women who manage to get elected are more likely to be competent.

More importantly, the sort of societies that are willing to elect women are likely to have a more mature political culture.

And the sort of societies that tend to elect women again and again are typically small and socially homogeneous ones that need to make the best use of all their small educated population.

Here endeth the sociology lesson.

Leo Varadkar made a fantastic early call locking down Ireland ahead of St Patrick's Day which also hasn't been mentioned.

It probably helps that Varadkar was a medical doctor and his partner and sisters are health workers.