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/]]

What a bizarre speculation.

With regards to the Titanic, that is.

The sinking of the Titanic is a slightly bizarre speculation, but raises an important point. Looking at all the terrible things that have happened in history, almost 100% were caused by men either deliberately or accidentally. Both world wars, the holocaust, Iraq war, 9/11, IRA bombings, London and Manchester terror attacks, Paddington rail crash, even the death of Princess Diana (driver and paparazzi were male). None of the speculation about the cause of Coronavirus suggests that it was women who were trading live bats at the Wuhan wet market.

What comparable things have women done to the detriment of the world? Thatcher started the Falklands War, I can’t think of much else.

So, an attempt at a reversal of the standard MRA whinge about the Titanic? Super clever, that.

In answer to Sapphos's question, there's not much, mostly just men starting wars and claiming that they did it for women or that a woman made them do it.

General Galtieri started the Falklands War. It is arguable that he was encouragedged by Tory govt. policy, notably the visit to Buenos Aries by Nicholas Ridley to discuss leaseback and the withdrawl of HMS Endurance.

There have been a few female war leaders who were not shy in coming forward: Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, The Chinese Dowager Empress.

It's amazing women stand for this shit really. Men cause us no end of problems. I would take a bit of bitchiness and indecisiveness over global catastrophes any day.

Men cause us no end of problems.

Is this due to inherent/social differences, men not historically giving women the chance or a bit of both? An interesting comparison I read a few years ago was that it's, in a way, a reversal of looking at the sex of those making scientific and technical achievements. I firmly believe that women are under-represented in STEM history because they were denied opportunities (even in the 80s, I was discouraged from pursuing a scientific career).

The sinking of the Titanic is a slightly bizarre speculation, but raises an important point.

It just reminds me of the MRA arguments about how many are responsible for all the good things ever done.
Would people have landed on the moon, discovered penicillin, etc. if women were in charge?
There's no way of knowing, so it's pointless speculation.

Having power means you are more capable of doing damage. White people have done more Bad Stuff in recent history than black people have, but that's not because there's anything inherently more evil about the melanin-deprived.

Women in power (Queen Elizabeth I, Indira Gandhi, etc) have proved just as ruthless as men. Although you could perhaps argue that they were atypical, given that they achieved power in the first place.

with the majority of MN posters being female, yes... you can see how fuzzy and warm the world would be. Oh, wait...

In a century that gave us Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, the worst a woman could manage was Mrs Gandhi's State of Emergency and her compulsory sterilisation of 10 million men.

In a century that gave us Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, the worst a woman could manage was Mrs Gandhi's State of Emergency and her compulsory sterilisation of 10 million men.

Pol Pot allegedly killed 'between 1.2 million and 2.8 million' people, Mao about 1.5m, and I don't know the total Nazi death toll (about 7 million Jews alone, likely more).

Sterilising men obv isn't the same as executing them, but the overall impact on society could be close in terms of how many lives were prevented from ever coming into existence by the parents being sterilised.

Worryingly, India is still trying to sterilise men and there was a push in February of this year.

I don't think it's a good comparison, because dictators don't just focus on persecuting one sex like Gandhi did. This is much more gendered violence and had it been a man sterilising 10m women we'd probs have heard much more criticism (especially if it was still happening).

Mao's policies killed a lot more than 1.5 million. Probably more than Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot combined.

(Ably assisted by his fragrant wife in her expensive Parisian undies beneath her grey overalls.)

I don't understand the bracketed comment. Is this a reference to the behaviour of dictators' wives, like how Mugabe's wife was waltzing around shopping in France whilst her husband was committing atrocities?

Gucci Grace and her delightful boys showing off their big watches on Instagram.

The fun news is that Grace's farm has been invaded by gold-diggers. Actual diggers of gold, and she can't shift them. Irony rules.

"Would people have landed on the moon, discovered penicillin, etc. if women were in charge?
There's no way of knowing, so it's pointless speculation."

I don't remember which book I read it in, but along my way I read about the Space Race between Russia and the USA and how it was one of John F. Kennedy's high priority projects. Kennedy was pissed off Russia beat the USA into orbit in 1957 and commissioned a study to find out how it happened.

The researchers concluded one of the main reasons Russia beat the USA into orbit is because they used the talents of women scientists and the USA did not. Only drawing from 50% of your talent pool instead of 100% means you're going to lose out on innovation.

This is not to call Russia a feminist paradise or anything, but men's barriers to women's participation in science had gone further by 1950s Russia than by 1950s USA. I like to think the Hidden Figures of NASA in the 1960s may have been hired because of that report.

Loads of women scientists, doctors and teachers in Russia, but under Communism those were all poorly-paid bourgois jobs. The heroes of socialist labour who got the best wages were the butchest, blokeyest trades involving picks and shovels and big hammers.

And when those women scientists got home, they had to make the tea and scrub the floor.

This is much more gendered violence and had it been a man sterilising 10m women we'd probs have heard much more criticism (especially if it was still happening).

Israel has routinely used long-lasting contraceptive drugs on Ethiopian Jews as a form of population control, both through coercion and deception.

The researchers concluded one of the main reasons Russia beat the USA into orbit is because they used the talents of women scientists and the USA did not.

That may have been why Vanguard was delayed but von Braun had been pushing to use his Redstone for a number of years before Sputnik (Eisenhower wanted to avoid militarising space while the Soviets brashly bolted an orbital stage to their ICBM). The Soviets grabbed some Nazi rocket scientists but it's my opinion that America got their hands on the cream of the crop.

While I believe space travel could have been achieved in a world ruled by women, I'm not sure we'd have seen anything as drastic as leaping from heavier than air flight to landing on the Moon in under 70 years in the idyllic world some seem to imagine a world without male leaders would be. Space travel goes hand-in-hand with wanting to put an explosive in the back garden of your enemy in a way that's not interceptable in the same fashion as a bomber.

Loads of women scientists, doctors and teachers in Russia, but under Communism those were all poorly-paid bourgois jobs. The heroes of socialist labour who got the best wages were the butchest, blokeyest trades involving picks and shovels and big hammers.

Provided they were working on weapons, the scientists would have been treated very well. One of the key perks being able to shop at supermarkets usually reserved for the party elite, as well as being first in line for housing. The labourers may have been honoured with citations but I'd say reliable access to good food and private accommodation is more of a reward.

Research has shown that women are better at risk assessment decision making so its no surprise female led nations have faired better during this crisis.

The US Astronauts for the Moon campaign were chosen for having "The Right Stuff," meaning they ended up with test-pilots, risk-takers ice-cool in a crisis.

For the Mars mission, three years in a tin can, the consensus is they will need different qualities: Indoorsey types who enjoy reading and knitting and other such quiet solitary pastimes.

Testosterone not wanted on voyage?

For the Mars mission, three years in a tin can, the consensus is they will need different qualities: Indoorsey types who enjoy reading and knitting and other such quiet solitary pastimes.

Testosterone not wanted on voyage?

This arguably echoes the progression of elements of our society. Until patriarchal structures were in place, giving hierarchy to the 'men at the top', it's possible that high testosterone/violent men were more likely to be leaders than the physically weak but educated types. Although, testosterone still seems to be highly correlated with male leadership as evidenced by studies showing CEOs to have higher levels than most men - i.e. it influences competitiveness and 'appropriate aggression' as well as just violent behaviour.

The impacts of male supremacy aren't limited to just the absence of women but have to include the effects of men's active suppression of women's contributions as well. Men are much less welcoming and often actively antagonistic to women who do traditionally male jobs, meanwhile women welcome men who do traditionally female jobs.

Gronky, the fact most satellites in orbit are there for communication purposes and not physical devastation is proof your conception of space as an inherent battlefield is incorrect.

Although it might also be the case that 'the will to succeed' is driven by testosterone so those with high levels may be less likely to 'resign' to defeat in the face or unfavourable odds of survival etc.

Men are much less welcoming and often actively antagonistic to women who do traditionally male jobs, meanwhile women welcome men who do traditionally female jobs.

This may arguably be because the former group have more to lose. I wouldn't even be surprised if it's related to evolutionary aspects such as 'protecting one's food source' or 'fending off competitors'.