Forums

Firstly let's keep it civil and constructive.

So I was wondering about this, I was talking to a friend of mine who brought up this comment and I generally agreed with her that the world probably would be better off if women did rule.

[Note: I realise that a lot of this is based on generalisations, I'm not saying all women are like x and all men are like y, and of course some of these are theoretical since we don't live in this world it's hard to prove something would happen in the way I'm writing it]

There is the obvious one, there would almost certainly be less wars going on. Women tend to be far more collaborative and tend to understand the power of persuasion rather than physical/militaristic power.

In this world you'd find a lot more problems resolved through dialogue rather than conflict

Now this isn't always the case,there have been cases of female leaders who took there country to war, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Indira Gandhi. However it could be argued that since they were elected to power in a "man's world" that they acted more accordingly to that world having had to adapt to it in order to gain power in the first place.

The world would be a "kinder" place, this is a much more difficult point to argue, I feel that sometimes the victims of certain types of crimes are often treated quite poorly, something that would almost certainly be changed in a female-ran world.

It's generally considered (rightly or wrongly) that women are "kinder" generally, hence why traditionally women tend to take jobs/carears which are more suited to that type of person.

The business world is probably one of the few places I don't believe would be better off, I think the business world would be better off with more women in high-level corporate jobs but there is well a lot of "dog eat dog" about business which I think men are more suited too, they are more ruthless. However there are times when that isn't going to work. The current generation and (imo) future generations definitely don't react as well to the type of management which has dominated for years), I think a more "caring" style of management is largely taking over all multi-national corporations.

Even the most traditional male occupation of the Army is changing, the stereotypical view of a drill sergeant screaming at someone in there face is pretty much non-existent outside the most specialist units (Training for special forces is very much still like this since part of the training is handling torture).

Anyway, this was a bit poorly formatted, I kinda decided to make this off the wall after talking with my friend, this is generally the only forum I visit so this is the only place I could post it (and besides I think out of most other places, this seems to have a much more equal population of male and female posters) so it's a better place to get a balanced view.

Nope, we've got to work together.

If we look at achievements of men in this regard

it can't be much worst than that

There's a reason why there aren't many female rulers (or female politicians in general). If you studied psychology at least a bit, you probably should know that in general, men feel more emotions but control them better. Women feel less emotions but usually have problems controlling them.
Politics and diplomacy are very much about reason, not about emotions.

So, even if we assume women are more collaborative (tell that to Hitler-y Clinton, huh), there's a higher chance they give up to emotions and screw things up by saying something they shouldn't have.

This.
There are as many idiots that are women as there are in men. The question is retorical.

Things are fine the way they are, what I mean is that we shouldn't fire all male politicians.

Human conflicts have nothing to do with gender.

While there are some general differences, besides the obvious physical ones, between men and women neither gender really ends up with an advantage especially with all the variations between people in general, the world would be pretty much the same because whether your male or female your still human.

I don't want to come off as sexist, so I'll refrain from expressing my thoughts in full. To make a long story short: No. If women ruled this world, we would still be facing the same sexism and discrimination we face today (women exclusively ruling already harbours this issue), along with the consequences the general woman carries (men also carry consequences in their sex as well, so I don't mean to come off sexist). Thinking the world can achieve peace through dialogue is wishful thinking, and highly idealistic. There will always be an impasse barring cultures from 100% agreeing and working with each other. And for your argument that the world would be better without war... no. As Marx noted in The Manifesto:



War and rejection breeds culture and invention. As unfortunate and unfair as it is, peace is an unfit ideal for progression and human behaviour. With sentience and sapience comes dejection. Humans are destined to despair. And I don't think this would change with women in charge, just noting the flaw in that argument.

but can we at least fire ALL politicians?
no matter the gender?

usually in both cases (of gender) they are nice people, with whom you can drink beer and laugh - but when they got power they go crazy
or they actually are already in this state just getting some power triggers those narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies - to put it simply: you cannot be normal to become effective politician

Fine the way they are? I think that's the last way I'd use to describe the current world.

The world's better than it was in the past.

That doesn't mean it's fine now. The past was pretty awful, the present is still pretty bad.

Really, we shouldn't be worried about gender at all. I hate this whole 'quota' that parliaments need to have, which is basically just a check list of minorities. The people who should rule the world are the people who are actually good at it, regardless of gender.

Being an idiotic asshole isn't gender specified.

As much as having a quota feels very fake, it is also necessary to promote social change (for now, at least).

Let's say we let everything be run by whomever is best at it, it would turn out to be almost solely white males. Not because white males are inherently better at running things, but because their privilege has made it much easier to get where they are. Under this system minority groups are misrepresented and bad stuff ensues.

The problem is it's very unlikely that people from other groups will enter a field where their group is not represented/ "doesn't belong". It's similar to the gender roles problem universities face; how to get more girls into sciences, and more guys into English/Arts. You have to give them incentives, and you have to put people from other groups in those positions so that other people can look at it and say, "hey, maybe I can do that." That's where guaranteed positions for minority groups in politics come in. If someone from a minority group wants to enter politics, they can at least compete on a more level playing field (although no where near level) than before. Theoretically, they won't be necessary any more if we get anywhere close to true race/gender equality.

Race/gender systems are ridiculously complicated and I wouldn't pretend for a second to fully understand them, but I think for now quotas are needed. Sorry for the essay, haha.

No, I totally agree. I just mean that's something we should really be working towards, so we're in the position where the best people get the job. People need to get over all their bias towards those that are different to them, be that about sex, race or sexuality.

Unfortunately, that probably won't be for a while yet.