Would Our World Be a Better Place if We Let Women Run the Show?
Is more feminine energy the solution to global issues?
It’s fair to say that women have had little say in global politics for the last 3,000 years.
And if you believe conservative politicians, this is the way it should be. After all, men make decisions using logic and common sense. They aren’t swayed by emotions when it comes to policymaking.
Women, on the other hand, are hormonal and let pesky emotions rule their decisions. A recipe for disaster, right?
Chaos would ensue if women were in charge.
Well, conservative bias and joking aside, there seems to be a major glitch in conservative thinking.
Yes, men run the show. But I think we can agree that their policies have resulted in an unmitigated disaster.
Look at the state of the world. We have wars, genocides, famines, climate change and global exploitation.
Looking at the fallout of a world run by men, it’s easy to assume the world would improve if women were given a chance to run things. But is it really that easy?
There have been remarkably awful female politicians
If you make the argument that more women in positions of power could make the world a fairer place, some men will point out that some of the worst or most brutal politicians have been women.
Historically, Catherine the Great, Empress Czarina of Russia, comes to mind. She was constantly at war. Against Ukraine, the Ottoman Empire and Poland. Edging her generals on to kill as many people as possible.
And she was a brutal autocrat. When people tried to rebel, she massacred hundreds of thousands for joining Emelyan Pugachev’s peasant rebellion.
Not exactly the poster child for female empathy and kindness, you might imagine.
And then, more recently, Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady. A famous example of the “women are bad rulers” group. And it’s true. She’s right there at the top of my list of shitty politicians too.
She undercut trade unions. She privatized critical government-run services and companies like rail, oil, water, gas, and telecoms. Her austerity policies left people in the UK poorer and less protected.
The UK is still railing from the fallout of her detrimental policies today.
Staying on the topic of UK politicians, there’s the sorry excuse of a human being, Suella Braverman. Braverman was forced to resign as UK home secretary not long ago.
She’s the child of immigrants, hell-bent on deporting other immigrants. Calls homelessness a “lifestyle choice” and has been accused of encouraging right-wing extremists.
She also accused the Met police (of all organizations) of being too lax on pro-Palestinian protesters and too hard on right-wing protesters. So yes, she is walking foot fungus.
Imagine being such an awful person that even this dreadful UK government didn’t keep her on board.
Women who behave like men are successful in conservative politics
Catherine the Great, Tatcher and Bravermann are three unfortunate examples of awful women leaders. And I can easily think of many more powerful, despicable women in politics right off the top of my head.
Majorie Taylor Greene, Marie Le Pen, Sarah Palin, Giorgia Meloni or Nikki Haley, I don’t want to be ruled by any of these women.
Given their examples, why do feminists think women would be better leaders?
I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but all these examples of terrible female politicians have one thing in common. They come from the conservative or right-wing political camp.
A woman has to be a special kind of political animal to succeed in the cesspool of conservative male politics.
Successful conservative women are successful because they either completely embrace their male counterparts’ world views as their own or because theirs are even extremer.
I think Suella Braverman and Majorie Taylor Green’s hate-filled rants against wokeness and immigrants are every right-wing man’s wet dreams.
But more hate doesn’t solve any of the very real problems the world is facing.
These women’s political leadership is in any way representative of what sane women’s leadership would look like.
There are many examples of what great women’s leadership would look like
Let’s talk about Angela Merkel, who skillfully steered German politics from 2005 to 2021. She was neither a leftist nor woke in any way. She was on the right side of the spectrum in the German political landscape.
But her leadership demonstrated that conservative politics doesn’t have to be deranged. I feel after years and years of MAGA and the rise of right-wing politicians around the globe, we have forgotten this.
Of course, today, under Friedrich Merz, her party, the CDU, is revealing its offputting xenophobic and antisocial side.
Merkel steered the country through many crises, always maintaining a positive and humane attitude. One example is her famous statement, “Wir schaffen das—We’ll manage this,” after visiting a camp for newly arrived refugees during the Syrian refugee crisis.
Although she was a conservative politician, her leadership style focused on people and their needs and suffering, not on posturing in front of voters.
She maintained her even hand all through the pandemic. 80% of Germans find that she did her job rather well.
Few politicians got equally good reviews for their performance during this particular crisis.
Think Boris Johnson, whose performance was rated poorly by 51% of the British public.
Interestingly, the number of deaths in countries led by women was lower than in countries led by men.
New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern, Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen, Taiwan’s Tsai Ing-wen, and Finland’s Sanna Marin all did a better job than their male counterparts.
An analysis of 194 countries shows that the difference between the outcomes in male-led and female-led countries is real.
It could be “explained by the proactive and coordinated policy responses” by female leaders.
If the world can be saved, will it be by women?
We can discuss until the cows come home if women’s urge to be more community-minded, empathetic and nurturing is nature or nurture.
There’s no scientific consensus on this question.
And it makes no difference.
What we know is that women’s approach is horizontal and collective. Meanwhile, men tend to be vertical and individualistic.
Much of what distinguishes the female from the male leadership style became particularly apparent during the pandemic.
Forbes reports, “An analysis of 122 speeches showed men used war analogies and fear-based tactics more often. In contrast, Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand, Angela Merkel in Germany, and other female leaders in Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, and Taiwan focused on families, children, and vulnerable groups with messages of compassion and social cohesion.”
This is what we need: more compassion and social cohesion.
Women’s leadership style focuses on community, empathy and relationships. This gives them a trust advantage, especially in times of crisis.
And the world is in crisis, not one but a multitude of crises.
So many things are going wrong that it feels overwhelming. As if the ground is constantly shifting under our feet.
The only thing I’m sure of is that male leadership has taken us down a dark path.
We need to regroup and change strategy.
We need to come together as a community and work together to solve our problems. Support each other, help those who are struggling, and build a fairer, more livable world.
I know women can’t do this alone, but it’s high time to let them lead the way for a change.
As Iceland’s former president Vigdís Finnbogadóttir said: “If the world can be saved, it will be by women — with the help and friendship of men.”
If you’ve enjoyed my writing and want to support me, buy me a coffee. I’d love that. For more of my writing, subscribe to my newsletter or follow me on Threads or Linkedin.
I have often thought that in a truly egalitarian world the innate differences between men and women (more verbal, more focused on people and relationships on average) would mean a majority of politicians would be women. It just makes sense!
The most delicate flower in the world is the male ego.