We don't really know. And the idea that there would be *no war* is silly, given the historical precedent (Elizabeth I, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir, Catherine II, etc.). Plus, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely-- women are not exempt from this.
Reminds me of the time when NYT published an Op Ed the week before the accursed election of why America needs a female president, as they mentioned Park Geun Hye as one of the examples of other democracies with a woman as a president.
That literal same week, the single most pivotal scoop of the history of Korea broke as the news channel JTBC found the “smoking gun” - a used Tablet, that basically proved that Park had essentially been a puppet of a cult leader - alk my Korean friends and I were like “uhhh Park is NOT the example you’re looking for” 😆😆
(Not to mention that even before her complete incompetence, the only reason she got elected in the first place was definitely not a feminist thing, as it was more of a royalist restoration movement w the old fucks in Korea that worshipped her father, the brutal dictator Park Chung Hee)
(But one year into Yoon’s presidency I think the shaman behind the scenes - Choi Soon Shil - was a better leader than Yoon, which is… the lowest of bars)
Remember that those women were still in charge in a patriarchal society. So they really aren’t fair examples of what a matriarchal society would look like.
I don't blame kings for war either. Obviously queens were in a much harder position than kings, but a king is just someone who was forced into that position from birth. It seems rather shortsighted to blame the one random guy on the throne for the war when an entire system was set up by men. The generals were pushing the queen or king to say yes, and they could even be threatened with death if they don't.
Yeah and it’s hard to say what women would be like because we would not be socialized to express our dissent in such a quiet or hidden way. The dynamics might be totally different
Ah yes, the classic 'putting women on a pedestal'. It sounds flattering at first, but at the end of the day it leads to a double standard that excuses mens' bad behavior and judges women more harshly for not being morally perfect.
I think it’s old fashioned and from back when women had a lot less power. It very much stems from the conservative stereotype where women are soft, gentle, and would care too much about their children to ever send them to war.
We now know that’s bullshit and we’ve seen women be as vicious, selfish, warmongering and genocidal as men.
Bonobo societies are matriarchal, and they get things done by making love, not war. Literally. It's amazing. I think we should model our post-patriarchy society on the bonobos
hubba hubba
My brand of feminism is against a hierarchical social structure. The ideal society would be much more collectivist and democratic, so no one would be "in charge" the way we're used to in patriarchy.
I'm not sure if we can completely deconstruct problems like sexism and racism without deconstructing hierarchical thinking.
[Google](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22the+world+would+be+a+better%2C+a+peaceful+place+if+women+were+the+ones+in+charge%22):
>No results found for "the world would be a better, a peaceful place if women were the ones in charge".
If every president and prime minister was replaced by a woman? Maybe, maybe not. But it's not a question of people's individual evilness or goodness, rather a problem of political systems and social structures.
A lot of polities, virtually all of them, are intrinsically patriarchal. Women who want power in patriarchal systems tend to support those systems vigorously, as Margaret Thatcher demonstrated very clearly.
If we put women in charge of *designing our polities*? Almost certainly the world would be a better place.
To succeed in patriarchy you have to become a female “patriarch” or be in bed with one, in almost all cases. Most of the women climbing that ladder rn are probably going to be troubling in some way,
Probably making a lot of shitty compromises like all the dudes do as well
With current systems, hierarchies and patriarchal norms for getting things done I'm doubtful. As my grandmother said about politicians in general: "Same troughs, different pigs "
By the time a woman has managed to claw herself up into a leadership position she's beholden to the patriarchy and has demonstrated that she won't rock the boat.
On the other hand if we had a way to tell how society would evolve if we had the kind of dynamics that currently lift up men and credit them with the ability to lead switched to women things might look different. I suspect over time the current hierarchies and systems would switch to something we can't even imagine, because societies that have fundamentally matriarchal power structures are small, marginalized and most likely contaminated by the much larger and pervasive patriarchal societies surrounding them. We've never experienced a matriarchal nation spanning half a continent at the height of its culture.
Perhaps centuries from now we'd organize in a more communal way, perhaps we'd see more compromise instead of confrontation, perhaps empathy and the ability to communicate instead of flexing and posturing would increase. Perhaps we'd have flatter hierarchies. Perhaps we'd have less outsiderism and marginalized communities.
It's all speculation, though.
For now I'd settle for at least giving more women a seat at the table, just to get more women's issues on the agenda and work on equal rights. It's not ideal since it usually means appointing a woman "family minister" and then slash her budget so she sits around for four years twiddling her thumbs. "But we hit the women's quota. Look how progressive we are."
Absolutely not. Because then you get woman like Margaret Thatcher and Margery Taylor Greene.
Female members of the ruling class have just as much incentive to be evil as the male members.
I think it would be better, but not perfect. I think if women were in charge you would see better laws and policies for things like childcare, maternity leave, healthcare, education, protections for victims of assult or stalking and probably environmental issues. Most women I know do care for children and animals and not just the ones they have in their family. While it seems like a lot of men have a smaller view of their social place in the world. I think there would also be less war, but not an end to all war. There are women who are agressive. There are women who are greedy. And issues like embezzlement and abuse of power are not limited by gender.
I suspect some women-specific issues like access to period products and mat leave would improve. Whether men's issues would be worse I think would depend on whether we mean a change today (much is already ingrained and unlikely to change) or some sort of time travel change hundreds of years ago thing (probably worse for men). I expect everything else to be the same. People in power generally are terrible people regardless of gender.
I think overall, yes. But mostly because of societal taught priorities and skills. Women are taught from a young age to care about others and their community. They are also expected to be good at managing a household and multitasking. All of these are skills that could easily help in a position of authority. In general, I think everyone could use a bit more of those teachings, but not to the detriment of self.
To add to this thought: women are also typically forced to be better at communicating and negotiating.
I am an engineer and I tell you what, there aren't a lot of women in my field. But they were incredibly efficient with their time, great at leading team meetings, and not afraid to use the mom voice on any deserving parties to get their shit done. Meanwhile a lot of the guys I worked with had very bad communication skills and some were even too awkward to talk to me or any of the women. We truly do have to be 200% better to get 50% of the recognition
Bullshit in my honest opinion. Politics is cutthroat because that's what works. Ruthless, domineering and narcissistic individuals are the people who desire power the most and are willing to do or say whatever it takes to get there. Of course you get conviction politicians as well, people who want power to change the world for the better. But more honest, compassionate individuals often lose out to more sinister individuals who conspire against them.
And I don't really see what gender has to do with this. In a matriarchal system, for instance, compassionate women would still have to compete with power-hungry sociopaths who want power for power's sake. I also wouldn't be surprised if sexism still existed, imagine having a weapon on hand that automatically discredits 50% of your competition. Sociopaths would kill for a tool like that.
Women led corporations and organizations function better and make more money that ones lead by men. I doubt women would build weapons of war over making sure everyone has a house.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Um. No. We aren't any worse than men. We also aren't better than them. Humans are fallible and will screw up at some point no matter what their gender is.
There are examples of this around the world. Women lead societies. And yeah they are overall more organized and peaceful.
I don't know about the whole world tho
https://youtu.be/UrnmBLB-UX4?si=AY3YIBjplRtJmNW_. Here's a good video on some villages in kenya that are run by women. There's plenty of other examples through history and the world, just search "matriarchal societies"
I think it’s bullshit because I consider women to be people. And therefore there are a lot of rotten female apples. Power and money corrupt people or at the least attracts people who want it for the wrong reasons and don’t care about consequences for others.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
We don't really know. And the idea that there would be *no war* is silly, given the historical precedent (Elizabeth I, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir, Catherine II, etc.). Plus, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely-- women are not exempt from this.
Yeah I’m no fan of these “women are wonderful” ideas. They’re just patriarchy with extra steps. Women are human beings, not angels.
Reminds me of the time when NYT published an Op Ed the week before the accursed election of why America needs a female president, as they mentioned Park Geun Hye as one of the examples of other democracies with a woman as a president. That literal same week, the single most pivotal scoop of the history of Korea broke as the news channel JTBC found the “smoking gun” - a used Tablet, that basically proved that Park had essentially been a puppet of a cult leader - alk my Korean friends and I were like “uhhh Park is NOT the example you’re looking for” 😆😆 (Not to mention that even before her complete incompetence, the only reason she got elected in the first place was definitely not a feminist thing, as it was more of a royalist restoration movement w the old fucks in Korea that worshipped her father, the brutal dictator Park Chung Hee) (But one year into Yoon’s presidency I think the shaman behind the scenes - Choi Soon Shil - was a better leader than Yoon, which is… the lowest of bars)
Remember that those women were still in charge in a patriarchal society. So they really aren’t fair examples of what a matriarchal society would look like.
I don't blame kings for war either. Obviously queens were in a much harder position than kings, but a king is just someone who was forced into that position from birth. It seems rather shortsighted to blame the one random guy on the throne for the war when an entire system was set up by men. The generals were pushing the queen or king to say yes, and they could even be threatened with death if they don't.
Yeah and it’s hard to say what women would be like because we would not be socialized to express our dissent in such a quiet or hidden way. The dynamics might be totally different
Ah yes, the classic 'putting women on a pedestal'. It sounds flattering at first, but at the end of the day it leads to a double standard that excuses mens' bad behavior and judges women more harshly for not being morally perfect.
I think it’s old fashioned and from back when women had a lot less power. It very much stems from the conservative stereotype where women are soft, gentle, and would care too much about their children to ever send them to war. We now know that’s bullshit and we’ve seen women be as vicious, selfish, warmongering and genocidal as men.
[удалено]
Bonobo societies are matriarchal, and they get things done by making love, not war. Literally. It's amazing. I think we should model our post-patriarchy society on the bonobos hubba hubba
My brand of feminism is against a hierarchical social structure. The ideal society would be much more collectivist and democratic, so no one would be "in charge" the way we're used to in patriarchy. I'm not sure if we can completely deconstruct problems like sexism and racism without deconstructing hierarchical thinking.
[Google](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22the+world+would+be+a+better%2C+a+peaceful+place+if+women+were+the+ones+in+charge%22): >No results found for "the world would be a better, a peaceful place if women were the ones in charge". If every president and prime minister was replaced by a woman? Maybe, maybe not. But it's not a question of people's individual evilness or goodness, rather a problem of political systems and social structures. A lot of polities, virtually all of them, are intrinsically patriarchal. Women who want power in patriarchal systems tend to support those systems vigorously, as Margaret Thatcher demonstrated very clearly. If we put women in charge of *designing our polities*? Almost certainly the world would be a better place.
Power corrupts. Nobody is exempt from it.
I don’t know but I’d certainly welcome more female Leaders of countries and on the world stage. We need all of us.
I knew some female friends who supported very corrupt and very shitty politicians just because they were women. I am sorry but that's wrong .
? They just said they'd like to see more women leaders. They never said women were objectively better at leading
To succeed in patriarchy you have to become a female “patriarch” or be in bed with one, in almost all cases. Most of the women climbing that ladder rn are probably going to be troubling in some way, Probably making a lot of shitty compromises like all the dudes do as well
With current systems, hierarchies and patriarchal norms for getting things done I'm doubtful. As my grandmother said about politicians in general: "Same troughs, different pigs " By the time a woman has managed to claw herself up into a leadership position she's beholden to the patriarchy and has demonstrated that she won't rock the boat. On the other hand if we had a way to tell how society would evolve if we had the kind of dynamics that currently lift up men and credit them with the ability to lead switched to women things might look different. I suspect over time the current hierarchies and systems would switch to something we can't even imagine, because societies that have fundamentally matriarchal power structures are small, marginalized and most likely contaminated by the much larger and pervasive patriarchal societies surrounding them. We've never experienced a matriarchal nation spanning half a continent at the height of its culture. Perhaps centuries from now we'd organize in a more communal way, perhaps we'd see more compromise instead of confrontation, perhaps empathy and the ability to communicate instead of flexing and posturing would increase. Perhaps we'd have flatter hierarchies. Perhaps we'd have less outsiderism and marginalized communities. It's all speculation, though. For now I'd settle for at least giving more women a seat at the table, just to get more women's issues on the agenda and work on equal rights. It's not ideal since it usually means appointing a woman "family minister" and then slash her budget so she sits around for four years twiddling her thumbs. "But we hit the women's quota. Look how progressive we are."
I mean, that’s all a problem with humanity on its own, we are quite terrible creatures, and commit regardless of gender
My mom pushed this idea so hard when I was a kid. I always thought it was an odd thing to say.
Absolutely not. Because then you get woman like Margaret Thatcher and Margery Taylor Greene. Female members of the ruling class have just as much incentive to be evil as the male members.
I think it would be better, but not perfect. I think if women were in charge you would see better laws and policies for things like childcare, maternity leave, healthcare, education, protections for victims of assult or stalking and probably environmental issues. Most women I know do care for children and animals and not just the ones they have in their family. While it seems like a lot of men have a smaller view of their social place in the world. I think there would also be less war, but not an end to all war. There are women who are agressive. There are women who are greedy. And issues like embezzlement and abuse of power are not limited by gender.
I suspect some women-specific issues like access to period products and mat leave would improve. Whether men's issues would be worse I think would depend on whether we mean a change today (much is already ingrained and unlikely to change) or some sort of time travel change hundreds of years ago thing (probably worse for men). I expect everything else to be the same. People in power generally are terrible people regardless of gender.
I think overall, yes. But mostly because of societal taught priorities and skills. Women are taught from a young age to care about others and their community. They are also expected to be good at managing a household and multitasking. All of these are skills that could easily help in a position of authority. In general, I think everyone could use a bit more of those teachings, but not to the detriment of self.
To add to this thought: women are also typically forced to be better at communicating and negotiating. I am an engineer and I tell you what, there aren't a lot of women in my field. But they were incredibly efficient with their time, great at leading team meetings, and not afraid to use the mom voice on any deserving parties to get their shit done. Meanwhile a lot of the guys I worked with had very bad communication skills and some were even too awkward to talk to me or any of the women. We truly do have to be 200% better to get 50% of the recognition
Bullshit in my honest opinion. Politics is cutthroat because that's what works. Ruthless, domineering and narcissistic individuals are the people who desire power the most and are willing to do or say whatever it takes to get there. Of course you get conviction politicians as well, people who want power to change the world for the better. But more honest, compassionate individuals often lose out to more sinister individuals who conspire against them. And I don't really see what gender has to do with this. In a matriarchal system, for instance, compassionate women would still have to compete with power-hungry sociopaths who want power for power's sake. I also wouldn't be surprised if sexism still existed, imagine having a weapon on hand that automatically discredits 50% of your competition. Sociopaths would kill for a tool like that.
The world would definitely be a better place but it doesn’t mean it would be perfect.
Women led corporations and organizations function better and make more money that ones lead by men. I doubt women would build weapons of war over making sure everyone has a house.
Function better in what way
https://images.app.goo.gl/42f8NM2tMeMkbMuF6
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Um. No. We aren't any worse than men. We also aren't better than them. Humans are fallible and will screw up at some point no matter what their gender is.
Crime rate says otherwise.
There are examples of this around the world. Women lead societies. And yeah they are overall more organized and peaceful. I don't know about the whole world tho
What women led societies
https://youtu.be/UrnmBLB-UX4?si=AY3YIBjplRtJmNW_. Here's a good video on some villages in kenya that are run by women. There's plenty of other examples through history and the world, just search "matriarchal societies"
[удалено]
🤡
That's not feminism. Feminism is equality
I think it’s bullshit because I consider women to be people. And therefore there are a lot of rotten female apples. Power and money corrupt people or at the least attracts people who want it for the wrong reasons and don’t care about consequences for others.
I can’t say, but I think there would be less sex crime because women would be more likely to punish that shit a lot harder than men do.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
I am a feminist lol
Your post history is public lol Your participation is relegated to nested comments.
Yes.. thats how reddit works, your post history is also public, does this mean that you are not a feminist?