If women ruled the world?

Here’s the content I’m basing this post off of,


There are a lot of relationships that support this claim. I think most of it relies on the voting system itself. Winner-take all democracies are inherently masculine, and they reinforce the “conditions of an anarchic” that would “force them to make the same bellicose decisions that men do.”

A voting system (such as Proportional Representation) turns up the meager percentage from 16% to 45-50%. At that point the government takes on a care-taker role… which solves a lot of social issues (including population decline).  That being said, I think (most) women could only get ahead  in our system if they conformed to masculine style decision making.

As we’ve learned in class, there are also stark differences among societies where women are given equal footing with men. I’ll try to expand on any point I’ve made, upon request. What does everyone else think?

This entry was posted in Politics & Protest. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to If women ruled the world?

  1. myykallbee says:

    First of all, what do you mean about “masculine style decision making”? Maybe I missed your idea a little bit but somehow that doesn’t make sense to me. My claim here…is that women in government or positions of power are just as willing to fight or be aggressive as other men. There are more women in high positions of power than ever before…masculine and feminine styles of thinking don’t register with me, especially after observing all of the different cultures around the world. I think it goes both ways, there are several extremely conservative men who wont make aggressive decisions either. I think you should elaborate a little bit here

    • jrcavileer says:

      My comment regarding “masculine style decision” was pulled from the article itself. Specifically:

      “In the past, when women fought their way to the top of organisations, they often had to adopt a “masculine style”, violating the broader social norm of female “niceness”. Now, however, with the information revolution and democratisation demanding more participatory leadership, the “feminine style” is becoming a path to more effective leadership. In order to lead successfully, men will not only have to value this style in their women colleagues, but will also have to master the same skills.”

      That’s the authors take and not necessarily my view. I think Hrdy expanded on a few points that may or may not be relevant to this discussion: 1. When she was talking about male dominant societies focusing on quantity of children while female societies focus on quality (of children). 2. The shift from nomadic hunter-gatherers to agrarian societies gave rise to male dominance over resources, which would give them power and prestige, and eventually led to capitalist/market based societies that continue to focus on material wealth, power, and prestige. I would then make the bold (and possibly illogical) claim that a masculine style decision making would focus on material wealth, quantity, and achievement/status. Conversely, the feminine style would focus directly on quality of life. I’m taking what was written in the article and applying it to societies as a whole, and I’m basing judgments by comparing our political institutions, our voting system, and our societies with select European styles of social-democracy. I should have explained this in detail in the original post, but I was trying to get by with the bare minimum (oh no he didn’t).

      My claim:
      In societies where more women are able to hold seats, the society then takes on a more feminine style (as I defined it).

  2. ibens001 says:

    I agree with your blog decision because if a women can appear to uphold a mans status in society then they are considered to be welcomed. Not only but there is also proof from the current events that’s happening as I blog. The board doesn’t feel that women should have the right to have a conception backup plan without having health insurance, but the board consist of all men at this point. So it tells you there that its a masculine point of view in decision making because a womens point of view wasn’t taken in consideration at all. I would think that have a back up plan without having health insurance would reduce a lot of issues with unwanted births all the way to children not being taken care of properly.

    • itserikap says:

      Not sure I understand part of this- I just need a little clarification. Are you saying that if a woman works hard to try and bring herself to the same level of social equality as her male counterpart, she’s welcomed into that society? If that’s the case I’m going to have to disagree. If a man works and competes and does everything he can to get to the top he is “dedicated”, “hard-working”, and “professional”. If a woman does the same thing? She’s a cold-hearted, workaholic, bitch. And even if they both do get to the top? Unfortunatley, the fact is that the woman is stil going to make 80 cents to the dollar the man makes.

      Don’t get me wrong. I think that more women should be in positions of power. Like we discussed in class, women are more emotional thinkers, they consider how actions will affect others. Men think in terms of power. They want to be the top dog- and a lot of times the consequences don’t matter. In my opinion? If women were world leaders in more places, the world would be at war less (minus a few little spats once a month)

Comments are closed.