Social Question

bossob's avatar

If women ruled the world for a generation, would things be any different?

Asked by bossob (5904points) January 16th, 2013

It’s my wife’s fantasy that war, famine, and poverty could be nearly eliminated if women were in charge for a generation. I think the women would become corrupted by power and money, just like men, and the changes wouldn’t be significant. What say you?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

28 Answers

WestRiverrat's avatar

Not really, the reasons nations would go to war may change, but not the nature of people.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

If we’re gonna do this, can I have a safeword?

mazingerz88's avatar

Yes, imo. Very much so. First of all there will be less guns. But more laser guided miniature missile launching high-heeled shoes. Lol.

cazzie's avatar

I think it would take more than a generation for things to get better because there needs to be some serious education all around. Anyone remember Maggie Thatcher? Come on people.

I think this is the wrong question. I think we need to ask ourselves that, if everyone hates war and poverty, why do we still have it? If we, and I mean women, really think this, why don’t we have more elected women in government and positions of power?

Think America is an even playing ground? It ranks 82nd on the table for the election of women to government positions, equal with Morocco (a Muslim country) and Venezuela (some now see this as Socialist Dictatorship under Chavez)

Take a very close look at the country at the top of the list. Rwanda. Why? Because they have a specific quota system for women, youth and disabled.

Also, you and your wife may want to read this:

ZEPHYRA's avatar

I hate to be nasty, but there would probably be nothing but bitchiness, revenge and jealousy!

Pachy's avatar

@ZEPHYRA, just sorta like now, right?

poisonedantidote's avatar

No difference really, the system makes it too easy for the bad elements to rise to the top.

What would make the world better, is giving any member of Fluther a year as dictator to do as they please. Gender is not the problem, it is greed and corruption and lies.

Seek's avatar

Hate to say this, but @mazingerz88 and @ZEPHYRA ‘s answers are the reason we do rank #82 in election of women to political positions.

elbanditoroso's avatar

No, not at all. If anything, worse.

In a power role, women can be just as craven, power-hungry, myopic, and mistaken as men.

Women are not a panacea.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

Of course things would be different! We’d solve problems with hair pulling, bitchslapping, mud wrestling, nekkid pillow fighting, then make up with movies, chocolate, and ice cream!

elbanditoroso's avatar

@cazzie – but women DON’T really think this, as a rule.

Sure, some do, just like some men want to eradicate poverty and inequality and so on. But to say that women – in general – want to do all these things? I just don’t see it.

Of course, all generalizations are specious.

But my observation is that men and women all have the same basic priorities – a warm bed, food, family, happiness, advancement, etc. Outlier interests – like peace in the world, getting rid of poverty, etc., are nice extras (frosting on the cake) that one can afford to be interested in when the primary creature comforts have been addressed.

So to impute that women have some sort of a monopoly on ‘caring’ – however you define that – I think is just wrong.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I think things may be much more different. Most conversations I’ve had about this leads to foreign relation fears, whether it would be more inflammatory to the Middle East. It’s interesting to think about though.

Also, although I generally agree with some comments above, there are some phenomenal women in the world who rise above that petty crap, so let’s give those women a little credit.

I have no doubt a woman or women could run this country, probably better than men, we’re more detail-oriented in general. A lot of women are peacekeepers by nature, we nurture (which this nation desperately needs), we usually communicate better by nature.

Shippy's avatar

No I don’t think so, what would change because they are women?

cazzie's avatar

@elbanditoroso I’m not saying we have a monopoly on caring, (I did try to remind everyone about Maggie Thatcher..) I’m saying quite the opposite. I’m saying that if all women (and some men) really felt that if women ruled the world it would be a nicer place then it would look much different than it does. Who runs and gets elected in politics has little or nothing to do with the best person for the job.

I will not generalise about women’s ability to lead and rule, when the likes of Sarah Palin get as far as VP nominee on the Republican ticket.

marinelife's avatar

Women tend to be more collegial and cooperative. I think that there would be a significant decrease in war and violence, and also better care for the poor.

Paradox25's avatar

I don’t think that much would change. Also, many women have the same macho expectations of men that they wind up criticizing in the end anyways. Could you imagine if men were able to work together with little conflict, many women would condemn these guys for being too passive and emasculate, but yet they (women) think they could do a better job. I think most of us would be better off by having more morally sound politicians in office rather than having more politicians of a certain gender/sex in office.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

I wonder if adopting American children would become easier/cheaper? I mean, who better to revamp the process of putting children in good homes, than people with that maternal/nurturing instinct?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@WillWorkForChocolate Wouldn’t that be phenomenal? I just saw a program the other day about orphans in America that broke my heart, saying that they really need foster families because they’re having a hard time placing them.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

It is heartbreaking. And it’s complete bullshit that adopting homeless American children is so much more expensive than adopting non-Americans! WTF?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@WillWorkForChocolate My husband and I thought about it, but afte investigating, even though we can provide for the child and our home is fine and they’d have a bedroom, fenced yard, school bus at the house, we would have to take a loan out in order to pay for it, and financially it’s just not something we want to go into massive debt for.

We have a children’s home in our small town that we donate to, but yeah, seeing the barracks and knowing they need things is heartbreaking when I’m less than 10 miles away with an open heart and bedroom and lots of love to give. :(

hearkat's avatar

I do believe that women have a different perspective on things (generally speaking, there are exceptions, of course)... but please bear in mind that women who have worked their way to the top in our current society have had to play by the patriarchal rules, so Margaret Thatcher isn’t necessarily the best example. We also have different views on personality traits in women – assertiveness and tenacity in a man are viewed as bitchiness and clawing in women. There are many women activists that are phenomenal. If 100% of political leaders were women, there would be a shift in direction to more long-term focus rather than short-term bickering to make decisions right at the deadline. It would take more than a gender switch for real change to occur. The structure of political systems need to be reformed dramatically.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@hearkat Agreed. Last night I heard that even Obama is now under fire for the lack of women in his cabinet (insert joke here ucme.)

Seek's avatar

Man. The other guy had binders full of them. How many binders can you fit in a cabinet?

rooeytoo's avatar

It makes me sad to see all of the nasty, sexist answers, many by women.

In Australia we have a woman Prime Minister. She had made some good decisions and some terrible ones. I think men do the same thing. What a person accomplishes has more to do with party affiliations than plumbing.

I wonder why more women don’t run for office, you can elect women if they aren’t running. But if a woman has children in school, how could she possibly have time for a full time political job. Unless she has a house husband. I want my politicians to be able to work at least a 40 hour work week.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@rooeytoo Women know women though, and though it does seem a little sad, it’s often true.

And if you have enough money, you can do like a lot of people do, just pay someone else to raise your children (unfortunately.)

Seek's avatar

But the high-heel wearing bitches aren’t going to be the ones running. Those women are not the “Run for office” type, and thank the gods for it. It will be scientists, career women, people already dedicated to pursuits outside the home. Too bad they also have to be painted with the same nail polish brush as some gold-digging sugar baby or June Cleaver, just because they happen to have two X chromosomes.

wildpotato's avatar

I don’t think so. Women can be as competitive and aggressive as men.

You might be interested in Sheri S. Tepper’s interesting dystopic fiction book The Gate to Women’s Country, which deals with the question you pose.

mattbrowne's avatar

Islamists would disappear.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther