# What if women ruled the world? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 1, 2011, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992 "2011-08-01T01:38:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/161 "2011-08-02T12:58:45Z")
Og almighty. **Scotty Mo** let’s take this one bit at a time. _History proves that men are more violent than women._ Maybe, maybe not. There are a few inherent problems with this analysis of history. Up until VERY recently, combat was limited to hand to hand conflict. Males being larger, stronger, and _far_ more expendable to a society than women would naturally fall into warrior roles. While a well trained female warrior can trump an untrained, or poorly trained male, it makes no sense to field smaller, weaker, biologically valuable young women against the enemy’s male recruits. They would have to be a well trained, rather elite force to be effective in that sort of combat. Even in a reversed society that encouraged aggression in women, I suspect that biological differences would rear their heads around late adolescence when the males suddenly gain their size and strength. Women would have to create a fairly oppressive, and carefully administered society towards males to ensure their own safety. _Males commit more crimes than females._ Possibly. We know for certain that they are likely to commit certain types of crimes more often than women. We also know that women are far less likely to be prosecuted. Society is not equal here, and without a truly egalitarian application of the law these statistics are fairly meaningless. Add into the equation that a huge majority of offenders are incarcerated for non-violent, minor drug offenses and the numbers might be more meaningful. Biology also plays a role here. Women are more likely to poison or drug a victim because they are well aware that _most_ of them are not the physical equals of their male victims. They also _tend_ to value their personal safety more than males do when angered. (exceptions exist, I am speaking very broadly here) _Female dominated workplaces are more peaceful than those run by males._ Uncertain. What we DO know is that women manage differently, and those that are most successful in managing a mixed or male dominated workforce do so by utilizing a “male” strategy. Whether this is an attempt to fit in, or simply the natural result of having to manage a diverse group of people is also unclear. Groups tend to respond well to strong, clear leadership. While there is no difference in the sexes abilities to provide this leadership; the subtlety, subtexts, and implications often used more heavily by women might be a natural impediment to achieving a harmonious workplace. Basically this boils down to the following: Until the last 50 years or so and the advent of technology to even the playing field, women naturally fell into roles determined largely by biology and acculturation. We haven’t had enough time yet to truly determine if either sex is superiour at governance, but I suspect that the answer is that it is the individual, not their sex that will separate a good leader from a poor one. A violent leader is by modern standards a poor one. Modern leaders rarely dirty their own hands, and I do not see women to be any less likely to order troops in than men. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/162 "2011-08-02T13:35:42Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Is it an unfair generalization to say that women tend to be more empathetic than men? Yes, it is an unfair generalization. A statement like that needs a strong cite. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/163 "2011-08-02T14:25:16Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > If women ruled the world, I see no reason why things would function exactly as they are now. Women and men do have some structural and relational differences. How much of those things are related to culture and how much is biological, I don’t know. But I can’t imagine the world being the same. I don’t either, simply because for women to have become the dominant gender it would mean that men would be entirely different from what we know. This is the world we have, and for women to become rulers they need to be even _more_ ruthless than your typical male ruler. Men have nothing to prove as a gender. It is modern moral concepts and democracy that have given us a chance to see female rulers that stay in power by the the vote and not by the sword. We have had many of them, has any of them looked like cotton candy and fluffy bunnies to us? Not really. In fact Latin America, as a region, has probably seen more women in power than any other region of the world. Our women ruler get into power by combining the _illusion_ of the female softness with the reality of their ruthlessness (“Women are more honest and hardworking than men.” plus “She’s a ruthless bitch that will fight as hard as a man!”). We take advantage of both extremes. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/164 "2011-08-02T16:37:51Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I didn’t say that I don’t think women are capable of genocide. Just that, my experience as a woman and a person who knows lots of women makes it hard for me to imagine women, as a big group, being rah-rah about killing innocents. Especially children. It’s hard for me to imagine men, as a group, being rah-rah about killing innocents. But it’s happened. Why would it be different with women? (And we should note that women haven’t been universally innocent in the genocides we’ve experienced in this world.) > [@](#): > > Not that any individual guy I automatically meet is rah-rah for genocide, but men on this very board have said some crazy-ass things that would make me think them quite capable of wiping out a whole race of people if they got angry enough and had the manpower. Maybe they were just being poseurs, but it is something I couldn’t imagine women saying, even if they were just joking. Perhaps men are more about showing off as a display of dominance, while women assert dominance by hitting their rival where it really hurts, in private? This is possible (and I think it’s what **Indygrrl** ’s said). Whether it’s an inherent characteristic of men and women, or a consequence of how each gender is socialized, I couldn’t say. ---
**Author:** ![OneMissedPost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8e7dd6/32.png) [@OneMissedPost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OneMissedPost)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/165 "2011-08-02T16:46:43Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Well, duh! I am a woman. I think I know what a woman thinks about. Just because you are a woman doesn’t mean you know what ALL women think. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/166 "2011-08-02T17:01:20Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Well, duh! I am a woman. I think I know what a woman thinks about. And do you normally engage in false dichotomies? Not thinking about genocide does NOT mean your mind must be filled with fluffy kittens all day. And that goes to the point I made about Hillary Clinton. If we had a woman prez and she hesitated to send troops somewhere, someone would be thinking, “Oh, poor thing. She must have fluffy kittens and baby elephants on the brain.” > > I didn’t say that I don’t think women are capable of genocide. Just that, my experience as a woman and a person who knows lots of women makes it hard for me to imagine women, as a big group, being rah-rah about killing innocents. Especially children. > > Not that any individual guy I automatically meet is rah-rah for genocide, but men on this very board have said some crazy-ass things that would make me think them quite capable of wiping out a whole race of people if they got angry enough and had the manpower. Maybe they were just being poseurs, but it is something I couldn’t imagine women saying, even if they were just joking. > > Is it an unfair generalization to say that women tend to be more empathetic than men? If there’s a grain of truth here, I cannot see how people can say that it wouldn’t matter who’s in power, things would play out the same. I think that’s a lazy answer to an improbable-to-test-“what if” scenario. It’s safer to just say we don’t know rather than to assume things would be the same. Well, you know what _a_ woman thinks about, obviously. And I often engage in caricature and comic exageration for the purposes of argument. As for genocide, I know plenty of men and I can’t imagine any of them being in favour of any form of genocide. If we look back at the Nazis we see a plentiful female support for that charismatic Hitler, and despite the Nazis being very traditional and thinking women belonged in the home, being uniquely unwilling to use women in the war effort, they still had an SS Women’s Corp so that those over enthusiastic women could get a slice of the genocide action. Godwin’s, you might say, but if we’re talking genocide then we’re talking Nazis. It is indeed an unfair generalisation to believe women are more empathic than men. There is no evidence for it, it’s just a fluffy bunnies stereotype. Although I’m not sure a more empathic government is a better government, anyway. Unsure. The fact is that we aren’t really addressing a what-if scenario. If we’re talking about a pacifying influence of women with power, we’ve had plenty of women in power, not of all-female power systems but certainly of women with influence, the effect of which influence we can observe. Not to mention the female vote since the granting of suffrage, which is immune to any allegations that those women who get into power are a more violent, “masculine” breed. None of which provides any evidence at all for female influence working in the direction of peace, compassion, or anything good. When it comes to violence and selfishness, imposition of policies causing conflict and general bad things, women have been, at the absolute best, just as bad as men. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/167 "2011-08-02T20:03:35Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Is it an unfair generalization to say that women tend to be more empathetic than men? Yes, it’s unfair, or rather inaccurate. Women do tend to care about the feelings of others more than men but that doesn’t make them empathetic. It just means that nasty women are going to be inclined to try to hurt you emotionally. Like the woman who skinned a pet rabbit alive in front of her child telling the kid she’d be next; no _physical_ harm was done to the girl, but plenty of _emotional_ harm was. Or the infamous “[Texas Cheerleader Murdering Mom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanda_Holloway)” who tried to have the mother of her daughter’s school rival killed to traumatize the rival girl; the murder was just a tool to inflict emotional harm. And IIRC radioactive potassium-40 is a popular choice with female poisoners _because_ it often doesn’t kill its victims; it just leaves them terrified that they’ll get cancer or that their children will have birth defects. Bottom line; someone caring about your feelings doesn’t make them nice. It just means that if they _aren’t_ nice they’ll get off more on seeing you suffer. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/168 "2011-08-02T22:14:04Z")
I don’t think very many people here are giving women enough credit. It’s been my experience, that women are for the most part more sympathetic and less violent than men. I also think that their lack of representation reflects in our society and this is why there’s not enough evidence to support my assertion. Maybe I should pose this question instead. With women making up at least half of our society, shouldn’t they make up, or at least be given equal opportunity to make up half of our government? Yes, I understand in actuality they are given a technically “fair” opportunity, but men have such a dominant stronghold on the system that they don’t really have much of a chance. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/169 "2011-08-02T22:18:31Z")
> [@Scotty Mo](#): > > I don’t think very many people here are giving women enough credit. I give women plenty of credit. I also happen to see them as human beings, not some idealized super race. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/170 "2011-08-02T22:36:50Z")
_What if_ women ruled the world? What _if_ !?? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/171 "2011-08-02T22:39:30Z")
> [@Scotty Mo](#): > > I don’t think very many people here are giving women enough credit. I give them plenty of credit; I just don’t regard them as superior beings. > [@Scotty Mo](#): > > With women making up at least half of our society, shouldn’t they make up, or at least be given equal opportunity to make up half of our government? Certainly. But what makes you so sure enough of them want the job to reach equal numbers? Are you planning to shanghai women who want to be, say, biologists or surgeons and force them into politics in in order to meet some quota? ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/172 "2011-08-02T22:40:53Z")
This link here suggests that women find beauty in all types of sexual activity while men not so much. That couldn’t be a bad thing right? [http://dumbscientist.com/archives/are-women-really-the-fairer-sex](http://dumbscientist.com/archives/are-women-really-the-fairer-sex) ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/173 "2011-08-02T22:46:35Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I give them plenty of credit; I just don’t regard them as superior beings. > > Certainly. But what makes you so sure enough of them want the job to reach equal numbers? Are you planning to shanghai women who want to be, say, biologists or surgeons and force them into politics in in order to meet some quota? Well with the economy the way it is surely there’s enough of them to apply for the positions. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/174 "2011-08-02T22:56:00Z")
Here’s that cite you’ve all been waiting for. [http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGENDER/Resources/wp4.pdf](http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGENDER/Resources/wp4.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Indygrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@Indygrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indygrrl)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/175 "2011-08-02T22:57:32Z")
> [@Scotty Mo](#): > > I don’t think very many people here are giving women enough credit. > > It’s been my experience, that women are for the most part more sympathetic and less violent than men. I also think that their lack of representation reflects in our society and this is why there’s not enough evidence to support my assertion. I’m guessing your experience is quite limited. You don’t seem to want to provide cites for your misguided ideas, nor do you listen to those who have given countless examples and have tried to explain to you why you are wrong. I have to ask, why are you here? What do you want from this? It’s been said 100different ways here, and yet you continue to have the same, misguided opinions. I can’t be the only one who finds it frustrating. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/176 "2011-08-02T23:08:32Z")
> [@Indygrrl](#): > > I’m guessing your experience is quite limited. You don’t seem to want to provide cites for your misguided ideas, nor do you listen to those who have given countless examples and have tried to explain to you why you are wrong. > > I have to ask, why are you here? What do you want from this? It’s been said 100different ways here, and yet you continue to have the same, misguided opinions. I can’t be the only one who finds it frustrating. I’m not wrong. See above. Try not to get frustrated either, it gives you wrinkles. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/177 "2011-08-02T23:16:16Z")
> [@Scotty Mo](#): > > Here’s that cite you’ve all been waiting for. > > [Error - System Unavailable](http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGENDER/Resources/wp4.pdf) I can’t get this PDF to open. It’s likely a problem on this end since this computer does not like PDFs. Would you mind telling us what you claim this cite proves and quoting the relevant bits? ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/178 "2011-08-02T23:20:57Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > I can’t get this PDF to open. It’s likely a problem on this end since this computer does not like PDFs. Would you mind telling us what you claim this cite proves and quoting the relevant bits? Abstract Numerous behavioral studies have found women to be more trust-worthy and public-spirited than men. These results suggest that women should be particularly effective in promoting honest government. Consistent with this hypothesis, we find that the greater the representation of women in parliament, the lower the level of corruption. We find this association in a large crosssection of countries; the result is robust to a wide range of specifications. ---
**Author:** ![Indygrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@Indygrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indygrrl)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/179 "2011-08-02T23:45:08Z")
Scotty, please grace us with your presence in the Pit… [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14093727#post14093727](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14093727#post14093727) ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992/180 "2011-08-03T00:03:08Z")
> [@Scotty Mo](#): > > Abstract > Numerous behavioral studies have found women to be more trust-worthy and > public-spirited than men. Just for the sake of argument assuming the study is valid and correct, it does NOT back up your assertion that women are less violent, kinder, and don’t make war. All it says is that they are less likely to be corrupt. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-women-ruled-the-world/590992.md?page=10)