4 ms·

I'm trying to remember someone's words that if <politician(s)> were a woman, there wouldn't have been <bad things>. As if... Google has so far suggested to me

I'm trying to remember someone's words that if <politician(s)> were a woman, there wouldn't have been <bad things>. As if... Google has so far suggested to me Boris Johnson's "if Putin were a woman...", Kaja Kallas' (Estonian PM) "If women were in charge...", and Sheryl Sandberg's "If women were in charge"; but I am sure I heard this sentiment before 2022. Probably a good illustration of the effect :-)

kgwgk 4y ago
There would be no wars, only a bunch of countries not talking to each other (a joke I just found)
- fundad 4y ago
  Maybe nothing would change but we would finally know.
  - shakow 4y ago
    We already know, it's not like if female rulers were an unknown quantity. And empirical examples (Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Maria-Theresa, Elisabeth I, ...) shows that it would basically be the same.
    - quesera 4y ago
      There's a reasonable argument that you'd need to exclude women from dynastic monarchies, and women who fought through a male-candidate-dominated democratic process for their prominence. The selection process weeds out the archetypical woman (or neurotypical, or stereotypically feminine in thought, or whatever you want to call it. The Iron Lady was not your Mum). Hilary Clinton is another example. Wellesley to warmonger? Something happened there, and my suspicion is that it has to do with "competing" in a male-dominated arena.
      - kgwgk 4y ago
        Good ol’ true Scotswoman argument…
        quesera 4y ago
        The argument is that our selection process for leaders is basically broken, and the winners are less "men and women" than "aggressive egotists with varying genitalia". Males are more often in the extreme edges of the personality curves. It seems likely to be the case with aggression and egotism also. Women who compete with them are less common (in the field, but also in the female population), but often similarly extreme.
      - shakow 4y ago
        And what makes you think that competing in a female-dominated arena would make for nicer people? If the women-dominated workplaces I worked in are any indicator, it wouldn't change much at all. > The Iron Lady was not your Mum Yeah, and Gengis Khan is not my granddad. What's your point? People cunning, ambitious, and ruthless enough to reach the highest offices will not be representative of the average human, independently of their sex.
        kgwgk 4y ago
        > Gengis Khan is not my granddad But he may be the "grandad" of many people! :-) https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/1-in-200-men-d...
finikytou 4y ago
you can look at matriarchal societies, queens, famous women politician (tatcher, merkel - now that the aftermath unplayed I suppose she will have less fans- albright) to see that we at the end are all same. men and women. both awful when in power
- themaninthedark 4y ago
  A flawed analysis, all of those people are people who crave power. I am unsure if shitty people crave power or power turns people shitty.
screye 4y ago
Aah yes, famously benevolent democratic leaders like Aung Suu Kyi & Indira Gandhi.

kgwgk 4y ago

There would be no wars, only a bunch of countries not talking to each other (a joke I just found)

fundad 4y ago
Maybe nothing would change but we would finally know.
- shakow 4y ago
  We already know, it's not like if female rulers were an unknown quantity. And empirical examples (Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Maria-Theresa, Elisabeth I, ...) shows that it would basically be the same.
  - quesera 4y ago
    There's a reasonable argument that you'd need to exclude women from dynastic monarchies, and women who fought through a male-candidate-dominated democratic process for their prominence. The selection process weeds out the archetypical woman (or neurotypical, or stereotypically feminine in thought, or whatever you want to call it. The Iron Lady was not your Mum). Hilary Clinton is another example. Wellesley to warmonger? Something happened there, and my suspicion is that it has to do with "competing" in a male-dominated arena.
    - kgwgk 4y ago
      Good ol’ true Scotswoman argument…
      - quesera 4y ago
        The argument is that our selection process for leaders is basically broken, and the winners are less "men and women" than "aggressive egotists with varying genitalia". Males are more often in the extreme edges of the personality curves. It seems likely to be the case with aggression and egotism also. Women who compete with them are less common (in the field, but also in the female population), but often similarly extreme.
    - shakow 4y ago
      And what makes you think that competing in a female-dominated arena would make for nicer people? If the women-dominated workplaces I worked in are any indicator, it wouldn't change much at all. > The Iron Lady was not your Mum Yeah, and Gengis Khan is not my granddad. What's your point? People cunning, ambitious, and ruthless enough to reach the highest offices will not be representative of the average human, independently of their sex.
      - kgwgk 4y ago
        > Gengis Khan is not my granddad But he may be the "grandad" of many people! :-) https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/1-in-200-men-d...

finikytou 4y ago

you can look at matriarchal societies, queens, famous women politician (tatcher, merkel - now that the aftermath unplayed I suppose she will have less fans- albright) to see that we at the end are all same. men and women. both awful when in power

themaninthedark 4y ago
A flawed analysis, all of those people are people who crave power. I am unsure if shitty people crave power or power turns people shitty.

screye 4y ago

Aah yes, famously benevolent democratic leaders like Aung Suu Kyi & Indira Gandhi.