If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

Women at the Top... More Humane?

  • 13-12-2021 9:43pm
    Registered Users Posts: 3

    Hi. It was on the RTE news tonight that women at the top of business and politics make for a more humane society? But in the business world all CEOs regardless of gender are bound by law to increase shareholder value. Meanwhile in the political world its not true that women don't start wars - Margaret Thatcher (Falklands) and Hillary Clinton (Libya). If a CEO woman makes a decision in favour of humanity over profit then that woman CEO can be sued by the shareholders. I think women at the top arguments are in favour of a highly ambitious upper middle class who want to get the society behind their personal ambitions to get to the top. Thanks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,697 ✭✭✭✭Danzy

    Lot of women politicians seem to be quite libertarian on many issues that have economic bearing.

    Guess it depends on what you call humane.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,030 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout

    I'd be very careful about extrapolating on all female political leaders based on the actions and personality of Maggie Thatcher.

    As for that point about shareholder value:

    There are a lot of misconceptions about maximizing shareholder value, even among economists. But talk to a legal scholar or a corporate lawyer: a CEO or board is not legally obliged to maximize shareholder value. They need to maximize the value of the corporation and act in its best interest. Only when there is a change in legal control, such as a merger or imminent hostile takeover, do they have to maximize shareholder value.


    In many cases the best long-term strategy is not to take the best short-term action for a company. In an era where companies are hyper-focused on their own PR, decisions to act less rapaciously can actually be more beneficial to them in the long run.

  • Registered Users Posts: 33,405 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN

    Ask the residents of Northern Ireland how the place did under the leadership of 2 women.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,821 ✭✭✭growleaves

    As far as war-making and general violence goes there are examples that can be taken from any era of history - e.g. Queen Maeve, Isabella of Castile, Elizabeth I, Queen Mary, Queen Anne, Golda Meir etc., etc.

    I think it's a 'talking point' aimed at the naive that women leaders are more humane but whatever, if people want to believe it they can.

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,899 ✭✭✭✭Furze99

    This and the comment above re our Northern friends. I don't believe any of the crap that women necessarily make better and more humane leaders. They have the caused their fair share strife in the world, urging their sons and husbands to go out and fight for them. Men who generally have to deal with the dirty end of matters tend to be more pragmatic.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,851 ✭✭✭amacca

    I don't believe they are any better or necessarily worse myself

    The graph of how corrupt most are rises in tandem with how much power they have regardless of what is between their legs afaic

    I have seen more women on average work harder in certain environments but usually to the long term detriment of conditions for everyone

    I think It's essentially swings and roundabouts who leads and there will always be stand out good and bad examples in all genders

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Women are every bit as capable of abusing their power or position. I’ve seen first hand jobs for the girls in action.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    SNIP. Serious posts only please.

    Post edited by ancapailldorcha on

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,851 ✭✭✭amacca

    What is 100% not true?...the title of OP or the post before yours..

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    The title of the thread.

    Edit my last post got snipped but I was been serious. Anyway, women in politics or business are not more humane, they can be be just as corrupt, self-interested and cruel as men along with being equally good at doing good things. I've seen it from both genders and both sides

  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,701 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach

    From a historical perspective and focusing in on the Classical period, that it not the case. Either behind the scenes or rulers in their own right, women are equally vicous, cruel and vindictive as any man. To image otherwise is to fall for a play that masks a drive for power from propaganists.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭M three

    I see that falsehood promoted often. Consider mary harney, frances fitzgerald, noirin o'sullivan, joan burton, mary o'rourke, nora owen, norma foley, maria bailey and katherine zappone,

    Go outside Ireland you have the likes of thatcher, imelda marcos, elizabeth holmes, priti patel and liz truss.

    Thats just a few. Women have proven themselves to be equally as corrupt or incompetent as men in positions of power.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Any one individual is an individual

    Any one individual rising to the top levels of a given system presumably serves that system, you can glean something from that

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,288 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran

    There was a book put out a few years ago entitled "Shoot the women first" by an Eileen MacDonald.

    ‘Shoot the women first’ was reputedly an instruction given to recruits to West Germany’s armed anti-terrorist squad, and also the advice offered by Interpol to other European squads. I have spoken to several members of these organisations, and though none of them would confirm they had ever been given such an instruction, they considered it to be a damn good piece of advice.

    She was unable to satisfactorily prove to any empirical standard (At least, according to other reviewers) that the women were actually more dangerous than the men, partially because their small numbers tended to magnify their participation and reputation, but the takeaway seems to have been that even if they weren't really any more dangerous than men, they was certainly no evidence to think they were less so.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,948 ✭✭✭✭silverharp

    I heard something about this but that it was psychological , if there was a riot etc that came to a shooting match pick a female target and its more likely to affect the group, shoot a male and they keep coming

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,964 ✭✭✭✭titan18

    I mean Aung San Suu Kyi has been accused of faciliting genocide and had defended her military of it at the ICJ.

    Plenty of examples through history too (Boudicca, Thatcher etc) and even Queens through middle ages were actually likelier to go to wars than Kings.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox

    I think this initial premise needs more proof tbh:

    It was on the RTE news tonight that women at the top of business and politics make for a more humane society

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,700 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox

    Who cares? It's one obscure book, who tf is Eileen macdonald

  • Registered Users Posts: 22,175 ✭✭✭✭Esel

    Heard/read this years ago (not the book).

    From what I remember the context was that if faced by armed opponents in a stand-off, any female opponents were the most likely to start shooting, so they should be targeted first.

    Something about them being more committed and cold- blooded etc.

    Not your ornery onager

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,030 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout

    This entire thread needs more proof or hard data. It's mostly just people extrapolating from specific examples of brutal women in power to arrive at unqualified generalised statements about women in power. It's a bit like saying Fred West, Peter Sutcliffe and Dennis Nilsen were all British men who were serial killers therefore British men are more likely to be serial killers than men from other countries.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,948 ✭✭✭✭silverharp

    if you worked where I work you would chuckle at the title

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer

  • Registered Users Posts: 799 ✭✭✭CB19Kevo

    Complete nonsense.

    We should be aiming for a more humane society generally instead of some notion that men are incapable of doing so, either we all move forward or a more developed society cannot be achieved.

    Maybe i am picking it up wrong but it stinks of gender quotas and that type of rubbish to me.

    Equality works both ways!

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,014 ✭✭✭timmyntc

    Females in a jury are more likely to give a guilty verdict - regardless of crime or sex of the accused.

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus

    It's complex issue because it's increasingly better documented that the people at the top level in most organisations tend to be more sociopathic and less humanitarian than your average person. There's a chicken-and-egg issue here. Does being a narcissist make you better at getting to the top, or do you have to be one to get there because everyone else at the top is too?

    Politicians in a democracy can in theory be exempt from this, but they still need to climb a political ladder internally, which means some of the same rules apply. If someone is highly intelligent and humanitarian, but buries themselves in the corner, they're not going to be randomly selected to run for any election, no matter how much of a good job they may do. Self-promotion and a certain amount of selfishness are key to being elevated to those positions.

    A more balanced representation at the top levels is more likely to result in a more humanitarian/more equitable society. But that's because a wide range of experiences and viewpoints are now in play, with everyone bringing their own experience to the table. That is, everything is not being guided by the experiences and principles of white men with wealthy christian backgrounds and subservient wives.

    That doesn't mean women (or black people or non-christians) are more humane. We assume that everyone at the top is working for their own gain. When everyone at the top shares similar principles and beliefs, then the result is that they all pull in the same direction and only create a gain for those who share the same principles and beliefs. When everyone at the top has a much more diverse range of principles and beliefs, then they all pull in different directions in pursuit of personal gain. This has a net result of creating gain for everyone across society rather than one narrow group.