Women at the Top... More Humane?

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:

link

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.