Although women are half of the world's population, they are still little represented in politics. Unfortunately, this is the situation even in countries with more developed democracy, let alone in other countries. I think that women would be very useful in politics because they will take care of the state as they take care of their family. This will make the world a more beautiful place to live.
There are difficulties and obstacles for women to overcome if they want to go into public work. Among these obstacles are factors related to women themselves, their economic status, factors related to the political establishment, and factors related to society and culture.
It is good for women to engage in politics but let us focus on competences and capability in leadership.
Women can be equally or more good in politics than men..... and equally or more worse than men; I have experienced women leadership at many places, they are equally mean, cunning, irritating, cruel as men are (more jealous)....but women try to finish work earlier (most of the time) to take care of many things like personal and family care; so they try to finish work before time,..... men try to delay it as much as possible (a few try to finish work in time).....
There are difficulties and obstacles for women to overcome if they want to go into public work. Among these obstacles are factors related to women themselves, their economic status, factors related to the political establishment, and factors related to society and culture.
It depends on the spirit of the woman participant. But the voices of fight-hard women in the political arena can tremendously improve the lots of countries as many classic global examples have shown.
Interesting question. It can brings to the light the misogyny sides. In fact, mens opinions, if it is argumented of course, are more relevant on this topic. A simple No answer means nothing.
Such a way to make the world a better place was already tried out in ancient times (matriarchy), but it didn’t work. Now, of course, to better or worse (?) the life changed, but to involve women in politics would be the last hope to make the world better.
لا أعتقد أن ذلك الدور الريادي للقيادة والمسؤولية يعتمد على نوع الجنس رجل أو امرأة بل يعتمد على مقدار ما يقدمه صاحب ذلك الدور ومدى نجاحه في كسب ثقة المجتمع وتوفير حقوقهم.
Are they not involved in politics? On the other hand, I do not see much difference between politicians, no matter what sex they are.
Even without tapping into the stereotype of the “nurturing mother“ as a metaphor for a woman in politics, an increasingly diverse world population should be politically represented by all, without discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, philosophical or religious beliefs, family lineage or wealth. Justice, fairness, and relevance of political decisions would all improve with more representativeness of whole populations; not just an historically powerful ruling class. All nations are found wanting on this—obviously some much more than others.
Read “Half the Sky”
My four daughters, one adopted daughter, and their combined seven grand daughters deserve a better world than they were born into. They were raised to lead and trained to win!
Of course, women should have the same rights as men. But in this case, the assessment of their activities should be independent of gender. In Russia, the last 100 years declared gender equality. However, a female politician is not as often met as a male politician. But, as I see, they completely inherit the worst sides of the male politicians (sometimes in mirror way, for example, the secretaries they have are pretty young boys).
The reality and the difference in the social roles of men and women do not make their opportunities equal. But the task of modern feminism is to completely equalize both sexes. This is somewhat different. They forget that a man is also a human! The solution can be only if women are equal, but others, and not the same as men ...
In the USA I had a colleague, a highly respected and well-known scientist. He had a wife and 4 daughters. Once he told me: "Here I am a respected person, and at home my position is the lowest, they teach me everytime, including the youngest, who is 13 years old ... Even cats in the house are female ... I am the only man in home." I advised him to fight for his human rights. He said: "It's too late, no one will understand me." Well, then you have the only way out: to get a male dog and lined up them all by an authoritarian way ... He wondered, and promise to consider, I don’t know what he decided finally.
Sorry, that is a mythical over-used excuse.
It is as simplified, and silly, as saying that men are “controlled” by their penis!
There is no doubt that there should be more representation of women in all walks of life including politics. Higher level of inclusiveness always increases diversity and the effectiveness of any team. It does not matter what the stereotypical classification says of one gender using their hearts in decision making while the other uses the mind, inclusion of people of different genders, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. can only improve the collaborative output in a team and hence the chance to come up with a good solution to a problem. To that end the workforce (including politics) should truly represent the demographics of the local population.
Srini Vasan
You meant quotas for all groups? I prefere professionals independ of their ethno-gender-social characteristics. And for this they need to learn, not to fight for abstract rights.
As we know that politics is in 21 century is not the criteria only for the male as politician as we all know that women are participating in politics & some of them contribute their part either has minister ,or the prime minister in their country .
This is my personal opinion
In the US., even among candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, the women are being held to different standards by the media; even media that is “friendly” to the candidate. Men need not sorry about wearing “the right” suit, or smiling properly, or other comparative variables that women must deal with .
women also have a much more difficult time raising funds for political campaigns.
Dear colleagues,
Thanks for all your answers and all your tips. I hope this is useful not only for me, but for all others who follow my questions. By "socializing with you within the question" now I really have a different sense of the topic we are discussing.
I suppose I would suggest expanding the question to replace “women” with competent, ethical, and courageous adults... we swim in a cloudy stream full of fools, criminals, ego-driven narcissistic politicians who have little regard for law, truth or creating a viable future for humanity or the Earth. Yes, I am making specific reference to the current White House occupant and the global leaders he admires.
Vadim S. Gorshkov No. Quotas may be considered as unfair as some of the original practices that led to economic disparities among different groups to begin with. The following facts still remain: In the USA the pay gap between females and males exist and females make 72-82% of the average male's wage. The median household income in 2016 by race is as follows: White $61,249; African American $38,555 and Hispanic $46,882; Native American $39,719.
One can ponder about why these differences exist. If the playing field is level, i.e., everyone competing for a job has equal amount of education irrespective of the socio-economic or gender or racial differences, then it is a fair selection and the composition of the workforce would more closely mirror that of the community. That is not the case and thus the playing field should be made level to all in terms of access (to education, healthcare, etc.) This is very different from a quota system.
Quota systems have produced results. For example the "untouchable" caste members in India (later renamed Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe) have long been oppressed and disenfranchised. Mahatma Gandhi fought for their rights and called them "Harijans" (God's people). Since independence in 1947, the government instituted reserved quotas for scheduled caste and schedule tribe members - in college admissions as well as employment. As a result many decades later there is more equity (not perfect yet). Did the majority culture resent that practice? They most certainly did. Difficult problems thus require well thought out solutions to work and may not please everyone.
Srini Vasan
These are problems of other countries. I am more worried about my own country. And I remember very well how in Soviet times "the children of the proletarians" had an advantage over others, because there were "quotas". And "representatives of small nations" went to universities without competition (at any decent university everybody had to pass exams, exclude these guys) and then flew out after the first session of exams. Western society repeats the most stupid mistakes of the Soviet Union. For example, I do not want a person who is elected according to the principle of belonging to a minority, and not according to the principle of professionalism. Thanks, I saw enough of these "quotas". The state should ensure equal rights for all, and not create greenhouse conditions for minorities. In US I worked together with colored collegues, who really finished university, but not play basketball... These last have went just to government agencies, on quotas, because they are "humiliated, children of the ghetto," and not hard workers like my colleques.
Politicians are the bane of our existence.
Could women possibly do a worse job than the men who are running most countries, and hence the world?
I think not.
Thank you all for the interesting answers. It is a pleasure to read your views on the topic. I wish to keep your interest. Greetings to all of you.
Women have become their own "special interest group" competing with other groups to manipulate laws to favor their concerns.
Many women in America are pushing to have government funded day-care centers for children, believing this will help other women get and keep jobs outside the home.
Many women are pushing for government funded abortion clinics, or taxpayer funded birth control measures.
Women also seem more likely than men to see government as A FORCE FOR GOOD.
Women seem more inclined to give government power to intercede in businesses and in the lives of citizens under the pretense of doing good.
If we look at the activities of government before women got the vote versus after women attained the vote - the biggest difference is that government has found it easier to get involved in every aspect of everyone's life and businesses.
In America prior to women achieving the vote, their was an idea that government had it's place, but liberty demanded we keep the role of government limited to its historic social and protective functions.
After women attained the franchise, government now gets involved in everything from much you can discipline your kids to who you can hire or fire from a job, and if you are wearing your seat-belts while driving.
Where once government was the big-daddy with the stick to hit you with....
Government is today more-and-more seen as the big-mommy making sure you eat your vegetables, wash your face, and make your bed.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I am glad that in these warm days I have kept your attention to my questions. I will not argue with you all about your answers because I respect every opinion, I will just give you a big thank you. Greetings from me to all of you
This is not about the large number of women or men in this area, but about efficiency and the right position.
Dear Dr Stephen Martin Fritz
Thank you for your response. I agree with you, whenever women have been able to participate, they have brought an impression of a SUPERMOM, a caring, loving mother (multi-tasking as well) who wishes to take care of all her children, nurture them all. be fair to all, be attentive to their needs.
So I think in this cruel, pathetic, brutal world, more women participation in politics should be given a big WELCOME.
Thanks.
Syed Naimul Wadood More female participation in politics will make governance appear more caring. But it is also likely to make it more intrusive.
Government can become over-protective, creating laws telling you that you must wear your seat belt, how much you need to exercise, how much you are allowed to yell at your dog, etc. As we become ONE BIG FAMILY of man, anyone's problem becomes everyone's problem and we all become our brother's keepers.
I pay for your bills and you pay for mine.
It will not all be positive.
Stephen Martin Fritz "It will not all be positive." I don't know about that. It depends on who is making the judgment. There are some who would see the idea of "one big family of man," of all of us becoming "our brothers' keepers," as very positive. It is only those who value freedom over caring and compassion that will see these government "intrusions" as negative.
I have no experience of contacts with the highest authority, both in male and female versions. But I worked with female bosses and male bosses, so I can compare. I can’t say that they differ fundamentally. And the one and the other the first thing changed the personal secretary, they were of the opposite sex and very pretty. The rest is the same, only a "side view". By the way, both blamed subordinates for own mistakes and attributed other people's decisions to themselves if these were successful. So it's not about the gender ...
Denise Morel Yes you are correct, but we've all felt a little pinched by a government who claims (like mom) to care about us more than we care about ourselves.
So, because it is bad for us, we cannot smoke marijuana, drive without a seat belt, gamble for money (in my state), kick our dogs, and we are told that it is best to employ no one rather than give someone a job at a wage lower than that arbitrarily set by people who know nothing of our business and for political rather than economic purposes ...
I am reading a book now (Democracy - The God That Failed by Hans Hoppe) that discusses the expansion of government authority into every walk of life. Here is an excerpt from it:
..................................
Presently, the number of legislative acts passed in the course of a single year is in the tens of thousands, filling hundreds of thousands of pages, affecting all aspects of civil and commercial life, and resulting in a steady depreciation of all law and heightened legal uncertainty.
The code of federal regulations (whose index is 754 pages long) contains regulations concerning the production and distribution of almost everything imaginable from celery, mushrooms, watermelons, watchbands, the labeling of light bulbs, hosiery, parachute jumping, iron and steel manufacturing, sexual offenses on college campuses, [and] the cooking of onion rings.
................................
I had four kids and I was amazed at the amount of oversight my wife gave them. She had rules for everything, a place for everything, and worried about everything.
Thankfully, the bureaucracy is not particularly efficient or effective at oversight of any kind, and most rules are bent or have their worst aspects easily avoided.
But by retaining the self-anointed position of "everyone's savior" and the universal expert and final authority on everything (much like mom!), government can become a bit corruptible.
So, government enforcement often depends more on the MOOD of the enforcer than the law.
(i.e. look at how Hillary was let off the hook and how most corrupt government employees are never fired or fined. ---i.e. check out the guards who were supposed to be watching Epstein)
My son owns a couple of restaurants in two different towns. Both are visited by government health inspectors every month. He tells his staff that their sanitation grades will have nothing to do with how clean they are or how many rules they follow or fail to follow .... but will invariably depend on how much they schmooze the inspectors, kiss their butts, and provide them with free burgers.
But (to return to the topic of this question) Mom's rules tend to be flexible, her punishments light, and her intentions generally benevolent.
So, even though having women involved heavily in politics has led to government feeling encouraged to snoop into everyone's diapers.... her intentions are generally good and we are all better off because she watches over us and makes us eat our vegetables.
(But she is a nag sometimes!)
Stephen Martin Fritz
What you write about, in my opinion, is far from a unique female way of managing. The officials, regardless of gender, seeks to control everything that is possible. After all, we are unreasonable, and if they not controll and rule us, we will do everything wrong! If I am still alive, then it is thanks to wise management, there is no doubt!
Elizabeta Hristovska Amina Sultan
Chia-Lin Chang Vadim S. Gorshkov Denise MorelThe question itself: Would the world be a better place to live if women were more involved in politics ?
Pre-supposes that WOMEN contribute something unique and different from what MEN bring to politics. If women do not bring anything DIFFERENT, why would we care if they were involved in it or not?
If what they bring makes things worse, we should probably get them out of politics.
So, if we imagine they bring new or different ideas to the subject ... then what are they?
We need to know what they've been so that we can evaluate them.
Women have been voting and holding office in western democracies for a century. What unique contributions have they made to politics?
If there are none, maybe we should not care if they are involved or not.
If they have made any contributions that would not have been made by men ... we should be able to list what these are?
So what are they?
As a model please consider Russian Parliament...next comes unreadable text
This question depends on a prior assumption about the nature of male/female differences beyond the physical. If we assume that men and women are essentially the same in terms of their psychological makeup -- their personality traits, preferences, interests, skills, etc. -- so that whatever differences we note are simply sociocultural in origin, then there is no reason to look for any specific contributions that women could make to politics. So the question assumes that there are, indeed, inherent, biologically determined psychological differences between the sexes. And, in fact, most of the scientific evidence points in this direction.
But to say this is not to claim that there are no exceptions. The data applies to averages, not to specific individuals. There will always be some women who exhibit typically male psychological characteristics, just as there will always be some men who exhibit typically female characteristics. But they are the outliers, and represent only a small minority of the general population of either men or women.
So it is quite likely that the women who have managed to succeed in politics are among those "outliers," i.e. the reason why they have managed to succeed in politics is not because of any specific female traits, but rather because they are among those "outliers," i.e. women whose psychological makeup is more "male-like" than "female-like." That is perhaps why some of the responders on this thread have claimed to find no differences between male bosses and female bosses.
Of course, it remains to be seen what would happen to the culture of politics if more "average" women (i.e. women who exhibit typically female traits) entered the field -- they might feel a certain amount of social "pressure" to prove they are equal to men, despite their "natural" aversion to politics. If that happened, then we might witness some significant differences in the political realm; for example, more negotiation, more compromise, less aggression, fewer wars, more support for social programs, etc. But as things stand now, it is not the typically "female" type of woman who enters politics, but usually those who exhibit typically "male" characteristics.
In other words, up until now, politics has been a man's game, and the few women who have entered the field play by men's rules. But if enough women entered the field so that they formed a majority, it could become a woman's game played according to women's rules, and things could look very different.
The evidence by political scientists is yes, which has repeatedly found social, housing, welfare issues have been taken on board more actively (not Margaret thatch though). Inclusion efforts that represent government of diverse people is simply about social justice and ethics
Yes, of course. The history shows that women in ancient cultures or politics (for example, Egypt, Yemen), middle ages and modern societies women have played a significant role in public life. I think women are clever in politics of diplomacy (enough of stupid politics of war). However, more investigations (from both men and women scholars) are needed.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking