I am always reminded of Thatcher who did enormous harm causing misery to the country's poor, and who also didn't encourage or promote women. Have women really proved better?

that's right I agree women are better policies

although they are special beings endowed with an amazing intelligence, but

the world of men does not allow them to direct us towards a peaceful and progressive society

I think women may be better as they have more patience and tolerant power than men. Moreover, under demanding situation they are more aggressive and honest to their business. After getting complete freedom they may be very clever politicians.

Always better

Lets give them a chnace :)

I am always reminded of Thatcher who did enormous harm causing misery to the country's poor, and who also didn't encourage or promote women. Have women really proved better?

I think this may be right in little cases .The majority of the world are run by men even in democracy regimes .The chance for women are present but counted on fingers those women proved success when they have the chance for running many countries.

Yes, and often no worse, not becoming extreme as in many instances sinking into atavistic egotism and power worship. Perhaps only a habit of male leaders.

Very probably. But it is not going to happen and it could not possibly be fair for one or other gender to hold absolute power over the other. The aim must always be for an equitable balance, and we have a long way to go and an awful lot of work to do to shift the relative and absolute power that men continue to hold and exercise, and in which some women (a minority - like Thatcher) are complicit. And I am speaking as a feminist!

Yes. Thatcher was as you say. Becoming like a man to be a leader, as she appeared to do, was a huge mistake for other women, not one I think attempted by Merkel.

But what about Clinton? Didn't and doesn't she present the ambitious politician as woman, without improving on the ethics?

Yes, Stanley, I agree. It was a huge mistake for the Democrats to field Hilary for POTUS. She was/is certainly tainted - not in the way the current POTUS accuses her of being but by some of her more dubious connections with some of the more dubious members of the establishment . I am not a US citizen but if I had been I would only have voted for her holding my nose as a tactical vote to keep Trump out of the White House. Unfortunately, she turned off enough people who may have voted Democrat, and now look where we are. The turning point for me in how I felt about her was that moment in the 'war room' when Osama bin Laden was executed at his hideout in Pakistan. She really relished that moment and I found that insufferable and a somewhat shocking insight into her personality. Obama on the other hand just looked sad.

While Obama looked sad, he was also at and instigated the sacrificing process, done for reasons of justice but also to assuage USA angst and sense of loss. Connecting himself to it was connecting himself to machismo tropes of revenge that motivated the 'cowboy' Bush.

Anyway, women can be bloodthirsty and sadistic too! Without that is accusations (which you did not make, just allusions to character) of manliness.

I agree again. Women can also be selfish and willing to exploit others for personal gain or gratification. The truth is that these are all human characteristics that are variably distributed through populations, that are then acted on by the environments in which we find ourselves by no choice of our own. One question is: to what extent might they be distributed according to gender? It's a really hard question to answer. One thing that I am seeing going around in social media at the moment is the idea of 'toxic masculinity.' I find this offensive towards men and it angers me. You don't get anywhere by painting people into corners, as we women well know. Some men are pretty toxic, but then so are some women. It's the toxic behaviours that are the problem not the gender!

True, Laura, but men, for one reason or another, are more likely (?) to inhabit power, or at least inhabit the kind that controls and coheses others. Or is it? Whenever I write these evaluations my memory jumps up and around filling my mind with alterative scenarios gleaned from experience not intellect.

Romain, I heartily agree with your final point, but in truth the question was merely raised as a discussion point, and, in that your answer is invaluable. Perhaps women can institute more responsible government (yes, that can mean a number of things but raising debate does not require answers to be produced by the question-provider but to elicite responses among readers), or one with greater public visiblity and discussion concerning policies.

One point raised was male decline (sic) into demagoguery-not yet noticeable amongst female leaders (yet). I hesitate to offer examples, but would a woman act like Trump, or Erdogan, displaying rampant egotism? Again, I quail at possible replies!! So far, if only so far, there is no evidence of this.

Of course there are a number of conditions, and by all means, state them. Nevertheless, lets concern ourselves also with actualities and what these indicate.

I wouldn't say no to some fully consulted upon, impact assessed changes radical or otherwise in the world's political and economic organisation, tbh. It seems to me that drivers of inequality and damage to ecological/ecosytem services damage are built in to the current modes of organisation. So both people and the environment are exploited in unsustainable ways. We have no choice but to change or suffer really profound consequences for humanity and other life on Earth , and I would like to see many more women's voices involved in working out what we do about it.

I support you on that, Laura, and certainly in searching for alternative ways to do things.

I am reminded though, Laura, in respect perhaps of other answers, that Erdogan for example gets a great deal of his support from women who appear to identify with the woman/mother at home in importance/of/family trope and likewise identify with religious conservatism.

Lighten up. From these debates interesting ideas occur. Take part, find out how good they can be instead of acting the scholar. We're all scholars here. I reserve my intense scholarship for my papers, not here. You should too.

No, just different.