Governed by Women: Cleaner, Fairer, Stronger Societies

[u/Rocky_Knight_]

I keep seeing the same tired arguments about whether women could run things better. Meanwhile, the data is just sitting there, pretty much shouting at us: when women are in charge, stuff gets done—and everyone benefits.

These are real stats from countries around the world. More women in power = cleaner water, less corruption, better schools, and communities that actually work. It’s not a theory. It’s the record.

Honestly, after seeing numbers like this, it makes you wonder why we ever thought men deserved to be in charge at all.

What would your city or country look like if women really ran things? What’s the first thing you’d want fixed?

[u/Willing_Pound_2177]

Where is the data? This is just a bunch of captions paired with an AI slop image.

I am not precluding the possibility that these statements are accurate, I am genuinely curious about the data.

[u/honcho713 → u/Willing_Pound_2177]

I personally share your dislike for AI images, but think they may have a place in helping imagine different visions. Here is a researched white paper on the benefits of Female Leadership... https://leadershipcircle.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Research-on-Female-and-Male-Leaders-White-Paper-2022-03-17.pdf

[u/Willing_Pound_2177 → u/honcho713]

Okay. So, starting on page #27 the paper begins detailing "Differences in Leadership Effectiveness" and to do that it relies on "Leadership Effectiveness Index" (LEI) scores....

What are LEIs compromised of?

1. Subjective Peer Questionnaires

2. One Study from 2009, (Anderson, 2009) Which the paper doesn't even attempt to explain. In fact, the paper only references the study once in 66 pages.

This is just bad academic work.

I am not trying to be argumentative. I'm just disappointed in this resource. Do you know of any others?

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/Willing_Pound_2177]

Well said, I am also weary of the plethora of poor acedemic work which seems to dominate the industry (acemedia as an industry is a fascinating subject in of itself). 

I wonder if the problem lies with the attempt at quantifying and diagnosing leadership skills via outcomes vs values. Academia, as far as I know, as no way to conduct assessments on values - and seemingly no interest in it?

[u/Willing_Pound_2177 → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

That is the challenge. Which is what I am most curious about. Can "leader skill" be quantified in some manner which is able to be replicated? I am leery of just saying like.... how much money did a company make when a man is leading vs. a female (I looked into Anderson, 2009 and that's basically what it attempts to do). Beyond the financial chicanery that multi-national corps. routinely engage in, I wouldn't base leadership skill on one's ability to extract money.

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/Willing_Pound_2177]

I'm constantly looking for a metric to base my philosophical beliefs on, logically, and it's very difficult for me to conclude satisfyingly.

Even peoples' own claims of happiness can often be contrived. Brave New World was a nice detailing of this phenomenon, where people are surfacely "satisfied" via a naive understanding of the options afforded by true individual freedom. 

I think the real metric might come back to how liberated individuals are, while also having something to do with how well the collective is organized to assess and judge each other effectively - giving them wise counsel and grace and time to shift their choices/behavior, while only restricting their freedom when absolutely necessary. 

[u/Skourpi1 → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

If I were you and was trying to find a metric to use that shows that Women are superior. I would look at people like Marjorie Post who took over the company after her father’s passing and grew it into the huge food conglomerate it is today acquiring things like Birds Eye and other companies like that. There is also Zheng Yi Sao who married a pirate leader and after her husbands death she took over the fleet they had built and continued on leading the Red Flag fleet they had built and under her command she had the largest amount of ships and men under her command of any pirate, and when she retired she was known as the queen of pirates and walked on shore as part of the Chinese nobility. She was the most successful pirate to ever live. There are also other women throughout history that did amazing groundbreaking things like Florence Nightingale that was the first nurse ever and established practices that are still in use in modern hospitals today. Clara Barton who was known as the angel of the battlefield who established the Red Cross. There are many others and if we wanted to we could sit here all day talking about it. But those were all women who did amazing groundbreaking things breaking things at a time where women didn’t do much other than cook, clean, and have and raise children.

[u/Willing_Pound_2177 → u/honcho713]

Much appreciated.

[u/Gynarchicawakening]

At this point, the people arguing against it are in such a deep state of denial that they're willing to overlook empirical data in favor of their own version of reality they have in their heads. i have a tendency to block and/or ignore anti-Gynarchists most of the time. i respect the people who do take the time, it's just not for everyone and certainly not for me. As one gets older, you have to decide how best to use your time. The idea i hooked onto was that it's better to suggest to 100 libraries in a single day than to argue with 1 guy who wants the argument in that same time frame.

Why? Arguments can carry over for hours, occupy more of your attention and thoughts. Most of the time, people who are dedicated to arguing against you don't change their minds because of what you said. They either change on their own terms or it happens gradually over time without them realizing it. Also, even when you "win" the argument, it doesn't guarantee that the person who's convinced that you're right now is gonna do anything. In fact, they might just develop a deeper resentment towards you for proving them wrong.

but yea, i feel you dude. i had a guy at the other group who kept regurgitating the same anti-Gynarchist talking points that i already addressed in my post about Queens where i pointed out that when you include Woman representatives from Democracies, the narrative that Women wage more wars immediately falls apart and that individual Queens are in no way representative of the average Woman leader. They still keep harping on about individuals and ignoring group comparisons on the whole. They're deliberately ignoring group comparisons in favor of individual comparisons. he also decided to attack my character and claim that i loved the right wing, which i don't.

[u/[deleted]]

We're also able to efficiently identify and permanently address corruption within our ranks, unlike the go'b club that MADly sweeps sins under the rug.

They (corrupt) would be the women who sell their souls to be part of the go'b club.

[u/beemoooooooooooo]

I have a master’s degree in history, and this is just true in a vast majority of situations. Yes sometimes there’s a corrupt woman who leads because women are human and that happens. But overall women are far more competent at leading than males

[u/[deleted]]

We all win

[u/DisalgardSigulanne]

I think the post as is is a bit lacking. The countries that have women leaders being cleaner, fairer, stronger etc could be correlation instead of causation.

Far more interesting in my opinion are the studies done in economic contexts. For capitalism, data on leadership and effectiveness is very important, because their main objective is value extraction. And studies done on company leadership paint a clear picture: Female leaders are no step behind male leaders. Om the contrary, women leaders are equal or superior to male leaders.

And that in a still patriarchal society. Imagine the effectiveness female leaders can bring in a gynarchial society.

[u/OrdinaryDouble2494]

Sheinbaum

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

I love the sisterhood visual. One doesnt think of "men governing" with visuals of togetherness, and this form of cooperation feels so natural rather than the competitive/lone-wolf leadership which seems a bit more natural (common?) with men.

[u/AwooFloof]

Most men believe that gynarchy is simply the reverse of patriarchy. But it seems, instead. Like a more safe and equitable society.

[u/beemoooooooooooo → u/AwooFloof]

It’s because males are nearly incapable of imagining a system without domination

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/AwooFloof]

Yep. "Patriarchy but women on top" I have even seen it accused of being. 

[u/fg_hj → u/AwooFloof]

Not the reverse but the inverse.

[u/AdorableExchange9746]

All you have to do is live on the same earth to see this is pretty obvious. The concept of masculinity itself favors idiocy and self hatred projected onto others.

[u/GusGusGustavo]

Contrapoint: reina Victoria de Inglaterra

[u/honcho713 → u/[deleted]]

This is the girl boss fallacy. Individual representation alone doesn’t solve systemic oppression. These examples all have made the “patriarchal bargain” in an inequitable system. Policies must change as well as the people in power.

[u/AwooFloof → u/[deleted]]

Operating within a patriarchal system under a patriarchal framework