If women had the power and ruled the world there won’t be no more wars and there will be more social justice. It’s a very common, superficial thaught. At least in the western countries, things didn’t go right, even though we had only few examples to express some significant judgement. But maybe, just maybe, isn’t possible that, men or women, nothing changes? We had good ones, male and female, and bad ones, male and female. Maybe, just maybe, gender doesn’t affect skills. This shouldn’t be a revolutionary statement, this should be assimilated, nowadays.
But men have more violent tendencies, at least the statistics on crime and domestic violence say that. Right, but since when a politician went on the front line to fight? They send people to war. They don’t go around beating homeless, they cut welfare. They don’t organize expedition against immigrants, they just expel them. It’s an institutional violence, so there’s no need to be a strong, pumped up, alpha male. You just need to be mean, at a brain level. And men and women can be the same at this point. Clear? Let’s make a few examples.
One the first women to have power in politics was Golda Meir, in Israel. She is known for the Six days war. But ok, Israel is in a permanent war – not that her presidency changed anything, by the way! So what about Margaret Thatcher? War with Argentina for the control of the Malvinas, death of Bobby Sands and all that was behind, friendship with Pinochet, discrimination of homosexuals, miners strike against her economic policy similar to Ronald Reagan. Enough said. Now the heritage goes to Theresa May. Of courses she didn’t none of that yet, she’s just slightly racist. Still a little less than Marine Le Pen, at the run-off for France presidency. Angela Merkel in Germany is a “classic” average politician, not better, not worse than other men. And did Christine Lagarde give a more sympathetic approach to the International Monetary Fund? Don’t look alike.
Christina Kirchner in Argentina, Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, Park Geun-hye in South Korea had many problems with corruption. Hillary Rodham didn’t win the USA elections because most voters considered her too much connected to the estabilishment. Many democrats either didn’t like her for that, maybe the old white male Bernie Sanders would have been a bigger change (than Obama too). Or maybe he would have been a bluff, we don’t know. Condoleezza Rice was (and probably still is) black and a woman and she was a hawk of the Bush administration n Middle East. Keiko Fujimori, in Peru, had to promise not to become a dictator like her father.
Of course if women like Benazir Bhutto and the nobel prize Aung San Su Kyi ruled the world there will be more peace and social justice, but we can’t generalize it to all women. It’s like saying that José Mujica in Uruguay is like Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, or that Mahatma Gandhi and Vladimir Putin are the same, just because they belong to the same gender. It’s a bit more complicated than that.
A very different thing is talking about the lack of opportunities that women have in a sector, like almost any other, still managed by men. Equal access, equal payment, equal power, no prejudices, it’s preposterous having to remind that all the time. It’s fair that women can fail like many men before them. And take a little blame too for the world misery.