Yeah…. This one is always a silly argument to me. It’s also quite sexist. It ignores the fact that there are many women who are violent, ruthless, ambitious, or brutal by their natures or even enjoy violence and brutality.
It leans heavily on traditional gender roles and stereotypes such as women being docile or gentle or nurturing by nature.
By the time she was three my niece had beaten up at least 3 boys at daycare. One black eye, one boy she scratched his face up badly, another she hit with a frying pan. One boy because she just didn’t seem to like him. Another for wearing her shoes. A friends daughter used to hit their dog and hit people when she didn’t get her way. Most people who have been around little girls can attest to their violence, and plenty of girls I’ve known or known of scrapped and fought as much or more than most boys into or even after highschool.
I’ve seen a woman stab a man with a 5” metal high heel on the Vegas strip. We don’t need hypotheticals or historical examples, observing girls and women in modern society oils tell anyone with awareness/self awareness that women are just as capable of violence as men and can be prone to emotionally triggered violence or violence to secure what they want. Society and conditioning tend to simultaneously discourage female violence, both through gender expectations as well as putting a heavy value on looks and civility- things fighting generally don’t help cultivate; as well as through those same gender dynamics, providing proximity to power through heterosexual response in men.
Put simply, even removing cultural factors that might lead men to feel protective towards women or want to impress or gain favor with women, ignoring that in many societies the gender dynamics tend to raise men to be more adept or comfortable in violence, generally the male body is better suited for untrained combat, and generally speaking it is safer to have others fight for you Vs. Fighting yourself. So the simple desire to mate is enough even in “pre society” days to encourage heterosexual or reproductive men to attempt to protect or gain favor with women and thusly even in most patriarchal societies women carry access to some degree of a male mates power or status and ability- thusly men have traditionally fought each other over women, so even in societies where men do not seek consent, using one’s brains it is possible to engineer conflict between a man and another by leveraging sexuality.
Thusly even where we can demonstrate some reduction in violence perpetrated by females, even if we rule out that most modern societies and even many older societies discouraged female aggression as a social dynamic- the violence perpetrated by women through proximity to power cannot he ignored when discussing nature.
In simple modern terms- think of the classic: man insults woman in bar and woman tells man “my boyfriend will kick your ass…” or the classic: man commits/attempts murder at the request of a potential or perceived love interest eg: “if you kill my husband, we can be together…”
Now consider this- roughly half- actually a little over half- the US population (and global population coincidentally) are female.
So the laws and systems and officials that build and shape those systems- women in the US have had to vote for over a century.
If women were some monolith of perfect thinkers and each woman voted- they’d have a narrow majority in every election. Meaning that the state of affairs in America and the history up until now is… well… women have had an equal days overall in our democracy.
Hillary Clinton was not elected president… but half the country and then a bit more are female. What’s more- when you look….
Well- check the gender ratios in the key “battle ground states” and such. Remember- living in some areas Can make your Vite count more or not at all really. But key battle ground states tend to have a slight female majority population.
Hillary Clinton didn’t get the votes to be president because women didn’t want her to be president. They weren’t the only ones- but again- when you hold a majority vote as a group, if we lump everyone in that group together- the majority has the most power.
Of course that’s a bit ridiculous no?
I mean- women have diverse political views and values and… lumping all women together like they’d all vote the same is as silly as… saying that all women would make peaceful leaders.
I think great leaders are often women. I think having female leaders does give us better odds at having leaders who represent the population better and who have different perspectives.
I am all for female leadership.
Men, women, other- all Can be great leaders but all can be shit leaders too. It isn’t gender that decides the quality of a leader or their policies.
Don’t forget there are women who oppose abortions and feminism too. Women aren’t a monolith and it is ignorant and sexist to suggest otherwise.
It leans heavily on traditional gender roles and stereotypes such as women being docile or gentle or nurturing by nature.
By the time she was three my niece had beaten up at least 3 boys at daycare. One black eye, one boy she scratched his face up badly, another she hit with a frying pan. One boy because she just didn’t seem to like him. Another for wearing her shoes. A friends daughter used to hit their dog and hit people when she didn’t get her way. Most people who have been around little girls can attest to their violence, and plenty of girls I’ve known or known of scrapped and fought as much or more than most boys into or even after highschool.
In simple modern terms- think of the classic: man insults woman in bar and woman tells man “my boyfriend will kick your ass…” or the classic: man commits/attempts murder at the request of a potential or perceived love interest eg: “if you kill my husband, we can be together…”
So the laws and systems and officials that build and shape those systems- women in the US have had to vote for over a century.
If women were some monolith of perfect thinkers and each woman voted- they’d have a narrow majority in every election. Meaning that the state of affairs in America and the history up until now is… well… women have had an equal days overall in our democracy.
Hillary Clinton was not elected president… but half the country and then a bit more are female. What’s more- when you look….
Hillary Clinton didn’t get the votes to be president because women didn’t want her to be president. They weren’t the only ones- but again- when you hold a majority vote as a group, if we lump everyone in that group together- the majority has the most power.
Of course that’s a bit ridiculous no?
I mean- women have diverse political views and values and… lumping all women together like they’d all vote the same is as silly as… saying that all women would make peaceful leaders.
I am all for female leadership.
Men, women, other- all Can be great leaders but all can be shit leaders too. It isn’t gender that decides the quality of a leader or their policies.
Don’t forget there are women who oppose abortions and feminism too. Women aren’t a monolith and it is ignorant and sexist to suggest otherwise.