Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[XXSockXX]

That's true. She used to be "Kohl's girl", now she is "Mutti". The nickname has been adopted by her party ("Mom will fix it") and her critics.

[penguinofhonor]

Sometimes I want to slip into random threads, whisper the word "gypsy" and sit back and watch the chaos unfold.

[Orange Wizard]

Gypsies have nothing to do with this.
... was it you that started the gypsy debate in the other thread?

[/derail]

I don't think female rulers/leaders are judged more harshly than male ones, nor are they perform remarkably better or worse, but they're more memorable than their male counterparts because there's relatively few of them. We judge male rulers harshly too.
And what percentage of leaders - male or female - are any good at all? How many are actually remembered for being "great"?
If history was a primarily-female-led society, in my opinion it would have fared no better or worse than the primarily-male-led variant.

[Neonivek]

If anything they are often judged a lot more lax. Given that "I am a woman and a leader" suddenly is getting huge praise. With Cleopatra who essentially did nothing being given high praise in spite of, in her own time, being considered rather lousy even by her own people and who's physical attractiveness is largely fictional, meaning that even her abilities are exaggerated.

I rarely hear male leaders getting the medal of honor for simply being severely disadvantaged. The only one I remember being praised for it is John A. McDonald who managed to become Prime Minister (SORT OF... part of Revisionism since that position didn't exist yet apperantly) in spite of having no schooling almost whatsoever but managed to by constantly studying in the library.

Though he is mostly known as the Alcoholic Prime Minister which is a shame because he is a genuinely interesting person.

Ohh I know Theodore Roosevelt also is praised for becoming president in spite of his condition.

If history was a primarily-female-led society, in my opinion it would have fared no better or worse than the primarily-male-led variant

From my study of ancient societies and the progress of technology and gender equality. It would seem that is not the case. Though it is an ideology I can get behind anyhow. (Or rather... That is untrue, but it is something I think you should treat as true)

[Sheb]

Obama and his whole "First black president thing"? I mean, he got the Nobel Peace Prize just for being elected.

Neonivek, what do you think would have happened with more female leaders?

[Neonivek]

Obama and his whole "First black president thing"? I mean, he got the Nobel Peace Prize just for being elected.

Neonivek, what do you think would have happened with more female leaders?

Obama's achievement is the noose that is hanging from his neck to the extent that his Nobel Peace Prize is referenced more for how his achievements are exaggerated (as well his Nobel Peace Prize was for "Not being George Bush" and even now most people believe it shouldn't have went to him and was only done so as a political statement from the Nobel Comity). So maybe within the timespan he was elected that achievement was totted as a big deal, but now? No.

As for what would happen with more female leaders? I mostly go by how the advancement of hunter gatherer societies went, where the female leaders actually had quite a bit of power (because SOMEONE had to take care of everyone left behind... and it wasn't a guy). If the movement to a sedentary society occurred where it was the females instead of the men who ended up claiming one as property, it would probably stem from that type of leadership.

I am honestly not sure though Sheb, it is too far outside my ability to think. All I know is that it would be different.

[Reelya]

Personally i think it's a mistake to look at hunter gatherer societies, and try and make some extrapolation to how leadership of that would translate to an agrarian or industrial society, they're apples and oranges.

[Neonivek]

Personally i think it's a mistake to look at hunter gatherer societies, and try and make some extrapolation to how leadership of that would translate to an agrarian or industrial society, they're apples and oranges.

It isn't so much that it would directly translate so much that the affect is so all encompassing that it is unfathomable.

[penguinofhonor]

Gypsies have nothing to do with this.
... was it you that started the gypsy debate in the other thread?

[/derail]

No, I think that was Neonivek. You've got to respect his work, though. He just mentioned Gypsies in passing and nobody noticed for like 20 posts, then someone picked it out and the entire thread came crashing down. Like a time bomb.

[Reelya]

Personally i think it's a mistake to look at hunter gatherer societies, and try and make some extrapolation to how leadership of that would translate to an agrarian or industrial society, they're apples and oranges.

It isn't so much that it would directly translate so much that the affect is so all encompassing that it is unfathomable.

Since those traits are universal to all hunter-gatherers, as far as I can tell, I'd say it's not some specific thing about female leadership, as much as it's the only model that works for hunter-gatherers. They're totally non-hierarchical, not merit-driven, no concept of personal wealth or even personal belongings, and they only exist in groups small enough that everyone knows everyone else by name.

It's "decision making by group consensus" of a very small group, rather than "better leadership". That doesn't translate to "females make better leaders" because by their standards, there are no set leaders.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways

Note the difference between primitive farmers and hunter gatherers. In primitive farming communities you're right to say "the men go out hunting and the women stay home to take care of the children", thus you can characterize the women as the glue who hold everything together in a social sense.

But that's not the case in true hunter-gatherer societies, which are mobile, not sedentary: everyone has an equal say, everyone works together. That's why this statement:

(because SOMEONE had to take care of everyone left behind... and it wasn't a guy).

is plain wrong when associated with hunter-gatherers. These are mobile groups: "left behind" where exactly? According to the article I linked, hunter-gatherer children are basically left alone to do their own thing, rather than the type of "mothering" we know: so the idea that hunter-gatherer women spend all their time caretaking is just wrong, and a projecting from our own society.

[Sheb]

Since those traits are universal to all hunter-gatherers, as far as I can tell, I'd say it's not some specific thing about female leadership, as much as it's the only model that works for hunter-gatherers. They're totally non-hierarchical, not merit-driven, no concept of personal wealth or even personal belongings, and they only exist in groups small enough that everyone knows everyone else by name.

Not really. The range of social organizations found in hunter-gatherers and other 'primitive' societies is actually much larger than the range found in agricultural civilizations. The World Until Yesterday by Jared Diamond makes that point very well and is an entertaining read as well. I'd heavily recommend it if you're interested.

[Neonivek]

is plain wrong when associated with hunter-gatherers. These are mobile groups: "left behind" where exactly? According to the article I linked, hunter-gatherer children are basically left alone to do their own thing, rather than the type of "mothering" we know: so the idea that hunter-gatherer women spend all their time caretaking is just wrong, and a projecting from our own society

Not "Caretaking" I mean in terms of who took on the leadership role while the hunters were gone tended to be the gatherers which were mostly allocated to the women. Which was absolutely necessary because hunts could last for days or even weeks.

It has nothing to do with "needed women to take care of children" so much as it is "needing someone to take care of home base"

As well the women are responsible for the vast majority of the food that a hunter-gatherer society eats. So their duty wasn't "Ohh stay home, take care of the children, and do the dishes".

Hunter-Gatherers (nomadic ones at least) did set up temporary homes (usually migrational homes).

[palsch]

Can we get some references in here? "Hunter-gatherer societies" is a vague reference to the vast, vast majority of past human societies as far as I can tell, with incredible variation in social structure dependent on location, time period, etc.

[Neonivek]

a Hunter-Gatherer society is basically pre-agriculture pre-horticulture

Basically a society that lacks the ability to herd or grow their own food. In this case preferably a nomadic one.

[palsch]

Which is to say, what, 90+% of all human historic human societies?

Which is to say, too large and vague a set to make generalisations about with specific citations and arguments.