TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Men do a terrible job in ruling our world. So it is about time we allow women to rule instead and see if they can do a better job.

Men have ruled our world for all of recorded history, which has been a story of continuous wars, genocide, injustice, oppression and poverty. History demonstrates time and time again, that men do a terrible job in ruling our world.
We can find the reasons why in the instincts of male animals. Every spring, animals like stags, bulls and rams will fight each other for dominance and access to females. Men likewise have similar instincts but they fight with far more deadly weapons like spears, swords, rifles, machine guns, aircraft, bombs and rockets. In the 20th century men came close to committing global suicide through nuclear warfare in the cold war between the USSR and NATO.
Men have also failed to create a fair and equal society. Again, this is because of the masculine competitive instinct. An alpha stag has no intention of sharing any of his harem with any other stag. We see exactly the same attitude in any society ruled by men, with a big gap between rich and poor.
So would Women do a better job? As we see with all female animals, they have a powerful maternal instinct. Without this powerful instinct to nurture their young most mammals and birds on this planet, would go extinct. Likewise, women are natural carers and most will devote their lives caring for children, as well as the sick, disabled, elderly and animals. If we had true matriarchal governments they would want to nurture and care for the people they rule.
It is true that nowadays, most female politicians like Margaret Thatcher show little compassion for others. But when women join patriarchal political parties they have to act and behave like men to gain respect and promotion. So in this system only the most ruthless and aggressive women obtain any position of power. This is why we need to have true matriarchal political parties made up only of women. So women can be themselves and act and behave like nurturing and caring women. And so nurture the countries they rule.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 15 2013: Thanks for this debate. I was looking forward to something like this.

    1. "The pen is mightier than the sword"

    2. It is not only men who partake in competition but also women. It is is in our bloods to be greedy and selfish, and so having a women leader would not necessarily make things better. Why do women do up their hair, face and body? To stand out from the other women? Is this not competition?

    And who said that competition isn't healthy. To quote the great Adam Smith, "In competition, individual ambition serves the common good". Look at the technology sector. Due to the vast amount of competition, companies such as Apple and Samsung have to keep on innovating in order to stay alive. This provides us with goods which we would never have seen if it were not for competition.

    3. When you say a "matriarchal government" who will care and nurture do you basically mean more government? “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results” (Milton Friedman). It will be difficult to look after all the citizens. By helping some people, other will be at a loss (a bit like a zero sum game). Why not just have fewer rules and regulations allowing people to live their lives without having the government breathing down their neck?
    • Apr 15 2013: I agree women are competitive, but I don't think they are so competitive they want to start a war or conquer other countries. In the whole of history we do not have a great Amazon army of women trying to conquer the world, like the armies of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte or Adolf Hitler. Men have been so competitive that in the Cold war between the NATO and USSR male leaders come close to committing global suicide through nuclear war.

      Also throughout history we see in most countries a big gap between rich and poor. In is commonplace to see in patriarchal countries a extremely wealthy ruling elite, while the common people are living in poverty or even starving to death. Yes, competition is great but when taken to the extreme like what male rulers tend to do, it can be extremely destructive.

      Yes, we need competition but it has to be moderated and not taken to any extreme. Men have shown throughout history that they cannot do this as we still have wars and societies where we have a big gap between rich and poor. Women are more moderate in their behaviour. They are far less likely to bomb cities and forget there are actual people living in them. Or impose economic policies that condemn people to poverty.

      We must remember that these deregulation ideas like you got with President Regan, come directly from Social Darwinism, which is what Hitler advocated. The policies of the "survival of the fittest" justify war and poverty as it is claimed that those who die in poverty and war are 'unfit' and so deserve to die. Individual women like Margaret Thatcher or Ayn Rand might agree with this. But the vast majority of women would find it impossible, and know that people who suffer in wars or poverty are real people like themselves.

      So any Matriarchal government will be far less extreme than many patriarchal governments.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.