Would the world be more peaceful if women were in charge? A challenging new book by Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker says the answer is “yes.”

AloysiusC · 2012-03-03T21:35:04+00:00

There is a popular and fatal flaw in this reasoning. The argument that women had to adapt male traits to win power in a male dominated political arena is simply not correct - neither from empirical observation nor from historical and sociopolitical research.

The political arena is what it is based on the nature of competition and not "maleness". Those who want to rise to power must adapt to the laws of competitive environments whatever their sex. Looking at the female leaders given as examples, one cannot say that they were somehow masculine or used particularly male characteristics compared with high status women who did not enter politics.

And as for war, this is a completely different story too. Simply attributing it to male aggressiveness is extremely short sighted and simplistic.

Verdict: This book is just trying to sell many copies by massaging the holy female ego and regurgitating the politically correct assumption that women are inherently better than men. That's what sells so that's what they write. Truth doesn't sell so that goes down the drain.

JockeVXO · 2012-03-03T20:00:06+00:00

Hillary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher etc... being brilliant examples of this new peaceful world we're heading for.

The reason we have less violence now than in the past is because resources aren't as scarce (at least in the West, where violence has decreased) so there's less need for competition. It's no longer the case of whichever tribe gets this little piece of land to grow crops and breed livestock on gets to live.

C0CKPUNCHER · 2012-03-03T20:17:39+00:00

As long as influential people say women would do everything nicer, posts of women doing bad things belong here.

ThePigman · 2012-03-04T02:07:31+00:00

"over the long sweep of history, women have been and will be a pacifying force."

Where is the evidence for the "have been", and as for the "will be," does bigotry confer the power of precognition upon its practitioners?

"Traditional war is a man’s game: Tribal women never band together to raid neighbouring villages.”

First, traditional war is dependent on physical might, so surprisingly it has had few wiminz involved. Second, no need for women to do it while they can stay home safe and sound while the men get slaughtered.

If this quote is anything to go by, Pinker is a fool or a liar and i won't be wasting my money on his book. As for the main premise that the world has gotten less violent, who the fuck needs Pinker to tell us that? Even a rudimentary knowledge of history makes that fact clear.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2012-03-03T19:17:25+00:00

Violence has been declining because there's been less need for violence. Imperialism is a dying breed, access to food and water has increased substantially, education has been more widespread. These aren't things as a result of pacification due to women. It's a result of the many reasons violence occurs being less prominent, and a lot can be said of scientific advancements-predominantly by men-have had a hand in this.

BinaryShadow · 2012-03-03T19:18:57+00:00

What I find funny though, he says we are going into a "woman's world" where they will be much more needed with the new "information" based economy, etc.

What I find funny about this, would then it be ok to call that all of past history was a MAN'S world, and the reason women weren't in charge, wasn't because they were oppressed, it was just better to have men lead during those times for survivial. But if someone said that, they'd be blown out of the water.

I really hate how it keeps getting called a "woman's world" but nobody sees that as sexist. "Oh, women are allowed to rule, it's ok." But then if anyone suggests anything about a man getting into power, "OMFG YOU SEXIST OPPRESSIVE PIG"

AloysiusC · 2012-03-04T02:00:57+00:00

[permanently deleted]

nuzzle · 2012-03-03T21:43:47+00:00

I didn't yet read Pinker's book; I'm thus limited to commenting on the article. I think that the article has it backwards when it suggests that Pinker is "... correct when he notes that the parts of the world that lag in the decline of violence are also the parts that lag in the empowerment of women". This, and the information economy angle, both are perceived as being a result of the empowerment of women, but I think that the empowerment of women is the result of both. In a society that is no longer starved for resources and dependent on hard labour, and at the same time is devoid of any major conflicts, being driven by resource constraints real or imagined, or ideology, the empowerment of women becomes feasible. I don't think that women are peaceful by nature - their roles just are such that they wage war by proxy, i.e. via men.

I can not ad hoc think of any nation that had not yet developed past these issues where forceful implementation of women's rights worked, with the possible exception of Afghanistan. However, considering that the subsequent Soviet and American meddling plunged the country back into despair, Afghanistan is neither a good example nor counter-example for working women's rights enforcement.

There is also a slight problem with "information economy" or "information society". Whereas societies and economies based on agriculture vaned when agriculture became industrialised, information societies are still dependent on industrial labour. Information can not replace industrialised food production and the like. I think it shows an overabundance of confidence to equate the industrial revolution with what has happened in the last decade.

If a society which has become peaceful as a result of women's empowerment happened upon resource constraints, they could either peacefully sacrifice a huge amount of lives, or compete with other societies. Ideally, an enlightened, international society of humans would self-regulate their numbers before such a situation arises, rendering the issue potentially mute, but for the moment that seems unlikely.

wavegeekman · 2012-03-03T23:05:20+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Demonspawn · 2012-03-03T19:50:33+00:00

Would the world be more peaceful if women were in charge?

Honestly? I can see how this would be so. There have been a small number of matriarchal societies in our history and there is very little to almost no violence within the society.

On the other hand, these societies vaporize as soon as they come in contact with a patriarchal society. The patriarchal societies advance culturally and technologically (where matriarchal societies didn't) so there was no contest. As such, I am not aware of any examples of two matriarchal societies coming into conflict with each-other to see what would happen.

If Lesbian DV is any indication...... Let's just say it wouldn't be pretty.

MRMRising · 2012-03-03T21:42:12+00:00

Tribal women never band together to raid neighbouring villages.”

Thats because woman are the protected class, they stay home and the men go off to war/raids to acquire provisions for the group/village/society.

Sperm is cheap, ovaries are expensive.

When the Vikings conquered Ireland the Viking men gave up the sword and picked up the plough within two generations.

fogu · 2012-03-03T18:55:48+00:00

pinker is wrong. women are in charge now and the world is just as messed up as ever.

themountaingoat · 2012-03-04T02:21:09+00:00

If women(solely) were in charge I think we would still be in the stone age.

AloysiusC · 2012-03-03T21:45:43+00:00

Really, I often wish these mind numb baboons who just keep preaching about the divine feminine and the perverse masculine would finally get their claimed desire: a completely female dominated society. Then we can finally stop reading these eternal attention hoarding money grabbing celebrations of the divine feminine and wake the fuck up.

So, in light of that, I call for affirmative action mandating that 95% of all positions of political and economic power to be female and that all women be paid 100% more than men for the same hours work. Sounds contra-MRA I know, but really this would speed up the MRA cause. The way we're heading now, it could take ages and frankly I don't want to be the slave gender for the rest of my life.

Title	Would the world be more peaceful if women were in charge? A challenging new book by Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker says the answer is “yes.”
Author	truthjusticeca
Upvotes	11
Comments	44
Date	March 3, 2012 6:41 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/qg52s/would_the_world_be_more_peaceful_if_women_were_in/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/would-the-world-be-more-peaceful-if-women-were-in.1026712 https://theredarchive.com/post/1026712

Comments