If women ruled the world

Angela Merkel has been chancellor of Germany since 2005.

Hillary Clinton is likely, though not certain, to be the next president of the USA, if only because many people see her as the lesser of two evils when compared with the Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Half the candidates vying to become the next Secretary General of the United Nations are women, including former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark.

Theresa May has been sworn in as UK Prime Minister. (The BBC profiles her here.) and 14 other countries already have women as heads of government or elected heads of state .

The countries, women leaders and year they took office are:

* BANGLADESH: Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina (2009)

* CHILE: President Michelle Bachelet (2014)

* CROATIA: President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic (2015)

* GERMANY: Chancellor Angela Merkel (2005)

* LIBERIA: President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (2006)

* LITHUANIA: President Dalia Grybauskaite (2009)

* MALTA: President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca (2014)

* MARSHALL ISLANDS: President Hilda Heine (2016)

* MAURITIUS: President Ameenah Gurib-Fakim (2015)

* NAMIBIA: Prime Minister Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila (2015)

* NEPAL: President Bidhya Devi Bhandari (2015)

* NORWAY: Prime Minister Erna Solberg (2013)

* POLAND: Prime Minister Beata Szydlo (2015)

* SOUTH KOREA: President Park Geun-hye (2013)

* TAIWAN: President Tsai Ing-wen (2016)    

Does being female make a difference to what they do and how they do it?

My answer to that is probably, everyone brings a different perspective to a role and gender would have some influence on the difference.

If women ruled the world some things would change but a female perspective in itself wouldn’t mean better or worse.

The world has and has had good and bad leaders and it will continue to have them regardless of whether they’re men or women.

But I think the world would be a better place if people were regarded as people, accepted and respected for what we have in common and differences like gender and race were immaterial.

 

7 Responses to If women ruled the world

  1. Andrei says:

    The idea that the ghastly woman who was complicit in the destruction of Libya and having reduced it to ruins just abandoned it (except the strategic oil fields of course) is the lesser of two evils is a somewhat worrying concept.

    The real problem is that she is both arrogant and stupid a very dangerous combination

  2. Dave Kennedy says:

    I don’t necessarily think that women make better leaders but i think we need more women in leadership roles as their perspectives are valuable. Governing boards that have greater gender balance and diversity tend to perform far better than all male ones. I support Jenny Shipley’s efforts in promoting women into leadership roles.

    Forgive the link, but although it was written some time ago I think it is a useful contribution to the thread:
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/rugby-discrimination-and-gender.html

  3. JC says:

    Interestingly European Queens may have participated in more wars (27%) than kings. The authors explain the complicated thinking..

    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-wars-than-kings.html

    My own uninformed speculation suggests that by the time the Queen was appointed war was probably on the horizon anyway.

    JC

  4. Richard says:

    I am sure May will be excellent; another Thatcher.

    Wrote to friends saying it is a huge bundle of laughs from this end- script writers dream.
    Chapters 1-6 so far—next “Boris To The FO”- you could not make it up– a very British- “Yes Minister” in the making–

  5. Andrei says:

    Interestingly European Queens may have participated in more wars (27%) than kings. The authors explain the complicated thinking..

    I’d take that with a huge grain of salt myself

    There has been a major European meltdown approximately every eighty years in the period they consider – actually its a pattern that goes back further to Roman times depending on how you define things

    If you consider WW1 and WW2 the same event , which really it is, the pattern holds to this day and we are about due for the next conflagration, it may have already started

    The first global conflagration was the Seven Years war + other wars such as the French and Indian war in North America, conflicts in Africa, India and the Pacific which were all part of the same event but usually considered separately – not many people know about that one

  6. JC says:

    Heh.. go back far enough and you can relate the waxing and waning of war to warm and cold periods.

    Nothing like some killer frosts on the crops that have people eating their livestock to survive to encourage a bit of cross border raiding and invasion.

    Incidentally I see Teresa May has axed the Climate dept in Britain.. Boris may have more to talk about with the Germans than he thought.

    JC

  7. Andrei says:

    It depends what you mean by war JC?

    War is actually going on the whole time but that does not mean armies marching and tanks are rolling over borders

    What seems to happen is there is a major breakdown of order where armies do march and millions die every four or so generations and out of the chaos when the dust has settled a new order arises which is semi stable and while there maybe conflicts they are small and contained until the next time all hell breaks loose

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: