Would a matriarchal society be more better and more peaceful than a patriarchal society?
26-30, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Many feminists say so, but overall I don't think so.
I think women are just as fallible as men and humanity is only the sum of its parts.
There are examples of where women in charge have proved more successful. For instance, the women-only-run-bank in Greenland survived the GST with no financial problems because it had never lent money it didn't have. It acted as though there had never been any deregulation and ensured that all it's loans were backed by its own material assets.
According to the Korn Ferry results, women were 86% more likely than men to be seen as consistently demonstrating emotional self-awareness as a competency, or more accurately, 18.4% of women compared to just 9.9% of men. (https://theglasshammer.com/2019/05/emotional-intelligence-part-2)
The article goes on to observe, "Women were 45% more likely than men to be seen as demonstrating empathy consistently.
Women also outperformed men at 'coaching & mentoring, influence, inspirational leadership, conflict management, organizational awareness, adaptability, teamwork and achievement orientation.' The most narrow margin was 'positive outlook' (9% more likely), and the only gender neutral competency was “emotional self-control.
"When it comes to excelling at what we value, these findings complement research that shows that men are more likely to undervalue the relationship interaction with customers and clients, which women will tend to emphasize as important."
This suggests that if women were given a larger role in leadership, we might indeed see huge improvements in society.
But in my view, there's a catch.
People (of either sex or gender) who stand for high roles in leadership in politics, public service, social services, businesses and justice are more likely to be interested in power. This means they have a much higher chance of being narcissists who are good at acting and playing public roles but who have little or zero empathy. Of course there are exceptions, and not all are equally bad, not by a long shot.
Candidates with genuinely high IQ and EI (emotional intelligence) tend to be rare, especially in politics. It's more likely that what they display is public relations doublespeak - ie some degree of deception.
If a woman wanted to run for POTUS or prime minister on grounds of her EI, she'd have to consistently demonstrate it from her earliest years (around 4 years old when it first shows) and throughout her career. If she could achieve that, I think many would vote for her.
I think women are just as fallible as men and humanity is only the sum of its parts.
There are examples of where women in charge have proved more successful. For instance, the women-only-run-bank in Greenland survived the GST with no financial problems because it had never lent money it didn't have. It acted as though there had never been any deregulation and ensured that all it's loans were backed by its own material assets.
According to the Korn Ferry results, women were 86% more likely than men to be seen as consistently demonstrating emotional self-awareness as a competency, or more accurately, 18.4% of women compared to just 9.9% of men. (https://theglasshammer.com/2019/05/emotional-intelligence-part-2)
The article goes on to observe, "Women were 45% more likely than men to be seen as demonstrating empathy consistently.
Women also outperformed men at 'coaching & mentoring, influence, inspirational leadership, conflict management, organizational awareness, adaptability, teamwork and achievement orientation.' The most narrow margin was 'positive outlook' (9% more likely), and the only gender neutral competency was “emotional self-control.
"When it comes to excelling at what we value, these findings complement research that shows that men are more likely to undervalue the relationship interaction with customers and clients, which women will tend to emphasize as important."
This suggests that if women were given a larger role in leadership, we might indeed see huge improvements in society.
But in my view, there's a catch.
People (of either sex or gender) who stand for high roles in leadership in politics, public service, social services, businesses and justice are more likely to be interested in power. This means they have a much higher chance of being narcissists who are good at acting and playing public roles but who have little or zero empathy. Of course there are exceptions, and not all are equally bad, not by a long shot.
Candidates with genuinely high IQ and EI (emotional intelligence) tend to be rare, especially in politics. It's more likely that what they display is public relations doublespeak - ie some degree of deception.
If a woman wanted to run for POTUS or prime minister on grounds of her EI, she'd have to consistently demonstrate it from her earliest years (around 4 years old when it first shows) and throughout her career. If she could achieve that, I think many would vote for her.
pianoplayingsteve · 31-35, M
@hartfire who gets to decide what constitutes emotional awareness?
@pianoplayingsteve (Not all) psychologists, sociologists, psychiatrists, neurologists, tribal elders, some of the more experienced Buddhist meditation teachers and many others. It has been much researched over at least the last thirty years, and the studies are easy to find online.
Of course, the understanding of the nuances and variables are still being explored, with developmental age, genetics, family of origin, cultural, life experience, trauma and other influences all playing a role.
It's a relatively new science - and those in the hard sciences sometimes question whether it's a field of science or not.
If you check out Forbes business magazine, you'll find a huge number of articles on the vital input of EI(i) and the difference it makes in success.
EI is statistically the biggest and most reliable predictor of success in life generally, far more so than IQ or other talents. Measures of "success" include a self-reported general feeling of contentment and overall happiness, enduring relationships with family, friends, at work and in the community, and ability to earn a living and be responsible for one's needs and those of dependents -checked against how others perceive the subject.
It's a trait that is widely recognised in many cultures, though it might not always have the same name.
Of course, the understanding of the nuances and variables are still being explored, with developmental age, genetics, family of origin, cultural, life experience, trauma and other influences all playing a role.
It's a relatively new science - and those in the hard sciences sometimes question whether it's a field of science or not.
If you check out Forbes business magazine, you'll find a huge number of articles on the vital input of EI(i) and the difference it makes in success.
EI is statistically the biggest and most reliable predictor of success in life generally, far more so than IQ or other talents. Measures of "success" include a self-reported general feeling of contentment and overall happiness, enduring relationships with family, friends, at work and in the community, and ability to earn a living and be responsible for one's needs and those of dependents -checked against how others perceive the subject.
It's a trait that is widely recognised in many cultures, though it might not always have the same name.
@revenant I did a few hours of research, scanning over 30 years worth of academic research - and that's barely a toe in the sea.
If I'd Known you were going to ask for a Quora style answer, backed by references, I would have made notes of them wherever I found important findings.
I focused mainly on meta-studies, i.e., studies of the studies; they examine the methodology and statistical analysis across many papers, looking for similarities and differences. This method tends to cross check everything to come up with generalisations that are factually proven.
It has slowly come out that there's less of a difference between male and female in EI than previously thought - but it's still enough to be significant.
If you're really interested, please try doing the research yourself. I have a feeling you'd be more likely to trust your own research processes that mine.
Of course, Forbes is easy to access online anytime, just google your topic and you'll get plenty.
A site that is more for lay people is blogs by specialists on Psychology Today.
If I'd Known you were going to ask for a Quora style answer, backed by references, I would have made notes of them wherever I found important findings.
I focused mainly on meta-studies, i.e., studies of the studies; they examine the methodology and statistical analysis across many papers, looking for similarities and differences. This method tends to cross check everything to come up with generalisations that are factually proven.
It has slowly come out that there's less of a difference between male and female in EI than previously thought - but it's still enough to be significant.
If you're really interested, please try doing the research yourself. I have a feeling you'd be more likely to trust your own research processes that mine.
Of course, Forbes is easy to access online anytime, just google your topic and you'll get plenty.
A site that is more for lay people is blogs by specialists on Psychology Today.