"Women are natural visionaries of 'the big picture', long term goals, and spiritual principles of wisdom and quality of life, -even of successful mystical union with God; so they are productive leaders, and men instinctively follow them.”
I say this because the age-old complaints about the differences between men and women involve men being competitive and ego-driven, and women being forgiving, self-sacrificial, and more committed to relationships. Usually, this is attributed to women having their maternal instincts going awry, becoming foolish codependent caretakers and doormats for selfish dolts. It seems, however, that when women apply their traditional sense of social values for cooperation, appeasement, compromise, cooperation, helpfulness, tolerance, generosity, and peace to relationships with people of similar values, such as other women socialized to behave in this way, they don't have problems with being victims of verbal abuse, physical violence, or emotional disrespect. Maybe these traditional ways of 'feminine' socialization are actually wise and based on the wisdom of long-term benefits, like having friends, rather than the shortsighted immediate gratification that seems to drive selfish and violent behaviors.
Actually, there are whole societies, usually tribal, that have based their entire cultures on these "feminine" social styles and values, creating some pretty cool social lifestyles and political results. Examples of societies running on what we think of as "feminine" social behavior include the Arapesh from New Guinea, studied by Margaret Mead (Sex and Temperment); the Lovedu in South Africa, studied by Ann Jones (Looking for Lovedu); the Vanatinai of New Guinea, studied by Maria Lepowsky (Beyond the Second Sex); and the Minangkabau from West Sumatra, Indonesia, studied by Peggy Sanday (Women at the Center: Life in a Modern Matriarchy). Except for Western imperialists driving these people out of their own land and trying to ruin their good thing, these societies seem to have hit upon Utopia.
I also say this because research has shown that there are physiological differences between the female brain and the male brain due to hormones effecting physical development, the difference being that women's brains have more synapses between the lobes, enabling thought in multiple areas of the brain in a small amount of time, where men's brains have less synapses between the lobes and their brain activity remains concentrated in one area for a long amount of time,(Christine de Lacoste-Utamsing, 1982). This indicates an ability in women to consider the effects of their decisions on everyone and everything involved, considering the consequences in the long term on themselves and others. This has been confirmed by studies on the learning styles of female high-school students, where it was found that women relate to information when it is presented in the context of the big picture, when it is shown to be useful in human relationships and beneficial to society, and when it is taught in a calm and cooperative classroom environment, in stark contrast to male students' learning styles, (National Coalition of Girls' Schools, 1993), (Pierce, 1998), (Zohar, 2005).
So, it seems to be a tendency towards social and spiritual values and long-term insight that sets female culture apart from male culture, a difference which might be partially innate but greatly enhanced by lopsided social conditioning of these behaviors in girls.
For more information on female-style thinking, see Girls' Education in Mathematics and Science
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Just wanted to let you know that you have a great blog going on here, where you share your personal insights and very interesting material.
But I have to rip apart your argument about the virtues of female leadership. As you have written yourself before, men actually prefer environments that are more aggressive and hostile than most women want to be in. Younger men in many cases actually want to experience extremely hostile environments, including armed conflicts. And a female leadership style in such environments is not very appropriate.
And this destructive, competitive and aggressive side of our human nature is natural and it will always be here to stay. It cannot be done away with, and if suppressed, it will find its way out in some form or another. And it has its virtues, as well...
But back to the argument, if you now look at successful female leaders of our Imperialist Western society, you will not find anything Utopian or very feminine in their leadership styles (e.g. Victoria, Elizabeth, Katherine the Great, Thatcher, Mekrel, ...). And societies that at some time have switched to this soft leadership style have failed.
But women definitely bring in social values into politics and government. Actually there were studies that showed that without a significant presence of women, government will ignore critical social issues such as primary education, medical care, child care, elder care, etc.
So hopefully we will have a more reasonable gender composition in the leadership of our societies than we have today.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this essay. However, it is important to see the difference between leading people and fighting them. Leadership and force are not synonymous.
Men may excel and thrive under the discipline and direction a woman gives them, which gives them structure and a sense of social belonging, but no one can force them to take that direction.
Leadership only happens when there are social participants to lead.
People who seek to annihilate others and fight potential intimacy with them are not looking to be led, they are looking to isolate themselves from people by abusing others and challenging others to abuse them, which comes in handy if someone wants a quick way to isolate themselves from their own feelings. Such behavior is a form of escapism, wanting to deny one's own need or want for anything or anyone, and therefore denial of their own vulnerability.
No one can prove to them that they are vulnerable and want to comply with others to gain the benefits of relationship, nor would anyone want to. They must do that for themselves.
Female leadership is for those who do want productive interaction with others, and particularly with women. And men want proof of strength from a leader; they only follow those who are admirable to them for their superior strength.
But physical force is not the strength that impresses men the most in the end. It is a person who inspires them, and inspires others, to do things that turn out to be the right and noble thing to do, and makes it enjoyable in the meantime, who demonstrates the most impressive strength. That's what women can do, and men's respect for that lasts much longer than for acts of hostile, bullying leadership.
And, by the way, there are also women who have chosen hostile and aggressive environments and lives, including women who killed many many men in combat, and apparently enjoyed it. Women like the "battalion of death" in the 1917 Russian Revolution, or the many who dressed as male soldiers to fight in European and American wars, like Catalina de Eranso/Alonso Diaz Ramirez de Guzman in the Spanish army, the British soldier and medical superintendent-general Dr. James Barry, Phoebe Hessel (Eng.), Hannah Snell(Eng.), Mary Anne Talbot(Eng.), Deborah Sampson/Robert Shurtleff in the American Revolution, and another hundred and twenty-seven other documented women who fought in the American Civil War in male disguise, not including the undocumented ones. And then there is the murderous outlaw Grace O'Malley, leading an all male crew who sailed an entire fleet of ships. And that is only a list from Western Civilization.
But aggression towards others is their choice, not a female or male thing.
Female leadership in government, as well as in interpersonal relationships, does not necessarily require aggression. In fact, in instances of political leadership women’s ability to direct their society seems to arise from male financial and physical dependency on women because of women's abilities and skills over and above men.
I refer to societies like the Tchambuli from New Guinea, the !Kung! from the Kalahari Desert in Africa, the Abipones from the Gran Chaco in Argentina, and the Iroquois from North America. These societies are referred to as "matrifocal", as the roles of men in the tribe revolve around the activities and decisions of women, and men's roles in those societies can be revoked by women if the women collectively decide to do so.
These are only some documented examples of societies where women "dominate", although they do so quite gracefully towards their subjects, and this doesn't even include the societies where women and men rule equally and independent of each other, such as the Igbo of Southern Nigeria, the Eastern Cree (N.Amer.), the Ojibwa(N.Amer.), the Menomini (N.Amer.), and the Vanatinai of New Guinea.
Most of these societies have been disbanded by the phenomenon of colonialism, which also disbanded patrifocal societies, or those led by men. Colonialism utilized forced subjugation of others to lead social groups. They used slaughter to eliminate rebellion from them. Matrifocal societies used inclusion of others in their benefits to inspire social groups to follow, and they used withdrawal of their benefits to veto rebellion. Both matrifocal societies and colonial powers have been toppled by more aggressive powers, so neither of them was immune to ending. The question, however, is which one of them would you prefer to live in?
Sources:
Holland, Barbara. 2001. They Went Whistling: Women Wayfarers, Warriors, Runaways, and Renegades.
Mead, Margaret. 1935. Sex & Temperament in Three Primitive Societies.
Sanday, Peggy R. 1981. Female Power and Male Dominance: on the origins of sexual inequality.
Sanday, Peggy R. and Goodenough, Ruth G. 1990. Beyond the Second Sex.
So essentially you're saying girls are smarter and superior than boys in many ways? That in itself could be an argument for female control of men.
-J
I'm not sure which leadership style is more effective. If you have any data to support one or the other, I'd be interested to see it, Ms Christina.
Personally though, I'd prefer a society based on feminine principles. I think masculine styles of leadership and male aggression definitely serves a purpose, but if it is the primary force driving any society, I think it tends to serve it's own needs and can become destructive. You don't get leaders, you get conquerors.
I have read a little about the Iroquois people and how the women appoint and remove men from tribal councils. I think this is an interesting idea which seems like it might provide balance to a society. It allows women to collectively set the directives for the council to pursue, and allow the men to set about achieving these aims in whatever ways they deem necessary. I'm not sure if that's how it works but it seems like that's the way it is.
The poster from-another-world, brings up an interesting point about feminine led societies being over run by more aggressive societies. It does seem to be true, even though I do realize that even male led societies do get conquered as well.
However, the most powerful nations are conquesting nations. It makes me wonder if it is even possible to sustain a society based on softer principles, as much as I would like to live in such a society.
I think the challenge is to lead a society that is based on feminine principles but still be able to defend yourself very ruthlessly, if need be. Keeping that aggression in check so that it doesn't start to prey on other civilizations or those in your own society may be a tough balance to strike but I think it is an ideal to strive for.
-Patrick
I do think more and more households are being led by women. Women are overtaking men in school and in business. Their greater self-discipline, self-control,social and organizational skills allow them to achieve more success and financial rewards in their careers. Women are innately more intelligent and mature than men. Companies recognize the benefits of having female managers and leaders directing their business activities. Women can be authoritarian when they have to be, but their style of leadership is more diplomatic and consensus building. They seem more willing to listen to views that are different from their own. I believe that women will soon be earning more than the vast majority of men. Men will become dependent on women financially. Women will put their husbands and boyfriends on budgets and control their spending. They will make all or most of the financial decisions in the relationship. Men will be forced to rely on women for their physical needs like food, shelter, and entertainment. Is that what you mean when you say men are physically dependent on women, Ms. Chiristina, or do you mean for sexual pleasure? Men will serve and obey women and support them in their careers. Fulfilling a woman's emotional and sexual needs first will become a priority for most men. It is happening now and will increase at a faster rate. Many men are happy in their new role. For others it will be quite an adjustment, but I think it is inevitable.
Yes, female leadership in the home is common. Even in patriarchal societies where men are given more public privilege than women, women often enjoy decision-making power in their households without men in the family feeling threatened. However, men and women need to acknowledge this authority on a public level for matriarchy to be more widely accepted. We need to call out individuals who are in denial regarding women's leadership of society, and call them out publicly. Feminist women should be calling out anti-feminist women, and Pro-Feminist / Pro-Matriarchy men should be calling out anti-Matriarchy men.
I think there are many female managers and leaders in business and government, Ms. Christina. You can't get any more public than that. I do think there is a double standard for an aggressive career woman who may be labeled as bossy or even bitchy. I also agree with you that female led relationships should be accepted as mainstream by both men and women. Who is to judge what works best for any particular couple. I say that if both people are happy then more power to them. I think I read somewhere that female led relationships have a higher success rate than male led ones. It really isn't anybody's business.
While it's true there are many women working as leaders, in full view of the public, it does not mean that they are being acknowledged for their authoritative contributions and counsel by the men and women in that public.
What I said was that "men and women need to acknowledge this authority on a public level for matriarchy to be more widely accepted".
For example, the discrepancy in numbers between female managers/politicians and male ones in this society is not a reflection of women's lack of interest in or preparedness for those roles; As even recently witnessed, it is a reflection of this public's readiness to dismiss a woman's abundant qualifications for a leadership role in favor of a male candidate with far fewer political qualifications, as well as their unwillingness to subject this male candidate to the same criticisms that were being leveled at the female candidate.
This is a patriarchal society, and with that come male-favoring double standards that defy logic of every kind. As other articles in this blog elaborate on, women in this society are not given credit for even half of all their accomplishments, though all the world relies on them. "Mothers and Daughters of Invention" anyone?
However, if you men out there who love to "worship" women actually worship them by actually, verbally, countering this male-favoring bias in logic - in workplace discussions, locker rooms, and random "all-male" group discussions - then maybe the women-ignorers in this society would no longer be under the impression that all you other men out there agree with their double-standard logic. Maybe they would realize that a lot of men "out there" actually respect and admire and want to emulate Oprah, or Serena Williams, or Golda Meir, Angela Merkel, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Mother Jones...
And what if a woman isn't beyond scrutiny? Women in power often cannot afford to be the pristine Virgin Mary you are told they ought to be, otherwise they wouldn't be able to get anything done and no one would take them seriously. So Seriously, everyone. Grow some balls and stick up, publicly, in front of other men, for the women leaders who take care of business and have more qualifications than you do.
It is not surprising to me that the majority of white men voted for Trump. What is surprising is that the majority of white women also voted for him. I don't understand why women would vote for such a chauvinistic, mysogynistic man to be their President. Ms. Clinton would have done much more to benefit women in their careers. Why didn't more women vote to have a female President? I think she has more integrity than Trump and like you said, definitely more political experience. It is true that men need to acknowledge women's authority and superior leadership skills publicly, but women need to support women who are trying to obtain leadership positions. I voted for Ms. Clinton, not because she was a woman or a Democrat, but because she was the better candidate.
I publicly acknowledge that you are more intelligent and wiser than me, Ms. Christina. That is why I seek your counsel. You have more qualifications than I do and should receive a higher salary than me. You would be an excellent manager and I would enjoy working for you. It is only right that I submit to your authority and give you the utmost respect. I admire you and all the women you mentioned who make society better for women and men. Your advice is always correct even though it may take me a little time to understand and follow. Thank you, Ms. Christina.
My Dearest Frank,
I will answer you in a new post.
-Ms. Black
Thank you for clearing up my confusion about this, Ms. Christina. You are so smart. You brought up a very important point. One that I hadn't thought about before. For matriarchy to to happen, husbands and fathers must set the example for their daughters and sons. He must acknowledge his wife as the leader of the relationship and follow her direction. He must obey her decisions and serve his wife and daughters to the best of his abilities. The husband must encourage and support his wife and daughters in all their endeavors so that their confidence and leadership skills continue to grow. A child forms her outlook and behavior very early. As she becomes an adult she will seek out a man who will treat her as her father treated her Mother. The matriarchal cycle will repeat and grow. The same is true for the son. He will look for a woman to be the leader in his marriage. You are an amazing woman, Ms. Christina. I don't know what I would do without your guidance. I think about you all the time.
This is correct, Frank.
Post a Comment