Chapter Two: How women can take over

So how women can gain political power despite the fact that they are far less ruthless and ambitious than men and what they might do with that power to benefit the world.

First we have to look at the question of whether it is inevitable that men will always be the dominant sex.  Steven Goldberg argues powerfully for this in his book, "The Inevitability of Patriarchy".  His reasoning largely focuses on hormones. Men naturally have more testosterone than women. This hormone not only makes men physically stronger than women, but also makes them more aggressive and competitive. Goldberg claims this competitive behaviour will always make men strive harder than most women to gain the high-status roles available in any society. He concludes that men will always outnumber women in most positions of power. To be fair, this is the situation in our world today, and has always been the case throughout recorded history.

The depressing aspect of this thesis is that it indirectly suggests that the most aggressive and competitive people will always rule our societies. There is no way out. War will remain the normal way to settle disputes between countries. Throughout history many leaders have thought nothing of invading other countries and if successful, they are celebrated as “great” leaders. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan and Napoleon are well-known examples. The fact that these 'great ' men have caused the deaths of millions of people doesn’t seem to be a problem. We live in a world that worships winners. Had Hitler won the Second World War he would now be considered a great leader simply because his supporters would be writing history.

War and Empire building is seen as so “normal” that only a minority of people seem to question its insanity. Nor do we seem to notice very much that we live in an unfair world where according to the World Bank, over 1 billion people live in conditions of extreme poverty and where there are between 15-20 million starvation- related deaths every year. This is justified because we live in a competitive world of winners and losers. It’s OK to ignore those who live in dire poverty or starve to death because after all they are only “losers” and somehow deserve their fate.

Steven Goldberg may well be right in his views. He explains very clearly why the world is like it is and offers no alternatives. But human beings are supposed to be intelligent animals and not completely controlled by their basic instincts.  If we were to use our intellect to think things through, we would have to ask the question. “do we truly want to live in a competitive world of conflict, war and poverty?  If the answer is “no” then we need to consider how we can change our world for the better

Although men have created a world dominated by conflict, many thinkers have been dissatisfied with this. Many different religious and political systems have been tried in the quest for a fairer, less violent world.  Most of these schemes have failed except perhaps for democracy.  The reason for its success is that an unpopular government can be voted out of power rather than being overthrown through violent revolution.  If we look at the past, bloody revolutions generally fail to bring about better government, because the successful leaders of such a revolution are almost always men of violence.  The military skills needed to defeat the government’s army are not the skills you need to successfully rule a country.  Democracy at least gives countries a chance of being ruled by peaceful men.  It also allows women to achieve positions of power.

Since the early part of the 20th century women living in democratic countries have had the vote and a small minority have even entered government.  There they've found themselves joining a boy’s club where they have to play the political game by boy’s rules.  Competition, aggression and ruthless back-stabbing is the norm. Back in the 19th century, when the Suffragettes were campaigning for the vote, men told them it was unreasonable to allow women to have political power, because they are too emotional, sentimental and weak to make the tough sensible decisions men can. If we look at the male leaders of the 20th century we can see that they have made many hard choices, but it's arguable whether these choices were entirely rational.  Two World Wars, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by nuclear bombs and the terrifying threat of nuclear war hardly comes into the category of 'sensible'.

The criticism of female politicians as too weak and indecisive existed right through the 20th century.  To a certain extent this was disproved between 1979 and 1990 when Margaret Thatcher was the first British female Prime Minister.  She was called “The Iron Lady” largely because she was even more ruthless and Machiavellian than most male politicians.  

She showed that if a female politician wanted to be a success within a patriarchal political party, she had to act, think and behave like a man. If she had shown herself to be a nurturing and compassionate woman then she would have lost respect in the patriarchal political world and soon been ousted from power. It seems that in order to be successful politically, women have to eradicate what is seen by men as weakness, but is in actual fact their strength; their care and concern for others.

Politicians are not popular with the general public. In many democratic countries it's hard to get people to exercise their right to vote. The reason for this is, as one cynic pointed out. “it doesn’t matter who you vote for, you still end up with a politician”.   As a result, many people choose politicians not because they believe they will do any good, but perhaps because they will do the least harm.  

They have little faith that politicians can create a better world for us all.  We keep on voting for male politicians because we seem to have no other choice and anyway, few people think that voting for female politicians, is any better. They seem just as bad as male politicians because they act very much like men. Having suffered under the macho rule of Margaret Thatcher for eleven years, Britain lost its appetite for female leaders and has shown no desire to repeat the experiment. It went back to white middle-aged men in suits and breathed a sigh of relief.

Female politicians throw away a big advantage when they behave like men.  Male politicians can't promise to make our world a better place and overcome problems like war and poverty, because they have clearly failed to do this time and time again.  All they can deliver is more of the same, whereas, females, if they created a matriarchal political party, could give us a far better future. Within such a party they can behave like nurturing women instead of substitute males. There are two ways this can be achieved.  Women can either, take control of existing patriarchal political parties and turn them into matriarchal ones, or they can start their own matriarchal political party.  Both options are difficult but not impossible. Some countries already have a high proportion of females in government and are used to being led by women. This can spread to other countries if women are encouraged and supported into politics by a female-friendly political system. It's a big step, but we could do it if we chose to.

The advantage for women of starting their own matriarchal political party is that they won't have to compete with patriarchal men for power within their own organisation. They can relax and be true to their own nature. To begin with, they will probably not be very successful. The propaganda that says women are too soft and kind to be good leaders is deep-rooted in society, despite notable exceptions. For a matriarchal political party to achieve power, the voting public has to be educated into seeing that a) men have made a mess of the world and b) women will do it better. It may take a long time to do this, because people fear change.

They are still looking for a strong, decisive man who will make all their problems go away even though they know that such a demi-god doesn't exist and never will. Matriarchal women will also have to convince the public they will behave in a responsible way once they are in power. They will need to explain that changes will be made slowly and carefully.  If and when they do achieve power, they must avoid alienating any sections of society, concentrate on being very good administrators and gently turn the country from patriarchy to matriarchy over a long period of time. A great deal of patience is required.

Surprisingly, a matriarchal political party will not just attract female voters. Many men will vote for it as well, while there will be women who oppose it.  This is because patriarchal and matriarchal attitudes are found in both sexes. Some of the strongest supporters of patriarchy are women and yet many more men than women advocate matriarchy.  Why would that be? Surely men want to be ruled by their own sex and have a chance at power themselves?

It's true for many men of course, but there are millions who hate the fact that we live in a hierarchical society, where you have to claw your way to the top by standing on the heads of your competitors, then watch your back for the rest of your life as younger men come up behind you to steal your throne. Only a few men are winners. Most find themselves bullied and ordered around by other men, who have no interest in their welfare. The prospect of being governed by women who actually care what happens to people can be very attractive.

A number of women who are opposed to matriarchy are feminists, who believe in sexual equality.  Although they think it’s wrong for men to dominate women and rule the world, they claim it would be equally wrong for women to do the same.  There's a problem with this. In a government or political party where there are roughly the same numbers of men and women, there is nothing to stop men competing fiercely with women for power. As we know, they are very good at this.  In this situation, women have the choice of allowing men to  appropriate the most important jobs in government, or becoming as competitive and ruthless as men, like  many of today’s female politicians,

Women cannot dominate the world in the same way men have done.  Historically, men have ruled countries through force and violence, and used their male armies to conquer other countries.  Women have never done this.  At no time in history has an army of Amazon warriors sought to conquer the world. There has been no female Hitler.  It is equally unlikely that a matriarchal government will rule as a dictatorship and retain power by using an army of young men who kill or torture anyone who opposes the government’s rule.  Most women are too caring and empathetic to follow such a course.

So matriarchal women would find it impossible to impose their rule by violence and intimidation, as men often do. They can only succeed by democratic means. If the people are dissatisfied with their rule, they can be voted out of power. This means a matriarchal political party has to prove to the public that it can govern a country better than male-dominated ones. Considering men’s record in ruling our world, this may not be too difficult.  Although women find it hard to be as competitive and ruthless as men, men find it equally tough to be nurturing and caring. Once the public experience a maternal and compassionate matriarchal government, many of them will become very reluctant to go back to being ruled by selfish ambitious males.

It has to be admitted that not all governments are democratic. Some countries are ruled by dictators in one form or another; some are hardly ruled at all and are the battleground for violent warlords. How can these countries become matriarchal?  We believe that once we have even one successful matriarchal government, knowledge of this will seep out to patriarchal dictatorships.  In the past oppressive governments could easily control the media in their countries, but the growth of the Internet has made this almost impossible. The people in these countries will see the huge contrast between how they are living and how it is in a matriarchal country, and will begin to demand the same for themselves.  

A patriarchal dictatorship can only respond to public unrest with even greater oppression, which fans the flame of desire for change and often leads to bloody civil war.  Usually, this only means swapping one set of violent men for another lot who are just as bad, but if the reason for the upheaval is the desire for matriarchal government, it can be a different story. The new leaders can renege on their promises and move to patriarchal business as usual, but if the desire for real change is strong enough, more revolutions will follow until that change happens. The presence of just a few Matriarchal governments can begin to destabilize all patriarchal governments on the planet just as the desire for democracy has slowly spread to countries oppressed by violent, repressive rulers. Eventually, and this may take a long, long, time, we will come to see that being governed by intelligent, compassionate and nurturing women is a whole lot more sensible than letting men carry on creating havoc and suffering to feed their selfish need for power and status. It's a no-brainer, really.