I was reading a journalist in my country who said in an interview
"Over the last twenty years, there has been a growing presence of women in politics. But, at the same time, power is evaporating from politics", he justified. I think there's a link between power and virility. Men invented power".
Power must therefore remain in the hands of men, otherwise it would be "squandered". Women "don't express power, they don't embody it, that's just the way it is. Power evaporates as soon as they arrive".
One name answers the question: Lady Margaret Thatcher.
An amazing national leader, she dominated her party and her nation's politics for over a decade and made significant and lasting changes to it. Indeed, in tandem with President Reagan in the USA, and in a different way Pope St. John Paul II, she was instrumental in winning the Cold War.
The even more interesting part of this is that, at the personal level, other than after winning the Falkland Islands War, she was never all that popular in Britain. "The Iron Lady," as she was called, lacked the amolient and calming temper that Britain had grown accustomed to in the 1950s and 60s.
Indeed, when she was opposed, it was said that she would "hand bag" her opponents. Yet she won three elections by landslide margins. In the bargain becoming greatly respected, not to say feared, around the world, especially in the USA where, unusually for a non-American, she was very well known and very popular. Indeed, more popular than in the UK itself.
At the moment, there are numerous women politicians in the USA, including the current Vice-President who, to be sure, is not especially popular and whose style comes across as cackling and incompetent. However, there have been a few - former USA Ambassador to the United Nations Organization Jeanne Kirkpatrick comes to mind - who have demonstrated that balance of moral conviction and political shrewdness that has allowed them to wield and "embody" power in politics.
So the answer is a straightforward yes. Adding that, at this populist interregnum in American and indeed Western history, the chances that women or for that matter male politicians could come to office and retain office to wield power as Lady Thatcher did is unlikely. This is a failure not of the character of the individual, but of a public that has become self-indulgent and self-pitying in equal measure.
I agree with you. What bothers me today is that we want to put women, just because they are women. And as a woman, I find that quite insulting. Because I don't want quotas for women, if a woman is chosen I want her to be chosen for her skills.
wonderfully presented. a similar obstacle in israel politics the primary election internal people vote men, despite women option who get pushed down the rank. same as the dnc primary last time. the ladies were barely supported at all. the exception is lapid who "reserved" 2 seats for lady in top 4 to guarantee the top is equal. then people accuse not democratic style, no primary voting, but this preserved the TRUE democracy values.
Absolutely agree - and almost certainly so would Lady Thatcher. However, we are in a populist phase in our politics when victimhood is the most prized status and the object of the game is to bend the power of the law and of the state to the sating of grievances.
We've been here before - see the 1960s and 70s - and came out of it. Though nothing is absolute, it is likely the pattern will repeat itself in due time.
@strateguy632 Thanks for the kind compliment. I was no aware of that as regards Israeli politics. Odd from the nation that gave the world Golda Meier. Also dangerous given the neighborhood Israel lives in. One would think that they would understand the value of meritocracy and the risks of making quotas for mediocrity.
I think a very small few can (and we have real-world examples of that), but it requires having morals and values set in granite and the strength of conviction to uphold them even when it goes against your immediate interests.
Being a politician comes at a high cost - not SO high for a fairly low-level politician, such as a mayor of a small town or a state representative - but if you get much higher than that, the costs start to really add up, and most people - and most women in particular - don't want to pay that cost. To work 60-100+ hours a week. To have raw hatred directed towards you and your family by unstable people. To deal with the deceptions and disloyalty that is rampant among politicians on all sides.
But to get to a TOP position - one of real power - the price is VERY high and the demands are crushing, and few women are up to that task and willing to take it on. It's happened, for sure, but we can name the examples because they're rare. Such leadership positions are incredibly taxing and require someone who has dealt with real adversity for a long time and has been able to maintain their morals and values through it all. Otherwise, the result is disaster (kind of like we're experiencing now under Biden).
Sounds like someone who isn't comfortable with power in the hands of women. So, this person makes it a biological difference thing. Though there are fewer women wrestling in the halls of power, the ones there want to be there and do their jobs. Does this make a woman "virile?" Nope. Just strong, because she has to toe-to-toe with the boys. Liz Cheney, Stacy Abrams, Gold Meir, Indira Ghandi and the list goes on of women who've run nations, congresses, state houses.
None of those women caused power to evaporate in their presence. They work the rooms just like the rest of the elected.
As women are won't to do in relationships with men, they bring something different to the mix and that difference is necessary and important. Different experiences enrich all working in government.
Well isn't that just the difference between men and women. A man's nature is to protect , provide and point to the right direction spiritually A woman's nature is to be a helper of the man's direction with helping building ... and here you are stating the contrary.
10.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
yes they can
i stop following this journalists logic, or even the belief that they are a journalist, when they say "men invented power". really a sex invented power?
I think men can do gravitas better than women. I saw the play Chess recently and the arbiter was played by a woman. She just didn't pull the role off as a power position frankly. Instead she seemed well... bitchy rather than ruling. I think a male actor could have played the role more easily and that a man could play a political role better.
There could be a bio-ethic reasons for this from hunters and gatherers. Rather than all the guys running forth madly chasing animals, a directed hunt would have been more successful. For a directed hunt there needs to be a huntmaster. Ditto wars. Just conjecturing.
Of the female Australian politicians I am familiar with, they seem to be more feeling oriented whereas male politicians seem more rule oriented or analytic as in if we do this, than that will result which is good/bad.
I'm not saying this is exclusively male or female. The Australian (male) Prime Minister went on a feelings based jaunt and got so worked up he cried. The Australian voters kicked his teeth in at a referendum last Saturday with a supermajority No.
The fact remains there have been quite a number of enduring women in head of gov't roles in the world. Margret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Angela Merkel.
I have watched Thatcher's speeches because she had a very dry funny wit. To me she seemed to be this is the rule or analytical. Disputes weren't personal to her. It never comes off well if it is personal cause that disembodies power.
I think female politicians need to be careful around these aspects. Conversely male politicians can need to convey more caring than they have.
This is exactly what was wrong with the actress in the play. The way it was portrayed was that it was personal to her.
Instinctually I want to respond with calling that a foolish question, however, I recognize your purpose of facilitating an important conversation. Yes, of course I think women can and do weild many varied forms and manners of power effectively. Clearly I am without reference any framework of context that the journalist you referenced may or may not have utilized, however, that comment at face value is utterly one dimensional and seems only to recognize one very limited and isolated form of amidst the near infinite forms of power's expression that exist. If he really made the comment as it's been portrayed he is an absolute idiot and has no business thinking his own thoughts without wearing a helmet so that he doesn't hurt himself in his process, nevermind informing the general public and influencing opinion.
I think the approach to gender parity in most of the world is what makes the whole thing negative.
If we equate inclusivity with having a 50/50 office of power we are essentially shrinking the pool of competent people on both sides
Meaning competent men are racing for 50 seats instead of 100 and competent women are racing for 50 seats instead of 100.
But if we stop looking at gender although and let the best man and best woman earn their place then regardless of how many women or men hold power we will have guaranteed powerful individuals made it.
The same applies to any and all movements of social inclusiviy. The only inclusivity that should matter is merit.
If you look at examples like Catherine 2nd the Great, Empress of Russia from 1762 to 1796 or a few other historic examples, that are yet to be discovered, then the answer is yes.
If you look at examples like Angela Merkel, then no.
We have a Prime Minister in my country that was too stupid to realize he was honoring a living Nazi in Parliament. To paraphrase, about all he had to say after the backlash was " Oops!" I'll take any woman in his spot right now. Any woman. I'll take a porn star as Prime Minister right now.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Women power is different than men.. and expressed differently. I mean for years, men who had power were ruthless, they would show no mercy.. women have no really shown that.. and for good reason. They are supposed to be more tender hearted.. and merciful. It’s just nature
Women already embody power in politics, especially democracies, because there are slightly more women than men in society. Expecially when people get older.
I don’t think they could operate as overtly as a man could without pissing off most men. So yes, but they’d have to be more subtle and manipulative instead of aggressive.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(45 Plus)
+1 y
Absolutely. I may be biased as my spouse is a public official, but I think the number of effective women in politics is on the increase. On the flip side, the polarization is also on the increase, making all politicians less effective.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
