• NOVEMBER 23, 2009
DISPATCH PRINT  |   TEXT SIZE        |  EMAIL  |  SINGLE PAGE

Good Riddance

Why macho had to go.

BY VALERIE HUDSON | JULY/AUG 2009

Men's behavior at home also has global implications. Our own research suggests that states with a high level of physical security for women score higher on peacefulness and compliance with international norms. In fact, the physical security of women within a state turned out to be a better predictor of that state's peaceful international conduct than levels of democracy and wealth. Our research also suggests the inverse conclusion—that states within which women are more at risk of violence at the hands of men also tend to be the most internationally aggressive and defiant of rules and norms. In short, reduce violent inequality between men and women, and you reduce domination and aggression in society as a whole.

The answer is not to hand over ultimate power to women. But there is good reason to think that collective decision-making between men and women is the way to go. Women (in the aggregate at least) tend to be less confident than males, more risk-averse, less aggressive, more empathetic, less absorbed in competition, and more interested in consensual decision-making. There is an evolutionary reason for this, too: Women since the dawn of time have had to cope with the predispositions of men. Women tend to be more risk-averse than men because they usually live with men who accept risk and even seek it out. Women tend to be less confident than men because they usually live with men who are overconfident. Because of this balancing effect, better decisions might be made if men and women were making them together.

And wouldn't you know it: Recent research has shown that when both males and females make decisions together, all participants are more satisfied with the outcome than when it is the product of all-male groups. Furthermore, researchers have found that mixed decision-making groups are less risk acceptant than all-male groups, and that non-zero-sum outcomes are more likely. Additional studies have shown that levels of corruption in government are lower when more women are involved. Real gender equality, entailing a meaningful sharing of power within society, may thus be a prerequisite for optimal and rational policymaking, whether for households, countries, or the international community. The booms may not be as explosive, but then again, the busts may not be either.

It used to be said that behind every great man is a great woman. Maybe the scoundrels, hooligans, Genghis Khans, derivatives traders, and debt-securitizers could use a few great women, too—for the sake of the rest of us, if nothing else.

PREVIOUS 12
Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.

iStockphoto.com

 

Valerie Hudson is professor of political science at Brigham Young University.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Facebook|Twitter|Digg
  • The Al Qaeda Diaries

  • Boring Summits Are Better for Everyone

  • D.C.'s New Game: Who's Paying Your Pundit?

  • Lowering the Bar: The ABA's Ties to Despots

 (1)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

SORENLERBY

4:29 PM ET

July 20, 2009

A glimpse into workd ruled by women

Ummm. At the risk of other arm meeting blender, I have to say yes, or emphatic yes, given that;

Men are responsible for all great inventions (think computers, lights, telephones, cars)
Men are responsible for all the social and economic development.
Men are responsible for all the great liberal (if you are liberal) and conservative ideas (if you are conservative), such as freedom, liberty, etc.

Maybe the better way to approach this issue is what would today’s world look like if risk-aversing, over-emphasizing women are in charge of the world since circa 2,000B.C.

We would still think that the world is flat- no, not that Freedman’s World is Flat but the earth (given women’s poor special recognition capacity), we mostly live on subsistent farming (women are good at nurturing-including plants), no electric lights, telephones, cars (Mr. Edison, Bell, Ford had to help housework and rear child as dictated by matriarchs-scientific experiment and inventions are uniquely male concepts and in fact a male privilege that were made possible by sacrifice of female labour).
We don’t fight and go to wars, in fact there is no such thing as weapons – remember women don’t fight with other people (????), nor do they hunt animals, as they have too much empathy to kill animals – and therefore no army or military. By the way, no military means there would be inventions that originated in military and later turned to wide public use, such as internet, etc.

And yes, there would be no huge oil spilling in the Ocean (as Michael Moore lampooned men in his book aptly titled “Stupid white men) –because women will not (or are not able to) build a large ship (women are not good engineers), nor operate a ship (not a good operator-again it requires special recognition ability), nor travel across ocean (no risk-taking please, that’s’ for Neandelthaal men), nor make use of oil, build internal combustion engine, build a oil drilling, and so on.

Well some of you may say there are a plenty of women who work in these business and capable of doing it, and even some assume senior positions in the field. First of all, yes there are plenty of them, but they only studied in these disciplines - that were developed by men and taught by men. This is entirely different story than finding, inventing and developing from these from the scratch. And second, yes, there are some women who has senior position in these fields. Has anyone ever heard of “affirmative action? Anyone?

So , in a world ruled by women since 2,000BC, you are basically living in a world that looked exactly like 2,00 0years ago. no lights, no internet, no supermarket, or department store, etc. I understand that some people, (especially on the far Left) embrace this kind of world as their idealized world.

 
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. Karzai's Cronies
  2. Planet Slum
  3. The Terrorists Among Us
  4. Falling Like It's 1989
  5. The Al Qaeda Diaries
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. Edward Burtynsky's Oil
  2. Think Again: God
  3. Bolivia's Lithium-Powered Future
  4. Planet Slum
  5. Plague: A New Thriller of the Coming Pandemic
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. Reality Check: The Hajj
  2. Lowering the Bar
  3. Karzai's Cronies
  4. Is There a Palin Doctrine?
  5. A Boatload of Trouble
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. The President, the Professor, and the Wide Receiver
  2. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
  3. Is There a Palin Doctrine?
  4. The Terrorists Among Us
  5. The Only Hope Left?
  • THE CABLE

    Is anyone in charge of India policy?

    BY JOSH ROGIN

  • NET EFFECT

    Why are people creating Facebook profiles for Holocaust victims?

    BY EVGENY MOROZOV

  • PASSPORT

    North Africa's escalating soccer war

    BY JOSHUA KEATING

  • ARGUMENT

    How the Chinese media covered Obama's visit

    BY WILLIAM MOSS

  • SMALL WARS

    The U.S. and Pakistan are heading for a bad breakup

    BY ROBERT HADDICK

  • DANIEL DREZNER

    Time's not-so-shocking Obamaland expose

  • BEST DEFENSE

    What would George Marshall think of today's generals?

    BY THOMAS E. RICKS

  • SHADOW GOVT.

    What does containing North Korea actually mean?

    BY JAMIE FLY



  • 1. Aligning on Afghanistan? President Obama and PM Brown Turn Focus on Exit Strategy
  • 2. R.I.P.: Russia to Continue Ban on the Death Penalty
  • 3. All for One: Jailed Fatah Leader Implores Palestinian Unity
  • 4. Global Warming Time Out: Stagnating Temperatures Baffle Climate Experts
 See All Photo Essays
  • Planet slum: From Nairobi to Caracas, Mumbai, and Jakarta

  • Falling Like It's 1989

November/December 2009
  • Feature

    Revolution in a Box

  • Feature

    Plague, by Robin Cook

  • Opening Gambit

    My Plan to Overthrow the Mullahs

  •  See Entire Issue

     Preview Digital Edition

  • How to amend, and not amend, the Senate health reform bill.
  • Judge David Hamilton and the fight over God's secular title.
  • Made in China—and sold there, too.
  • Murdoch's War on Google
  • Presented By:
  • Tweeting for Dollars
  • What Would the Pilgrims Say About Tofu?
  • What Would the Pilgrims Say About Tofu?
  • What Kobe, LeBron and Dwyane Owe Spencer Haywood

About FP: Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Corporate Programs | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP

Services: Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues

Subscribe to FP | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | RSS Feeds | Contact Us

FP Logo


1899 L Street NW, Suite 550 | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.