A Better World, Run by Women

[question everything]

By Melvin Konner

Hillary Clinton seems to be preparing to run for president, and the former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina may yet enter the race on the Republican side. Whoever wins the White House in 2016, today it seems easily possible that within the next decade, the U.S. will follow Britain, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, India, Israel, Thailand, Norway and dozens of other countries in electing a woman to our most powerful office.

Can we predict the consequences? Yes, we can—and the news is good.

Research has found that women are superior to men in most ways that will count in the future, and it isn’t just a matter of culture or upbringing—although both play their roles. It is also biology and the aspects of thought and feeling shaped by biology. It is because of chromosomes, genes, hormones and brain circuits. And no, by this I don’t mean what was meant by patronizing men who proclaimed the superiority of women in the benighted past—that women are lofty, spiritual creatures who must be left out of the bustle and fray of competitive life, business, politics and war, so that they can instill character in the next generation. I mean something like the opposite of that.

(snip)

Testosterone goes to the brain in late prenatal life and prepares the hypothalamus and amygdala for a lifetime of physical aggression and a kind of sexual drive that is detached from affection and throws caution to the winds. (I know, not all men, but way too many.) By contrast, almost all women, protected from that hormonal assault, have brains that take care of business without this kind of distracting and destructive delirium.

Our own species hasn’t always suffered from male supremacy. Among our hunter-gatherer ancestors, living in small, mobile communities, group decisions were made face to face, among men and women who knew each other intimately. Men tried to dominate, but it wasn’t easy. They could show off by hunting, but war, that universal booster of male status, wasn’t common. This changed when hunter-gatherers settled in larger, denser populations. Such cultures could have nobles, commoners and slaves, and they made war often. Men became more aloof from families, and women increasingly became the objects of male strife.

(snip)

But the most important factor has been technology, which has made men’s physical strength and martial prowess increasingly obsolete. Male muscle has been replaced to a large extent by machines and robots. Today, women operate fighter jets and attack helicopters, deploying more lethal force than any Roman gladiator or Shogun warrior could dream of.

As women come to hold more power and public authority, will they become just like men? I don’t think so. Show me a male brain, and I will show you a bulging amygdala—the brain’s center of fear and violence—densely dotted with testosterone receptors. Women lack the biological tripwires that lead men to react to small threats with exaggerated violence and to sexual temptation with recklessness.

(snip)

In a 2006 study, political scientist Lynne Weikart and her colleagues surveyed 120 mayors—65 women and 55 men—in comparable cities of over 30,000. Women mayors were far more likely to alter the budget process and seek broad participation. Perhaps it is time for us to consider returning to the hunter-gatherer rules that prevailed for 90% of human history: women and men working at their jobs, sharing, talking, listening and tending children. Men didn’t strongly dominate because they couldn’t; women’s voices were always there, speaking truth to male power every night around the fire. There was violence, and it was mainly male, but it was mostly random, accident more than ideology.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-better-world-run-by-women-1425657910

Dr. Konner is a professor in the department of anthropology and the program in neuroscience and behavioral biology at Emory University. This essay is adapted from his new book, “Women After All: Sex, Evolution and the End of Male Supremacy.”

[Bonobo]

1. What a disgusting piece of trash. nt

[sabrina 1]

41. You can say that again. Aside from being trash, it is historically proven to be WRONG.

But it's from Murdoch's propaganda machine so what else could be expected?

[BainsBane]

57. I'd love to see this "historical proof"

There are so many examples to draw from after all. Go on. Provide your evidence and sources to support your claim.

BTW, next time you want to dismiss an article without reading it, have a glance at the byline. I'll await your proof that the discipline of anthropology has been taken over by Murdoch. The idea that the right is engaged in some nefarious plot to end white male supremacy has got to be one of the most nonsensical ideas I have ever seen.

[Bonobo]

60. Suddenly you are a fan of evo-psych.

I can't STOP laughing!

[BainsBane]

69. Keep laughing at whatever narrative you have going in your head

Because clearly it has no bearing on anything I've said.

[woolldog]

2. can we get rid of the dumb misandry on this site.

This is garbage.

[question everything]

29. Who are "we?"

Are you now the official authority on what should and should not be posted on DU? Seems that I missed that announcement.

I found it interesting.

[sabrina 1]

42. Count me in also. It is from a Murdoch publication so I didn't expect much to begin with.

But just looking at history, women have equaled men in both horrendously bad, murderous leaders AND the opposite.

It's hard to know where to begin to point out all the errors, but then I think it probably was designed to create division, so it's best ignored imo.

[question everything]

48. Will you consider the ThinkProgress publication? See post #36

But, hey, ignore all the time. Living in a bubble of groupthink is so much easier.

Who needs critical thinking?

X says A and X is baaad so A is baaad.

[sabrina 1]

49. I read this OP and it contradicts historical facts.

I also think it's sexist to assume that, eg, 'women don't lie', or 'women are not warmongers' etc. That is an attempt to 'protect' women from all the 'sins' of the opposite sex.

The truth is that women do lie, they can be as violent as men especially when they are in positions of power.

Maybe the discussion should be about the kind of PEOPLE, men/women who seek power in the first place.

The argument made in the OP also ignores that fact that men are capable of being good leaders as history also shows.

[ND-Dem]

52. women lie all the time and they may not be as physically violent as men but they are violent

and support violence of various kinds often.

and don't get me started on power.

[sabrina 1]

55. Yes, give them an army to control, and like many of the men who had the same

'issues' they will use it. See Elizabeth 1 eg, and so many other women leaders throughout history. Being a woman never stopped a Queen from sending her army to destroy a perceived enemy, in order to increase her power.

[ND-Dem]

51. "I think it probably was designed to create division" = like most 'progressive' BS these days.

[sabrina 1]

53. Yes, I find it insulting as a woman actually, because it's obviously aimed at women voters

who the author appears to think, are easily flattered. All you have to do is to tell them how great women are, and they will all rush to the polls to vote for a woman.

I'd like to think we are not all that easily flattered. That when facts contradict flattery, we are capable of seeing that.

[ND-Dem]

59. I think most women know how cruel their own sex can be. Nothing worse than junior high school

and high school girls for cruelty, senseless cruelty. Particularly the "leaders".

[Warren DeMontague]

96. The WSJ has been on a troll-roll this past couple months.

This aint nothing. You should see how they pissed off the Deadheads.

[woolldog]

45. Everyone with a conscience.

[BainsBane]

71. The scourge of misandry

Only in this case, no woman has yet gotten a taste of the ice cream, but the very idea one might causes outrage.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Except in this case, the OP is suggesting that one group of people is biologically better suited to

run things, than another.

If you replaced the better suited and more ill suited groups, respectively, with pretty much anyone except "women" and "men", I'll bet dollars to donuts you wouldn't be okay with this article being posted on DU.

[Skittles]

3. the best world would be run by men and women EQUALLY

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Hardly.

The best world would be run by me. Fucking A. Simple as that. And with the job I should get a scepter, and a really comfy chair.

Y'all would figure out pretty damn quick that I know what's best fer ye.



But, barring that somewhat..... unlikely eventuality, sure--- what you said.

[Skittles]

20. I WOULD KICK SCEPTER-SPORTING WARREN DEMONTAGUE ASS

YES INDEED

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Yowch!

"Hey, that hurts! I thought that thing was just a cardboard prop!"

[TreasonousBastard]

4. It's often been proposed that women have an evolutionary bias toward...

conciliation and agreement while men tend to be more independent and aggressive.

That may in part be true, but the women who participate in politics may not be that "typical" and the winners even less so.

Margaret Thatcher, anyone? Queen Elizabeth 1?

At any rate, yes, we should promote women toward more power if for no other reason than they should have the chance to show that they can't fuck up the place any more than the men have.

[question everything]

30. From the above that I did not include

- cannot post the whole article -

All wars are boyish. People point to Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir as evidence that women, too, can be warlike. But these women were perched atop all-male hierarchies confronting other hypermasculine political pyramids, and they were masculinized as they fought their way to the top.

[closeupready]

31. Pop psych gibberish. "Iron Lady", to the extent it was factually based,

showed no 'masculinization' of Margaret Thatcher as she fought her way to the top.

To the contrary, the trailer made a point of showing that Thatcher refused, point blank, to dispense with 'the pearls', despite her handlers telling her that pearls would present the wrong image.

[LanternWaste]

70. I like to label things "Pop psych gibberish" in place of anything objective on my part too...

I like to label things "Pop psych gibberish" in place of anything objective on my part too... helps me feel more clever than I really am.

Good to know I'm not the only one who employs that particular bit of preening self-validation.

[closeupready]

73. There's no data presented, it's just a theory he's promoting as fact. You're certainly free

to snipe at other members of DU, if that's your thing, but if that's what you're on about, I'm done with you.

Cheers.

[closeupready]

75. lol, looking at your favorite forum, I get it now.

[sabrina 1]

43. Margaret Thatcher was a warmongering moron. She didn't need any 'boys' to egg her on.

And please, stop trying to 'help' women out with excuses. Women are AS CAPABLE of being bloodthirsty as men. I find it hugey condescending to try to excuse these horrible warmongers simply because they are women.

History is filled with warmongers, women and men.

What we actually need are peope, men or women, who don't need to show 'how tough they are', who are not so emotionally challenged, that they need to bully others.

Bullying is as prevalent among women as among men And it seems to me those are the kinds of people who tend to want to have power, both men and women

When that changes, and the dangerous bullies are sidelined, then we have a chance of a better world.

[ND-Dem]

58. "those are the kinds of people who tend to want to have power" = yes. and are generally

willing to run others down to get it. sometimes with a smile, but they'll still run you down.

[Orrex]

78. Hmm.

All wars are boyish. People point to Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir as evidence that women, too, can be warlike. But these women were perched atop all-male hierarchies confronting other hypermasculine political pyramids, and they were masculinized as they fought their way to the top.

On the one hand, that basically renders the premiss non-falsifiable: "Governments run by men are warlike, and if women run warlike governments, it's because men made them that way." Convenient.

On the other hand, if it's true that women succeed in that arena by becoming "masculinized as they fought their way to the top" (a bit of circular reasoning that's insulting both to women and to men, by the way), then why wouldn't that equally describe those Fortune 500 companies that prosper under female leadership? Why would the explanation apply only to aggressive, warlike governments and not to aggressive, competitive businesses?

[question everything]

81. While some may disagree, corporations do not, yet, declare wars

that result in many killed, injured, displaced, etc.

And the criteria for an efficient leader is different between political and corporate leaders.

Also, times have changed. The examples, above are from the 70s and 80s.

The story about the CEOs is from last summer.

In the 80s women were told to "dress for success" wearing a skirt suit - no pant suits then - and the floppy bow tie to replace men's ties.

The premise of the original story was, I think, to level the playing field. After all, many of us are glad that there are more women in Congress, compared to the 80s. And we all are glad that there are more women CEO's and scientists and governors and mayors. And when one looks at the data in general, one can draw a conclusion.

[Orrex]

84. Different conclusions are possible.

Of the companies out-performing the stock market, what was the state of their fiscal health prior to the woman's tenure as CEO? Was it tanking? Holding steady? On the upswing?

Did other personnel changes occur at high levels that contributed to their solid performance? Did a new CFO come on board during that time and make a big, positive splash?

Did longterm projects/plans/deals/mergers come to fruition during the woman's tenure as CEO?

Did the company outperform the stock market due to insightful top-down management or, for example, by firing 10,000 employees?

What was the overall state of the respective industries? How did similar companies in the industry (rather than industries in the stock market as a whole) perform during the same period?

None of these questions assumes that women aren't responsible for the improved performance, of course--they simply point out that the CEO isn't the only reason for every good quarter, whether the CEO is a woman or a man. In other words, the issue is more complex then checking off a list of strong-performing companies and seeing which ones are helmed by women, and I'm not sure that the HuffPo article addresses this adequately.

Further, the comparison between governments and corporations doesn't assume that corporations can declare war, either. Thatcher is invariably described as having been "masculinized," and therefore her aggressive, warlike nature isn't representative of women in government. That's frankly misogynistic, because it means that she succeeded because she acted like a man and therefore doesn't "count" as a woman.

Why, then, should we conclude that a powerful women in the corporate world succeeds because she acted unlike a man? That's self-serving, circular reasoning.

The bottom line is that I'm not convinced women have some inherent quality that makes them better CEOs, nor am I convinced that the provided evidence supports that conclusion. If nothing else, we must bear in mind that women are still grossly under-represented at the top levels of the corporate world. It's therefore possible that we're seeing a non-representative sample of the group of all potential women CEOs, studying only those top performers who've had the drive, opportunity, and good fortune to overcome the barriers keeping women generally out of those positions. How does the HuffPo article account for this possibility?

[2banon]

32. Indeed, the thought of HRC representing the first Woman president makes me violently ill.

I used to think that it would be the greatest thing ever for the benefit of the world if a Woman occupied the white house.

However, the past 15 years has shattered that naive notion. Women in this country have to prove (apparently) that they're more hawkish and blood thirsty then their male counterparts (who are far too blood thirsty as it is) in order to be deemed "electable".

Sorry, but this article is about propping up support for HRC and I would "unrec" this op if it were possible.

[haele]

44. I actually think we are just socially-biased to internalize our aggression.

Ever see a dysfunctional family dynamic?
There are women out there taking their frustration, rage and aggression out on their SOs and children in passive-aggressiveness. There are women who are addicted to victimhood, jealousy, or being a queen-bee, as "drama" gives them a feeling of control, even if it would end up killing them or messing up their children. There are women who take as much satisfied glee over feasting on the remains of their "enemies" as a man would. There are women who actively search for ways they can express power. Adrenaline is a drug that knows no gender.
While women have less testosterone than men do when they're younger, estrogen is just as powerful a hormone when its pumping through us. Estrogen is not all about giggles and flowers and bon-bons you know...it's a primary component of our drive to seek out mates.

Humans may be herd creatures, but we are far closer to Chimps and Bonobos then we would like to admit. Women can hunt as well as nurture. Which means women perfectly capable of hurting as well as comforting.

Haele

[Matariki]

5. Flamebait

Any article that reads "Research has found that 'x persons' are superior to 'other persons'" isn't worth the pixels it's made of. Flamebait.

[Yavin4]

6. Simple rebuttal: Margaret Thatcher n/t

[IDemo]

24. And - Fiorina's reign at HP n/t

[DonCoquixote]

7. as mucyh as I do want to see women in power

I do not want the Thatchers, Merkels, or Le Pens.

[underahedgerow]

8. I have no problem with this article, it's facts and evidence. I have no problem with firmly

believing that in most cases, females are more likely to make better choices than males. In fact, aside from physical strength, there are few cases laying much evidence to male superiority. Sure, it's all bright, shiny and pretty to demand that 'men and women are equal', but clearly this isn't the case. Men and women SHOULD be equal in the eyes of the law, religion and earnings parity, absolutely, but it's in these cases, where males dominate the professions and actions where women are far from equal.

Several years ago while heading up an entrepreneurial adventure that was seeking funding through investment funds, I came across a fund that focused on staking women-run ventures. In my first round interview I asked them why they focused on women-run ventures and was told that their research and algorithms showed that start ups & businesses owned and run by women were far more successful than male owned ventures, hence that's where they wanted to invest.

When I look at the overwhelming global evidence of male vulnerability in aspects such as crime, violence, wars, murders, business scandals, political scandals, legal issues and personal business, I see a common, historical pattern of men simply less likely to make the best choices.

This isn't male bashing or hatred, it's just statement of fact. If we accept this as just what it is, perhaps the next logical step is to open more doors to women being in roles of power for the simple reason that our world is a better place when women are in charge.

How can we support and empower our young women today to take more initiative in assuming leadership roles?

[TheKentuckian]

33. Sounds like the female version of Larry Summer's troubling comments from a while back.

[question everything]

36. Indeed, stating of facts. Here are more: Companies with female CEOs Beat the Stock Market

Female CEOs at the country’s biggest companies oversee financial results, on average, that beat the stock market, according to Fortune Magazine’s analysis of data from Factset Research Systems.

Fortune 1000 companies with a woman in the top role saw an average return of 103.4 percent over the women’s tenures, compared to an average 69.5 percent return for the S&P 500 stock index over the same periods.



(snip)

Other studies have found that companies run by women outperform others. Hedge funds run by women had a 6 percent return between 2007 and 2013, beating both a global hedge fund index at the stock market. And Vietnamese companies with women CEOs have tripled their gains over the past five years, nearly twice the gain made by a benchmark index.

Numerous studies have also found that companies with women on their boards of directors perform better than male-only ones. Others have hinted at why: women are more likely to be cooperative in decision-making and to consider the rights of others, which leads to better company performance, and women on boards tend to keep companies from paying more for acquiring other companies and reduce the number of acquisitions overall, which protects shareholder value.

More..

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/07/08/3457859/women-ceos-beat-stock-market/

[underahedgerow]

61. But but but but apparently it's all stuff and nonsense!!! How on earth could studies or data

POSSIBLY definitively PROVE that women are better than men at business, politics AND cleaning the house and raising children??? Heretic! Get thee to a nunnery!

[calimary]

79. Welcome to DU, underahedgerow!

Glad you're here! As you can see, there's heated discussion about a lot of stuff here. People have strong opinions. It's VERY illuminating and beneficial to be able to read and study and consider so many different takes on the issues here. I always come away just a little more educated. I suppose I would fall into the category of - hey, the men have had millennia to fuck things up. Let's give the other half of the world a chance. We've had 44 male presidents. We haven't had even ONE woman in there yet??? Forty-four to nothing? Um... there's a statistic that could certainly stand some adjustment, I think. And granted, for every Eleanor Roosevelt, there's a Margaret Thatcher, although I would suggest maybe that would be ten or 20 Eleanor Roosevelts to one Maggie. Yes. We women are just as capable of fucking things up as any man is. Being human, for one thing. But I was particularly intrigued by the passage about the different geographies of the male and female brains.

"As women come to hold more power and public authority, will they become just like men? I don’t think so. Show me a male brain, and I will show you a bulging amygdala—the brain’s center of fear and violence—densely dotted with testosterone receptors. Women lack the biological tripwires that lead men to react to small threats with exaggerated violence and to sexual temptation with recklessness."

Well, there's that science thing again... and I happen to be a believer in science as well.

[question everything]

88. Thank you. I second this welcoming

Was going to, and forgot..

And thank you for your post. I don't think that anyone is saying: down with males, let's replace all of them with females. Of course there are cooperative, conciliatory men and there are aggressive bullying women.

But we should consider putting women in charge like, yes, the White House, not because she is a woman but because she will bring a different perspective and experience.

[Kurska]

9. No one sex is biologically superior to the other

Which is exactly what this article is saying. They aren't saying it is culture, they are saying it is genetic.

Oh and having a large amygdala isn't bad, as this person claims. In fact, one of the things that defines psychopaths is they have undersized amygdalas that keep them associating anti-social actions with feeling bad.

It doesn't surprise me that the author apparently doesn't understand neuroscience she purports justifies her prejudice.

[Bonobo]

10. If I said you had a nice amygdala...

would you hold it against me?

[Kurska]

14. Oh baby

Just don't let your feelings for my amygdala be temporal.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. I knew a girl in High School named Amy G. Dala

okay, I just made that up.

[Dr. Strange]

25. Wasn't Luke and Leia's mom Queen Amygdala?

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Ah yes, the one who got together with

Mannequin Skywalker.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. doesn't sound very sanitary.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. lol

[Wella]

13. Anyone who thinks that femaies are peaceful and conciliatory forget junior high.

[Nye Bevan]

47. And has never overheard a group of female workers discussing their female boss (nt)

[Wella]

56. You know too much!

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Is evo-psych in again, now?

I can't keep up!

Anyway.... I think the wsj is trolling again.

[question everything]

77. Please read post #36, above

if things from the WSJ cause you to lose your breakfast and to use labels instead of - gasp - actually debate specific issues.

[Warren DeMontague]

90. "debate specific issues" like "testosterone is poison, men's brains are wired for fear/aggression,

and the world should be run by women"?

It's bogus, just as bogus as asserting that men are biologically superior or more well-equipped to run things.

You want to debate? Fine. Explain to me why this piece of evo-psych is okay, but if someone suggests that evolution might maybe have caused male sexuality to be, generally, wired more visually than female, man, you are guaranteed to get at least a month of shit-fits here in GD.

There's nothing to "debate".

And yes, the WSJ is trolling. You're allowed to get a free pass on posting from the WSJ? I posted a link to a blog post about a wheelchair-bound pain patient in Florida who was sentenced to 25 years in prison for managing his own pain, but the blog was at reason.com and fuck me if 3/4 of the thread didn't derail into howling shit-flinging over how reason.com is "libertarian poopy-doo koch brothers libertarian poop pooop libertarian and did we mention libertarian poooooooooooop"?


But The Wall St. Journal? ... Okay.

[question everything]

101. Posting from the WSJ

As with most newspapers, it has the editorial board and the news section. The editorial of course, would love to see the Republicans in power which is why I post when it is frustrated with the group that cannot shoot straight.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251394666

And their news section is superb. It is often the first to reveal news, one of which was the doubt about the plaintiffs that stood behind the recent appearance about the ACA before the Supreme Court last week

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141008933

Last, several years ago it published a large section of Radley Balko's book "Rise of the Warrior Cop," that chronicles the steady militarization of the police in the U.S.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023438429

It is unfortunate that many here dismiss posts and ideas based on the messenger.

As with the discussion about men and women in this thread - the idea is not that all men are bad and all women are angels, but that women have shown a better ability and have a better track record in getting people and ideas together to reach a goal.

But then, of course, many here will not vote for the nominee if she is Hillary even if it will mean losing the White House and getting the Supreme Court to tilt further to the right. But, oh, they will feel so righteous.

[Warren DeMontague]

102. The Melvin Conner piece is "news" and not "editorial"? .... Right.

It's a "life and culture" essay. That's not "news".



I also didn't realize that it was all about Hillary Clinton, but I guess these days on DU if an ant farts in Madagascar it must be About Hillary Clinton™. Funny, though, that the vast majority of the "anti" Hillary Clinton people on DU- of which I don't, actually, number myself one- seem to really want Elizabeth Warren to run, so so much for it being about Gender, I guess.



"women have shown a better ability and have a better track record in getting people and ideas together to reach a goal."- again, an asinine and as broadly generalizing assertion as suggesting that men are generally more qualified to lead. Neither group is, inherently. As others have noted, there are myriad examples of less than stellar women leaders, like M. Thatcher.

I don't have any problem with a Female President- I think it would be great, AND it's overdue- but that doesn't mean I want "A woman", or more specifically ANY woman. I don't want Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann as President, the fact that they have 2 X chromosomes would be small consolation for that level of crap-tastic leadership.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. I'm British. Don't tell me that government by women is a panacea.

The Germans - and, by extension, the Greeks, Spanish, Italians, etc - might have something to say about that too.

[Art_from_Ark]

62. I wouldn't be surprised if Angela Merkel's role model

was the Iron Lady herself.

[Oktober]

21. What an idiot...

[treestar]

23. Enough of these excuses for men

It's in their biology and they can help it. Yes they can. They can try to be better people and treat other people with equality and respect. Oh, no I can't, my biology makes it impossible. Bullshit. Is there something wrong with the biology of men who don't do it? No, they used their brains and did the right thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

98. Fie! Enough of this flim-sham flapshatterry!

I don't know what that means, but I really wanted to say it.

[guillaumeb]

26. Sounds like a perfect excuse for all my bad behaviors right here.

When Dr. Konner wrote:
Testosterone goes to the brain in late prenatal life and prepares the hypothalamus and amygdala for a lifetime of physical aggression and a kind of sexual drive that is detached from affection and throws caution to the winds. (I know, not all men, but way too many.) By contrast, almost all women, protected from that hormonal assault, have brains that take care of business without this kind of distracting and destructive delirium.

Does this mean that most males get a free pass for any violent behavior because "my hormones made me do it"? Sounds like the old canard about women not being capable of rational thought at certain times of the month.

And if aggression is explained by the "bulging amygdala", (talk about a revealing turn of phrase) does the Doctor posit that when societies turned from hunter-gatherer to agricultural that the brain somehow completely transformed in a relatively short time? Or maybe the dietary change to a more grain centered diet caused the amygdala to grow?

Also good to know that:
Research has found that women are superior to men in most ways that will count in the future, and it isn’t just a matter of culture or upbringing—although both play their roles. It is also biology and the aspects of thought and feeling shaped by biology.

Except the names Marine Le Pen, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, Madeleine Albright, Ann Coulter, and many others come to mind.

[CrispyQ]

27. I don't know about heads of state, but Mr. Wonderful thinks women make better CEOs.

Why Shark Tank's 'Mr. Wonderful' Thinks Women Make Better CEOs

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/242680

snip...

At a recent CNBC event, I spoke with Kevin O’Leary, who you may know as the shrewd and calculating entrepreneur and investor that goes by the nickname “Mr. Wonderful” on ABC’s hit TV show The Shark Tank. As we talked about investments, O’Leary revealed to me something that took me aback: “Women”, he said, “make better CEOs. All things being equal, given the choice between a woman and a man, I would pick the woman every time.”

“I’ve invested in 20 different entrepreneurial and mid-cap companies and I’ve made more money with the women executives. It’s that simple,” said O’Leary, crediting women with getting him both faster exits and higher returns.

So what, as he sees them, are the differences in the way that women approach business? “Attributes that I have observed are that they take less risk, they are more goal orientated in terms of setting targets and meeting them. If they say, ‘I am going to expand capacity or we’re going to increase distribution in the next quarter’, they deliver,” he explained. “It’s not an intuitive feeling. It’s actual hardcore results.”

Unlike the article in the OP, I don't think it's biology, but rather our culture & how we condition people, from the cradle, to behave certain ways based on sex. I think that western civilization's definition of masculinity does incalculable harm to society & individuals. Shit, if I had to live up to every fucking thing western civ says you have to do to be a "real man," I'd be a basket case.

Patriarchy is bad for both sexes.

[closeupready]

28. Nonsense.

[TheKentuckian]

34. Fiorina is evidence of a better world through women?

Brilliant lead.

Hell, the "We came, we saw, he did" lady isn't that wonderful of an example but Carly is beyond awful and highly incompetent to boot.

If that is your example then it is time to return to the drawing board.

[QC]

37. Sarah Palin? n/t

[question everything]

82. Until plucked by McCain handlers, she started as a promise of an effective goernor

She took over cronyism in the oil industry and appeared to be a fighter.

But before she had a chance to do anything, she was elected in 2006, she was thrown into the national arena and started believing in all the B.S. that was thrown at her. The fact that many Republicans are so enchanted by her relative youth - certainly more pleasant to look at than Cruz or McConnell - ensures that she will continue to coast on her image.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. you're really defending Palin's leadership abilities, now?

okay, signing off.

[NaturalHigh]

38. LOL...cool story there Melvin.

I'm supporting Hillary Clinton for president, but the article is trash.

If there were anything to it, we men would have the perfect excuse for any sort of asshole behavior - immutable biology.

[stevenleser]

39. Margaret Thatcher, Carly Fiorina, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, Kelly Ayotte, Cathy Rogers...

... Condoleeza Rice, Elaine Chao, Nikki Haley, Meg Whitman, Liz Cheney, Mary Fallin, etc.

This canard comes up every so often and it really is silly.

There is no "better gender" as far as policy is concerned. If you disagree, imagine a world run by the above women.

[underahedgerow]

67. You absolutely cannot put Mme Thatcher in the same category as those other women, not by a million

miles. Thatcher literally changed history and politics in the UK and plowed the road for other modern female leaders.

She had the tenacity to do what was needed, even if it wasn't popular. It was a 'for the good of all' stance that was required in a place as unique as the UK. She also wasn't an idiot, not like Palin, not by a long shot. She was never inflammatory or attention seeking, she was trying to do the right thing. She completely change the economic course of the UK, a nation drowning in benefits debt. I know she was a union buster and also waged that little Falklands war, but it wasn't to profiteer in any way, but again, all part of a broad vision for the greater good of the UK.

[stevenleser]

68. I absolutely can put her in in the same category, your points notwithstanding. Because...

... the OP makes the claim that electing women over men in and of itself would make the world a better place. I don't believe that electing Thatcher or the other women in my comment or any others like them would make the world a better place.

That doesn't mean that Thatcher is as ignorant as Palin, or as evil as Liz Cheney. It does mean that she and the rest will consistently leave the world a worse place than when they started in office for their efforts.

[underahedgerow]

80. I disagree. Mme Thatcher was a good leader with solid ideals and she made the UK a better place.

Much like President Obama having to do a massive, overwhelming clean up job after the bush regime left office, Thatcher had decades of mess to clean up, and she did it with an iron fist. And, she was the longest serving Prime Minister of the UK in the 20th Century. She was elected, not selected or chosen and that's because she did a good job.

We need more leaders like this, willing to take it on the chin and do what's needed, even if it's not popular. Women are routinely in this position, whether it's in the home, in business or in public office, and we're routinely better at it, we just make better choices in most aspects of life. Again it falls under the 'for the good of all, rather than for the good of a few" caption, and we are just as capable, and often more-so than men are.

[stevenleser]

83. The poor got poorer. The number of children living in poverty doubled under Thatcher

That by itself is a massive failure. The number of children in poverty almost doubled under Thatcher, from 1.7 million in 1979 to 3.3 million in 1990.

- She destroyed Britain's mining industry

- She increased the gap between the poorest and the middle class and between everyone and the wealthy

- She was unnecessarily brutal in Northern Ireland when diplomacy would have been the better option.

- Her liberalization of the markets left Britain vulnerable to economic swings and busts since her departure.

- She was anti-Union.

[Orrex]

85. On the other hand, she helped Bill O'Reilly's career in the Falklands.

[stevenleser]

86. ROLFMAO - Well played. nt

[2banon]

100. O.M.G.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. You're really trying to defend Margaret Thatcher?

Oi.

[stevenleser]

95. Yep, that person did that. nt

[elias49]

40. Isn't this the same guy that says we should all eat like cave-men?

The Paleo diet guy?
(Should have said 'cave-people')

[KoKo]

46. OFGS....Look at Policy and not judge all by Sex,Gender, LBGT Hopes

There are people across the spectrum who will do ill to their fellow humans if it puts dollars in their pocket and gives them their personal "Power Hype."

We need to look at the individual person and the issues they run on and then tally that with their former record--rather than dwelling or singling out whether Male/Female, GLBT will compel an Elected Official/Politician to be a good leader for ALL of "The People."

[ND-Dem]

50. yeah, golda meir and maggie thatcher were loverly non violent leaders.

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. More women should run for public office.

I don't know why they don't. Not because they're inherently superior but because they have a different perspective.

[raccoon]

72. Please pass me the

[Orrex]

74. My local PTA is run by women, and it's a bloodbath

Likewise any "project committee" in which I've ever participated in the workplace, etc.

The lesson is clear: women are just as capable of being territorial assholes as men.

Similarly, I can't imagine that women would screw up the world any worse than man have done.

Let's give 'em a chance!

[whatchamacallit]

76. I'm confused

Bad male behavior - social conditioning, biology, both?

[Threedifferentones]

87. Amen.

Hormonal assault? What a bunch of sexist BS.

This person was obviously never a sensitive boy who was teased over and over because he had a hard time making himself not cry when people were mean. In order to achieve this I HAD to become enraged. By the time I was old enough to realize that trying to be masculine had poisoned my psyche and replaced many of my legitimate emotions with anger, it was damn near too late to reverse course. Men who are not as reflective and as smart as myself understandably often fail to ever realize this.

This is BS masquerading as feminism and it hurts our cause.

[KamaAina]

89. My feminist mentor used to refer to "cranial testosterone poisoning".

She half-seriously proposed exiling all CTP victims to "Macho Island", with the provision that I would be allowed to stay on with the Macho Island embassy staff.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. Sort of like when people talk about Estrogen-Based Emotional Disorders and Mental Illness?

Oh, wait, that's like totally NOT okay.

[KamaAina]

92. Yes, but she was kidding.

I think.

[Warren DeMontague]

94. So am I.

Actually, if one wants to get beyond the hyperbole, it is very interesting to read the personal accounts of FTM transsexuals who have undergone testosterone therapy, for their own experiences as to what the effects were.

The accounts are pretty interesting, as here are people who can at least subjectively relate the experience of having been in both worlds, so to speak.

But those anecdotal accounts often validate many things which some people assert about things like male sexual drive, that others insist are culturally programmed or "problematic".

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

97. Don't think I'd put Carly Fiorini as an example of a world run better by women.

She screwed over Hewlett Packard (one of the most employee friendly companies ever) so badly that the board of directors anded up canning her.

[Blue_In_AK]

104. Really?

I agree that it would be beneficial to have more women in positions of authority, but I really don't think we're superior, just different.

[Monk06]

105. Speaking truth to male power around the campfire? Did you know that women were traded like pack

animals by most indigenous tribes in North America up to the nineteenth century? With the notable
exception of the Six Nations.

Don't romanticize hunter gatherer societies. They were not Matriarchies. Some were Matrilineal but not Matriarchal.

David Thomson's diary gives a good account of indigenous peoples in the North and Northwest and their treatment of women. Some were exemplary some quite brutal.

http://link.library.utoronto.ca/champlain/item_record.cfm?Idno=9_96867&lang=eng&query=9_96867&searchtype=Bibrecord&startrow=1&Limit=All