Page 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 201

Thread: Are Humans Hard Wired to Prefer Men as Leaders?

  1. Top | #1
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Posts
    2,986
    Archived
    4,109
    Total Posts
    7,095
    Rep Power
    79

    Are Humans Hard Wired to Prefer Men as Leaders?

    This may be more appropriate in a scientific forum, but I’ll put it here for now. But I wonder if evolution has hard wired us into accepting men as leaders and to be suspicious of women in leadership roles. It’s pretty obvious that in a democracy, voters don’t analyze the candidates positions and experience to choose the best candidate. They are more influenced by things such as looks and style, and perceptions of success. And sex. It seems to me almost undeniable. We naturally seem to favor strong male leaders. Our leaders must be virile, conquering types. For tens of thousands of years, if not longer, men have played the role of leaders in society and women have been shunted aside. Women only gained the right to vote a little more than 100 years ago. And now a lot of women vote for men who oppose their equality, and treat women horribly like Trump. But Trump is rich, and as a result a lot of women are attracted to him. Witness the infamous woman with a sign that said Trump could grab her pussy.

    So has evolution hard wired us into preferring men in leadership roles? And is this the ultimate reason that Trump beat Hillary? And of course no voter will admit that.

    Don’t get me wrong, there’s been some great women leaders in history. I wish Angela Merkel were our President! Smart, competent and down to earth. Elizabeth the first also comes to mind. Margaret Thatcher too. Perhaps worth noting that both Merkel and Thatcher though came from more conservative parties in their countries than the left. Perhaps that’s one way to rationalize their victories over men.

    Maybe it could be a difference between Republicans and Democrats thinking? I notice that there really has never been a Republican woman as a serious contender for the Presidency. There’s been one veep nominee, but it seems obvious to me that she was picked only because she was good looking. She certainly didn’t have the experience or brains to be a senior leader. But such a strategy may work to win election. Pick a good looking female running mate who accepts her subordinate role to men. But even Democrats haven’t had much to do with women nominees. HRC won in 2016, but once Sanders on the far left, showed up, she almost lost. In 2020, women didn’t fare well in the Democratic Primary.

  2. Top | #2
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    25,265
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    28,299
    Rep Power
    100
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.

  3. Top | #3
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    United States-Texas
    Posts
    825
    Archived
    2,285
    Total Posts
    3,110
    Rep Power
    57
    I think the fact men have more brute strength on average than the typical woman puts them in the leadership category. Reasoning, compromising, ect will only get you so far and sometimes it wont get you what you have to have to survive. The bottom line is you have to use brute force to get what you want. And it's not just a man vs woman issue. A man twice the size in bulk and strength will be looked at as a leader of some type by men much smaller than he is.

  4. Top | #4
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,793
    Archived
    20,351
    Total Posts
    24,144
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by BH View Post
    The bottom line is you have to use brute force to get what you want.
    OK! *Punches you in the face*.

  5. Top | #5
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,910
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    28,651
    Rep Power
    80
    Okay, but did Hillary Clinton use brute strength when she got someone to kill Vince Foster?

    I'm joking, but think about it...scientific studies show that women are more emotionally and socially intelligent (on average) and leaders delegate responsibilities to others in our modern era. That's quite a bit different than tribes from tens of thousands of years ago where there were much less tasks and specializations than today where everything is delegated.

    Having "hardwiring" to tell people to prefer male leaders was not necessary in the ancient past and it could have changed by now, if such hardwiring even existed.

  6. Top | #6
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,352
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by SLD View Post
    This may be more appropriate in a scientific forum, but I’ll put it here for now. But I wonder if evolution has hard wired us into accepting men as leaders and to be suspicious of women in leadership roles. It’s pretty obvious that in a democracy, voters don’t analyze the candidates positions and experience to choose the best candidate. They are more influenced by things such as looks and style, and perceptions of success. And sex. It seems to me almost undeniable. We naturally seem to favor strong male leaders. Our leaders must be virile, conquering types. For tens of thousands of years, if not longer, men have played the role of leaders in society and women have been shunted aside. Women only gained the right to vote a little more than 100 years ago. And now a lot of women vote for men who oppose their equality, and treat women horribly like Trump. But Trump is rich, and as a result a lot of women are attracted to him. Witness the infamous woman with a sign that said Trump could grab her pussy.

    So has evolution hard wired us into preferring men in leadership roles? And is this the ultimate reason that Trump beat Hillary? And of course no voter will admit that.

    Don’t get me wrong, there’s been some great women leaders in history. I wish Angela Merkel were our President! Smart, competent and down to earth. Elizabeth the first also comes to mind. Margaret Thatcher too. Perhaps worth noting that both Merkel and Thatcher though came from more conservative parties in their countries than the left. Perhaps that’s one way to rationalize their victories over men.

    Maybe it could be a difference between Republicans and Democrats thinking? I notice that there really has never been a Republican woman as a serious contender for the Presidency. There’s been one veep nominee, but it seems obvious to me that she was picked only because she was good looking. She certainly didn’t have the experience or brains to be a senior leader. But such a strategy may work to win election. Pick a good looking female running mate who accepts her subordinate role to men. But even Democrats haven’t had much to do with women nominees. HRC won in 2016, but once Sanders on the far left, showed up, she almost lost. In 2020, women didn’t fare well in the Democratic Primary.
    So we're just going to, what, ignore all of the stable matrilineal societies in the world? The general dominance of men in national politics is a real trend, but not an absolute. That, in and of itself, should suggest to any rational person that it is a cultural option, not a biological requirement.

    The last two thousand years of history also strongly favored monarchies in established nations, and losse family-based conferated tribal systems in the rest of the world. Do either of those facts prove that we are "hard wired" to have either monarchs or tribal confederations in charge, and that we should therefore abandon representative democracy?
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Location
    Midwestern USA
    Posts
    1,866
    Rep Power
    5
    "Thriving" seems like a strong word in this context. "Sufficiently isolated to avoid genocidal assimilation/destruction" seems more accurate.

    Tom

  8. Top | #8
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,352
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by BH View Post
    I think the fact men have more brute strength on average than the typical woman puts them in the leadership category. Reasoning, compromising, ect will only get you so far and sometimes it wont get you what you have to have to survive. The bottom line is you have to use brute force to get what you want. And it's not just a man vs woman issue. A man twice the size in bulk and strength will be looked at as a leader of some type by men much smaller than he is.
    Um.

    What was the last time a question of national politics was resolved by a physical duel between leaders? The most recent occasion I can think of offhand was in 1804, and it was resolved more by dexterity with a pistol than physical strength per se. Also did not end well even for the victor.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  9. Top | #9
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,352
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by TomC View Post
    "Thriving" seems like a strong word in this context. "Sufficiently isolated to avoid genocidal assimilation/destruction" seems more accurate.

    Tom
    Holy shit, man. Do you really think isolation is all it takes to avoid conquest by China and//or Europe? Do you actually know anything about any of these peoples? Because that is seriously not true. Mosuo stood firm against the very same devastating power that utterly scattered and subjugated their regional neighbors and cultural affines the Hmong, who themselves had been among the ancient and fearsome powers of the ancient Hunan world. That's not just luck and geography. Good leadership and prudent diplomacy played a huge role in maintaining the relative autonomy of the Mosuo social system through many successive foreign occupations. The same could be said about the Bribri, who did not survive the full onslaught of the Spanish empire that toppled nearly the rest of Central America just by coincidence and luck. Like the Mosuo, they stood firm while their immediate neighbors the Boruca were all but erased from the pages of history. Do some reading, for goddess' sake! There is no such thing as an incidental survivor of the colonial program, everyone who escaped the apocalypse of Eurasian political conquest has a hell of a story to tell, and you would do better by learning from them than by dismissing them.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  10. Top | #10
    Aethiopian Gospel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,407
    Archived
    138
    Total Posts
    1,545
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by BH View Post
    I think the fact men have more brute strength on average than the typical woman puts them in the leadership category. Reasoning, compromising, ect will only get you so far and sometimes it wont get you what you have to have to survive. The bottom line is you have to use brute force to get what you want. And it's not just a man vs woman issue. A man twice the size in bulk and strength will be looked at as a leader of some type by men much smaller than he is.
    I'd say this is true but I'd need a DeLorean to take me back 1800 years before I can.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •