• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Are Humans Hard Wired to Prefer Men as Leaders?

S

SLD

Contributor
Joined
Feb 25, 2001
Messages
5,130
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
SLD said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
BH said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TomC said:
ZiprHead said:
6 Matriarchal Societies That Have Been Thriving With Women at the Helm for Centuries
In these communities around the globe, women oversee everything from politics, economics, and the broader social structure.
Click to expand...

"Thriving" seems like a strong word in this context. "Sufficiently isolated to avoid genocidal assimilation/destruction" seems more accurate.

Tom
Click to expand...
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.
 
BH said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd say this is true but I'd need a DeLorean to take me back 1800 years before I can.
 
Emily Lake said:
:eek:

Men start a thread with other men to discuss how much better at leadership men are than women...
Click to expand...

No. No. No! I am not arguing that men are better leaders. Not at all. I voted for Hillary. I’ve worked for many women and no issues. But I just wonder if millennia of patriarchal societies has hard wired us to prefer men over women when voting. I keep thinking of why would any woman vote for Trump. But millions did, even though he is undeniably against the interests of women’s rights.
 
Politesse said:
SLD said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

Well, unfortunately recent history has shown that democracy may not be our preferred organization. There is significant scholarly research on just this topic and some of it is reviewed here:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045

We give lip service to democracy. What we really want is order. Democracy is hard and we are lazy. It takes tolerance of other views and different people, and that’s not how we evolved over 100,000 years. As such, it may not last.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m saddened by that conclusion. I am very much a liberal, but I just don’t think that I have that much faith in my fellow man.
 
SLD said:
Emily Lake said:
:eek:

Men start a thread with other men to discuss how much better at leadership men are than women...
Click to expand...

No. No. No! I am not arguing that men are better leaders. Not at all. I voted for Hillary. I’ve worked for many women and no issues. But I just wonder if millennia of patriarchal societies has hard wired us to prefer men over women when voting. I keep thinking of why would any woman vote for Trump. But millions did, even though he is undeniably against the interests of women’s rights.
Click to expand...
Having a woman leader just has not been practical for most of the history (bearing children).
And being a leader has no benefit to woman evolutionary. She can't get more children when she is in a position of power, but man can.
 
Politesse said:
BH said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

That doesnt happen here, unless you count what happened the 6th of last month, because both sides agree to be willing to allow themselves to lose if an election does not go their way. Both sides think they have more to lose to use force to gain power than not, but in lots of societies to is the exact opposite. Election doeeesbt go your way? Oh well get a gun and take power or bribe a general and some soldiers to do it for you.
 
BH said:
Politesse said:
BH said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

That doesnt happen here, unless you count what happened the 6th of last month, because both sides agree to be willing to allow themselves to lose if an election does not go their way. Both sides think they have more to lose to use force to gain power than not, but in lots of societies to is the exact opposite. Election doeeesbt go your way? Oh well get a gun and take power or bribe a general and some soldiers to do it for you.
Click to expand...
If it's a gun battle, then gender is irrelevant. There's no difference between men and women that woud impact marksmanship. Ditto bribing officials, there's no reason a bribe would be any more effective because you are a half quarter of an inch taller than the person you are bribing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom