In: Economics
Scholars as well as public figures have suggested that a world run by women would, fundamentally, be a more peaceful and equal one. Ladies are tend to be more collaborative in work and leadership, more empathetic, and much, much less violent on an individual level than men. female leadership in international affairs would produce more empathy and collaboration between countries. To the extent that global problems like violence and inequality are actually failures of empathy, perhaps global gynecocracy produces a genuinely different, better world. This is because females have more sensitivity about others wellbeing. A truly matriarchal world, then, would be less prone to conflict and more conciliatory and cooperative than the one we inhabit now. In historical era queens were more likely to participate in interstate conflicts than kings were. Women are conspicuous by their absence in key political areas, and it is this lack of representation that allows male concerns to take precedence. When we consider case studies, there is evidence that details the pacifistic nature of women. The establishment of a grassroots movement by Libyan woman in an attempt to end the Libyan civil war was largely successful, and one could argue is a significant example of the more co-operative, as opposed to hierarchical, approach that women take to political action. This relationship is further supported through the observation of a strong correlation between the world’s most peaceful nations, and those which report the highest levels of sexual equality. Although one may not be able to say for certain that a higher presence of women in power roles would lead to less war, it may be possible to identify other positive effects that may emerge as a result. peace is not defined solely by the absence of war, but equally by the presence of social equality, an area which is largely considered to be given more precedence by a female leaders.