What if world leaders were female?

[Damasta]

I'm not sure that there would be any less war. Here are some personal observations (which may be skewed by my sampling bias of one [me]):

• 1. Having been a babysitter, an older brother, and a primary teacher, I've seen that little girls are just as likely as little boys to initiate a fight (the boys are more likely to win, but they both initiate with about equal frequency).
  
  2. Having been through the public school system:
  • a. Guys tend to be more accepting of others while girls are more clique-ish. This behavior on a global scale would lead to less, not more, diplomacy
    b. Guys are more likely to fight at this stage, but when girls fight it's a lot scarier. Guys punch and maybe kick. With girls, it's no holds barred—scratching, biting, hair pulling, &c. I once saw two fighting girls rip a drinking fountain off the wall.
  3. I grew up in Utah, so I wasn't really exposed to this, but since then I've served my mission in Mexico and lived in other parts of the U.S. and I've observed that most women in the world aren't as well-behaved as the women in my mother's Relief Society. Many are petty, peevish, and violent. The worst real-life act of violence I've ever witnessed was perpetrated by a woman on her husband.

So to my eyes, it could go either way. We might have less war. We might have more. Or we might have worse wars.

I assume that most or all women serving in major leadership positions would be post-menopausal, so I'll skip the clichés about monthly menstrual moodiness since they wouldn't really apply.

Also, Hugh Nibley, in his Women's Conference talk "Patriarchy and Matriarchy" suggests that a "matriarchal" society tends towards luxurious and licentious behavior (so in that sense you could argue that the U.S. is already trending towards matriarchy). Italics are mine:

The matriarchal cultures are sedentary (remember that the mother stays home either as Penelope or as the princess confined in the tower), that is, agricultural, chthonian, centering around the Earth Mother. The rites are mostly nocturnal, lunar, voluptuous, and licentious. The classic image is that of the great, rich, corrupt, age-old, and oppressive city Babylon, queen of the world, metropolis, fashion center, the super mall, the scarlet woman, the whore of all the earth, whose merchants and bankers are the oppressors of all people. Though the matriarchy makes for softness and decay, beneath the gentle or beguiling or glittering exterior is the fierce toughness, cunning, and ambition of Miss Piggy, Becky Sharp, or Scarlett O'Hara.

Babylon (which Brother Nibley identifies as matriarchal in spite of its being ruled by a king) certainly wasn't pacifist. On a side note, the book/movie Fight Club explores the idea that Western culture is tending towards more violence and sexuality because so many men today were raised by single mothers. Make of it what you will.

Now, to do justice, Brother Nibley also has some harsh criticism for patriarchal societies:

The patriarchal order lends itself to equally impressive abuses. It is nomadic. The hero is the wandering Odysseus or knight errant, the miles gloriosus, the pirate, condottiere, the free enterpriser—not the farmer tied to wife and soil, but the hunter and soldier out for adventure, glory, and loot; not the city, but the golden horde, the feralis exercitus that sweeps down upon the soft and sedentary cultures of the coast and the river valley. Its gods are sky gods with the raging sun at their head. Its depradations are not by decay but by fire and sword. As predatory and greedy as the matriarchy, it cumulates its wealth not by unquestioned immemorial custom but by sacred and self-serving laws. The perennial routine calls for the patriarchal tribes of the mountains and the steppes to overrun the wealthy and corrupt cities of the plain only to be absorbed and corrupted by them in turn, so that what we end up with in the long run is the worst of both cultures.

This duality of matriarchy vs. patriarchy is at the heart of many of societies ills. Because they are constantly pitted against each other, as Brother Nibley says, we end up with the worst of both, swinging back and forth in a cycle similar to the Nephite pride cycle. Instead, the true pattern for ruling and societal culture is the blending of both male and female impulses. In the Church, this pattern is known as the Patriarchal Order of the Priesthood. Don't let the name throw you. There's not a focus on maintaining men in power; there's a focus on the family—men and women ruling together (1 Corinthians 11:11).

So with women in all the major world leadership positions, we might have less war, but other things would get worse. The best system (which seems to be what we're headed towards) is one where men and women share power.

[Darth Fedora]

It seems awfully silly to me to say things like "women are this way" and "men are this way." When you try to apply any generalization to groups containing billions of people, it just doesn't work. There are enough exceptions to any rule you could try to apply that the rule becomes pointless.
I don't know, I guess population statistics are interesting to look at, but they really mean absolutely nothing when it comes down to the individual. And since we mostly deal with individuals, having these ideas about what "most women" or "most students" are generally like is useless.
Questions like this one are dumb because they rely on generalizations of a number of characteristics for populations, which are usually not true for the individual. And since individuals, not populations, run governments, what is the point of relying on generalizations?

[Whistler]

On a side note, the book/movie Fight Club explores the idea that Western culture is tending towards more violence and sexuality because so many men today were raised by single mothers. Make of it what you will.

Wait, what? I've only seen the movie, but I don't recall this as a point.

[Foreman]

On a side note, the book/movie Fight Club explores the idea that Western culture is tending towards more violence and sexuality because so many men today were raised by single mothers. Make of it what you will.

Wait, what? I've only seen the movie, but I don't recall this as a point.

I wouldn't exactly call it a central theme, but the movie is definitely cynical toward the "absentee men, raised by women" culture:


Tyler Durden: If you could fight anyone, who would you fight?
Narrator: I'd fight my boss, prob'ly.
Tyler Durden: Really.
Narrator: Yeah, why, who would you fight?
Tyler Durden: I'd fight my dad.
Narrator: I don't know my dad. I mean, I know him, but... he left when I was like six years old. Married this other woman, had some other kids. He like did this every six years, he goes to a new city and starts a new family.
Tyler Durden: F***er's setting up franchises.

...

Tyler Durden: My dad never went to college, so it was real important that I go.
Narrator: Sounds familiar.
Tyler Durden: So I graduate, I call him up long distance, I say "Dad, now what?" He says, "Get a job."
Narrator: Same here.
Tyler Durden: Now I'm 25, make my yearly call again. I say Dad, "Now what?" He says, "I don't know, get married."
Narrator: I can't get married, I'm a 30 year old boy.
Tyler Durden: We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Man, what a great movie.

[Damasta]

I wouldn't exactly call it a central theme, but the movie is definitely cynical toward the "absentee men, raised by women" culture.

Yeah, the idea is much more prominent in the book. The movie is more focused on homoerotic overtones and imbuing Tyler with Messianic symbolism. And, yes, it is a great movie.