I've never actually said the world would be a better place if it were run solely by women, nor that men are responsible for everything. Men have been responsible for most of the current issues the world finds itself in, such as the war in Afghanistan and the banking crisis. This may well have happened with females in all of those jobs, we have no way of knowing.
What is clear however, is that men are currently in charge of the world, and it should be an aim of equality to have a much larger percentage of female influence in important decisions than what we have now. As I said last night, I concede there have been female leaders, and for the most part they've done a job at least equal to what the guys have. Thatcher was one of the longest reigning PM's with a large group of people who to this day say she was the best of them all. Yet since, no woman has been put into a position where we could elect her.
When President Obama became the first black president, the Civil rights groups were delighted, as I'm sure feminism was when Thatcher was elected. They see it as a glass ceiling being shattered. I am not sure how the civil rights thing will go, but no glass ceiling was shattered with Thatchers election. They gave a woman a chance, she took it, became one of the most successful Prime Ministers ever and now we are back to waiting a huge amount of years to even have another female candidate. It's as though it was a "heres a female in charge, shut up now" rather than true equality.
As I said last night, there are women in politics and they are not given the best jobs despite sometimes being the best candidate. They also are not being voted for by both politicians and the general public, partly and sometimes solely on the basis that they are female. This is fundamentally wrong.
Implementing an "affirmative action" type of plan that makes all governing bodies have 50/50 representation along gender lines (mind you, this ignores the population that does not identify as purely male or female) is not only unrealistic but unproductive.
I understand and agree with you in principle. We should be picking the best person, rather than gender having any influence at all.
However if this is the case, the balance would be fair. In this generation we may have 70% males and 30% females in top roles, given that is what the generation turned up in terms of good candidates. However the next generation could then see 80% females and 20% males. And the following 50-50.
What we have now, is the males are always the majority. Parties are happy and proud to have as little as 30% female representation and see this as a huge breakthrough.
In reality the best candidate should get the job, and if this resulted in 80% of the top politicial jobs going to women, then so be it. This will never ever happen. Politics is seen as a male dominated environment and female politicians are not judged fairly on their flaws and pluses in the same way males are. I don't think anyone is actually arguing that the system is fair and that gender does not play a role in how far you can go. It may not restrict you, like in the case of Thatcher, but she had to work harder than any male prime minister just to have the same level as respect and win votes.
My view on the Matriachal society, is if you guys feel it is fair and just for a mere handful of powerful influential females to govern our world while the rest are men, why would it not be as fair and just for the males to be the minority?