OPINION: Leaders We Need, "Leaders" We Don't: A Follow-Up

[dewline]

Following up on the other day's brief link-and-comment:

From the Guardian: Are female leaders more successful at managing the coronavirus crisis? - Plenty of countries with male leaders have also done well. But few with female leaders have done badly - filed by Jon Henley and Eleanor Ainge Roy

Opinions on specific cases cited therein, anyone?

I'm of a general opinion as follows, highly oversimplified beyond a doubt by my brain: women in politics - they get the job done.

Comments

[cynthia1960]

True. There have also been horrific women leaders (Margaret Thatcher, possibly Indira Gandhi in her later years?). But by and large, the current crop of women are very competent.

[cmcmck]

I was going to mention Maggie (spits- I'm the granddaughter of colliers) having been an anguished undergrad then semi employed during that period, but that doesn't denigrate your comment about more recent female politicians.

[dewline]

Our more recent case studies - possibly with exceptions in Sweden's case? - may have taken cautionary learning from the examples set by Mmes. Thatcher and Gandhi. Possible?

[sabotabby]

I think it's a lot of different reasons, largely having to do with how robust the social safety net is, how educated and socially minded the population is, and luck (BC did better than Ontario despite some serious initial bungling to a large degree because their March Break was later than ours).

But gender in a health crisis does play a role. As cynthia1960 rightly points out, there have been horrific women leaders. A pandemic is different than an economic crisis, though; women in general are more likely to be responsible for childcare and eldercare, and are more likely to factor these in.

[autopope]

The problem isn't men vs. women, it's authoritarian paternalists vs. everyone else.

Authoritarian paternalists tend to be rules-enforcing strong father figures (yes, there are female versions: see also Margaret Thatcher, as noted) who want blind obedience and promise simple explanations and solutions for every social ill. They operate on zero-sum or negative-sum game theory: they have to win every confrontation, and for every winner there must be a loser. See also Robert Altemeyer's work on authoritarian followers -- the people who put them into power and then follow them.

The problem is that you can't "confront" a viral pandemic, any more than you can win a face-off with an earthquake or a wildfire. Reality doesn't engage in primate dominance rituals. And this is why they're so spectacularly shit at handling a crisis where there's no human being on the other side of the game board they think they're playing across.

[dewline]

Like everyone else chiming in here, Charlie, I think you have a Damned Good Point here. Several, in fact.

(Self-reminder: we definitely can't afford zero-sum thinking. Especially with multiple crises staring us all in the collective face.)

I've downloaded and tried to start reading that Altemeyer paper, per recommendations from Rob Sawyer and Dr. Brin. That's a thing I have to get back to finish reading.

And also agreed re: viral pandemics, earthquakes, wildfire, climate derangement fallout.

More as I think it over. Or, if someone else gets to a particular related thought before I do, maybe sooner.

[cynthia1960]

Nailed it in one, Charlie.