Michael Eriksson
A Swede in Germany
Home » Humans » Women » Feminism | About me Impressum Contact Sitemap

Women should rule the world—or not

It is not uncommon for feminists to feel that:

"Women tend to be better communicators, better listeners, better at forming consensus," she argues. That entitles women to run the world because they do everything better than those power-hungry men, Myers believes.


While this is a quote of a commented quote (and need not accurately reflect Ms. Myers opinions), the opinion is sufficiently representative of certain feminists (in fact, many women in general) that it makes a good point of investigation.

Point for point:

  1. “...better communicators,...”: No they are not! Women tend to confuse quantity and quality; they have problems expressing their thoughts clearly; they tend to miss the facts and focus on emotions; they hear what they want to hear (respectively, what they expect to hear); many express their anger over statements they do not like, where a higher proportion of men would hold back and be diplomatic or search for a possible misunderstanding; ...

    In addition, women almost all fail in the deeper issues relating to communication, like having clear thoughts to communicate, showing mutual respect, or communicating towards a goal.

  2. “...better listeners,...”: No they are not! As stated, women hear what they want/expect to hear. Further, what others say is often an inconvenience before they themselves have the opportunity to talk again.

  3. “...better at forming consensus.”: Dubious at best—many women are so hell-bent at getting their own way through, that they just coerce the rest of the world into agreeing, rather than forming a true consensus. Others are so keen on fitting into the “clique”, being friends with everyone, or similar, that they agree because of this, rather than because they are convinced of the actual underlying matter.

    More importantly, however, consensus is bad! Consensus implies a lack of dialectic; it tends to silence dissenters, who could have made valuable contributions; it goes hand in hand with problems like groupthinkw and moral hazardw; it allows the (usually) not very bright majority to overrule those few who are intelligent and well-informed; it can lead to chain reactions where an idea that happens to have the greatest preliminary support is developed into the consensus opinion without any critical examination; ...

    A particular danger is that a situation can degenerate to the point that people pre-emptively take more and more extreme positions to ensure that they are orthodox enough, to avoid accusations of lacking in dedication, whatnot—as has been the case in some extreme religious and ideological settings where any chink in the armour of faith could give the excuse for the denunciation, demotion, and imprisonment ones competition was hoping for.

    Another is that a wish for consensus often results in artificial compromises or bartering: Say, e.g., that there are two competing ideas, at least one of which is good, but none of which sits well with the supporters of the other. Then a third, almost always second-rate, solution is constructed and chosen as a compromise. Similarly, a good idea with only partial support can often only be brought over by removing critical sub-items (a victory in name only) or by giving its opponents a trade of support for one of their ideas, money for one of their favourite projects, whatnot.

    Once again: Consensus is bad!


    Obviously, feminism and its methods is itself a very good example of just the above issues.


    Beware that the above discussion refers to “consensus for the sake of consensus”. If a consensus arises because a sufficient amount of convincing facts and arguments is presented, then this is usually good: The near consensus that the earth is approximately spherical, rather than flat, is a good thing.

    However, even in science a consensus can be a bad thing, because the results of science are at best approximations and special cases, and science must have the ability to move away from older results to newer as time goes by—and, interestingly, there are fears that the invasion of women into university research is already in the process of crippling scientific progress and debate. (In specific fields and where women’s issues are touched upon, it is an indisputable fact: There are any number of horror stories about harassment, career consequences, whatnot, against those who question the feminist dogmas.)

  4. “That entitles women to run the world...”: No it does not! There are a multitude of factors to consider—most of which tend to put women in a poor light. Consider, e.g., intelligence, rationality, maturity, ability to see side- and long-term effects of decisions, ability to resist manipulation, ...

  5. “... power-hungry men.”: It is possible that men are more power-hungry, but there are plenty enough of women with the same vice—and because the people in power tend to be selected from the power-hungry, it could be an advantage to have men around: With a greater pool of power-hungry people, the chance that there will be sufficiently many competent power-hungry people around to fill out the positions of power increases.

    Notably, the consensus issue will not in anyway prevent the power-hungry women from domination: Take a look at the average high-school, and how just a few girls end up dominating the others—not by consensus, but by a pseudo-consensus based on deferral and fear to object. The same principle holds with adult women too.

    Giving the power to people who are not power-hungry is likely an advantage; however, it is simply not realistic, be the leaders chosen from men or women, farmers or farm animals, Tsarists or Bolsheviks, ...


Lest there be any misunderstanding: The faults mentioned above are not in any way unique to women. On the contrary, they are common in men too—the hitch is that they are even more common in women, sometimes noticeably so.