What if women ruled the world???

Women throughout history have represented a paradox. We exemplify both the strength and weaknesses of the world. It's hard to imagine what the world would be like if women ruled it in the same way that men has throughout history because well that's never happened and it may never happen, because when men dominating everything is not exactly what we're after.  Today, we're speaking more of gender equality and equity. But it's no secret that for thousands of years, we have in fact been living in a man's world. This is evident in the establishment of some of the world's oldest institutions religion, business government, the military and education. All of these institutions were predominantly established maintained and managed by well men.

The few women who managed to crack these glass ceilings in art history Cisco and complex contemporary times. Some even referred to their own Anatomy as an innate burden. Elizabeth, the first for example famously said “I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman but I have the heart and stomach of a king and a king of England”.  In Greek mythology, the Amazons referred to as warrior women were ever-present and Athena the goddess of warfare was also an important character. Perhaps the most famous historical female warrior in the Western world is Joan of Arc. A French girl of peasant origin her fame comes from her successes and battles. But the inspiration she gives to many individuals including women's originates and her perseverance as a young female.

 

Moving further back into history, Cleopatra, the last Egyptian Pharaoh, was once used as an example of why women weren't fit to rule, viewed as a fallen vain woman obsessed with wealth beauty and love. She was referred to as the harlot Queen by Roman historians. But today, historians look back on her legacy, not as a tragic love stick damsel and distress, but as a much-loved feminist Queen. In his play, Antony and Cleopatra Shakespeare portrayed a complex heroine, both strong and insecure. Yet as so often she is placed in the context of the writers’ time and her full power isn't quite realized. Elizabeth the first, remains one of the most successful and powerful reigning monarchs and all of English history. Her forces defeated two Spanish Armada and Paige England home invasion. She reinstated Protestantism and forged an England that was a strong and independent nation. But she didn't quite fight for women's right and in fact, she didn't even believe women should be in a powerful position politically. Joanna Carrick, writer of Progress, believes, she was unarguably brilliant, but in a modern context was extremely sexist, anti-woman in many ways. Although today we made you her as a feminist icon, she wouldn't have viewed herself that way.

 

The situation for women in Elizabethan times was one of understood and accepted subservient to men. Particularly among the upper classes, this has often been cited as a reason that Elizabeth the first, never married, without a husband she was only the servant to God. Interestingly enough, Elizabeth rather hypocritical views regarding women in society are replicated by another, British woman Margaret Thatcher. Although she was the first female prime minister in Britain, she appointed mostly men to her cabinet and didn't necessarily promote women's rights either. Despite throng the protesters with Molotov cocktails and British streets from 1878 until 1979, she never wavered! “I have only one thing to say, u-turn if you want, to the lady's, not for turning”. Her legacy was a complex one. She booted the Argentinians out of the Falklands and eventually signed the Anglo-Irish agreement, curbing years of bloodshed. She also solidified respect from global leaders as a tough actor against socialism. But she led a dismantling campaign of government oversight and eventually marginalized most, younger voters. Did she view herself as a feminist icon??? Definitely not. Lord heard, a close ally once said Margaret Thatcher was a pioneering woman with no time for a feminist.

 

Benazir Bhutto, Prime Minister of the Wommack Republic of Pakistan, has been labeled, particularly by the West, as an imperfect feminist. As the first democratically elected woman to lead a Muslim nation, she was embraced as an outlier, destined to challenge societal norms in the southeastern region. Her pedestal would break slightly, however after being ousted in 1996 due to corruption charges. Her assassination in 2007, would solidify her legacy as one of a saint or mystic hero. But that's too simplified the reality of her time in Pakistani politics. Arguably, she ruled over a kleptocracy, supported the Taliban rise to power in Afghanistan, and failed to challenge the notorious hoo dude ordinances, which govern the lives of Pakistan's women. Only once she was out of office, as she publicly challenged many of the components holding Pakistani women back. Nonetheless, she was brave, strong-willed and an icon for many women in the region.

 

Today, there are many Canadian women who are proving the future will be, if not ruled by women, a more equal world where women play their part in society on par with men. Canadian icon Roberta Bondar for example, became the country's first female astronaut and the first neurologist in space in 1985. Then, she has continued to inspire women, here and abroad, with her many pursuits in business, the arts, photography and science. More recently, Colonel Ginni Carrigan, became the first Canadian woman, in the combat arms race, to be promoted to the rank of Brigadier General, earning the title of chief of staff of army operations. A mother of four, Carrigan and has defied the stereotypes and is using her position expertise, and to help recruit women to combat roles, in the Canadian Army. Carrigan's name will be etched along other pioneering Canadian women such as Nellie McClung, justice Bertha Wilson, Kenna Jack, Asheavec and Viola Desmond.

 

What do all of these women have in common?? Well, they were all known as tough unwavering strategic and creative thinkers, did they bring complete peace to their respective countries and push an agenda solely of social good and well-being. Well no, and should we have expected them to. They each led to the elevation of women in a man's world in their own right.

 

Sometimes we don't need perfect, we just need something, someone to challenge the system in their own way.

 

Einstein once asked Freud why war??? Freud replied, “Because man is, what he is”. On average, women have shown time and time again from Northern Ireland to Srilanka, but they can help the peacemaking process, rebuild communities, bridge divides, mobilized coalitions, stand up to tyranny and serve when duty calls. But would the world be a peaceful utopia, if roles were reversed and women dominated instead of men?? Well…. not exactly. Most analysts agree that the world would be better and in fact has gotten better because women's participation, in all aspects of society has increased. But it wouldn't be perfect. Because, at the end of the day, man is what he is. Well…Freud said that when women weren't even a thought in the context of war and conflict. So let's amend that statement to fit a modern-day context. Why war??? Because we are what we are.

 

There are two key things we must remember when talking about gender and government, as well as peace and security. Not all women are the same and thus we shouldn't be treated as one hegemonic bloc of perspective and/or experience. And number two, only we, working with all genders can make a difference. Because whether we like it or not, we all live on this earth, therefore solutions to its most grave problems must come from collaboration and cooperation, which on average women are better up.

 

Until we can create a woman only colony on Venus, we're stuck here on earth together. So as Lady Thatcher would say,

let's get on with it.