Sunday, February 5, 2012

Why Women Should (but probably won't) rule the world (2 of 2)

The successful female is genetically hazardous to her own species.

Here's an interesting question: Who runs the cameras that filmed this?
As we were discussing in the previous post, Sasha Fierce, aka Beyoncé Knowles seems to have some pretty misplaced conceptions about who runs the world. So we decided to ask the question (hypothetically), why can't women run the world? We covered the first five of what I believe to be the top ten of those reasons. In this post, I cover the top five. If you thought the previous post on this issue was a doozy, then hang on to your stockings. This one really bites.


05. They are becoming Alphas

Did you hear about the divorce of Seal and Heidi Klum? A lot of people speculated that theirs, like many others, was a relationship dominated by an Alpha Female. Seal hasn't really had a breakout hit since 1994. Heidi's star however, has continued to shine brighter and brighter, even though she is no longer a super model. The Alpha Female is now a more prominent staple of modern marriages, where the woman is the main bread winner while her beta male husband becomes a stay at home dad. So are women already ruling the world? Not really.

Why Not?

Alpha women don't necessarily number among the most educated of women, but they do number among the most successful. In simple terms, a woman with money, power (or both) will inevitably face one of two scenarios. She will either find that she no longer needs a male companion or will find that her male companion feels threatened by her success, and so the union implodes. Some alpha women opt out of having permanent relationships altogether.

The biggest challenge with the alpha woman is that she often feels that she needs to marry an alpha male. The logic of relationships is simple: Opposites attract. If you put two alphas in the same relationship, it will become a disaster. There has to be a dominant and a submissive role in a relationship. There are comparably fewer submissive males than there are dominant males. Alpha females often forget the necessity of this balancing act, bringing us back to # 8.

Alpha males will not want to put their careers on hold to become stay at home dads. Being the woman in such a relationship means that the nurture roles still belong to her. Unless she has nerves of steel (and very few alpha women have managed to pull this off successfully), she will quickly find that her ambition is competing with the requirements of her biology. Men do not have this conflict of interest. This is why nature is incapable of churning out enough alpha females to dominate the world. So long as women have a womb, it will stand in their way.

04. They have the ability to choose their mates

Women can now chose whomever they fall in love with (well, sort of). Long gone are the days of pre-arranged marriage. Long gone are the days when women had no choice about who their husbands are. Gone are the days when a woman needed a man to be successful. What this means is that women have the ability to fine tune their mate selection to the very best that the gene pool has to offer. Beta males could be at risk for naturally selected extinction. This is an ideal scenario for female domination, is it not? Well, not if you really think about it.

Why Not?

There is a slightly larger number of males than females in the world. This is due in large part to a preference for male children in the most populous parts of the world (like India and China) as families have abandoned their daughters for sons. This alone is not a deleterious threat to female domination as the number of successful females in China has increased significantly over recent years. So again, why not? Well, it really has to do with the mathematics of it all.

A higher number of males means that there will statistically be a higher number of successful men over all. But the problem doesn't stop there. The higher ratio of men not only affects women's ability to rule the world just by virtue of their higher numbers alone. These higher numbers also mean that women have more choice in males with whom to procreate and so are less likely than men to choose a partner — ultimately failing to pass on their DNA at all.

That brings us right back to reason #10. If successful women were less choosy about their male partners (and by that, I mean being dramatically inclined to prefer only the rarest type of ideal males there are), they would have a better chance of passing on their DNA to future women (provided that they have daughters). Instead, they wait so long to find an ideal male, that many successful women will inevitably run out of time as their biological clock expires.

When women were less independent and less successful, they were far more grateful for virtually any male prospect that was relatively decent (as opposed to perfect). However, today's successful women want men who are wealthy, highly educated, or unusually attractive (or masculine) — all of which are extremely rare. They consequently ignore all of the equally viable men who they prefer to keep as friends. It is the biological equivalent of holding out on driving your first car until you are rich enough to afford a Lambourghini. It makes no sense.

Besides, the fickle selectivity is mooted by other women who opt for In-vitro fertilization. You can't pick an ideal donor from a sperm bank any more than you can pick an ideal husband from the lot hanging out at the singles bar. So even if all the women who were very choosy about who to have children for were to get their Brad Pitts, their Shemar Moores and their Rick Yunes, many of the others are defeating their efforts by in-vitro fertilization. It is the genetic equivalent of playing roulette with the gene pool, despite what it says on the donors' profile.

03. Most single parents are women

The maternal instinct of a woman is powerful — so much so in fact, that it is far more likely for there to be single parent homes run by women than men. This means that women have a much greater opportunity to imprint their successful values onto her children than men do. So despite the fact that children of single parent homes are less well behaved than their normal two parent counterparts, at least, in the case of daughters, successful single mothers have a better opportunity to raise their daughters as super women of the future, right? Sadly, no.

Why Not?

Studies show that women appear to treat their sons better than their daughters. This is a phenomenon that occurs all over the world. From the ultra conservative families where sons can get away with certain types of behaviour and daughters cannot, to the more modern, liberalized families where sons are encouraged to achieve greater things than their sisters.

Even where delinquent males are more likely to originate from single parent homes run by women, most people still show an uncanny preference for their sons over their daughters. The end result is a vicious cycle of women who have been brain washed by their own mothers to be gender specific under achievers, who in turn pass on this propensity to their daughters.

02. They are being trusted with bigger decision making roles

Former US Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleeza Rice was the 2nd of 3 women to hold that position, with the first being Madeleine Albright and the third being Hillary Clinton, wife of the former President Bill Clinton.

The emergence of female CEOs and world leaders is one thing. But in any given organisation, you will find that there is an increasing number of women being entrusted with many decision making roles, even if women rarely sit at the top of the command pyramid. From multinational corporate behemoths to powerful armies, there are more women gravitating towards these roles due to their steadily increasing number of MBA pursuits. This should mean that their world domination is inevitable as they fill out middle management—but unfortunately, it's not.

Why Not?

Women make decisions using a different thought process from men. Men traditionally make decisions based on a big picture analysis of a problem. Most of the times this is done without the inclusion of the finer details of the problem and consequently, without including any of the emotional impact that the decision will cause. This means that decisions tend to come more quickly from men (especially in leadership positions) which is far more opportunistically viable.

While this can be a caveat in certain situations, it is by far the most efficient way to employ and execute world changing strategies. This is not to say that women aren't equally efficient. In fact, women are far more efficient in the use of their brains than men. But an efficiency in the use of both hemispheres of the brain doesn't equal better decision making. Here's why:

From an evolutionary standpoint, women were engineered as nurturers (which is why they have a womb) and men as hunter/gatherers (hence their slightly larger brain). The latter function relies more heavily in decision making that requires strategic and logical focus. The left hemisphere of the brain is better suited for this purpose and so men tend to use it more heavily. The result is that decisions related to stratagem (especially as it pertains to conquest and empire building) come to them much faster (if not with considerably more foolhardiness).

Because women have a far more efficient brain, their thinking process involves every aspect of a problem — including the aspects that are ultimately irrelevant. This not only slows the pace to decision making, but also increases the risk of bad decision making due to their tendency to egregiously assign weight to the aspects of the problem that should be considered irrelevant.

Consider a classic example of this manifestation on a domestic scale. Men would be willing to dismiss a lover simply because she is not as physically attractive as a newer prospect. This decision is based purely on evolutionary needs (prettier woman = prettier children) and no emotional considerations are ever tabled, since biologically, emotional needs are irrelevant. This is why men can end relationships abruptly, without any sense of remorse and move on.

A woman however, weighs the emotional value of the relationship, even if it is an abusive relationship that may ultimately threaten her very life. In fact, it is far more likely that a very attractive woman would become involved with a less attractive man than a very attractive man would become involved with a less attractive woman. This is because men, irrespective of their level of attractiveness can successfully appeal to most women via their emotional needs.

If you scale this phenomenon upwards and look at the disparity from a macroscopic level, you will consequently see why successful female leaders, CEOs and pioneers of all sorts are far rarer than successful male leaders, CEOs and pioneers. It has very little to do with gender socialization, as girls tend to outperform male students at male dominated subjects anyway.

While the traditional stereotype that women are "emotional" leaders isn't adequate enough to describe the situation, the wholesome nature of the female brain provides us with more reliable clues. The challenge here is not the woman's capacity for emotion (which while more conspicuous than a man's, is no more intense). The challenge is that a woman's brain, which, even if you factor its cognitive elasticity for male dominant functions, still comes up short in that field, because it had been originally designed by nature for a wholly different purpose.

This social/biological mismatch manifests itself in this gender disparity that we see in dominant men versus dominant women. Therefore, what we can safely conclude is that a woman's brain does not impair her ability to be just as successful as a man because of how she is inclined to think. It's just that sooner or later, the cognitive differences become an inexorable part of her essential nature as a woman. That's why we always celebrate such rarities when they occur.

That ultimately leads us to this:

01. Women collectively wield an incredible power

Sex Appeal - Every woman's single greatest weapon. (Pictured: Anna Faris)

The bond of sisterhood is a profound manifestation that will transcend even the timely bonds they have with husbands and other assorted lovers. These relationships are every woman's best hope for collective world domination. If all the world's women were to join forces, they could collectively form a sexual coup that could bend the world's men to effect global change.

I'm being serious here.

What if all the women in the world were to bind their wills together? What if the entire female population of the planet were to lock out their men from the one thing men want the most until their demands were met? What could men do about it? They can't kill them all as that would mean species suicide. They can't rape them all since other men would stop them. It would be the single most powerful plot to take over the world that could actually work. Why? Because this has actually been done before (albeit on a much smaller scale). It could work.

Now there are a number of things that could defeat this objective, but they are all based on the premise that not all women are a part of the initiative. The first suggestion is that men would seek other women to fulfil their desires. However, if this is a global sex strike, there would be no other women to have. The other premise is that homosexual men would take over the world. However, they are far too few in number to have any real noticeable effect. Besides, some would probably join the protest, locking out their masculine counterparts. So if they all participated, women really could use this to rule the world—but it wouldn't work out.

Why Not?

Because there is no honour among women. Allow me to explain: How many times have you ever heard a woman completely put down another simply because she has larger breasts, longer, straighter hair or simply because she is more attractive or talented? How many of you remember the inexplicable rally of women behind Chris Brown after he brutally beat his lover, Rihanna? I'm really using this evidence of a fairly ubiquitous female propensity to adequately demonstrate a very simple fact about the cohesiveness that barely exists between women:

There is no honour among them:

It is traditionally held that women are back stabbers of their own kin. However, this is more of a baseless stereotype. Men are no less backstabbing when the opportunity suits them. The difference is that men have a greater sense of honour when a bigger issue is at stake. This is precisely because of key differences in how men and women think (outlined in reason #2).

We saw this between the United States and Russia, who put aside their differences to end World War II in 1945 and again to end the cold war in 1990. There is the incredible story of Fritz Vincken who witnessed German and American soldiers sharing dinner one Christmas night in the middle of World War II. There is the famous cease fire of Gallipoli where Australian and Turkish armies had a 9 hour ceasefire in order to bury their dead. Perhaps most famously, was the inexplicable ceasefire in World War I, when German and British soldiers played soccer.

This is why men from around the world who are communists, socialists, conservatives, liberals, dictators, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, terrorist and pacifist alike, can all sit around a table at a global conference at the United Nations and use their collective power to rule the whole world, without their discussions spontaneously imploding into a bullet riddled small arms shoot out.

Could these things occur if women dominated the world? Probably not. There are several good reasons for this. Women don't carry the high levels of testosterone men do and so generally would not be fighting or inciting wars in the first place. However, they would fail at building political alliances on the same size and scale as men. Why? It all comes back to the way how women think: they are detail oriented thinkers — an instinct more useful for nurturing children.

However, whenever it comes to matters of camaraderie and friendship, this detailed oriented thinking (which allows them to excel as students) is detrimental to forming inseparable bonds with their fellow women folk. While women generally tend to have more friendships than men, their friendships tend to be far more fragile, as they are subject to many more parameters for success than the friendships between men. As a result, a woman is far more likely to hate her female colleagues for far more trivial reasons than a comparable male in the same scenario.

Their thought process tends to hyper inflate many of the smaller issues in a friendship, making mutual forgiveness much more difficult between women. For this reason, it is easier for men to forgive each other for sexual competition than women. Even if men are far more likely to kill each other (literally) for such territorial infractions, this is a comparatively rare occurrence. Women are less likely to maintain such friendships, often having a much higher turnover rate.

In fact, the aggressiveness of the woman is inversely proportional to the number of female friends she has. If you could dredge up the anecdotal evidence, you will find that it is not hard to remember at least one or more females who have expressed that they prefer to have male friends than female friends. This even remains the case with women who are not aggressive.

The other thing is that while men regularly compete with each other for mates, they tend to become pack hunters and will often knowingly share the same female, or rally around an alpha male in the group. Women are nowhere near this judicious. A group of female friends could be together for decades and be broken apart because of one of them commented on another's boyfriend. If women are so easily divided, how could they possibly rule the world?

This is the reason why, despite the incredible power that women collectively wield, they would never have been successful in taking over the world vis-a-vis a collaborative sexual coup, akin to the classic Greek tale of Lysistrata. Even if women somehow maintained their cohesiveness across language barriers and political divides to take over the world, the unity would last as long as it takes for just one of them to betray the others in a single act of petty aggression.

Their power strata would collapse like a deck of cards.

This is the reason why female leaders thrive best when they are surrounded by men. You will never find an effective female CEO in a multi-billion dollar conglomerate where most of the board directors are also female. You will never find an effective female world leader, president or prime minister, with a cabinet that is populated by mostly women. Women can only become powerful when they harness the camaraderie that comes naturally to men. Ergo, this means that women can only become individually powerful, which really isn't enough to rule the world.

Not by a longshot. Sorry, Beyoncé.


There are a plethora of other reasons why women don't "run the world", but I would much rather this enlightened young woman tell you all about them. Hear it from the horse's mouth:

Now after watching that cold hard dose of truth, how many of you female readers felt an instinctive sense of contempt for this woman? If you felt even a shred of disdain for her opinionated rant, then you have just demonstrated to yourself why women will never rule the world. Even if you don't number among the women who love to hate Rihanna (or Britney Spears for that matter), the mere fact that women rallied in support of Chris Brown when he physically abused her is testament to the fact that women aren't ready for world domination.

They never were, still aren't, and probably never will be.


You may not run the world, but at least you look hot pretending to.

The successful female is genetically hazardous to her own species. It's like trying to push a machine beyond its design specifications. It will certainly work, but at the expense of the machine's intended useful life. That's precisely why women will never rule the world. Such a design specification exceeds the biological design that was intended for the human female.

With that said, we will always continue to marvel at the female underdog who on a rare occasion proves that she can be just as good as her male colleagues. We will continue to see women do exceptionally well in areas that men have traditionally dominated. In fact, I look forward to the day when the United States inaugurates its first female President. Political pressures aside, it will be a profound step in raising the profile of women all over the world.

...even if it's not the same as ruling the world.

Special Thanks: My good friend Stéphanie Jevtić for her priceless contribution to this article.
E-mail: accordingtoxen[at]gmail[dot]com


  1. It'd be a little underwhelming to say "this is a good article", but that's about all I can manage after reading it. It's a solid argument, and I hope other people start commenting on it so we can get a debate rolling. I'd love to see people trying to counter-argue this.

  2. More girls tend to be born than boys when the women are in a stressful environment. Boys have a higher natural infant mortality rate. This is just on a physical basis, not on the cultural basis you speak of. You also didn't talk about the daddy's girl trend like you talked about the mommas boy tend.

    1. There is a distinct difference between the "daddy's girl" as opposed to the "momma's boy" trend though, which still adds to the strength of xen's argument. Where there are daddy's girls, these girls are normally raised by daddy always knowing that they are his princess (that his part is important), so while dad grows his child to be strong, and independent (alot of the time), he also grows her to understand that in the future she needs to find a mate who will treat her like his queen/princess, and she will therefore be subservient to another male and not be a leader.

      The momma's boy on the other hand is usually given a strong role by their single mom's, you find alot of time these momma's boys are taught to not be fooled by any women (who could possibly rule them), and have the leadership genes and knowledge of their momma's passed on to them.

      Of course this isn't a complete answer but you should get what I'm saying.