Are women in power different to men?

I doubt it.

I think it's more likely that because all people in power have to be pretty ruthless, and because it's so much harder for women to get to the top, the chances are that those who do are more ruthless than the rest of us.

I doubt it too. Power undoubtedly corrupts some people, but I don’t think gender comes into it. In my own experience, the best (and most selfless) boss I had was a woman, so was the worst, who was one of the most self-absorbed people I ever had the misfortune to meet. The first definitely had a ruthless streak, but she came out fighting for other people, not for her own benefit.

I doubt it three,power takes precedent over compassion 😥

Thanks maybe I'm just a bit depressed by the women I see promoting divisive and discriminatory policies just now. But perhaps that's because men think it sounds more acceptable when a woman says it. It seems to be a feature of modern politics.

No I don't think so. I don't think sex has anything to do with the corrupting influence of power. I'd tend to agree with Doodledog that the struggle for women to get to the top means only the most focussed will make it. Those that do will be astutely aware that they will be judged much more than any male. Maybe that contributes to those that adopt more male type attitudes? Rosie Duffield is a very woman orientated MP, and receives huge abuse and lies about her.

I agree with Doodledog and Rosie. Showing a ‘soft’ and compassionate nature won’t cut it for a woman in politics. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t have those characteristics in her makeup but they are well hidden.

The good female top politicians are to my mind at least more likely to remember that political decisions have an impact on ordinary men and women.

Men, even the best leaders, tend to focuse more on politics for the sake of politics and economy for the sake of economy.

However, as women now are playing a greater part in politics, at least in the west than formerly, it is not only the best that rise to power.

Presumably there are plenty of bad women in politics or there will be if we live to see as many, or more women in politics as men.

I suppose I'm thinking back to women in politics who if they didn't quite get to the very highest posts brought to the jobs they did different ways of doing things. Women like Mo Mowlam and Barbara Castle, both of whom rejected the usual ways of negotiating and did it their own way. And I struggle to find women politicians today who don't just do as men do.

I don't think that a woman in power, particularly in politics, can afford to operate much differently than her male counterpart if she wants to survive there. Whether we like it or not, the political arena remains highly patriarchal, and often operates via the "old boy" or "old school tie" network, both of which options tend to exclude women. So a woman doesn't only have to work incredibly hard to even get there, but having attained power, finds it much more challenging to stay there. Yes, we are seeing more women in politics now.. some good, some not so good, and unfortunately it is the "not so good" who are usually zeroed in on for "what can you expect" gender-based bigotry. Funny how the same doesn't apply to male incompetents... So some progress is being made, but we still have a very long way to go until the playing field is truly level.

Doodledog

I doubt it.

I think it's more likely that because all people in power have to be pretty ruthless, and because it's so much harder for women to get to the top, the chances are that those who do are more ruthless than the rest of us.

Agreed.

I also believe personality plays a large part. Some people are aggressive, ego driven, assertive, and some are not - in all professions. Perhaps 'alpha personalities' regardless of gender?

Look to Olga Maitland. She was an incredible MP and compassionate.

I think everyone acts the same. Women have always offered this soft focus of a more caring sex, because they saw, that the best way forward was to weaponise their weakness - and very successfully they have done it.

The Tricoteuse sitting beside the guillotine cheering the aristos to their deaths. Female (and male) carers in court for unforgivable cruelty to their learning disabled or elderly charges, women guards matched the male guards cruelty for cruelty in the concentration camps.

I have worked, for kind, and thoughtful man who went on to run a major company and for and with deeply unpleasant women, who also reached senior posts

The only difference is marginally acculturisation.

I am not sure why you would think this, the differences between men and women in terms of characteristics are quite marginal, there is some evidence of womens focus being more towards people rather than things, and another characteristic that I cant remember, but they are marginal differences. The differences in types of crime and rate of who commits them are clear but not sure that has much relevance here.

NanaDana

I don't think that a woman in power, particularly in politics, can afford to operate much differently than her male counterpart if she wants to survive there. Whether we like it or not, the political arena remains highly patriarchal, and often operates via the "old boy" or "old school tie" network, both of which options tend to exclude women. So a woman doesn't only have to work incredibly hard to even get there, but having attained power, finds it much more challenging to stay there. Yes, we are seeing more women in politics now.. some good, some not so good, and unfortunately it is the "not so good" who are usually zeroed in on for "what can you expect" gender-based bigotry. Funny how the same doesn't apply to male incompetents... So some progress is being made, but we still have a very long way to go until the playing field is truly level.

Yes, I think I agree. I have always felt that to some extent many women politicians who made it "big" have had to "behave like men". Not that we are "soft", but because we bring insights and concerns - and sometimes, better "listening" into areas where these were previously not highlighted enough.

Galaxy essentially I see no difference.

I spent most of my working life in a male environment, including managing departments with men working for me. I do not think my management style was based on my gender, more on my personality and the result I wanted and the best way of getting it.

Women had to fight for equality

But women are no worse and no better than men. Different in some ways I suppose, my experience of women has highlighted to me that they often fight with words rather than fists

I've been exposed to many abusive women in my lifetime and women can be capable of great harm

It's not what we want to hear is it really? We want to think of ourselves as better because we had to fight for our rights and that fight was just

But women can be cruel, lack empathy, be narcissistic, selfish, vain and enjoy hurting others

Positions of power often attract the opposite of what we need

I think people who "get to the top" of any profession share certain characteristics regardless of gender, they recognise what is needed to succeed and know how to play the game. So when I see female politicians behaving the same as their male counterparts, it tells me more about what is acceptable behaviour than how women and men behave and politics is a pretty vile place (sadly).

Thanks foxie48 that has made me think about things and I suppose the question I am asking as well is ,"Is it possible for women to change the way politics works?" There is evidence that a more negotiating style of working can produce better results. So could things become better if there were more women in politics who subscribed to such ideas, or are we stuck with the system we've got because regardless of gender it attracts people who strive for power in combative ways?

We have what is basically an adversarial system, which doesn't allow for much by way of negotiation. If someone is persuaded to a different POV they are accused of U turns.

Maybe we could change that, but it's difficult to know how. I was once part of a co-op set up to run a business/service, and it was a bloody nightmare. Constitutionally, everything had to be agreed by every member before we could do anything, and it made progress painfully slow. As it was a service, the idea was that no one person could dominate, as so often happens, but it would not work as a way to run a country.

Politics involves a lot of communication and negotiation and much of what happens at every level is the result of the use of soft skills.

Unfortunately negotiations and agreements make poor news, so media reports will always report the bust ups and the noisy aggressive news.

As they say, you shouldn't beleiveeverything your read in the papers, or rather you should read more of what is in the papers, because they will often publish the nitty gritty and tiny details that you will never find on online or broadcast news.

I genuinely think the only way we improve politics in general is for everyone to stop treating it like football and supporting a "team" no matter how badly they play.

On every level we should vote for the candidate that has proven themselves a decent person, who actually fulfills the expectations we need, like dedication to the area they are running in, listening to the needs of the community, communicates well, is honest, understands culture and is dedicated to the job and not side hustles.

If we prioritise the sort of people we want in politics eventually parties will have to restructure

VioletSky

I genuinely think the only way we improve politics in general is for everyone to stop treating it like football and supporting a "team" no matter how badly they play.

On every level we should vote for the candidate that has proven themselves a decent person, who actually fulfills the expectations we need, like dedication to the area they are running in, listening to the needs of the community, communicates well, is honest, understands culture and is dedicated to the job and not side hustles.

If we prioritise the sort of people we want in politics eventually parties will have to restructure

Well I for one would be screwed if I took that approach.

Locally our MP is very good on issues concerning their patch on a national level they are probably part of the ERG…

Agreed, GG. We need to look at the bigger picture.

I'm not keen on my MP, but vote for him so that there is a greater chance of getting the Tories out and the Labour government that I think will benefit the country as a whole.

GG Are you suggesting one should vote for a good honest person who means well and works hard for the constuency, even we profoundly disagree with every policy they espouse?

I am sorry i really could not do that, as it could mean i was voting for someone, who in my opinion, could destroy the country and plunge it into economic collapse and poverty or even war.