I think it makes sense that in times of war or aggression societies prefer male leaders. For one, all societies choose to sacrifice their men when it comes to war. If somebody has to die or be killed, it will be a male (with all the exceptions you want). We're the expendable ones. (Won't go into the nature/ nurture debate about this.) But then, if societies view men as the natural warriors, well - you'll choose a warrior to lead you in war, right?
The second thing I'd like to comment on is regarding Estonia. I'm originally from Barcelona, but have been living in Estonia for a few years. The thing that always surprised both me and my wife is how "straight" male culture is in Estonia. We're used to BCN/ Spain where there is more divergence/ freedom in terms of male behaviors and attitudes. Here it's different. They're all like very well behaved, non-talkative, men from the 50s. I guess it's related to the previous point - Estonia is at the border of the West with 'the Barbarians', there still is compulsory military service for men, etc.
Also, prime minister Kaja Kallas is absolutely hawkish in terms of military, defense, Russia, etc. She's probably been able to stay popular by being more "mannish" than any other male leader on all these issues. She can overtake any other male leader on the right. So it's probably not about gender, but about gendered attitudes/ perceptions.
Yes, I think women may do better in patriarchal contexts if they adhere to those values, so Hilary Clinton was hawkish, Meloni champions Catholicism.
Some work in psychology points to a double bind: women are disliked if they're too mannish, because then they're unfeminine and unlikeable. So it's definitely tough and only very skilled women can be assertive leaders while remaining likeable
Yeah, I saw it! Regarding parental benefits, all comments in Spain are always "we're so backwards, fathers are so unfairly treated in this country". Speaking for myself, the best thing in my life has been being able to spend time with my kids. Upon reflecting on this, I guess it's part of how ingrained the feminist discourse is, in a way. If men and women are equal, men should be allowed to be (caring) fathers; and women should be allowed to go out and succeed in the public sphere or do whatever they want. To not allow and encourage this symetry is discrimination.
I would even suggest the right didn't win last sunday elections because they attacked feminism and gay rights - it's ok to have debates regarding the environment, taxation, immigration, national culture(s), etc, but support for women's rights and gay rights are wide-spread among conservative voters (like some PP party leader said yesterday: "a lot of conservative people didn't vote for us because they felt we were against their gay kids.")
Regarding female leaders - I don't know, I believe there is a way to be 'feminine' and show assertiveness. Being a leader is hard anyway, for anyone. But there sure are lots and lots of women who can meet all traits required for leadership: intelligence, assertiveness, charisma/ likeability, feminity, strength. Probably the fact that in politics they tend to arise more on the right-side of the political spectrum says more about left-wing politics than about women.
Oh yes, I'm not saying women are inept, just that where stereotypes about leaders and women are strong, it's hard to demonstrate both assertiveness and femininity.
Yes, 48% of Spanish people identify as feminists. It's the highest rate in Europe, I think.
So...in general I think you're right. But my perception of Theresa May, from a distance at least, is that she was pretty incompetent. So was her declining popularity after the terror attacks simply because she didn't respond the way people wanted/expected her to? Perhaps the same might be true of Arroyo? I don't think the Falklands war reduced Thatcher's popularity at all; my vague recollection is that it made her *more* popular.
It would be interesting to see the extent to which this tradeoff applies to male leaders. Do we see a similar pattern where terror attacks etc increase the likelihood that men from right wing parties will be elected as opposed to men from left wing parties?
Hi, very interesting post.
I think it makes sense that in times of war or aggression societies prefer male leaders. For one, all societies choose to sacrifice their men when it comes to war. If somebody has to die or be killed, it will be a male (with all the exceptions you want). We're the expendable ones. (Won't go into the nature/ nurture debate about this.) But then, if societies view men as the natural warriors, well - you'll choose a warrior to lead you in war, right?
The second thing I'd like to comment on is regarding Estonia. I'm originally from Barcelona, but have been living in Estonia for a few years. The thing that always surprised both me and my wife is how "straight" male culture is in Estonia. We're used to BCN/ Spain where there is more divergence/ freedom in terms of male behaviors and attitudes. Here it's different. They're all like very well behaved, non-talkative, men from the 50s. I guess it's related to the previous point - Estonia is at the border of the West with 'the Barbarians', there still is compulsory military service for men, etc.
Also, prime minister Kaja Kallas is absolutely hawkish in terms of military, defense, Russia, etc. She's probably been able to stay popular by being more "mannish" than any other male leader on all these issues. She can overtake any other male leader on the right. So it's probably not about gender, but about gendered attitudes/ perceptions.
Anyway, I'm a fan, so thanks for posting!
Absolutely, agreed.
Yes, the difference between BCN and Estonia is huge. Did you see my earlier post on Spanish fathers? https://draliceevans.substack.com/p/paternity-leave-in-feminist-spain
Yes, I think women may do better in patriarchal contexts if they adhere to those values, so Hilary Clinton was hawkish, Meloni champions Catholicism.
Some work in psychology points to a double bind: women are disliked if they're too mannish, because then they're unfeminine and unlikeable. So it's definitely tough and only very skilled women can be assertive leaders while remaining likeable
Yeah, I saw it! Regarding parental benefits, all comments in Spain are always "we're so backwards, fathers are so unfairly treated in this country". Speaking for myself, the best thing in my life has been being able to spend time with my kids. Upon reflecting on this, I guess it's part of how ingrained the feminist discourse is, in a way. If men and women are equal, men should be allowed to be (caring) fathers; and women should be allowed to go out and succeed in the public sphere or do whatever they want. To not allow and encourage this symetry is discrimination.
I would even suggest the right didn't win last sunday elections because they attacked feminism and gay rights - it's ok to have debates regarding the environment, taxation, immigration, national culture(s), etc, but support for women's rights and gay rights are wide-spread among conservative voters (like some PP party leader said yesterday: "a lot of conservative people didn't vote for us because they felt we were against their gay kids.")
Regarding female leaders - I don't know, I believe there is a way to be 'feminine' and show assertiveness. Being a leader is hard anyway, for anyone. But there sure are lots and lots of women who can meet all traits required for leadership: intelligence, assertiveness, charisma/ likeability, feminity, strength. Probably the fact that in politics they tend to arise more on the right-side of the political spectrum says more about left-wing politics than about women.
Oh yes, I'm not saying women are inept, just that where stereotypes about leaders and women are strong, it's hard to demonstrate both assertiveness and femininity.
Yes, 48% of Spanish people identify as feminists. It's the highest rate in Europe, I think.
So...in general I think you're right. But my perception of Theresa May, from a distance at least, is that she was pretty incompetent. So was her declining popularity after the terror attacks simply because she didn't respond the way people wanted/expected her to? Perhaps the same might be true of Arroyo? I don't think the Falklands war reduced Thatcher's popularity at all; my vague recollection is that it made her *more* popular.
It would be interesting to see the extent to which this tradeoff applies to male leaders. Do we see a similar pattern where terror attacks etc increase the likelihood that men from right wing parties will be elected as opposed to men from left wing parties?