Why Should We Replace Democracy with Matriarchy?

The solution to the crisis of democracy cannot be democratic, but it must stem from the spirit of the times - and can even integrate with the great shift in power relations between the sexes. There is only one basic system of government that has not been widely tested in history, particularly in modern society: matriarchy. A world where the weaker sex takes positions of power - in a kind of inherent balance between power and violence - is bound to create a human society we have not yet known, with new politics and administration free from the ills of testosterone poisoning. All it takes is an ideological shift and a referendum - women are guaranteed a 51% majority. After all, female rule is certainly the worst form of government - except for all the other forms that have been tried to date

The main (and perhaps only!) advantage of female leadership: that it's not male leadership (Source)

Can you imagine a female Trump? Can you imagine a female Bibi? And Lieberman? And Putin - could he have been a grandmother? Arafat with a headscarf instead of a keffiyeh - is that possible? And if we drift to more important examples - can you imagine a female Hitler - Mrs. Hitler orchestrating unprecedented violence under her shrill, thin voice? Can one imagine a female Stalin, indeed without a mustache but with no less murderousness? Is it just habit that makes it difficult for us to imagine the great historical villains, or just unrestrained corrupt individuals without inhibitions and conscience, as women?

A certain percentage of the male population, about 1%, are psychopaths. How did such people survive in evolution? Apparently, not only in our time was there an advantage to the uninhibited use of force. The 1% rate grows immeasurably when examining the population of male leaders, whether CEOs or politicians - for there is no doubt that an unbridled lust for unbridled power is a motivation that can lead to a position of power. When such a psychopath reaches a historical position of power - the result is often one of the great historical catastrophes (or just a murderous war - or "just" a foolish one). Therefore, psychopathy is not just a psychological phenomenon - it is a historical phenomenon.

Not only is the psychopathic personality vastly more prevalent in men and almost absent in women, but also several other personality disorders, such as narcissistic personality disorder, are known to be common among them, and we would not be surprised by its amazing prevalence among male leaders. The most common disorder in men - which is therefore not classified as a disorder but as a normal historical phenomenon - is physical and sexual violence. It's hard to imagine the rates of violence, murder, rape, wars, civil wars and genocide known in history - that is, the most dangerous and terrible historical phenomena, which have given humanity a bad name - if our species had been under matriarchal leadership. Perhaps regarding poverty and hunger rates - another dominant historical phenomenon - one can still doubt the matter, although there is reason to believe that women would have been more compassionate and generous as leaders, relatively speaking, when it comes to matters of life and death.

No sane person would argue that phenomena such as wars would completely disappear if history had taken place under female leadership, and we would expect world peace. But if the weaker and less violent sex were in power - it is very likely that these phenomena would have been significantly reduced, both in their frequency and intensity, if only because of the tension between female rule and the army and soldiers (who, for reasons of excess physical strength, would certainly still be men in any reasonable alternative history). This does not embody any claim that women would have better judgment than men. But even if we accept the claim that the opposite is true (or at least that the pool of leadership talent doubles when both sexes participate), the main requirement from leadership is not excellence but reasonableness, because the price of a leader who leads to a violent catastrophe is much higher than a mediocre and reasonable leader. We would certainly be willing to give up Churchill - if that's the price of giving up Hitler. In leadership - we have enough of banality, boredom and conservatism, which are much preferable to adventurism and excess testosterone.

Today, we are close to understanding that the reason at the center of human bloody history is not this or that political problem, or one that stems from specific historical circumstances, but a neurological problem, constant and eternal: in the human species, the male brain tends too much towards violence, and leads in this tendency by a considerable gap compared to the female brain. It is not human nature responsible for atrocities - but the nature of man (the name of a male of one of the higher primate species). If the world were suddenly handed over to gorillas - wouldn't we prefer a system of government where the female apes rule and not the male apes?

This is not a matter of affirmative action or even feminism. As human death tools are becoming more sophisticated, to the point of being able to destroy the planet - there is enormous importance in reducing the likelihood of violent, forceful, obtuse and cruel leadership. Women are not angels - but they are certainly less dangerous to world peace than men, and the psychological profile common among them is different from the common male profile, and more adapted to current challenges, which require cooperation, negotiation, nurturing and balances - at the expense of uninhibited competitiveness of self-perceived alpha males.

We will not get rid of the problem of democracy if we replace the leaders. Bibi and Trump will be replaced by other Bibis and Trumps. And sooner or later a new Hitler will arise, or an updated male leadership type of totalitarian dictator of the information age (a man, of course!). Therefore, the solution is a world where men indeed have the right to vote (in order to protect their rights) - but not the right to be elected. Female values must defeat male values - and these are definitely two competing human cultures - if we want to overcome the competition of who is more manly, who has the biggest, and who screws others more.