Why men rule?

Why men are and always were the leaders of most societys in the world (with a few exceptions) while women usually had a minor role in history? Can anyone explain this phenomenon? 

Originally posted by pinguin Cleopathra, Queen Isabella, Queen Elizabeth I, Cathaline the great, Queen Victoria, Margaret Tatcher, Golda Mayer, Indira Ghandi, are not preciselly examples of "minor roles" in history. Please explain me why in some of the most important times of history women take the control.

The list of men who ruled is far more longer, and he said with few exceptions.

Perhaps because men are more willing to risk?


Edited by Illirac - 08-Jun-2008 at 20:05

Really nice explanation Aelfgifu  But what about today? Now none of the reasons you mentioned exist but still most rulers are men, and I'm talking about developed countrys with equal rights and all that democratic stuff (I can't think of one parliament that has 50% women in it... usually 10%-15% is considered a lot). Seems weird doesnt it?

There is another, more thorough explanation:

Women have a limited number of potential offspring. Men on the other hand can have potentially millions of descendants.

In this perspective, what a woman should do is to carefully pick her mate and in particular pick one that will be able to feed her and her children. It explains why harems appear, one man can sustain several families at once.

Thus, from an evolutionary perspective, men should try to increase their resources (power, money, bananas) so as to be as desirable as possible and have as many children as possible. Of course, as there is a limited number of female (and even more limited number of desirable ones), competition arise between males.

Competition between males requires a winner and a loser whereas two female can conceivably share a male. Hence, males must have a more competitive mind and the physical traits necessary to acquire and protect resources.

This natural fitness for competition of course turns out to be quite advantageous in a political or economic  environment. But this is only the base, institutions may grow from this framework and make male domination more acute. Similarly, changes may occur that will (or have) make the whole thing evolve and make males and females equals or even create "genocracies" around the world.

All these factors can be put in place and assumed one way or another but I think the most accurate answer really has to be "just cause." If you take a bag with 100 marbles. 50 blue 50 red and you stick your hand in, in theory you will pick out an equal number of either color. But there are also possible chances that you simply pick more blue then the red "just cause."

I didn't say the sole reason was "just cause" i'm sure there are other factors such as some that have been discussed but "just cause" sure is a factor as well.

You mean it's not random chance that men tend to rule the world? Darn! And I thought we males came a long way fighting for women's rights. Just goes to show that might still makes right, as the saying goes.

"By which you mean that more men in power is simply thre result of women not putting enough effort into their punches? "

I really do not see how anything I said gave rise to your self-admitted unlikely conclusions. And personally, I think your third one is as unlikely as the other two.

Edited by Aelfgifu - 10-Jun-2008 at 22:04

So the nations ruled by rules, laws and conventions had women leaders according to you, while the nations that were just knuckle dragging neantherdalic patriarchies reliant on brute strength.

Dare I venture out and say your assumption is a bit skewed? Maybe unobjective due to some personal factors?

 

Women might be less interesting then men and that getting power for the sake of power is a male thing? Come on, how is this even an actual discussion? These is no reason for anyone to believe that other then sexism. Much like the other statement you made, it is skewed, unobjective and i assume (pardon me) based on something personal.