We’re actually doing much better than that – we had 10 Bundesrätinnen so far, not 5. “Fun” fact: at the same time, we were the last country in Europe to grant all women the right to vote.
Yeah, the footnote talking about excluding cerimonial duties. The Swiss President is a cerimonial primus inter pares position.
She didn’t lose due to being a woman. She lost because she’s the vp of an unsuccessful administration and the people voting can’t remember what happend 4 years ago.
Why does having a women as a leader matter that much, like I can kinda understand from a historical perspective with the oppression on women and all,
but I think people should focus more on the ability and achievements of the candidates than the their gender. So what I am trying to say is the real question to ask is:
“what have our leaders wether they are male, female, non-binary, what have they achieved or what do they promise to achieve and how well have they kept their promises? ”
This might be a little controversial but I honestly have little respect for female politician or any women who instead of showcasing their abilities as to why they deserve the positions of power they are aiming for, they play the ‘I am women card, so respect me’.
The times have changed women today at least in 1st world nations aren’t oppressed like they were in the past. In fact I would say they are privileged. For a female politician to play the narrative ‘I am women card, so respect me’ is a great disrespect to women who actually suffered in the past, who had to literally put their life, families and wellbeing on the line to fight for their rights.
While I admit it is not easy for a women to achieve position of power, well guess what it’s not easy for men either. For you(referring to the female politician e.g.) to claim the same level of struggles as the women in the past is honestly quite deplorable behavior.
Anyway thats my controversial take, please don’t down vote me to oblivion. If you disagree with what I say give constructive arguments and let’s be civil🗿
I wonder if it would make more sense to plot the fraction of the time the country has had a female leader. Two 4-year terms from one person (giving a count of 1) is more relevant for female leadership than two 1-year terms by different people (giving a count of 2). The UK for instance gets a bump on this from Truss that is perhaps not really warranted. And Switzerland is I think similar given the high turnover of the “leader”.
Also, this is a horrendous colour scheme – the most prominent colour is for 1, and 0 and 3 are pretty close. Also also, the caption is wrong – in the UK the prime minister is appointed by the monarch. (they respect rejection results and party leadership decisions, yes, but are technically directly appointed by the Crown as the person most likely to command leadership of the House of Commons. And several PMs gain power solely through internal party politics in between elections, so the wording has to be quite precise)
Liz Truss hardly counts for Britain’s three in that chart.
fwiw the presidency in Hungary has been more of an honorary position – and the woman who held that position was basically a law-signing robot until she was removed from office after signing a clemency for a convicted pedophile (as she was instructed) and it made too big waves in the otherwise completely numb Hungarian society.
Women should never occupy positions of leadership or authority, they’re very unstable emotionally and can’t use logic to approach problem solving
uk got the *The Shity Trinity*
Romania is marked as having one but that’s not true. We never have had an elected woman to lead.
Kosovo has had two!
In 16 years of being a country, there were two female Presidents.
And the countries with the best GDP growth have had 0 female leaders. Interesting.
13 comments
We’re actually doing much better than that – we had 10 Bundesrätinnen so far, not 5. “Fun” fact: at the same time, we were the last country in Europe to grant all women the right to vote.
Yeah, the footnote talking about excluding cerimonial duties. The Swiss President is a cerimonial primus inter pares position.
She didn’t lose due to being a woman. She lost because she’s the vp of an unsuccessful administration and the people voting can’t remember what happend 4 years ago.
Why does having a women as a leader matter that much, like I can kinda understand from a historical perspective with the oppression on women and all,
but I think people should focus more on the ability and achievements of the candidates than the their gender. So what I am trying to say is the real question to ask is:
“what have our leaders wether they are male, female, non-binary, what have they achieved or what do they promise to achieve and how well have they kept their promises? ”
This might be a little controversial but I honestly have little respect for female politician or any women who instead of showcasing their abilities as to why they deserve the positions of power they are aiming for, they play the ‘I am women card, so respect me’.
The times have changed women today at least in 1st world nations aren’t oppressed like they were in the past. In fact I would say they are privileged. For a female politician to play the narrative ‘I am women card, so respect me’ is a great disrespect to women who actually suffered in the past, who had to literally put their life, families and wellbeing on the line to fight for their rights.
While I admit it is not easy for a women to achieve position of power, well guess what it’s not easy for men either. For you(referring to the female politician e.g.) to claim the same level of struggles as the women in the past is honestly quite deplorable behavior.
Anyway thats my controversial take, please don’t down vote me to oblivion. If you disagree with what I say give constructive arguments and let’s be civil🗿
I wonder if it would make more sense to plot the fraction of the time the country has had a female leader. Two 4-year terms from one person (giving a count of 1) is more relevant for female leadership than two 1-year terms by different people (giving a count of 2). The UK for instance gets a bump on this from Truss that is perhaps not really warranted. And Switzerland is I think similar given the high turnover of the “leader”.
Also, this is a horrendous colour scheme – the most prominent colour is for 1, and 0 and 3 are pretty close. Also also, the caption is wrong – in the UK the prime minister is appointed by the monarch. (they respect rejection results and party leadership decisions, yes, but are technically directly appointed by the Crown as the person most likely to command leadership of the House of Commons. And several PMs gain power solely through internal party politics in between elections, so the wording has to be quite precise)
Liz Truss hardly counts for Britain’s three in that chart.
fwiw the presidency in Hungary has been more of an honorary position – and the woman who held that position was basically a law-signing robot until she was removed from office after signing a clemency for a convicted pedophile (as she was instructed) and it made too big waves in the otherwise completely numb Hungarian society.
Women should never occupy positions of leadership or authority, they’re very unstable emotionally and can’t use logic to approach problem solving
uk got the *The Shity Trinity*
Romania is marked as having one but that’s not true. We never have had an elected woman to lead.
Kosovo has had two!
In 16 years of being a country, there were two female Presidents.
And the countries with the best GDP growth have had 0 female leaders. Interesting.
Ähh, usa had never a woman as a leader
Comments are closed.