Women in high office example of reverse discrimination?

Education/ Intelligence: 

1. In 2021-2022, women earned the majority of post-secondary degrees at every level, accounting for 62.8% of associate degrees, 58.5% of bachelor's degrees, 62.6% of master's degrees and 57% of doctoral degrees. source

2. Intelligence:  There is a balance of average between-sex differences in specific cognitive abilities. Notably, women show a significant advantage in reading, writing, and verbal intelligence, while men excel in some mathematical and visuospatial abilities. This balance underscores the unique strengths of each gender. source

3. Several professors in my graduate work in the psychology of management had found that verbal intelligence was the best predictor of success in nearly all fields.

4. Education is the best measurement of which candidate  has the intelligence, stick with it, and ability to thrive in an intellectual situation

Modern management theory prioritizes a woman's default mode of management.  Women tend to form interrelated management webs with a strong emphasis on bottom-up management rather than the hierarchies that men create.  They are less likely to want to be the dominant figure but to make working processes.  One problem with this ideal is that women trying to break the glass ceiling tend to mimic male role models and their domination of the hierarchy, and the women who are able to succeed are actually defaulting to the male hierarchy. 

Implications of the above: 

Based on intelligence education and management theory, women should make up at least 50 % of the people running the country. But actually:

• 100% of the 46 presidents have been male. 

• Only 29% of Congress are women,.  Until 1991 it was less than 6%.

• Only 19% of  Republicans in Congress are women.

To Answer the question of reverse discrimination: 

It is clear that about 40% of the men in Congress and 50 % of past presidents are there only because they are male. 

Women commit less than 3% of mass shootings.

Male-dominated Societies have been at war since before we came out of the trees. This might end if we were to create a female-dominant world.

The history of male domination and its influence on human warfare is deeply rooted in the evolution of both biological and social behaviors. By examining human evolutionary development, along with the behaviors of our closest primate relatives, we can explore how male-dominated societies have historically contributed to conflict and how female leadership might offer alternative paths toward peace.

Human Evolution and Male Domination

As humans diverged from our closest primate ancestors—chimpanzees and bonobos—approximately 5 to 7 million years ago, different social structures began to emerge. In most human societies, as well as chimpanzee groups, males have often been the dominant force, both in terms of leadership and territorial aggression. This dominance is associated with a propensity for violence and warfare as means of asserting control, gaining resources, and expanding territory.

Chimpanzees, known for their aggressive and male-dominated societies, are territorial and engage in organized group violence. These violent behaviors include coordinated attacks on neighboring groups to claim territory and resources, much like human warfare. This behavior reflects a deeply ingrained tendency toward aggression in male-dominated systems, where competition for mates, dominance, and survival drives conflict  .

Male Domination and War

Throughout human history, male-dominated power structures have led to cycles of conflict. From ancient tribal warfare to modern nation-state conflicts, men have typically been the architects of war. The social and cultural norms that promote masculine traits like aggression, competition, and dominance can often escalate conflicts. From the territorial disputes of early human societies to large-scale wars in modern history, men in positions of power have frequently resorted to violence as a means to resolve disputes.

Studies in anthropology suggest that early human societies were likely more egalitarian, with a balance of power between genders. However, as societies became more hierarchical, particularly with the advent of agriculture and the rise of centralized political systems, male-dominated structures became more pronounced. These systems often emphasized military strength and conquest, fueling cycles of warfare .

The Bonobo Model: Female-Led Societies

In contrast to chimpanzees, bonobos—another of our closest primate relatives—live in female-led, matriarchal societies. Bonobos exhibit significantly lower levels of aggression compared to chimpanzees, and their social structure is based on cooperation, social bonding, and sexual behaviors that help defuse tension. Female bonobos hold considerable social power and often intervene to prevent male aggression. This female dominance creates a more peaceful social order, where conflicts are rare, and violence is minimized .

The example of bonobos suggests that matriarchal systems may offer alternative models for reducing violence and fostering cooperation. In bonobo societies, females form alliances to maintain social order and protect against male aggression. This collaborative approach creates an environment where disputes are resolved through social bonding rather than violence.

Could Female Leadership Reduce War?

The question of whether female leadership could reduce warfare in human societies is complex, but evidence from both primate models and human history suggests that gender-balanced or female-led governance might foster more peaceful outcomes. Studies of modern political leadership show that women in positions of power are often more likely to emphasize diplomacy, collaboration, and social welfare, as opposed to militaristic solutions to conflict .

For instance, empirical research indicates that countries with higher levels of gender equality tend to experience lower levels of internal conflict and war. Female leaders may bring different perspectives to conflict resolution, prioritizing negotiation and compromise over domination and control .

Additionally, women in leadership are often associated with higher investments in health, education, and community welfare—factors that contribute to long-term stability and peace. If more societies were structured around female leadership, as seen in bonobo societies, there might be a shift away from aggressive competition for dominance toward more cooperative forms of governance.

Conclusion

The history of male domination has undoubtedly shaped the prevalence of warfare throughout human history. By looking at our evolutionary relatives, such as chimpanzees and bonobos, we can see how male-led societies tend toward aggression, while female-led groups prioritize cooperation and peace. Encouraging more female leadership in human societies, as well as fostering gender equality, might offer new avenues for reducing the cycles of war and conflict that have defined much of human history. This shift, akin to the bonobo social structure, could pave the way for more peaceful and cooperative human interactions.

Differences in Social Behavior of Bonobos and Chimpanzees.