Are female leaders more successful at managing the coronavirus crisis? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15096002
Atlantis wrote:What do you know about the public debate in "most European countries"? You are of course able to fluently communicate in most of the more than 30 European languages to make such a bold claim?

Even if you did, I assure you that it is tough to keep update about the breadth of a country's public debate with the help of the national media for more than 4 or 5 countries.

But we all know about the US. Thus, only speaking from what I actually know, I can tell you that the difference between the US and the countries I know is like day and night. That a dapper little bureaucrat like Dr. Fauci should represent the "sane" face of the US's corona response, while the rest of the crew kowtows to the orange creature with a silly grin on their faces, in itself speaks volumes. In Germany for example, the podcasts of one of the world's leading coronavirus experts are listened to regularly by millions of listeners. He, like most of the country’s experts finds a ready ear in the government. During corona press briefings, ministers take the backseat while scientists brief the media on the science-based recommendations of the leading research institutes.

Watching Trump's corona press briefings demonstrates to the entire world the intellectual depravity of Yankee Imperialism.


This is crisis management 101. Keep the public under control - panic and hysteria are more dangerous enemies than the virus itself. That's why politicians took the lead and not scientists. Scientist toed the line in order to keep their jobs and not sound like idiots when their predictions turned out to be false.
#15096036
wat0n wrote:@Atlantis what you are saying basically is that populists are gonna be populists. That's true indeed and is probably one of the predictors (although not a perfect one - you could also check out Nayib Bukele in El Salvador for a right wing populist that has been able to fend corona off), but what does it have to do with gender? Do you have anything to say about Belgium, which is currently being led by a woman? If you want we can broaden the analysis to including feminists into the fray, and discuss Spain's approach in this matter (which happens to be headed by another populist government that regards itself as a feminist one).


As I said, type of leadership is important, but there are other factors determining the severity of the pandemic.

Since we seem to agree that populist leadership aggravates the situation, we may also agree that it's hard to imagine female populists of the type of Trump. It's perhaps not impossible, but highly unlikely.

Secondly, as I also already mentioned, it's not just the female leader herself that makes a difference, but the type of diverse society that tends to vote for female leaders and that is less likely to vote for the populist leader offering simple but false solution.

Even though the number of female leaders doing well is remarkable, I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule. I closely followed the spread of the virus in a number of countries, but Belgium was a bit of a black hole to me. So I can't offer any specific reasons for the size of the outbreak. Generally speaking, Belgium has been a bit of a failed country for a long time, in which the rival administrations of the two big ethnic groups have problems cooperating. That probably contributed to the fact that Belgium was more affected by Islamist terror than other countries, and that may also have resulted in a less than optimal Covid-19 response.

I guess you aren't really serious about Spain. Italy has been mired by populist politics for decades, but not Spain. Countries like Spain, Portugal and Germany, where a totalitarian police state is still in the living memory, were particularly reluctant to introduce measures limiting personal freedoms, like the right of assembly. In Spain, that has led to a number of super-spreader events.

I know that the Anglos here are not interested in the science (@The Sabbaticus, it’s obvious you don't know what you are talking about); however, in this context it should be noted that latest scientific data suggests that most people don't transmit the virus and that most infections are due to super-spreader events. This is actually good news since it means that we can control the pandemic by learning to control a relatively small number of super-spreader events.
#15096049
Atlantis wrote:As I said, type of leadership is important, but there are other factors determining the severity of the pandemic.

Since we seem to agree that populist leadership aggravates the situation, we may also agree that it's hard to imagine female populists of the type of Trump. It's perhaps not impossible, but highly unlikely.

Secondly, as I also already mentioned, it's not just the female leader herself that makes a difference, but the type of diverse society that tends to vote for female leaders and that is less likely to vote for the populist leader offering simple but false solution.

Even though the number of female leaders doing well is remarkable, I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule. I closely followed the spread of the virus in a number of countries, but Belgium was a bit of a black hole to me. So I can't offer any specific reasons for the size of the outbreak. Generally speaking, Belgium has been a bit of a failed country for a long time, in which the rival administrations of the two big ethnic groups have problems cooperating. That probably contributed to the fact that Belgium was more affected by Islamist terror than other countries, and that may also have resulted in a less than optimal Covid-19 response.

I guess you aren't really serious about Spain. Italy has been mired by populist politics for decades, but not Spain. Countries like Spain, Portugal and Germany, where a totalitarian police state is still in the living memory, were particularly reluctant to introduce measures limiting personal freedoms, like the right of assembly. In Spain, that has led to a number of super-spreader events.

I know that the Anglos here are not interested in the science (@The Sabbaticus, it’s obvious you don't know what you are talking about); however, in this context it should be noted that latest scientific data suggests that most people don't transmit the virus and that most infections are due to super-spreader events. This is actually good news since it means that we can control the pandemic by learning to control a relatively small number of super-spreader events.


The Spanish populism is more of the left wing kind. I think I showed it in another thread, but back in late February Spain's Health Ministry had tweeted that people returning to Spain from hotspots like northern Italy and Hubei didn't need to take any special measures, and they were singing the tune that everything was fine literally until March 9. That is, they just needed to have their feminist March on the 8th, pandemics be damned.

This is not too different from the likes of Bolsonaro (the US is a special case but I share your criticism of Trump. Not so much over underestimating the virus at the beginning, but for calling for marches and violating the stay at home orders in late March and early April. Particularly in Democrat-led places).
#15096051
There's so many variables that go into determining how much COVID spreads within a country. Leadership actions and leadership gender are just 2 variables among many. Correlation also doesn't mean causation. It's an interesting theory to examine. Researchers will be studying this for years trying to sort out what happened, and even then it's very difficult to isolate certain variables from others. If gender of leadership does make a difference, it then would be interesting to examine what is it exactly about the difference in leadership styles by the different genders would lead to better or worse results. We can make guesses, but it's better to have data.
#15096243
It's anti-male bigotry of the mainstream media as promulgated by feminists (both male and female). If you pay attention to the news, you'll see the WAW-effect (women are wonderful) everywhere. They constantly misrepresent the 'latest scientific studies' proving that women are somehow better than men. The original scientists are typically left to scratch their heads, wondering what went wrong.
#15096249
wat0n wrote:The Spanish populism is more of the left wing kind. I think I showed it in another thread, but back in late February Spain's Health Ministry had tweeted that people returning to Spain from hotspots like northern Italy and Hubei didn't need to take any special measures, and they were singing the tune that everything was fine literally until March 9. That is, they just needed to have their feminist March on the 8th, pandemics be damned.

This is not too different from the likes of Bolsonaro (the US is a special case but I share your criticism of Trump. Not so much over underestimating the virus at the beginning, but for calling for marches and violating the stay at home orders in late March and early April. Particularly in Democrat-led places).


There is populism of the left. I'm certainly not denying that, but it's not possible to equate what happened in Spain with Bolsonaro. There was a certain reluctance to face the possibility of a pandemic in many countries and we have seen people comparing it to the flu even in this forum, but the outright denial of Bolsonaro is a different thing. After all, Spain went into the severest lockdown in Europe and Spaniards did comply for the most part when the danger was understood.

Right-wing populism uses conspiracy theories and a crude sort of ideology to push a retarded political agenda such as climate change denial. Trump, Bolsonaro, et al, failed because their rule is based on fake news and conspiracy theories and not on facts or science, and because populists can't implement unpopular policies.
#15096251
Unthinking Majority wrote:There's so many variables that go into determining how much COVID spreads within a country. Leadership actions and leadership gender are just 2 variables among many. Correlation also doesn't mean causation. It's an interesting theory to examine. Researchers will be studying this for years trying to sort out what happened, and even then it's very difficult to isolate certain variables from others. If gender of leadership does make a difference, it then would be interesting to examine what is it exactly about the difference in leadership styles by the different genders would lead to better or worse results. We can make guesses, but it's better to have data.


Many factors like geography, population density, prevalence of public transport or private transport, etc., can't be changed. Cultural features such as hugging, kissing, hand-shaking, resistance to face masks, etc., are hard to change. That leaves the type of leadership as the most important variable determining the pandemic response.

@The Sabbaticus, I'm proud to be a male and of all the qualities that distinguish me from my wife. That doesn't stop me from loving my wife and all the qualities that seem to be more pronounced in my wife.

What you are saying is Trumptard level retarded.
#15096312
SaddamHuseinovic wrote:Bitches should stay at home and care for children instead to have the right for passive and active voting


That's obviously the type of mindset that has turned the MENA into a corrupt hellhole everybody is trying to get out of.

If the Muslim world is going to have any chance of improvement, Muslima will have to take the reigns of power and tell their old men to get lost.
#15096330
Britain has had 2 female Prime Ministers both of them Conservatives. The current home secretary is female as are 5 other cabinet ministers and Scotland's first minister is female.

Would the OP argue that Britain's response to Covid 19 would be significantly different had it occurred when Theressa May was PM?
#15096405
AFAIK wrote:Britain has had 2 female Prime Ministers both of them Conservatives. The current home secretary is female as are 5 other cabinet ministers and Scotland's first minister is female.

Would the OP argue that Britain's response to Covid 19 would be significantly different had it occurred when Theressa May was PM?


It goes without saying that neither Thatcher nor May are my kind of PM, but even though neither fit into the above mold of female leaders, I'm confident that both would have mustered a better pandemic response. Let's not forget that Johnson has taken British politics to the populist far-right corner where it may not have been for a long time, if ever.

On the surface, the UK government seems more reasonable than populist rulers in the US or Brazil. In reality, the British pandemic response shows that it’s just as bad. They are just better at deception - being blessed with a spin master like Dominic Cummings.

Johnson’s approach has been one of politics-led science instead of science-led politics.

@Doug64 Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. :[…]

What good is a democracy if that democracy is hija[…]

Sivad does raise a good question: are America's co[…]

There is not (nor can be) a causal relationship be[…]