History is full of powerful female leaders who changed their nations for the better. Queen Victoria was one leader who with very little input successfully reigned over the British Empire allowing for a golden age to flourish. And Queen Isabella of Spain united her country and presided over the end of the Reconquista that finally ended Islamic oppression in Iberia. But there is something that most modern female leaders and corporate “girl bosses” lack which the powerful women of history had.
The powerful women of history operated within the confines of a world that was dominated by the natural order. The women operating in this world, usually being queens who were placed in positions of power by no choice of their own, had to adapt in order to survive, and also in order for their people to survive. If Queen Isabella was not strong enough to hold the position she did, she would have been most likely overthrown, or her people may have become fractured or even possibly lose to renewed Islamic incursions.
The “girl bosses” of today are not in this position. They climb their way to the top by using party/boardroom politics in order to get ahead to meet an ideal, not to be necessarily a great leader of history. This is seen most in the Labor party, where 53% of parliamentarians are women. And less in the liberal party where 33% are women, but with that number rising to meet their 50% target.
The problem here is that the “girl boss” chooses to be there. Where as true great female leaders have to be there. As the leadership of nations has always been a naturally male suited role.
Unlike female wartime leaders like Queen Elizabeth I, who successfully defeated the Spanish and paved the way for the later British Empire. The “girl boss” is simply the boss of the other girls and the feminine men, and that’s where it ends. It’s not about competing against foreign powers or foreign invaders.
The “girl boss” climbs the ranks through corporate or political bodies in order to compete with other women. This is also why they all look the same, with the same haircuts, and the same way of speaking.
They are simply a product of normal social female competition within unnatural corporate and political frameworks. They are not great leaders whatsoever, and have very little true understanding of domestic politics or geopolitics. They probably don’t even know that those two are connected.
What they know how to do is jostle amongst each other, say the right things, and compete with each other. This is a normal female thing to do, but in this context people are being manipulated into thinking because they hold these positions that they are actually competent leaders.
And this issue could be getting worse, as 53% of Labour parliamentarians are women, which has now exceeded their 50% target and will probably continue to exceed that target. The Liberal party also has a 50% target. (completely unnecessary targets considering it doesn’t account for merit.)
If our political structures weren’t in decline then they would have never got to the positions they have gotten too. It’s the in-group part of this that is the main problem. As typically male leaders will approach in-group settings differently, and more often then not, will try and change the entire world view of the people around them to suit their vision regardless of what others think.
An example of this is Net Zero for instance, this is a retarded idea that is accepted by the in-group which is led by Sussan Ley. Most of those who support it are scumbag male politicians, and “girl boss” women.
In that case 6 women and 14 men are assumed to support Ley and 3 women and 25 men are assumed against.
In Victoria just recently there was a spill motion to oust Brad Battin, out of 8 women, 7 of them voted for the spill and 1 against with 12 men for and against equally on each side.
This is typical female behaviour, not that natural female behaviour is bad itself, but in a political setting it is incredibly detrimental and very dangerous for the future of our country. Thus why historically women tend not to be present in top level politics.
This also leads to something else that is important to note. The “girl boss” situation is widely accepted within corporations due to this exact phenomenon. A group of women running within the accepted norm without questioning is actually a very stable thing for the owner/s of the corporation as they will take less risks and will rock the boat less. Meaning that the main decisions and changes of direction will be dictated downward to the head nodding women. They’ll then compete with each other over who can do whatever it is the best.
The “girl boss” situation in democratic politics however is incredibly more detrimental. But that doesn’t mean that some women in politics aren’t actually highly suited for the task. Women like Marine Le Pen don’t fall into this “girl boss” category because women like her don’t arise from an in-group boardroom competition situation. She arose because she was in the right place at the right time to deal with the destruction of France and the slow genocide of their people. Like the queens of history, it was her father, her knowledge, her aptitude, and the system built around her that eventually led to her being the only option for them. She is the only one able to do what has to be done.
Pauline Hanson also doesn’t fall into the “girl boss” category either because likewise she didn’t arise from in-group female boardroom competition. Instead, she was the only one who was brave enough that could address Asian migration at the time, and was the best at doing that.
The “girl boss” is not a product of competence, the “girl boss” is the product of normal in-group female competition arising within the wrong setting, here specifically, within the corrupted and decaying political framework that is modern Western democracy.
Alex James.