With a world in flux, no one can know on what side a flipped coin would land, true enough.

While Mother Nature brings the challenges of our needing to provide food, water, shelter for ourselves and loved ones, plus adventure to keep ourselves surviving and thriving, She also brings delight in the beauty of forests, flowers, majestic mountains, sunsets, and the instinct for humor and play.

To this already challenging, if beautiful, “survival scenario”, the human species has added extra and numerous layers of complexity and challenge. As a result, while we can celebrate the joys of adventure and curiosity in the development of technology, the arts, love and intimacy, knowledge and wisdom, we are also quite literally plagued with man’s stubbornly persistent emotional adolescence. God knows not all men by no means–any such generalization is meaningless–but curiously, often those who tend toward positions of leadership across sectors.

I don’t know if the emotional ineptitude originates in hormonal imbalance, traumatic, early childhood subconscious programming, or a terribly troubled upbringing, but something has gone dramatically wrong with these leaders’ psyches if genocide, slavery, war, violence, power-and-money mongering are normalized and considered just a matter of “business-as-usual”. Additionally, the normalizing of the destruction of the hand that feeds us all—Mother Earth should be considered the criminal act that it is, not to mention, ecocide is suicide and homocide wrapped up into one.

Distinctions between male and female

When we simply look to mammalian biology, of the two genders, it is evident that the female is the nurturer and the male the protector. This could very well be the inverse—and in many instances it is. But overall, because a woman holds the fetus inside herself for nine months, feeling it and loving it as their own body, something unique to them, endows them with an experience and depth of love that a male may not ever experience, certainly not in the same way, which also leads to the instinct to give nurturance (breast feeding, holding, caring) and protectiveness.

She nurtures the fetus until it emerges through her body’s canal and into her arms, then to her breast, which feeds and nourishes the baby.

The female of the species, the mother, was designed to provide these most fundamental, life-giving functions. The touching beauty of the image of a woman giving her breast to her infant in a loving embrace has been the basis of vast amounts of art, music, dance, and storytelling from time immemorial. I suggest that these qualities predispose most women toward a loving, compassionate protection of their offspring, which, on a macro-level, can be translated into a loving, compassionate protection of the offspring of a nation and the ecosystem of a whole planet.

Mother’s nature is to nurture

It is an exquisite design for deep bonding and love. The hormonal exchange is extraordinary, as is the emotional bond. Oxytocin flows, which also means love, both increased when the mother gives suck to her newborn.

Throughout history and legend, the exchange between mother and newborn is hailed as “the miracle of life,” and it evokes tears of joy in most anyone who bears witness to this relationship and its preciously intimate moments.

Women as nurturers, granted only one of her many archetypal roles, is perhaps the most hallowed because this process is something that only she can do so completely. While the male of the species can also be very nurturing and deeply loving, it is pretty obvious that the nurturance is biologically limited: he cannot give birth nor suck.

Males simply don’t experience the very depth or biochemical exchange that a female does who has just given birth. These distinctions predispose us for different roles in the adult world, allowing us to “bring to bear” different qualities to life’s multitude of activities.

To the extent that male and female experiences are comparable in emotional and spiritual nurturance, with respect to psychologist Dr. Carl Jung’s understanding and terminology, is due to the development of a man’s anima, his feminine qualities, his “Yin” nature.

Granted, both genders play the role of nurturer in their own respective ways. Each also acts as hunter-huntress, provider, protector-protectress, lover-beloved, friend, chef, gardener-farmer, and parent.

Acknowledging the biological distinctions between the genders and the differences in emotional development, no pun intended, this typically engenders the idea being floated out and relevant to this article: what would the world look like if women were to rule the world? A better word than “rule” is “govern”. What if women were the ones who govern and are primarily responsible for making decisions that affect and influence large swaths of the human population?

Would we have such violence, crime, and wars, or might a sense of understanding, compassion, and love that are women’s natural impulses, their nature, create an atmosphere of safety that guns and threats cannot?

Is there reason to believe and hope that an ethos, an energetic field of kindness and love, could abound in a whole nation and world with women’s compassion leading the way, leading with love? Male presidents don’t talk about love except for the love of money, as in “the big, beautiful bill” currently being discussed by the U.S. The love of power is currently being expressed by the current U.S. Administration by unlawful, unconstitutional acts like sending the military into American cities, overruling the protestations of mayors and governors.

In contrast, would a female President in touch with her feminine nature reaching out to spread her interest in and concern for all people in her country bring about a much-desired, peaceful transformation to establish a culture of peace through, say, a series of nationally-televised talks, engaging media and the arts?

Who is qualified to govern?

I deliberately do not use the conventional phrase “politicians in power” because I think that phrase conveys an inaccurate association. It posits that politicians have power and everyone else does not. Little could be further from the truth.

It is really the people who hold a society’s power, but even that is not the point. I suggest that power isn’t the point at all, except for the male ego that is easily wounded and then grasps for power to prop it up. Politicians are granted a level of decision-making by the People who hold the power to confer this honor and about who will represent them.

True governance is not about power but accepting the role to serve the people, which is why women, much less preoccupied with power itself and much more interested in creating cooperation, harmony, and peace, may be the best qualified to do the governing.

Power isn’t the point, but cooperation is

The point is that everyone plays a role in governance through the sacred act of cooperation between the parties. For decades, I’ve referred to this as “Participatory Democracy”.

Colleague and friend, American activist Sam Daley-Harris1, has written extensively about the People’s significant role in Democracy in his book Reclaiming Our Democracy2.

Cooperative decision-making between parties is usually not easy, but it is executable.

Politicians are our servants, fulfilling the People’s will by executing what serves us. But everything has flipped, so that it appears that as the other way around, us serving them! No wonder we’re in such turbulence as a society.

I suggest that politics is not about power at all, but about artful, skillful, thoughtful, and compassionate governance.

In the hands of men…power is king

The ancient Chinese sage poet, Lao-Tse, speaks of a form of governance and leadership in which the leader follows the will of the people. The “power” is found in following the Tao, the way of Nature, which is the way of Yin, the feminine principle.

This concept isn’t known to modern-day politicians who are accustomed to wielding “power over” others, not infrequently with an iron fist. The way of Yin is the feminine nature of Earth, yielding better, long-lasting results.

An iron fist may be useful sometimes for a minute, but the principle of compassion, a lifetime.

A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say, We did it ourselves.

(Lao Tzu)

When male leaders are not in touch with their feminine nature, aggressive behavior ensues. Pursuit of material wealth, violence, war, extraction of Nature’s elements, personal aggrandizement, and ego as a function of denying the presence of the anima and of self-interest dominate and destroy the fabric of community and society.

Obviously, both sides of our nature are needed for our own personal development and for the balance in society. But the feminine is far deficient, and the masculine is far in excess. In traditional Chinese Medicine, this imbalance is considered a disease.

The world we have today is a function of this diversion from Nature’s Way. The diversion has corrupted human dignity and the smoother flow of life for all sentient creatures on the planet.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The above succinct summation is simple, general, and true. Human psychology is far more complex, without question—as having been in practice as a psychotherapist in NYC, I know this well. But following the macro-view of where we as a species “tipped the scale of balance” makes it easier to both understand and, I believe, simpler to rectify.

The partnership model: the work of Dr. Riane Eisler

Different models of governance and decision-making have emerged over the centuries for both the micro-level of the family to the macro-level of nations. These have emerged from differing religious orientations, indigenous teachings and practices, all the way to contemporary social science.

One that I’m particularly fond of is one that seems intuitively obvious, which is a shared model of decision-making between male and female. One of the great proponents and articulators of this “partnership model3” is renowned social scientist Dr. Riane Eisler4.

Dr. Eisler proposes a model in which “power”, or what I’d rather refer to as “the art and science of governance,” is shared between male and female 5. It is neither a patriarchal nor a matriarchal structure, but a shared one wherein different mindsets converge to be of service to the larger whole in an equitable, just, and mutually respectful manner.

Women in leadership roles in government and business

Women who have been presidents or prime ministers of countries have faced extraordinary challenges “in a man’s world”. As a defense, adaptation, and navigating tool, they have often taken on a masculine manner, mindset, to be accepted in a dominator-patriarchal model in which few women are ever given entry.

One of the prices of entry has traditionally been to “act like a man”, which, of course, is close to the opposite of what we or a woman would want.

While, of course, this assertion could be argued, as an example, Margaret Thatcher, “The Iron Lady”, was a woman but exhibited a definitively masculine leadership style in many respects.

Women as women – archetype and feminine principle intact

Only more recently, it seems that women leaders have felt confident and empowered enough to stand by their true nature as nurturers, oftentimes as mothers, as beautifully feminine, and have not succumbed to the typically implicit pressure to act like a female version of a man.

This has led to some excellent results. A case in point is a recent Prime Minister of Finland, Sanna Marin, whose leadership was extolled for several reasons, including her continuing to live her life5 as a 30-ish, young, vital, beautiful, and feminine woman.

Add to that—her 5-party coalition was all women as well. Currently, there are 28 nations with women as Heads of State6.

Does it not raise the question as to whether women may be better leaders7 than men?

For years, statistics have shown that companies that have women on their Boards8 are more financially successful9 than companies without women on the Boards.

The issue is not exactly gender

It has sounded like I am putting explicit emphasis on gender distinctions regarding the roles of leadership in society, and that I am leaning toward women leading. That is partially true, but that isn’t the full story.

There are women who have, for instance, led nations and have done so in a very masculine manner, as mentioned. While masculine and feminine characteristics are physiologically rooted in biology, hormones, etc., psychologically, there’s a good deal more at play, and greater neuroplasticity.

Other influences are, of course, the usual, of epigenetics, pre- and post-natal life, family influences, social conditioning, subconscious absorption of ideas, and role models at early ages, independent thought, reflection, etc.

Who we become as people, integrating the different aspects of our psyche, is the real story.

The fuller story is the activation of the feminine principle in leadership and governance

Referring back to the work of Dr. Carl Jung, we all embody both the animus and anima, the masculine and feminine aspects of being human.

The issue I suggest is really about the interplay and balance of these archetypal aspects of an individual and a group, not really the gender. As suggested, many women who have been in leadership positions were not much different than men in their thinking and decision-making.

This doesn’t advance the game. But when “women remain women,” in touch with their anima in pretty much “a man’s world,” it is refreshing, humbling, and brings a much greater sense of humanity forward.

Conversely, when men are not afraid to be in touch with their anima, their more feeling-oriented, compassion-and-love-oriented, nurturing feminine side, we have a balanced, thoughtful leader in the form of a male. One of many examples of this greater balance is the current Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres. He expresses his heart routinely in demanding peace throughout the world and proper protection and care of the Earth.

What does this all mean and add up to? The qualities of the feminine have been, by and large, severely lacking in our society for millennia. As a result, history has consisted of repeated wars, bloodshed, violence, rape and pillage of people and planet, mass destruction, murder, territoriality and disregard for life itself while privileging the acquisition of material possessions, land, women, chattel and ruling by the principle of “power over” rather than “power with” really cooperation with The People.

What has this brought us? A world at war. Do we really want violence, ideological, economic, and turf wars like gangsters called Presidents making decisions for us all?

Champion the feminine!

With the presence of the feminine principle, the anima alive and “animated”, we experience greater compassion for people who are suffering and a willingness to cooperatively come to the necessary agreements and actions to alleviate such suffering, a truly humane thing to do.

This kind of approach to governance leads to peace and understanding, being of service to each other, and a lot more appreciation of and gratitude for life.

The answer, of course, is that we each achieve a healthy balance between anima and animus no matter what our gender or station in life. This healthy balance makes us whole and holy humans.

It also suggests that the best leadership may occur largely governed by the heart, the feminine principle, and mediated by mentation, the masculine principle, creating harmony and balance between the two.

As I’ve often quoted the indigenous wisdom, which says, “Listen to thy heart, do what the heart bid thee”. It is a teacher, a leader, its own, rich chakra and brain with some 40,000 neurons.

We have taken the preciousness of life and our gem of a planet and wreaked such havoc, it’s jeopardizing all sentient life.

The point here is about excess in any one direction and the need for balance.

This calls for a greater embrace on all levels of society of the anima, the wisdom of the Feminine.

Balanced out harmoniously with a man’s softer, gentler, more sensitive, kind, and loving nature, which is available and abundant when allowed to surface, creates real leadership, a flourishing humanity, and an eco-system feeding and nurturing all who live here, no matter which gender occupies the offices of governance.

These are the characteristics I suggest for a real leader—both sides of the coin are essential.

References

1 American activist Sam Daley-Harris on A Better World.
2 Sam Daley-Harris, Reclaiming Our Democracy.
3 The partnership model on A Better World.
4 Social scientists Dr. Riane Eisler.
5 Riane Eisler on Building a Caring Economy: From Domination to Partnership.
5 Sanna Marin Is Still Dancing at Elle.
6 Women’s leadership and political participation at UN Women.
7 Are women better leaders than men? at Your Time to Grow.
8 Women on corporate boards and firm financial performance at Wiley Online Library.
9 Female presence in corporate governance, firm performance, and the moderating role of family ownership at Taylor & Francis Online.