Are men by nature better able to perform leadership roles?

I think it depends on the situation and on the person. For example, I think men are better suited to military leadership and barking out orders. But I think in many situations, a woman would be just as good, or maybe better, than a man. Some new research even suggests that women might be categorically BETTER leaders than men in business. I think it's a little early to make such a claim yet, but I'll post an article for anyone who is interested.

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_47/b3708145.ht...

Depends on the man. It also depends on the situation. If a man and his wife or girlfriend are out on a date, and someone tries to mug his girl, yes he at least SHOULD take action. Most times he will. Or he will try to. Change the situation: A man and his wife have exactly 23 minutes to get a parking spot in the mall, find a present, and get to the party house. That would usually be the wife's specialty.

As boys grow to men, leadership enters with maturity. And maturity levels vary within the person, not by age. With the proper tactics, a fourteen year old boy could be as mature as a forty year old in regards to leadership roles. The forty year old would know more, but the fourteen year old would be better off.

My math teacher once said that he didn't think it was right for a man to be held under a woman. When Hilary Clinton planned to take office, women around North America were shouting and cheering and whining and complaining. That was the same for men. Some liked the idea, others hated it. Even back in Bible times, it was required for the wives to respect the husbands as house leaders and husbands not to take advantage of their wives or their leadership.

It also depends on your definition of Leadership. Taking action when needed? Being a servant? Overcoming fear and obstacles? Corralling ten toddlers? Ten teenagers? keeping them together? The biggest word I see fit for your answer is: Depends. If leadership is a man's calling quality, your statement is true. On the contrary, some men are just better fit (for themselves and our benefit) to be the followers. After all, you can't have leaders without followers, and you can't have followers without leaders!

I think it depends on the individual. Some are better suited than others, and it also depends on the circumstances. The best natural leader in one setting may not be accepted in another, for example the bookish and brilliant politician who puts on a hard hat to talk to dock workers but is ill at ease and doesn't manage to resonate with them.

So to extend this idea, a man may be better able to perform a leadership role in a setting where the leader is expected to be male and a female will therefore encounter automatic resistance.

By Nature? Absolutely not. Women are more naturally inclined to handle raising children, and if that doesn't take leadership, I don't know what does...

I think by nature, men are more likely to initiate the role as leader.

it depends on the person, not the gender.

honestly, if a guy was retarded and a girl wasnt, would that mean he made a better leader just because he is a guy? vice versa as well. if a girl was retarded and a guy wasnt...

u get the idea. :p

In some ways it is true and in some ways it is not. I believe this is the case because women by nature fall ill to their emotions more than me. Men tend to think things out instead of acting on emotions. In this scenario men have the advantage. On the other hand, women tend to show more compassion whereas men tend to succumb to greed more easily. This is just my observation and it may be biased considering I am a man.

It depends on the person, some men I know can't lead themselves out of a paper bag (my boss for instance, a great example!!)

Doodlebug brings out some interesting points. I think he fails to understand that there are radicals in every movement and that the radicals like to draw attention to themselves and their party by making outrageous statements. Gloria Steinhem had a very dim view of men when she was young, she has since apologized for her insults.

As for all the legislation, it is always a mixed bag. The family man in India is often (very often) violent to his wife. There are hundreds of cases of newlywed brides being gasolined and burnt because the family failed to pay the dowry. And in India the enforcement of laws is very bad.

I agree with him that feminists make mistakes. Who doesn't? In the USA Prohibition was passed by an unholy alliance between the feminists of the 1900's and the stinking Fundies. The queens of the world have shown themselves to be rather like men is their office; one thinks of Elizabeth 1 of England, Catherine the Great (a very aggressive and shrewd woman), Isabella of Castile, who drove out all the Muslims and Jews from Spain after she and her husband promised they wouldn't, Golda Meir of Israel who was just as harsh on the Palestinians as her male counterparts, and Margaret Thatcher, a woman with chrome balls. Queen Cristina of Sweden was a remarkable intellectual who was much more interested in geometry than she was in politics, and who voluntarily abdicated so she could devote her life to study.

Here in the US we have fewer women in government than many countries do, but as Governors and in the Senate and Congress they are both liberal an conservatie.

It's a mistake to think that feminism is monolithic.

That depends on the man. My husband does not work but he is a good leader when it comes to our kids and being in charge at home. I am a good leader at work and managing my employees and running my business.