Ok, before I start, I need to make a couple of things very clear.
1. This is not an article insulting and degrading women in any way shape or form. This is not an opportunity for me to be sexist in any way shape or form.
2. This is not an article insulting and degrading men in any way shape or form. This is not an opportunity for me to be sexist in any way shape or form.
What I want to do, in this article, is to try and dispel a certain myth that's being perpetuated during the current Covid crisis.
The myth is this:
"Women are better leaders. The pandemic proves it" (Taken from an article by CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/05/perspectives/women-leaders-coronavirus/index.html)
There is an argument, and it's a fair one, that countries that are run by women seem to have fared better during the Coronavirus. Many people look to the wonderful, and frankly lovely, Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand. By all accounts, New Zealand seem to have done incredibly well in regards to Covid-19. An early lockdown, early measures protecting citizens and many other similar measures that we've seen globally have allowed the country to see under 1500 confirmed cases and only 21 recorded fatalities from the virus. (Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31097-7/fulltext)
[Disclaimer: I know saying 'only' is somewhat insulting. I know every single number represents a person. I'm talking solely in a statistical context, which is cold no matter how you present it. You'll just have to work with me on this].
Ardern has been celebrated worldwide for her Government's actions, as well as how she's keeping people informed about Government measures and decisions. It appears, for all intents and purposes, Ardern was the right Prime Minister at the right time. But, if you look deep enough, there were similar problems in New Zealand that happened in many other Western countries.
In April, several news outlets in New Zealand started reporting that, much as in the UK, the US and other countries, Health Care workers weren't receiving the correct amounts of Personal Protective Equipment. And any they were receiving initially were either out of date or, in some cases, falling apart in workers' hands. (Source: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120981315/coronavirus-new-national-ppe-distribution-system-introduced-after-faults-and-shortages).
Please understand, I am not berating Ardern for this. It's happened too far and wide across the world to single her out for it. And it would be unfair of me to berate New Zealand for the same problem that ha afflicted the UK and the US among others. So, what changed?
According to The Lancet, New Zealand used a strategy of Elimination rather than Containment, which many other countries had adopted. Here is a section of the Lancet article on New Zealand's approach:
Michael Baker, professor at the University of Otago's department of public health in Wellington, who has been advising the New Zealand Government on its response, said implementing a full lockdown—involving the closure of schools and non-essential workplaces, a ban on social gatherings, and severe travel restrictions—enabled the country to consider elimination. “I think it was the right decision; we had to go hard”, he said.
“The two biggest benefits of pursuing an elimination strategy is that you have few cases and few deaths and you can get business back up and running. The alternative was that we are stuck with the virus and stuck between mitigation and suppression. Suppression is pretty grim.”
While the strategy has had its critics, for Baker, the evidence was overwhelming that elimination could be achieved.
Baker said the full lockdown allowed the country to get key systems up and running to effectively manage borders, and do contact tracing, testing, and surveillance. Since Jan 22, more than 150 000 people have been tested in a country of just 5 million. Testing has been focused on people with symptoms, with tracing of both close contacts and casual contacts. However, more widespread testing is now being introduced. The Ministry of Health is in discussion with districts to arrange testing of specific communities who are at higher risk of acquiring the virus such as those in aged residential care and health-care workers. Testing samples from sewerage is also being considered to monitor control and elimination.
The response has also been one that placed science, leadership, and careful language at the forefront.
The interesting part of this, for me, is the idea of striking hard and fast while other countries tried to mitigate. One of the main criticisms of the UK's response to the virus has been the lack of testing, something which New Zealand has acted out well. But, in the UK's defence, NZ has a smaller population than the UK, and a lower amount of people per square mile. So, it could be argued, that the NZ approach doesn't really eclipse the UK's progress statistically as the two countries are vastly different.
So, to summarize quickly. New Zealand has 21 deaths from Covid-19 and is fronted by a female leader.
Here's the interesting part. Even NZ doesn't have the lowest number of deaths. There are countries with much lower death rates including Malta, many African nations and, oddly, Liechtenstein. Which only has 1 death so far as of 9th May 2020 out of a population of just under 39,000. I'm not saying female leaders CAN'T do better.
But here's my overall point.
It's a little disingenuous to say women leaders are handling the crisis better than male counterparts. Here are my reasons why:
1. Most articles I've read don't take a lot of the countries' socio-economic position prior to the crisis into account. In the case of New Zealand alone, New Zealand seemed very unprepared for a possible pandemic as early as last year when checks were made. I'd be willing to bet, though I haven't found any article to suggest one way or another, that quite a few other countries were in the same scenario.
2. Not all of the leaders who have been praised are 'left-wing'. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of publications and people who are left-leaning often compliment the various female leaders who have dealt with the virus well, leading some to postulate (or assume) that socialist governments just handle this stuff better. Now, this could be right and wrong in equal measure. But, of the 7 female leaders praised, two of them are actually Conservative in ideology. Angela Merkel oversees a centre-right party, while Erna Solberg of Norway also presides over a Conservative Government. As someone who is on the left, I really want to dispel that particular issue before it gets out of hand.
3. It slightly undermines efforts by Male-led countries who have also done well. There are countries who are male-led that have also been praised. Although it's taken a longer time, South Korea has been praised for its effective response early on. Although there were cases and deaths, at today, that number stands at 10,840 positive cases and 256 deaths. (Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea/). However, of the many things that set South Korea apart from its international counterparts was the ferocity in which tested people across the country, as well as the level of contact tracing that was undertaken to ensure the curve flattened as quickly as possible. While that may not have been practically possible in all countries, it certainly did help. And now South Korea has been easing lockdown measures, while keeping their testing and tracing instruments in place. Australia has also seen a relatively low case/death count with 6,833 confirmed cases, 93 dead and 6,035 recovered. That being said, like NZ, Australia is sparsely populated. Which, in a weird way, makes South Korea's efforts look even better given that the country has a population of 1,302 people per square mile. (For context, Australia has 7 people per square mile, New Zealand has 15 people per square mile and the UK has 1,010 people per square mile).
4. Your genitalia does not indicate how good a politician you'll be. The fact that a leader has a penis or a vagina doesn't impact the thinking of said person. This is something we need to remember. To say "that country did better because a woman was in charge" is, not only somewhat sexist, but it's also completely unfair without evidence and context. If you say "New Zealand did better BECAUSE their leader was a woman", that's wrong. If you then explained they way they locked down, tested and traced, then you'd have a little more respect from me. But saying that someone's good leader purely because they happened to be born with bollocks or boobs is stupid. It's sexism both ways. But, even then, there will be countries with female leaders that may not have dealt better with the crisis than their male counterparts. To be honest, if Theresa May were still PM of the UK, I don't think the UK's handling of the crisis would've been much different. The UK may have joined the EU's ventilator scheme, or it may not have. We just don't know. But to say that a leader is better because they're a woman, or that a country has done better because a woman is in charge, is disingenuous. Also, it negates completely how Government works. The leader is one part of a finely tuned machine. Although the ultimate decision may be theirs in times of crisis, they're not looking at every Governmental department all the time. I mean, do you think anyone has the time to read 17 different dossiers a day AND run a country AND maintain good mental health? These women are not dictators, so to say they're doing better removes a lot of background and context.
So, why are female leaders being held in high esteem during this time?
Honestly?
In my opinion?
They appear to care more about people.
I think the two most obvious examples of questionable timing schedules as far as easing lockdown is concerned are Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. The latter, especially. While there hasn't been as much pressure to ease the lockdown in the UK, the US is a different beast entirely on that front. Trump has been saying for some time he wants the country re-opened and the economy back up and running. He's been very open about this all along. Which is fine if the science backs it up.
But, it could be strongly argued, that Trump is being strongly influenced by the economy and not a lot else. But that's understandable, it's election year in America. And the economy is one of the key factors of any election. In America by and large, put simply, a leader's popularity and chances depend on the state of the economy. Of course, this isn't always the case. But it's fair to argue Trump definitely sees his validation coming from the state of the economy. If the economy tanks, his chances of re-election outside of his base (and any potential interference from international powers) are dramatically reduced.
The UK doesn't have that same problem. And there is a split in the Cabinet about how to go about it. It's been reported that the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, wants the economy reopened as much as possible. Again, fair. But it has to be done without the major risk of a second wave. Which, right now, isn't guaranteed.
With fears among many US scientists and epidemiologists of a second wave, Trump's ideal plan of reopening the country, and the economy, could cause another world wide shock. it's also worth pointing out, it's almost universally accepted now that the world economy is going to take a MAJOR hit because of this crisis. Possibly to levels close to the Great Depression of the 1930s. But, the way Trump and other top Republicans speak, an argument can be made that there is a more pressing care for the economy rather than human life. (The fact that The Texas Lt. Governor said back in March that the older generation would be willing to die for the economy is evidence of this).
The female leaders haven't necessarily prioritized this in the same way. Jacinda Ardern especially. It's election year in NZ too, and the opposition Party have already used potential economic damage resulting from the lockdown as a selling point against Ardern's re-election. Even if the lockdown was necessary for human life, there is still a desire for strong economies globally. Which, as we've seen in some cases, conflict.
And then there's Jair Bolsonaro who's a whole other kettle of fish that I won't go into today.
To conclude, while the fact that female-led countries have fared better in this crisis can be supported by statistics, it doesn't discredit other countries run by men. It's not solely about who's in charge. You need to take into consideration the socio-economic situation, the preparedness of the Government in terms of Personal Protective Equipment, testing and contact tracing capability. (And the capacity of that country's health service more importantly). The gender of the leader shouldn't (and frankly doesn't) come into it. Ardern handled it well, doesn't mean Helen Clark would have. Trump isn't handling it well, doesn't mean Hilary would've done any better. And, Theresa May would've done better?
It doesn't come down to gender alone. So, frankly, this myth of female leaders doing better, in my opinion, is extremely disingenuous. And we should be looking more at the approaches they took socially, scientifically and fiscally rather than thinking about what's hiding in their underwear.
As I sign off, here's a map of case severity across the globe
1. This is not an article insulting and degrading women in any way shape or form. This is not an opportunity for me to be sexist in any way shape or form.
2. This is not an article insulting and degrading men in any way shape or form. This is not an opportunity for me to be sexist in any way shape or form.
What I want to do, in this article, is to try and dispel a certain myth that's being perpetuated during the current Covid crisis.
The myth is this:
"Women are better leaders. The pandemic proves it" (Taken from an article by CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/05/perspectives/women-leaders-coronavirus/index.html)
There is an argument, and it's a fair one, that countries that are run by women seem to have fared better during the Coronavirus. Many people look to the wonderful, and frankly lovely, Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand. By all accounts, New Zealand seem to have done incredibly well in regards to Covid-19. An early lockdown, early measures protecting citizens and many other similar measures that we've seen globally have allowed the country to see under 1500 confirmed cases and only 21 recorded fatalities from the virus. (Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31097-7/fulltext)
[Disclaimer: I know saying 'only' is somewhat insulting. I know every single number represents a person. I'm talking solely in a statistical context, which is cold no matter how you present it. You'll just have to work with me on this].
Ardern has been celebrated worldwide for her Government's actions, as well as how she's keeping people informed about Government measures and decisions. It appears, for all intents and purposes, Ardern was the right Prime Minister at the right time. But, if you look deep enough, there were similar problems in New Zealand that happened in many other Western countries.
In April, several news outlets in New Zealand started reporting that, much as in the UK, the US and other countries, Health Care workers weren't receiving the correct amounts of Personal Protective Equipment. And any they were receiving initially were either out of date or, in some cases, falling apart in workers' hands. (Source: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120981315/coronavirus-new-national-ppe-distribution-system-introduced-after-faults-and-shortages).
Please understand, I am not berating Ardern for this. It's happened too far and wide across the world to single her out for it. And it would be unfair of me to berate New Zealand for the same problem that ha afflicted the UK and the US among others. So, what changed?
According to The Lancet, New Zealand used a strategy of Elimination rather than Containment, which many other countries had adopted. Here is a section of the Lancet article on New Zealand's approach:
Michael Baker, professor at the University of Otago's department of public health in Wellington, who has been advising the New Zealand Government on its response, said implementing a full lockdown—involving the closure of schools and non-essential workplaces, a ban on social gatherings, and severe travel restrictions—enabled the country to consider elimination. “I think it was the right decision; we had to go hard”, he said.
“The two biggest benefits of pursuing an elimination strategy is that you have few cases and few deaths and you can get business back up and running. The alternative was that we are stuck with the virus and stuck between mitigation and suppression. Suppression is pretty grim.”
While the strategy has had its critics, for Baker, the evidence was overwhelming that elimination could be achieved.
Baker said the full lockdown allowed the country to get key systems up and running to effectively manage borders, and do contact tracing, testing, and surveillance. Since Jan 22, more than 150 000 people have been tested in a country of just 5 million. Testing has been focused on people with symptoms, with tracing of both close contacts and casual contacts. However, more widespread testing is now being introduced. The Ministry of Health is in discussion with districts to arrange testing of specific communities who are at higher risk of acquiring the virus such as those in aged residential care and health-care workers. Testing samples from sewerage is also being considered to monitor control and elimination.
The response has also been one that placed science, leadership, and careful language at the forefront.
The interesting part of this, for me, is the idea of striking hard and fast while other countries tried to mitigate. One of the main criticisms of the UK's response to the virus has been the lack of testing, something which New Zealand has acted out well. But, in the UK's defence, NZ has a smaller population than the UK, and a lower amount of people per square mile. So, it could be argued, that the NZ approach doesn't really eclipse the UK's progress statistically as the two countries are vastly different.
So, to summarize quickly. New Zealand has 21 deaths from Covid-19 and is fronted by a female leader.
Here's the interesting part. Even NZ doesn't have the lowest number of deaths. There are countries with much lower death rates including Malta, many African nations and, oddly, Liechtenstein. Which only has 1 death so far as of 9th May 2020 out of a population of just under 39,000. I'm not saying female leaders CAN'T do better.
But here's my overall point.
It's a little disingenuous to say women leaders are handling the crisis better than male counterparts. Here are my reasons why:
1. Most articles I've read don't take a lot of the countries' socio-economic position prior to the crisis into account. In the case of New Zealand alone, New Zealand seemed very unprepared for a possible pandemic as early as last year when checks were made. I'd be willing to bet, though I haven't found any article to suggest one way or another, that quite a few other countries were in the same scenario.
2. Not all of the leaders who have been praised are 'left-wing'. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of publications and people who are left-leaning often compliment the various female leaders who have dealt with the virus well, leading some to postulate (or assume) that socialist governments just handle this stuff better. Now, this could be right and wrong in equal measure. But, of the 7 female leaders praised, two of them are actually Conservative in ideology. Angela Merkel oversees a centre-right party, while Erna Solberg of Norway also presides over a Conservative Government. As someone who is on the left, I really want to dispel that particular issue before it gets out of hand.
3. It slightly undermines efforts by Male-led countries who have also done well. There are countries who are male-led that have also been praised. Although it's taken a longer time, South Korea has been praised for its effective response early on. Although there were cases and deaths, at today, that number stands at 10,840 positive cases and 256 deaths. (Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea/). However, of the many things that set South Korea apart from its international counterparts was the ferocity in which tested people across the country, as well as the level of contact tracing that was undertaken to ensure the curve flattened as quickly as possible. While that may not have been practically possible in all countries, it certainly did help. And now South Korea has been easing lockdown measures, while keeping their testing and tracing instruments in place. Australia has also seen a relatively low case/death count with 6,833 confirmed cases, 93 dead and 6,035 recovered. That being said, like NZ, Australia is sparsely populated. Which, in a weird way, makes South Korea's efforts look even better given that the country has a population of 1,302 people per square mile. (For context, Australia has 7 people per square mile, New Zealand has 15 people per square mile and the UK has 1,010 people per square mile).
4. Your genitalia does not indicate how good a politician you'll be. The fact that a leader has a penis or a vagina doesn't impact the thinking of said person. This is something we need to remember. To say "that country did better because a woman was in charge" is, not only somewhat sexist, but it's also completely unfair without evidence and context. If you say "New Zealand did better BECAUSE their leader was a woman", that's wrong. If you then explained they way they locked down, tested and traced, then you'd have a little more respect from me. But saying that someone's good leader purely because they happened to be born with bollocks or boobs is stupid. It's sexism both ways. But, even then, there will be countries with female leaders that may not have dealt better with the crisis than their male counterparts. To be honest, if Theresa May were still PM of the UK, I don't think the UK's handling of the crisis would've been much different. The UK may have joined the EU's ventilator scheme, or it may not have. We just don't know. But to say that a leader is better because they're a woman, or that a country has done better because a woman is in charge, is disingenuous. Also, it negates completely how Government works. The leader is one part of a finely tuned machine. Although the ultimate decision may be theirs in times of crisis, they're not looking at every Governmental department all the time. I mean, do you think anyone has the time to read 17 different dossiers a day AND run a country AND maintain good mental health? These women are not dictators, so to say they're doing better removes a lot of background and context.
So, why are female leaders being held in high esteem during this time?
Honestly?
In my opinion?
They appear to care more about people.
I think the two most obvious examples of questionable timing schedules as far as easing lockdown is concerned are Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. The latter, especially. While there hasn't been as much pressure to ease the lockdown in the UK, the US is a different beast entirely on that front. Trump has been saying for some time he wants the country re-opened and the economy back up and running. He's been very open about this all along. Which is fine if the science backs it up.
But, it could be strongly argued, that Trump is being strongly influenced by the economy and not a lot else. But that's understandable, it's election year in America. And the economy is one of the key factors of any election. In America by and large, put simply, a leader's popularity and chances depend on the state of the economy. Of course, this isn't always the case. But it's fair to argue Trump definitely sees his validation coming from the state of the economy. If the economy tanks, his chances of re-election outside of his base (and any potential interference from international powers) are dramatically reduced.
The UK doesn't have that same problem. And there is a split in the Cabinet about how to go about it. It's been reported that the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, wants the economy reopened as much as possible. Again, fair. But it has to be done without the major risk of a second wave. Which, right now, isn't guaranteed.
With fears among many US scientists and epidemiologists of a second wave, Trump's ideal plan of reopening the country, and the economy, could cause another world wide shock. it's also worth pointing out, it's almost universally accepted now that the world economy is going to take a MAJOR hit because of this crisis. Possibly to levels close to the Great Depression of the 1930s. But, the way Trump and other top Republicans speak, an argument can be made that there is a more pressing care for the economy rather than human life. (The fact that The Texas Lt. Governor said back in March that the older generation would be willing to die for the economy is evidence of this).
The female leaders haven't necessarily prioritized this in the same way. Jacinda Ardern especially. It's election year in NZ too, and the opposition Party have already used potential economic damage resulting from the lockdown as a selling point against Ardern's re-election. Even if the lockdown was necessary for human life, there is still a desire for strong economies globally. Which, as we've seen in some cases, conflict.
And then there's Jair Bolsonaro who's a whole other kettle of fish that I won't go into today.
To conclude, while the fact that female-led countries have fared better in this crisis can be supported by statistics, it doesn't discredit other countries run by men. It's not solely about who's in charge. You need to take into consideration the socio-economic situation, the preparedness of the Government in terms of Personal Protective Equipment, testing and contact tracing capability. (And the capacity of that country's health service more importantly). The gender of the leader shouldn't (and frankly doesn't) come into it. Ardern handled it well, doesn't mean Helen Clark would have. Trump isn't handling it well, doesn't mean Hilary would've done any better. And, Theresa May would've done better?
It doesn't come down to gender alone. So, frankly, this myth of female leaders doing better, in my opinion, is extremely disingenuous. And we should be looking more at the approaches they took socially, scientifically and fiscally rather than thinking about what's hiding in their underwear.
As I sign off, here's a map of case severity across the globe
