These societies have a pre-existing acceptance of prior female leaders as their President (or Prime Minister), and this works very favorably towards other women leaders not in any dynasty.
Because it conditions "common folks" to accept talented women leaders.
In the USA, there's the gender bias problem that essentially prohibits some of the most talented women to lead, because the "common folks" have not been well-conditioned to accept women leaders, so even good talent gets rejected purely on the basis of gender. For example:
Remember in the late 70s, the poll where American public voted they would never see a female doctor even if she were qualified and talented? And remember the recent study that showed and proved bias against women professors? (A large number of instructors were told to read exactly the same lecture, word for word, to their students. The students graded their instructors on the basis of the content of the lecture, and guess what? The women got dismal scores while the men got extremely high scores, even though the content was identical.) A very famous study.
In essence, in these other countries which have experienced the benefit of women leaders, this acceptance of women leaders suddenly becomes a launch pad for other women to lead in those countries whose "common folks" already accept women leadership. That's the beauty of it.
PS Pray tell, why do you think the USA isn't ruled by a "family dynasties" ? It's not a random coincident that two people from the exact same family, out of a population of 300 million people, are President of the USA. If you don't think that's not a family dynasty controlling this country, then you haven't studied statistics to realize that is not a random event. Bush #1 and Bush #2. Geez, that beats out even the Ghandis, now doesn't it. |
