Do men really run the world? A napkin calculation.
I frequently hear the argument that it’s “men who are in power”. “They are heads of governments, chiefs of industry, and control our culture to create a woman-hating environment that leaves (at least, surely) 33% of all women raped. Or killed. Or both.”
Feminists cry out for numeric parity of the sexes who occupy positions of power. Radical Feminists cry for reversal. A number of arguments can be made regarding parity, but let us start off with a simpler approach and take a quick little reality check using nothing more than a napkin calculation, that is, a calculation using approximate numbers.
I offer the following:
Men who control the government
There is no universally agreed-to number to quantify the countries on the globe, due, mostly to constantly shifting political boundaries. Typically, the numbers range from 190 countries, to 196. For the sake of inclusiveness and ease, I’ve chosen to count them at 200.
Let us say that in each government, that there are 100 power players–no, let’s make it 1000, the ones who make the real changes. They are the Prime Ministers, Senators, Governors and such.
We will assume that they are exclusively male.
We will ignore, for the sake of this calculation, any power that any woman might have, as Radical Feminists would tell us is so.
200 countries * 1000 male heads of state = 200,000 men.
Men who control the global economy
In the US, there is a list of what is known as the Fortune 500 Companies, that is, the companies with the greatest economic impact and affluence. Using that number, let us extend it to each country and grant that each has 500 companies that dominate that nation’s economy.
200 countries * 500 companies = 100,000 companies dominate the global economy.
Each company has one CEO. But let’s say that the top 10 most powerful people in these companies are exclusively men.
100,000 companies * 10 men = 1,000,000 men
Total so far: 1.2 million men.
By way of comparison, there are 37 million people, globally, who are completely blind.
Men as a global population
Let us now look at the world population as of the time of this writing: 7,109,147,664 humans on the globe.
Let us assume a ratio of 1:1, or 50% males, 50% females on the planet.
7,109,147,664 / 2 = 3,554,573,832 males. Let us round down to 3.5 billion males to keep the percentage of power-wielders high.
In this scenario, where it is exclusively males, all females discounted, The Men Who Run The World are 3.375% of the global male population (or 1.687% of the global population).
This indicates that, according to these calculations, at least 96.625% of men do not run the world.
So why is it that the 96.625% of men like this one:
And this one:
who are not “movers and shakers”, and the very few men like this one:
and this one:
… are attributed the same degree of power when it comes to being “oppressors”. Why is it claimed that “men run the world, therefor we need more women in positions of power” when in fact it is probably closer to truth that 96.625% of men who hold no more or less power than the average woman are scorned as scourges to women’s power as though they were the few?
Ignoring the vast-majority of men without high-level decision power, but still generalizing and blaming them as the cause of women’s woes to support the argument “It’s men who run the world” is sexist to the bone. “You are male, therefor it is up to you to check your privilege!”, men are told by feminists.
Isn’t it time that men and women both, take a good look at the real world, and recognize that we live in a common world? While we recognize that there are in fact spectacular exceptions both of fame and fortune as well as horror and ignominy, the world does not operate according to conspiracy theory rules, but according the collective choices of mere mortals.
If equality truly is the goal, then we must be willing–all of us–to not only grant, but to accept both rights and duties for all, not just one segment of the population. This means that women are responsible to and for themselves–and men, as men are responsible to and for themselves as much as they are for women.
If we are to recreate culture, globally, for 100% of women, would it not be worthwhile to extend our positive actions and attitudes towards 96.625% of the men who hold no more or less power than the average woman? And why would it be acceptable to lay the charge of an iniquitous world solely on the shoulders of men? Would it not benefit women to accept their natural human power and accept that in order to create a better world, that the responsibility lies as much with them to change themselves as is asked of men?
To the degree that one gives up responsibility, one also gives away power.
If equality is the goal, equal acceptance of right and duty on the behalf of all parties seems the only possible foundation.