Who’s hysterical now? Covid-19 and the women leading the way.

On June 8^th New Zealand announced that it was Covid-free after recording no new cases and discharging their last Covid-19 patient from hospital. Jacinda Ardern, already praised for her response to national terror and climate crisis, can now boast the country’s highest popularity rating in over a century and one of the lowest Covid-19 death rates in the world. Ardern, along with so many other female leaders, have demonstrated that the ‘female approach’ to tackling a crisis is not only distinctly different from that of men, but also significantly more successful. But what makes female leaders so good in a crisis?

@thesketchish

Whilst all of Ardern’s policies reflect the calm and calculated approach that she took to protect her country, one tactic was highly praised by the media and public for setting the tone. Known for regularly using social media to interact with the public, she streamed a Facebook Live video from the comfort of her sofa to discuss her own fears about the pandemic and reassure her compatriots about the governments prevention measures. Speaking from her own personal space and using language that was familiar and comforting, she set the tone for the pandemic and encouraged the nation to remain calm and kind. She asked people to “check in on their neighbours” and took the time to “prepare” everyone for the short term future. Her words were a stark contrast from many male politicians, who adopted the language of war to depict their approach to tackling the virus. Words like defeat and wartime government were used to overcome the invisible enemy or silent killer that was sweeping across the globe.

Like New Zealand, Norway and Demark also took the time to reassure the nation hosting press conferences designed to answer children’s questions and ease their worries about the virus. Taking onus away from parents, who may have difficulty explaining the science or simply be too worried themselves, Erna Solberg and Mette Frederikson demonstrated how compassion and understanding can unite a nation. Schools in both countries were able to re-open after ministers, teachers and parents made social distancing suggestions and there has been significant praise from parents and children who felt comfortable returning to the classroom. With this level of open communication and reassurance, it’s easy to see why female led Scandinavian countries have seen 10% less cases than their male-led neighbours like Sweden.

Women also seem more open to information sharing and accepting advice from a wider range of sources. Angela Merkel’s coronavirus policy could be considered so successful because she took advice from previous epidemiological models, medical providers and evidence from South Korea’s program of testing and isolation. The results have meant that Germany has one of the lowest death rates in Europe – only 8,776 compared to the double figures exhibited by Spain, France, Italy and the UK. It’s not a surprise, therefore, that Boris Johnson – PM of the country with the highest EU death rates -  only listened to his own epidemiologists and refused to heed advice regarding the development and track and trace apps that had already be tried and tested. Even worse than this, is Donald Trump who fired his top medical advisor at BARD for refusing to agree on Trump’s idea to use unproven hydroxychloroquine as a vaccine.

Merkel’s method has been widely praised by scientific bodies like the University of Edinburgh who commented that: 

“The only way to avoid ‘groupthink’ and blind spots is to ensure representatives with diverse backgrounds and expertise are at the table when major decisions are made.” 

Ultimately, when leaders are able to listen more, they are able to develop better and more inclusive policy. And it certainly seems that a woman’s characteristics allow them to listen much more carefully than men.

In their listening, women accepted advice and tested new technology. Taiwan’s Tsai Ing-Wen has led one of the most successful track, trace and prevention strategies the world has seen thanks to her use of innovative software and fast response. Tsai Ing-Wen, became one of the quickest leaders to respond to the outbreak, introducing 124 track, trace and prevention measures as early as January. She was praised for her matter-of-fact approach to the situation which ultimately ensured that the country did not have to go into lock down at all and was affected very little by the virus. Ardern showed similar decisive thinking by choosing to close borders early, and Iceland’s Katrín Jacobsdóttir was quick to issue testing kits to every household. None of these strategies are yet to be enforced by the UK and the difference in death rates speak for themselves.

The fast response times demonstrate a desire to put lives before economy – a tactic which has not been exhibited by many male politicians. Whilst Boris battled to keep the economy open for as long as possible and Trump was making comments like…

“two months ago we had the best economy in the history of the world. We are going to do it again and that’s what we’re starting … it’s going to happen pretty fast,”

countries like Taiwan, New Zealand and Iceland were closing borders and shutting up shops before the R rate could even get going. Perhaps this vehement mission to save lives over economy comes from the old age female responsibility to nurture and protect. Whilst men had to aggressively hunt and gather, women nurtured and cared and perhaps, even thousands of years down the line, this natural instinct still exists so strongly today.

Instincts…

Feminist scholars like Cynthia Enloe have long argued that women’s position in society as well as their historical and economic positions within society has given women an ability to lead. She determines that gender affects our social circumstances and that this inevitably impacts the way men and women have learnt to deal with and overcome certain situations. This theory stems from the idea that men and women have always had different ‘gendered experiences’ which have impacted the way each gender has been shaped politically, socially and historically. And this has indeed been evidenced by female leaders of today. Their compassionate approach, ability to listen to others and acceptance of new technology or ideas are a bi-product of the role that women have held in society for years. A role which has often positioned them as mothers, carers and teachers often subservient to their male opposites. I suppose it is common misbelief that compassion and care signals weakness, but for the female leaders of this world their compassion has been their strength and the people have responded to it.

It is interesting that the stereotypical characteristics of a good leader are aligned with characteristics attributed mainly to men. Things like assertiveness, dominance and competitiveness all rank high, yet people seldom regard compassion, humility and the ability to listen as traits to look for in a leader.

And yet they have proven to be so vital in today’s current climate. The female leaders who are coping with Covid-19 have clearly placed more emphasis on care of the vulnerable and emotional solidarity throughout their Covid-19 campaigns and it has garnered a calmer, more patient and more empathetic approach from the public. You only have to look at footage of people panic buying loo roll or protesting that lock down measures are a violation of their freedom to realise that the countries who used tactics of fear and blame had less success in reassuring their nations.

It is also clear from analysing the female approach that women’s ability to cede control and listen to the experts or independent bodies has had a significant impact on their policy making. Enloe would argue that women’s gendered experiences has given them a greater understanding of the world around them than men, but I think it is much more simple than that. I believe a person’s ability to listen and heed advice is simply a case of relenting control; a skill that more women seem to possess that men. The white, right male leaders of this world – Bolsonaro, Trump, Putin and Johnson – have all demonstrated an inability to take advice from anyone except their closest allies and this has, unfortunately cost the lives of thousands.

So when we look at female success in the face of Covid-19 it is important to look at the facts and the data that we see before us, but we must also ask ourselves why these women are able to act differently to men. In recognising that women and men have strengths - that their experiences throughout history have shaped their opinions and expectations - we recognise the importance of female leadership alongside male leadership. I am not claiming that women make better leaders than men (with the exception of Donald Trump who I think most would agree is a catastrophe in many ways), but that they can change the world in a way we have not yet seen. It is for this reason that women’s contribution to decision making is so vital, and why organisations like the UN have started to ensure women’s presence during peace and crisis talks as a way of creating lasting and impactful policy.

So why is it that the majority of the world are so reluctant to elect female leaders? Perhaps we should take note from the more liberal, inclusive countries like Germany, New Zealand and Taiwan by putting women in positions of power and allowing them to instigate real, long-lasting change in our political systems.

Maybe it’s time to give more women a seat round the table. Patriarchy is dead.