Henrietta Hay's Column

I wonder whether I should sue Erma Bombeck. She stole an idea I had. Well, to be quite honest, while it was still floating loosely around in my brain she wrote it down and got it printed. Our mutual question is: What if women ran the world? What would it be like? Would it be any better? If a woman were in the White House would we be at war? Erma waffles on it, as we all do. It will be a while before we know but I do wonder.

Erma says, "We (women) spend a lot of time talking our kids out of violence and soothing over family differences. Wouldn't it be refreshing to find a woman who would hang onto those philosophies when she got her own country to run?" Yes, it would, but so far it hasn't worked out that way.

The Amazons are hardly examples of warm, nurturing females. They were warriors. But myths of the Amazons leading armies, building cities, founding nations and establishing new civilizations are just that, myths, and myths created by men. The story started with the Greeks and through all the intervening years of literature, the strong, warlike Amazon women have fought and usually been conquered by men who thereby become heroes.

Some of the modern women who have "had their own countries" have been something less than peaceful. Isabel Peron, the first woman head of state in the Western hemisphere was ousted from the presidency of Argentina by a military junta amid charges of corruption. Golda Meir, Israel's long-time premier, looked like everybody's benign grandmother, maybe because she was a grandmother. But she led a country, which was at war during most of her years of power. And the best-known modern example of the Female Warrior Myth is Maggie Thatcher. She ran Great Britain for a lot of years, but she didn't go in much for conciliation or talking people out of violence. Apparently the nickname, the Iron Lady, given to her by her fellow Britons was well earned.

With these examples, do we really think that women could do a better job of running a country? At great personal risk to myself, and in spite of historical evidence to the contrary, I must say that I think so. From the Amazons to Maggie Thatcher, female leaders of nations have behaved exactly like male leaders of nations, competitive, dominating, warlike, the Warriors of myth. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Something new is happening. Women in positions of power, business and political, are discovering and using their own styles of strong leadership. And those styles work. These women are finding that they don't always have to follow men's rules to succeed in the man's world.

So who will they be, these new women who will lead the world? What kind of woman should be the first one to occupy the White House? I wondered about Miss Piggy, but someone pointed out that she is a puppet, and we surely don't want that. No, she will have to be a real, live woman. Ellen Goodman suggested a couple of years ago that she would probably be, much to Ellen's and my discomfiture, a conservative Republican with a husband, two post-adolescent children and a dog. Maybe. But whatever her party and whatever her philosophy, she will be a woman of courage. With luck, she will be a woman of vision and humor.

Where is she now, this pioneer woman? Maybe somewhere in Kansas or Vermont or even Colorado she is waiting and getting prepared. She is doing the things that women have to do - balancing her household budget, settling fights between siblings, keeping the house clean and the family fed, patching up wounds and holding down a good job. She is being the nurturing Super mom.

I think those skills are invaluable for the presidency. Imagine, a president who knows how to balance a budget, mediate fights, feed the hungry and keep the house clean! To quote Erma again, it would be "refreshing to find a woman who would hold on to those philosophies when she got her own country to run." Yes, I think it might be a better world if the women were in charge. And I think we might well be a world at peace.