Woman Dictators

[Oppermenia]

Guys, all this you're talking about depends on your definition of a dictator.
You may consider a dictator an autocrat and the opposite of a democracy. However, a dictator is really someone who has absolute power. Or it can be, at least.
And so, a dictatorship can also be elected by the people. Like, the people want this guy as their dictator, so they elect him. The way Chin's government is described is a "democratic dictatorship".
A dictatorship has multiple definitions, and can change depending on who you're dealing with. But a dictatorship could be benevolent, or elected, so long as they have absolute power or something to simulate absolute power.

Btw, in my opinion, Trump is no different than Kim Jong. He wants to be a dictator, and could be on his way.

[Petrasylvania]

Guys, all this you're talking about depends on your definition of a dictator.
You may consider a dictator an autocrat and the opposite of a democracy. However, a dictator is really someone who has absolute power. Or it can be, at least.
And so, a dictatorship can also be elected by the people. Like, the people want this guy as their dictator, so they elect him. The way Chin's government is described is a "democratic dictatorship".
A dictatorship has multiple definitions, and can change depending on who you're dealing with. But a dictatorship could be benevolent, or elected, so long as they have absolute power or something to simulate absolute power.

Btw, in my opinion, Trump is no different than Kim Jong. He wants to be a dictator, and could be on his way.

Difference being, Donnie has a mostly willing cult following.

[The Gipper]

her position was invented out of thin air just for her.

I defer to Article 59f of the Constitution of Myanmar.

Yeah, I mean I get she probably thinks those requirements suck, but just going around the constitution rather than changing the constitution is rather dictator-like.

[Conoga]

Something something Hilary Clinton

[Kanaria]

"So was Hitler" in 3... 2... 1...

Actually, Hitler was never elected, he was appointed by Hindenburg and simply absorbed the presidency into his job when Hindenburg died.

Technically, all German chancellors are appointed by the head of state (president from 1918-33 and 1949-) on the advice of the majority of the Bundestag. Merkel was elected to represent this district. I can't find anything that says Hitler held a seat in the Bundestag, but I haven't searched long.

[Kanaria]

Something something Hilary Clinton

She didn't even hold a position of power.

[Page]

I still can't help but feel that she had a little extra shielding from being called out because she was a female head of government, even if you're probably right that she also was shielded because she gained power through an election. My point was perhaps we are slower to recognize female authoritarians because of our own views about what it is to be feminine (even in the ultra-left US media).

I don't like to generalize about differences between sexes because there are usually too many exceptions to have a rule, but I agree with the idea that people might be slower to reject a female dictator and here's why: I think a woman is less likely to speak about such things as power, law and order, the greatness of a country, and the alleged threat posed by whatever group is being scapegoated in a direct way. I suspect that women are more likely to sugarcoat their frightening authoritarian policies with the illusion of benevolence.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Something something Hilary Clinton

She didn't even hold a position of power.

Secretary of State*

[The Gipper]

Ang Suu Kyi is complicit in genocide, but she herself is not the real power in Myanmar - the military still hold that role and if they wanted to could probably get rid of her if she kicked up a fuss. She's also lionised in the western press not because she is a women or came to power in elections, but because she has endured a Nelson Mandela-esque personal struggle (being under house arrest for decades unable to see her family after winning an election fairly in 1988) against a very nasty military government.

But I wonder if similar defenses could not be made for leaders in Iran that probably, ultimately, could not snap the nation to a liberal direction because to a large part the "real power" lies in the revolutionary guard? Or to any number of historical authoritarian dictators that had the support of a military apparatus.

It just seems weird the way we talked about it. What you said is exactly what I remember hearing. I just have a hard time understanding why we're willing to see her as "not the real power" when generally it doesn't matter who is the real power. We just say they're all genocidal, evil, etc and leave it at that. We don't need to take the extra step to say she's complicit but she probably couldn't singlehandedly fix the problem so <3s.

[Petrasylvania]

She didn't even hold a position of power.

Secretary of State*

And every single Republican sure talked about her like she was named Titler.

[Conoga]

Something something Hilary Clinton

She didn't even hold a position of power.

Spouse of the leader

Secretary of State*

Also, it was a joke.

[Kanaria]

She didn't even hold a position of power.

Secretary of State*

Well, there's that.

[Kanaria]

Secretary of State*

And every single Republican sure talked about her like she was named Titler.

Amen to that!

[Strength and Order]

According to NSG I could be elected, suspend elections, and horde all power for myself - but so long as I don't orchestrate mass killings I wouldn't be a dictator. Well, alright then. Sorry to burst your propaganda bubbles, but while disastrous human rights records may be the norm for dictatorships they are not a requirement. I understand if that conflicts with the narrative you want to send about how only democratically elected leaders can be good leaders or people, for that matter. Despite what you may believe or what you wish to believe, negative connotations for the words 'Tyrant', 'Despot', 'Dictator', and 'Autocrat' are recent inventions created from the pro-democratic bias of the victorious Allied Powers in the Second World War. History, however, has shown us that all-powerful individuals can rule without being mass-murdering psychopaths. But who cares about them, right? Obviously they weren't "true" dictators because they didn't slaughter innocents en masse. History is indeed written by the victors.

As per the topic, there have been female dictators historically. Not in the common sense of a civilian ruler backed by the military or a military representative wielding full power, but rather in the traditional sense of a person wielding absolute power and subject to no higher authority - internal or external. This description could fit several historical queens and empresses. Generally, however, men are and have been in a greater position to rise to power and seize it for themselves and themselves alone. The current geopolitical climate suggests that this may no longer be the norm, and that female authoritarians will have a greater chance to rise to power following the wake of Western Civilization's inevitable collapse. Hopefully they pursue the establishment of fascist states rather than military dictatorships. Autocracy is, admittedly, undesirable due to it's tendency to devolve into corrupt and repressive regimes centered around a single figure, rather than a ideologically-driven political party.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Historically, there have been many female absolute monarchs (aka dictators) around the world

Dictators =/= absolute monarchs

[The United Colonies of Earth]

by Strength and Order » Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:09 pm

According to NSG I could be elected, suspend elections, and horde all power for myself - but so long as I don't orchestrate mass killings I wouldn't be a dictator. Well, alright then. Sorry to burst your propaganda bubbles, but while disastrous human rights records may be the norm for dictatorships they are not a requirement. I understand if that conflicts with the narrative you want to send about how only democratically elected leaders can be good leaders or people, for that matter. Despite what you may believe or what you wish to believe, negative connotations for the words 'Tyrant', 'Despot', 'Dictator', and 'Autocrat' are recent inventions created from the pro-democratic bias of the victorious Allied Powers in the Second World War. History, however, has shown us that all-powerful individuals can rule without being mass-murdering psychopaths. But who cares about them, right? Obviously they weren't "true" dictators because they didn't slaughter innocents en masse. History is indeed written by the victors.

The negative connotations for despot date back to the American Revolution. The hatred of Tyranny dates back to the rise of Athenian democracy. The 19th century itself saw the transformation of dictatorship into a negative concept.
And history isn't written by the victors, that's total bullshit. It's written by the literate. But do tell me that the courtiers of the Rus' states and of the Eastern Turkic Khaganate, under Mongol and Tang dominion, were victors. Also Cicero stopped Augustus from establishing a dictatorship, oh wait no he didn't, he got proscribed and his hands and head were stuck on pikes in the Forum! Unless DEATH IS VICTORY!

nope.

It seems like you are talking about the popular but ultimately flawed and false "winners write history" trope!

It is a very lazy and ultimately harmful way to introduce the concept of bias. There isn't really a perfectly pithy way to cover such a complex topic, but much better than winners writing history is writers writing history. This is more useful than it initially seems because until fairly recently the literate were a minority, and those with enough literary training to actually write historical narratives formed an even smaller and more distinct class within that. To give a few examples, Genghis Khan must surely go down as one of the great victors in all history, but he is generally viewed quite unfavorably in practically all sources, because his conquests tended to harm the literary classes. Or the senatorial elite can be argued to have "lost" the struggle at the end of the Republic that eventually produced Augustus, but the Roman literary classes were fairly ensconced within (or at least sympathetic towards) that order, and thus we often see the fall of the Republic presented negatively.

Of course, writers are a diverse set, and so this is far from a magical solution to solving the problems of bias. The painful truth is, each source simply needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Historically, there have been many female absolute monarchs (aka dictators) around the world

Dictators =/= absolute monarchs

They both are ascribed absolute power either in fact or form. The one difference as that most kings inherit the power rather than bludgeoning someone for it. Rather minor distinction to me, frankly.

[Dogmeat]

Historically, there have been many female absolute monarchs (aka dictators) around the world

Dictators =/= absolute monarchs

I can, depending on how you're using the terms. Most people don't mean the Roman concept of a dictator when they say "dictator," they mean a despot, which an absolute monarch can easily be. This is clearly the meaning the OP has in mind, and it's kind of pedantic to quibble over it.


Either way, I'm going to point to Wu Zetian. A less-than totally legitimate monarch who definitely held dictatorial power. She also did other fairly typical dictatorial things, like have massive crackdowns on dissent, tied to reshape the culture to her liking, and was also quite militaristic and expansionist.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Dictators =/= absolute monarchs

They both are ascribed absolute power either in fact or form. The one difference as that most kings inherit the power rather than bludgeoning someone for it. Rather minor distinction to me, frankly.

It's quite a bit different as monarchs and dictators have different bases of power. A monarch relies on a traditional power structure, usually dependent on family ties and relation. Whereas a dictator's power comes from more modern sources like bureaucratic or military support.

[Oppermenia]

They both are ascribed absolute power either in fact or form. The one difference as that most kings inherit the power rather than bludgeoning someone for it. Rather minor distinction to me, frankly.

It's quite a bit different as monarchs and dictators have different bases of power. A monarch relies on a traditional power structure, usually dependent on family ties and relation. Whereas a dictator's power comes from more modern sources like bureaucratic or military support.

But why does it matter?
If someone has absolute power, they can be considered a dictator. Being elected or inheriting the position doesn't change that, so long as you've gained absolute power. I think that's really the definition of dictator that matters - - someone with absolute power.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

They both are ascribed absolute power either in fact or form. The one difference as that most kings inherit the power rather than bludgeoning someone for it. Rather minor distinction to me, frankly.

It's quite a bit different as monarchs and dictators have different bases of power. A monarch relies on a traditional power structure, usually dependent on family ties and relation. Whereas a dictator's power comes from more modern sources like bureaucratic or military support.

True that.

[Valrifell]

I think that the dictator-figure necessarily requires a stereotype of a strong figure, which is more easily accomplished if you're a man since there's whole stereotypes and narratives whipped around that make portraying yourself as a strongman easy. Machismo is easy when you're a man, harder when you're a woman.

[Xmara]

And with that I’d say we’re set, so NSG, we’re there any female dictators?

There are no female Hitlers and Mussolinis for the same reason that there aren't any female Jeff Dahmers.

Oh really?

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's quite a bit different as monarchs and dictators have different bases of power. A monarch relies on a traditional power structure, usually dependent on family ties and relation. Whereas a dictator's power comes from more modern sources like bureaucratic or military support.

But why does it matter?
If someone has absolute power, they can be considered a dictator. Being elected or inheriting the position doesn't change that, so long as you've gained absolute power. I think that's really the definition of dictator that matters - - someone with absolute power.

It matters because political power is more complicated than just having it or not.

[Rio Cana]

Seems women dictators are rare. But women rebels are plenty.

Read - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... _rebellion