Core Sentiments

[u/Timbucktwo1230]

Former U.S. President Barack Obama frequently speaks on the value of women in political leadership, most recently reviving these thoughts in a September 21, 2026 talk at Salem State University.

During his discussion with presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, Obama stated that he often fantasized during his presidency about putting women in charge of every government for two years. He expressed a strong belief that while things wouldn't be perfect, "they'd be better".

Similarly Obama took a widely publicized stance at a private leadership event in Singapore in December 2019. He argued that women are "indisputably better" leaders than men and that increased female leadership would yield significant improvements in global living standards, child care and also in general outcomes.

A social media nod from singer Nancy Sinatra expressed her agreement with his perspective.

[u/Adventurous_Key_4854 → u/[deleted]]

Diversity of appearances only apparently

[u/Adventurous_Key_4854 → u/[deleted]]

Diversity of thought.

[u/Adventurous_Key_4854 → u/[deleted]]

The emphasis on diversity is only brought up when discussing two things primarily: gender and race.

[u/generation_fish → u/[deleted]]

Diversity is neither a strength or a weakness. So long as there aren't barriers that artificially hold people back, if some areas don't have diversity while other do, then there is no issues.

For example, Nordic countries are seen as the most gender equal in the world, and the jobs that women and men choose of their own volution has widened, not increased. This means a reduction of gender diversity in the workplace but that is neither good or bad.

[u/generation_fish → u/[deleted]]

So you're going to ignore the fact that the work place has become less gender diverse, and that that is OK because it's just a naturally occurring thing?

You can look up the "Nordic Paradox" for youself, to find out more information about it.

[u/generation_fish → u/[deleted]]

You should try doing a better job reading the posts you're responding to. You're not making much sense and you're also repeating something I already stated.

[u/generation_fish → u/[deleted]]

I have no idea whether you're a woman or not. I didn't spend a second even thinking about it until you brought it up. That you're throwing that out there now only shows how weak you know your position is.

Do a better job reading.

[u/Carnal_Decay → u/[deleted]]

Diversity is not a strength but a ball and chain.

[u/NoSentence0A → u/[deleted]]

prove that statement

[u/Adventurous_Key_4854 → u/[deleted]]

“This effect is not limited to race [or gender].”

[u/Adventurous_Key_4854 → u/[deleted]]

Arguing with your since deleted comment. lol

[u/Adventurous_Key_4854 → u/[deleted]]

lol got you to edit your reply. You’re funny

[u/Adventurous_Key_4854 → u/[deleted]]

Mature adult? Don’t make me laugh 😂 only insecure kids regard themselves as such

[u/NoSentence0A → u/[deleted]]

I opened up your article and immediately went to the primary study. Used chatGPT get a summary. Complain about AI all you want but that's far more effort than most people are going to give a random redditor's comment.

Right off the bat, it appears that the actual studies were focused more on intellectual diversity and gender differences in leadership roles. However most of the hypotheses were not supported.

The 2022 study of 12 scientific teams (204 members) tested five hypotheses: women mentor more, men lead more, leadership and mentoring are separate roles, women mix social and professional relationships more, and female leaders foster greater social connections. Only one prediction was supported: leaders were also more likely to provide advice. Most gender differences were statistically insignificant, suggesting team culture may matter more than gender composition.

[u/NoSentence0A → u/[deleted]]

Well I gave you more effort than you clearly deserved.

[u/NoSentence0A → u/[deleted]]

AI is one of the most effective tools for parsing through information. You made a claim, then posted a popular science article to back it up. I went straight to one of the primary sources within your article and used AI to make a summary.

And yes, an AI summary of a primary, or secondary source is far more helpful than popular science journalism.

That is more effort than probably anyone else is going to give you on Reddit for the foreseeable future. But because I freely admitted to using technology to condense and deliver information for review, you have an excuse to pretend I'm incapable of thought.

[u/Adventurous_Key_4854 → u/[deleted]]

*citing

[u/RedEyeView → u/NoSentence0A]

Tldr a hallucinating chat bot does your thinking

[u/NoSentence0A → u/RedEyeView]

Just because you aren't smart enough to use modern tools doesn't mean I can't.

[u/RedEyeView → u/NoSentence0A]

There's nothing smart about putting a one line question to a chat bot

[u/NoSentence0A → u/RedEyeView]

I agree. Whoever said anything about one line?

Like I said, just because you aren't smart enough to use modern tools doesn't mean I can't.

[u/RedEyeView → u/NoSentence0A]

No. It just means you're incapable of thinking for yourself

[u/NoSentence0A → u/RedEyeView]

ok Grandpa. And calculators prevent people from learning how to do math.