I have watched with fascination, as has much of America, the continual unraveling of the misogynistic and paternalistic role of the white male in society through a panoply of revelations of sexual misbehavior and the subsequent growth of #MeToo and other movements. What started as a single accusation against a powerful Hollywood producer ended up blanketing nearly every industry and work setting and devastating the careers and reputations of dozens of recognizable, wealthy men in the fields of television, fashion, banking, sports, news, and politics. Their dramatic fall seems perfectly appropriate considering their predatory actions towards younger, vulnerable women in the workplace. Many times these were absolutely disgusting actions towards these women. Did these guys ever look in the mirror? Good God, who would want to see you in the shower, Charlie Rose? Where did so many of them get the idea that any living being would want to see them masturbate? Yeah, Harvey, your body is a real turn-on for a hot, young woman. Good Christ.

Anyway, looking at these events unravel over the last few months started me thinking about how so many white male traits are counterproductive and, quite frankly, juvenile. If you spend any time considering male traits and actions in conjunction with the events in the world over the last 100 years or so, you come to the unavoidable conclusion that men should never have been in charge – not of global industries, not of countries, and certainly not of armies and weapons. I’m not saying that no men should ever be in charge of anything, but the evidence is irrefutable that male hegemony has not been conducive to peace or of great benefit to global mankind. Obviously, the world would have benefited from anyone, male or female, substituting for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Idi Amin. Their crimes were based more in psychosis than general male tendencies, but a case can be made that traits that are primarily associated with men have caused this country great suffering over the last 50 years.

Just as an academic exercise, let’s review some recent White House pairings and hypothesize on who would have been a better leader had genders been equal.

Lyndon and Lady Bird – Lyndon Johnson may have been the most complex man to ever occupy the Presidency. His intentions as President were the most noble – civil rights and helping the poor. However, Johnson was aggressive, suspicious, vindictive, unkind, defensive, mean, and had a powerful inferiority complex. This combination of traits led him to continue and expand the Vietnam war which directly caused the greatest period of civil unrest that the US has seen since the Civil War.  His single focus on not being the first American President to lose a war was costly to the country in myriad ways. Bird, meanwhile, was intelligent, kind, loyal (particularly to Lyndon), and an excellent business woman. Lady Bird Johnson was also a savvy politician and provided sound advice to Lyndon throughout his career.

Dick and Pat – Up until recently, Dick Nixon has been considered by many to represent our greatest failure as President. Nixon was smart and politically astute. He created the EPA, opened China, oversaw a strong economy, and still managed to go down in flames. Nixon’s mind was a morass of perceived slights, prejudices, hatred, inferiority, jealousy, and suspicion. These tendencies got the better of him and he ended by resigning the Presidency to avoid impeachment. The impact of Nixon’s tenure continues to resound throughout this country in the public’s suspicion of government and, for some, wariness of the press.  Not many people know much about Pat Nixon. She stayed in the background and hated politics. She was, in fact, fiercely independent, strong, quick witted, and intelligent. During Nixon’s successful Congressional and Senate campaigns, Pat was his primary advisor. When she was young, she really just wanted to move to the city and live on her own. Pat Nixon was ahead of her time. She didn’t want to marry, but Nixon was dogged in his pursuit and wore her down. In my book, any woman who didn’t want to marry Dick Nixon is good enough for me.

Ronnie and Nancy – I think they were the same person, so we’ll just skip them.

Bill and Hillary – Bill Clinton is the supreme politician. He is charming and a marvelous speaker – whether one-on-one or to a room of 20,000. He is extremely bright and has a grasp of facts for almost every situation. Bill genuinely likes people, particularly women. He was made to run for office, but not necessarily to govern. I think that Bill’s need to be liked and his avoidance of confrontation weakened his presidency and his legacy. Beyond the economy, this country did not benefit in any lasting way from Clinton’s 8 years in office. In fact, his deregulation of the financial industry led the way, in some respects, to the Wall Street collapse of 2008. Hillary, it seems, does not require the same fawning idolizing as her husband, and has an even greater grasp of facts and policy. Hillary knows both domestic and global issues from her years in the Senate and as Secretary of State. If Hillary had never been First Lady and pilloried by Fox News, I think it’s pretty clear that she would have been elected President easily in 2016.

So, where would this country be right now if these First Ladies had switched roles with their husbands? Certainly no worse off and, perhaps, in a much better place. I’m obviously just playing around here, but the fact is that men moved into their roles as leaders in many societies based on their superior size and strength during mankind’s earliest development. There is no compelling reason for males to continue dominating leadership roles throughout government and business. Based on my fairly extensive, although amateur, study of history, I for one hope they do not.