Who should be in power

Another thing which I heard in college, sometime implied, though other times explicitly stated, was basically something along the lines of this:

Men have always been in power, and terrible things have occurred throughout human history, and women have always had no power at all. If men were taken at of power, and all power were given to women, the world would be a much better place. 

Thinking it over this kind of argument has seemed fallacious to me, but I couldn’t quite put into words what specific fallacies are in play, if any are. What’s specifically fallacious about this kind of argument. 

The argument that "if men were taken out of power, and all power were given to women, the world would be a much better place" involves several logical fallacies and problematic reasoning:

1. **Hasty Generalization**: This argument makes a sweeping generalization that all men have been responsible for the terrible things in human history and that all women would inherently lead to a better world. It does not account for individual differences and exceptions among both men and women.

2. **Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc**: This fallacy suggests that because men have been in power and terrible things have occurred, the one caused the other. This ignores numerous other factors that influence historical events and societal outcomes, such as economic conditions, cultural context, and individual leadership skills.

3. **False Dilemma**: The argument sets up a binary situation where the only options are men in power (leading to terrible outcomes) or women in power (leading to a better world). It excludes the possibility that the quality of governance could depend on other factors, such as individual capabilities, ethical frameworks, and systems of checks and balances.

4. **Appeal to Tradition/Appeal to History**: It assumes that because men have historically been in power, they are necessarily the cause of negative outcomes. This overlooks the context in which historical events have unfolded and does not consider that the structure of power itself, and not necessarily the gender of the persons in power, could be at fault.

5. **Oversimplification**: The argument reduces a complex issue to a simple solution—changing the gender of leaders. In reality, the effectiveness of leadership is multifaceted and influenced by numerous psychological, social, and political variables.

6. **Bandwagon Fallacy**: If the argument is stated as something heard often in college, it might implicitly appeal to popularity or consensus among a particular group without critical evaluation of the claims being made.

7. **Ad Hominem (by Implication)**: While not directly attacking individual men, the argument indirectly suggests that men as a gender are inherently problematic when it comes to leadership, which is a form of a generalized personal attack based on identity rather than on individual merit.

For a more logical and reasonable approach, one should consider evaluating leadership capacity based on individual qualities, ethical considerations, competencies, and the systems of checks and balances to ensure good governance, rather than attributing potential for good or bad leadership to gender alone.

P1) Men have been in power throughout history

P2) Bad things have happened throughout history

C) If women were in charge, the world would be a better place

The two biggest problems I see are cherry picking (P2) and non sequitur (P2 -> C).

It's true that powerful positions in society have historically been occupied by men. And it's also true that bad things have happened in these societies. But many good things have happened too, so in the absence of further evidence or argument, you can't attach blame to men for the negatives without crediting them for the positives - that's inconsistent.

There's also no reason to assume that things would be better if women were in charge. Even if we accept the premise that men are responsible for a bad situation, there's always the possibility that they could get worse as well as better. This is because the terrible things that occur may be the result of human (rather than simply male) nature, or because they were natural (as opposed to man-made) disasters.

(I'd also add that 'power' is vague - while men typically occupy top positions, women have had a decent amount of influence in modern societies, as well as some premodern ones that followed more matriarchal/matrilineal structures).