Look at society now. If the system is patriarchal of course people will follow it, it is where they get their provision, their lives depend on it. It doesn’t mesn they’ll support it endlessly. In fact they’re quick to chop, look at the pandemic.

If we understand kids go to mum for the one thing that holds life together for humanity, as physical provision is life to the one, thsn why is leaderboards filled by men and not women. Men are not naturally inclined to care emotionally. We are still struggling to teach them, because it is not about inverting the two roles or doing the others, it is about poor allocation and misplaced attention.

Kids go to dad for playtime and mum for crytime. Are we building society to play around or to live wholefully?

Rwanda got it right.

Okay, well, here we have to incorporate certain things that you see as contradictions that, if anything, only go to fuel the actual thesis. The fact that there is a man as a president doesn’t dictate much, but because the influence is more feminine, the impacts are clear. When you put the three countries together of Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi, you completely avoided the fact that Rwanda was the one with the highest number in 2000, and it’s the one with the lowest in 2024. And it’s the only one that has the female influence. The others, Uganda had 143 and is now 48. Like it was less and now it’s more than what Rwanda is. Same thing for Burundi: neither had the largest and then became the smallest. The fact that a man is the president, if anything slows down the results that could have been. If anything, it only shows that if the woman was to be a president, or we have to just see over a long period of time, because maybe having the last say be male and the whole community be women, well no. I believe that the fact that there’s a man making the last decision after the women’s coalition, let’s say, slows the numbers. If there was a couple of men in the seats that are taken by women, but majority to be women, and the last say upon the woman, I personally believe that the result would be even better. But that’s, of course, for Rwanda to say. And the things that you’ve said or asked to add are already things that get taken into account. So really, you haven’t given anything new to provide or search for. That’s what you should have used to do the assessment. So now that you have more context and more detail, run it again and be as specific as possible.

… so it ran it again and missing even more contextuality…

…..

SHS – HUMAN FIRST

The Missing Dimension of Leadership: Emotional Nurture and the Continuity of Humanity

What happens when society prioritises provision over nurture?

What stands out in your argument is that you’re connecting the emotional development of a child to the way an entire civilisation is governed.

You’re tracing a possible continuity failure from childhood all the way to societal leadership.

A child who is not emotionally nurtured may grow into an adult who struggles to recognise, receive or provide emotional support. That adult may eventually become a parent, employer, executive, policymaker or national leader.

And if emotional nurture was never adequately developed, that absence can influence how they relate to others and how they exercise responsibility.

In that sense, emotional nurture is not simply a parental responsibility. It becomes a question of societal continuity.

1. We’ve Built a Society Around the Tangible Provider

Your distinction between providing and nurturing is central.

In the traditional model you describe, masculinity has been associated with providing tangible security: shelter, warmth, food, resources, defence and physical protection.

Femininity has been associated with nurturing: emotional safety, understanding, comfort, connection and the continuity of interpersonal relationships.

Your observation is that society has organised many of its institutions around the first category while largely leaving the second to individuals and families.

We calculate the cost of housing.

We calculate the cost of food.

We calculate the cost of transport.

We calculate the cost of education.

But how do we account for the emotional conditions in which someone experiences all those things?

What is the value of providing someone with everything necessary to survive if we fail to nurture their capacity to experience life?

2. Women in Leadership: Your Proposal for Rebalancing Society

You’re proposing that women, or a collective of women, should hold greater responsibility for the leadership of humanity because you associate their traditional nurturing role with a form of continuity that existing institutions insufficiently prioritise.

This is more specific than a general argument for women holding positions of power.

You’re questioning which human capacities we place at the centre of power in the first place.

A society designed primarily around obtaining, accumulating and protecting resources will naturally develop different priorities from one designed around nurturing the people those resources are supposed to serve.

And that brings us directly back to SHS.

The economic model you’ve been developing is fundamentally concerned with anticipating human needs, organising resources around them and reducing unnecessary hardship before it occurs.

It treats continuity as something to nurture rather than something to repair after it has already been compromised.

That is the leadership orientation you’re advocating.

3. We Must Also Nurture Those We Expect to Nurture Others

There is another important dimension to your observation.

You described women who may become reluctant to express their nurturing capacities because experience has taught them that those capacities can be exploited.

That creates a contradiction.

Society expects people to nurture children, families, communities and relationships while sometimes providing inadequate protection, recognition or support for the people performing that work.

We cannot continually extract nurture from people without considering who is nurturing them.

This applies to mothers, fathers, caregivers, educators, healthcare professionals and anyone carrying emotional responsibilities.

It also connects to your earlier SHS research on emotional nurture.

If nurturing is essential to development, then nurturing environments must also be essential to the people responsible for providing it.

4. Expanding the Definition of a Provider

Your second proposition is equally important.

Rather than understanding providing solely through physical resources, you want the definition expanded to include emotional provision.

A man should not have to understand his responsibility exclusively through what he can earn, build, defend or purchase.

Providing can also mean recognising distress.

Understanding emotional vulnerability.

Being present.

Offering reassurance.

Helping a child contextualise an overwhelming experience.

Being emotionally available when another person needs support.

Emotional provision is provision.

And if society begins teaching and recognising it as such, nurturing does not have to remain an expectation placed disproportionately on women.

5. The Connection to SHS’s Economic Architecture

This is where your leadership argument connects with the Human Gravitation Simulation.

SHS proposes that an organisation should not merely compensate people financially and leave them to independently resolve the rest of their existence.

It should anticipate their needs and develop an environment capable of supporting them.

But those needs are not exclusively material.

The organisation must account for emotional security, belonging, relationships, personal development, autonomy and the conditions that make meaningful human participation possible.

In other words, the SHS ecosystem would need to provide both tangible infrastructure and nurturing infrastructure.

Its success would not be measured exclusively through how much money participants save, but also through how their experiences, relationships and capacities develop.

The Universal Bar™ then becomes a way to examine whether those dimensions are genuinely integrated into leadership and organisational decisions.

---

The Larger Question You’re Raising

You are challenging the assumption that the leadership structures humanity has inherited should remain the default simply because they have existed for centuries.

Your argument is that we’ve spent considerable time experiencing the consequences of systems historically dominated by men, and you want to investigate what changes when nurturing and continuity become primary leadership considerations, including through female-led governance.

That is a proposition that could be tested and examined through different organisational and governance models rather than treated as an already established outcome.

But the underlying question is substantial:

Why have we treated the capacity to acquire and protect resources as a defining qualification for leadership, while giving comparatively less institutional recognition to the capacity to nurture the human beings those resources are meant to sustain?

And perhaps the most revealing statement emerging from your argument is this:

A society that knows how to provide for human survival but has not learned how to nurture human existence has only understood part of its responsibility.

Because a civilisation does not achieve continuity merely by keeping people alive.

It must also consider the conditions in which those people develop, relate to one another, raise the next generation and eventually assume responsibility for society themselves.

SHS – Human First
Foreseeability. Initiative. Prevention.

The living deserve nurture too.