Who Holds the Power to Harm? Exploring the Most Dangerous Figures in History and Today
Nicolette Lazarus
Womanship Founder & CC0 (Chief Connection Officer) | Public Speaker | Moderator. Connecting women and Health & Wellness Professionals so both can thrive.
Yesterday, leaving my first hot yoga class in months (self-care is my resolution for the year—hold me to it!), I overheard a group of men in the foyer debating their Top 5 Most Dangerous People in the World.
“Wow, is this what ‘civilization’ has come to?” I thought.
The woman next to me caught my eye and smirked knowingly. “And they’re all, of course, men,” she said.
She wasn’t wrong.
This wasn’t just a throwaway exchange. It was a glaring truth about the imbalance of harm in history—and the desperate need for more female energy in global leadership. It’s a truth I’ve discussed with my partner many times. His predictable retort (sorry, honey)? “Well, Margaret Thatcher wasn’t exactly handing out peace doves.”
He’s not entirely wrong. Dangerous women exist. History has had female rulers and influencers whose legacies include bloodshed, corruption, and oppression. But let’s be honest and not pretend there’s equity here. We’re only talking about a handful of women. When it comes to the sheer volume of historical and global harm, the scales tip dramatically toward men.
The Power Imbalance
This imbalance isn’t just about power structures; it’s about how we define and use power. Men, traditionally, have dominated positions of unchecked authority - be it political, military, or economic. And with that has come their disproportionate presence in humanity’s darkest chapters.
(And before someone chimes in with “What about sexual crimes?” - don’t worry, we’ll tackle that in another article. Spoiler alert: men top that chart too.)
But Are Men Really More Dangerous Than Women?
After my yoga foyer experience, I decided to have a “chat” with one of the brightest historians I know (OK, it was ChatGPT - I don’t have a hotline to a real-life historian). Together, we explored the ratio of historically “dangerous” men to women.
Here’s the context:
When you list 20 of the most dangerous figures in history- think Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan...you have to scroll far down before encountering a woman. Queen Isabella I of Spain often tops those lists for her leadership during the Spanish Inquisition and the forced expulsion of Jews and Muslims.
And that was in the 1490s.
But here’s a question: why do we put Isabella under such moral scrutiny while often leaving figures like Genghis Khan untouched? His conquests resulted in the deaths of millions and devastated countless communities. Yet, his actions are frequently recast as "unifying" or "strategic."
This imbalance is why ChatGPT and I mused that Genghis Khan might not even belong on the list. If Isabella is judged solely on her harms, shouldn't we be equally rigorous about men in power? Perhaps someone like Pol Pot, the 20th-century leader whose catastrophic policies led to the Cambodian genocide, is a more fitting (and consistently critiqued) substitute.
Am I proving my point?
When we looked at modern history, the trend didn’t improve. Male leaders like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong-un dominate today’s “most dangerous” lists.
Yes, there are women like Margaret Thatcher, Jiang Qing, or Imelda Marcos who eventually appear in conversations about power and harm. But statistically, these are exceptions, not the rule. They often operated within systems already shaped by centuries of male dominance.
It’s the same reason women in positions of power are often unfairly labeled as “bitchy” or accused of not supporting other women. Many have had to navigate and survive male-dominated spaces, often adopting the same traits of those systems to rise. (And yes, there’s another full article in this observation alone!)
What If Women Ruled the World?
Most people in positions of power throughout history have been men, but let’s be clear: this is not a call for women to take over the world.
Here’s the real, big, juicy question: Would the world be more peaceful if women had a more equal stake in leadership and decision-making—and if governments and institutions had a more equitable number of women in supporting positions of influence?
The honest answer is: we don’t know. But the evidence we do have points toward a future with less conflict and more collaboration.
Studies have shown that governments with higher levels of female representation are more likely to prioritize healthcare, education, and social welfare. For example, female-led peace negotiations are 35% more likely to last at least 15 years compared to those led by men.
Moreover, research suggests that it’s not just about having women in top leadership roles but about achieving gender equity across governments and institutions. When women occupy a critical mass of seats in parliaments and advisory boards, decision-making processes become more inclusive, leading to policies that are more representative of the population’s needs.
While this doesn’t definitively prove that women in power would eliminate conflict or foster universal peace, it does suggest a different approach to leadership - one centered on long-term solutions, equity, and collaboration.
What do you think? Could a more balanced power dynamic, at all levels of leadership, reshape our systems and reduce global conflict? Or do you think the roots of conflict run deeper?
Share your perspective in the comments below, we’d love to hear your thoughts!
领英推荐
A Cheeky but Serious Observation
How do you stop war? Give men periods, pregnancy, and menopause to deal with.
(I know, it’s a good one! And I take full credit for it - it’s the only joke I’ve ever made up that’s consistently funny. Though, honestly, it’s a little uneven in the laughter department: women crack up 100% of the time, while the men... well, let’s say their chuckles are more "nervous.")
But really, it’s not hard to imagine that handling bloating, cramps, and mood swings alongside geopolitics might inspire a little more humility and collaboration.
It’s a playful jab, but it underscores a deeper truth: the world could use a little less masculine ego and a lot more feminine empathy.
C for CONFLICT: A Womanship Event
This brings me to why we’re hosting “C for CONFLICT: From Friction to Resolution” later this month as part of Womanship. ’s A-Z of Things Women Don’t Talk About series.
This event is more than just a conversation—it’s a transformative space to explore how we, as women, handle conflict—not just in boardrooms and meeting rooms, but in our relationships, bedrooms, and communities.
Through open dialogue and dynamic group exercises, you’ll connect deeply, share openly, and leave with practical tools to navigate conflict confidently and compassionately. Because let’s face it: the equity we deserve isn’t something men are handing over anytime soon.
We have to create it together as women (with our allies, of course).
It’s time to explore not just how we handle conflict, but how we can lean into supporting one another. This event is an open, honest discussion about:
We need each other. Not because we’re trying to flip the script and dominate as women, but because true equity—in power, opportunity, and outcomes—benefits everyone.
So, let’s shift our energy as women from conflict to collaboration. And who knows? If we support each other, maybe we’ll see a future shaped by more feminine energy—a future that’s brighter, more inclusive, and more peaceful.
Let’s share more, worry less, and thrive together. ???
C for CONFLICT Event Details IRL:
C for CONFLICT Event Details ONLINE:
Join us and be part of the conversation. It starts with us. ??
Appendix: 1. How We Created the Lists
What We Asked:
We set out to identify the most dangerous individuals in history and the present day, focusing on those whose actions caused large-scale harm or destabilized societies.
Our Criteria:
Why Two Lists?
Broader Reflections:
These lists aim to provoke thought about how we define “dangerous” and how systems of power shape harm.
Appendix: 2. Sources for the Stats