If Women Ran The World, There Would be No War – Ummm, Tell that to Gaddafi
If women ran the world, there would be no war.
Or far less war… perhaps.
I spent some time trying to find a feminist thinker who had expressed this sentiment, hoping to start this blog off with a nice quote. I couldn’t find such a quote. Instead, this idea that if women ran things there would be less conflict is something that has just sort of wormed it’s way into the heart of feminist ideology.
I can see examples of it in the animal kingdom everyday when I let my cats out. Not that there’s much feminist thought amongst animals, instead I mean that males are warlike in nature. Barry, the male, goes out looking to fight, defend his territory. Bliss, the female, hangs back and doesn’t start stuff.
Some of this thought comes from just looking at how the world has come to be after millennia of male dominated patriarchy. When we look back at the 20th Century, surely we’d be hard pressed to find a time in our history when war and killing each other has been more pervasive.
I don’t went to delve into a feminist critique of history, but in the course of my lifetime, I would say there has been a definite shift in the power balance between the sexes. Women aren’t “running things” yet, but neither is it the exclusive domain of men any more either.
The reason I am writing this has to do with how the United States decided to go to war with Libya. Barack Obama, in particular. I can edit stuff off my DVR and I took this from yesterday’s Hardball program. Chris sets up the question perfectly and then reads from a report by the Washington Post. Check this out:
Yes, there has been a bit of the boys-versus-girls in Obama’s advisors this last week and it was the boys who said that Libya is not in our vital American interests and urged restraint. The girls said BOMB NOW! Ultimately, it was Obama’s decision, but it sort of puts an interesting shadow on this whole idea that we wouldn’t have as many wars if women ran things.
Who knows? Maybe Ms Samantha Power and Ms Susan Rice are being more hawkish in their advisements BECAUSE they’re compensating and don’t want to be seen as soft women unwilling to fight. I’ve heard theories that Hillary pushed for attacking Libya at her husband’s urging as he has lingering existential guilt over not stopping what happened in Rwanda. Maybe they simply feel it’s the right thing to be doing and they just happened to be the ones in those positions and wearing dresses. Hard to say.
In any case, until we have a female Commander-in-Chief who commits a unilateral attack in an unjustified war (say like Iraq), this idea that women running things would naturally translate into less war won’t go away. What do you think?
I only have on thing to say: “Sarah Palin with nuclear launch codes”.
😯
When I read the title of your blog I was reminded of the old saying “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”….but then, I believe that women have a lot of say in the decision making of our leaders…if our leaders are married.
Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Tilda Swinton as the White Witch of Narnia… when will women realize that us men just want a safe world to raise babies in?
I have never understood this point of view. We would simply trade “Men behaving badly” For women doing the same. I would like to see it equal opportunity so everyone had a shot at making the world a worse place. :entertained:
Yeah, I detect the hand of Mrs Clinton in this. But the way America is handling this is a lot better than last time round. You are just saying enough to keep face without commiting yourselves to any sort of action that would leave you in a cesspit for years. I am ambivalent over the Libyan issue but I do think that we must not fight the rebels war. That could have disastrous long lasting consequences. Plus, we do not know how things might turn out were they to seize power in the end.
Women do run things.