|
Author
|
Topic: Gender and nuclear war
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 08 March 2006 03:10 AM
quote:
If women controlled the United states, Russia, Isreal, Pakistan, India, China and France, would the risk of nuclear annihilation be reduced?
You didn't make the question very clear. Do you mean 'if the official head of state in each of these countries were a woman' or 'if women actually controlled these countries'?
That's a huge - indeed, decisive - difference. One woman who wins an election or succeeds to throne or inherits an office might make some superficial changes to the way things are done. More likely, she would just become an ol' boy wannabe; continue the way things have always been done, and guard her own interests, the interests of her class/caste/economic sector and the interests of the people (mostly male people?) on whom she depends to stay in power. A nation ruled, run, defined and dominated by all the women who live there would be an entirely different proposition. If women actually controlled any or all of those nations, that would be interesting.
I hope they would decrease (gradually, so as to shock no violent systems) the threat of neuclear war, until their grandchildren were safe.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045
|
posted 08 March 2006 07:54 PM
I wonder how different a matriarchy would be from a patriarchy. If it is true (and I tend to believe it is) that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, we might only be trading one devil for another.At the same time I do think if there were more women in decision-making positions there would be less misery and bullshit. I don't think we'd have our daughters and sons at risk in Afghanistan without any kind of vote on the matter before they got sent . I very much doubt we'd be signed on to Star Wars, which is boys-with-toys-on-steroids and the dumbest waste of earth's resources I've seen in my lifetime. I think with more women in decision making positions we'd have better social programmes and certainly we'd have a day care programme at least as good and maybe even better than the one in Quebec. but a matriarchy? I don't know.
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 08 March 2006 10:33 PM
I'd say that if we had cultural and electoral processes that were friendlier to women, and resulted in about half of world leaders being women at any given time, the social change required for that shift would likely bring along a much decreased risk of nuclear holocaust.It wouldn't be the women specifically, as individual women are every bit as capable of monstrosity as individual men, but it would follow from the social change inherent in the outcome. Put another way - in order for women to have equal and equitable access to every level of power and society, society will need to change a hell of a lot more than it has at this point. That change will entail a significant change in the way we do society. [yay! feminism drift] That being said, in terms of the span of human existence, feminism seems (to me) to be the most profound earthquake to hit human social mechanisms since the Agricultural revolution 5000 years ago. We are in early days yet, and have a long way to go, but the toothpaste is out of the tube and women aren't likely to accept much retrograde movement. Compared to any time in the past 5000 years, starting 60 years ago, we are on a different planet as far as the empowerment of women goes.* If anything will push us to the kind of equitable society that would not go to nuclear war, it will be feminism (along with some other earthquake ideas).
*Yes, there are/were some matriarchal cultures here and there where women made the big decisions, but to my knowledge, not many of them had the men making the dinner as well. Gender roles remained, though the heirarchy was different. Feminism is a new, and exciting animal.[/yay! feminism drift]
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 09 March 2006 07:35 PM
I heard this speaker on Tuesday morning, and I'm not sure that her comment suggested that if women were unilaterally in charge there would be no nuclear proliferation. She was obviously quite polemic, or at least passionate, and her comment did suggest a non sequitur. She said, as her final comment, and made sure to make it after A-M Tremonte tried to end the interview, that: "I'd just like to point out that it is mostly men making this decision." Which could be taken as saying that if women were in control, none of this would be happening. The subsequent speaker, the retired American general certainly tried to paint her in this polarized light, and called her "hysterical." Ahh, hysterical. The old go-to for passionate women. As a non sequitur of my own, did you know that "hysteria" derives itself from "uterus?" Man, those women are crazy.The fact is, of course, that she is entirely correct. These decisions about nuclear proliferation are made exclusively by men. Furthermore,some context is required, since she was speaking the day before International Women's day. In my opinion, her comment was not to suggest that women should be in control, but rather that a significant voice was absent from a discussion that affects us all. That is, a small coterie of powerful men are playing a very dangerous game while excluding half the world from any significant input or agency. As many here have already suggested, feminism always leads towards a more robust democracy, not a matriarchy. We haven't had a familial power structure (at least ostensibly) as our form of governance for hundreds of years, so there's no sense in going back. In my opinion, that's precisely what the speaker was suggesting. As long as women (not to mention billions of other oppressed voices) are excluded from the debate, proliferation will continue to become more and more volatile.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 09 March 2006 08:25 PM
quote:
Democratically?
Sort of. It's is not democracy in the formal, political sense (their votes would always cancel out and nobody would get anything): more a dialogue, a negotiation, sometimes a low-grade argument, but never, as far as i'm aware, fisticuffs.Without specifying which partner in any particular legal union leans toward what kind of movies, we posit that one is more likely to prefer thrills and excitement, while the other is more likely to choose human-iterest stories, and that, if they are parents, both will care about - even if they don't always agree on - what kind of film their children watch. In this scenario, the partners have an unwritten committment to making a decision that's good for both of them (and for the kids, if any). They recall what happened last week; they know what's fair; they compromise and take turns; they're open to alternatives.
Imagine running the world this way!
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045
|
posted 11 March 2006 01:20 AM
Wasn't Boadicea's father the king of the Iceni, and wasn't Prasatagus put in place by the Romans because he was willing to grant them powers previously denied them?Sort of like how the Shah was put in power and then there was.... ah, the more it changes the more it stays the same or something and Yes, I'm up for a couple of centuries of matriarchal experiment. (hah, I KNEW one day I'd be Kwinna da World!!)
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
