Recovered from the Wayback Machine.
Dave quotes a posting from Tara Sue, who writes:
My friend Ross and I have a lot in common. We both come from military families–his cousin and uncle serve and my brothers are soldiers. We were both raised by our father. And we share many ideas in business and politics. But there is plenty of room to disagree. Today we argued about war. I spoke with his wife and said, “If we replaced every man in power with a woman, there would be less war.” I don’t care for any speculation on the matter. We’ve never experienced mass matriarchy on this planet. There is no room for discussion–only proof. We will make peace in this world only after peace has been brought to our home. There are too many females pushing the testosterone bandwagon. I read an article today by a “chick” who thinks war is the “grown-up” thing to do. She went so far as too chide the protestors as though they are just simple minded youngsters, left-overs from the sixities who are just not “grown up” enough to make a choice for peace, but those who are grown up should know to support the war. Well, sister, even morons grow up.
Jonathon picks up on the premise and writes about the changing roles of women in combat. He writes:
I have no idea what Tara Sue Grubb might think of women in the military—whether she sees female soldiers as part of that group of women she criticizes for wanting “to have what [men] have.” Yet, given that one of the key goals of feminism has been to dismantle the political and cultural barriers to women’s participation in every field of human activity, it’s inevitable that women—or, at least, some women—would wish to participate in John Keegan’s “entirely masculine activity”: combat.
When we consider the major psychological transformations precipitated by weapons and tactics that allowed man to kill at a distance in an emotionally detached manner, it is hardly coincidental that women are integrated into combat units in the US Navy and Air Force—where they would not be expected to engage directly with an enemy—but are excluded from combat in the US Army where the chance of face-to-face contact is significantly higher.
The argument about women in combat and whether women being in charge would prevent war is somewhat mute because several times in the past, societies have been matriarchal, and many times, women have been the primary ruler. And we still have war. There is no sex-related war gene. There is only cultural indoctrination.
Think of the lion. It is the female who hunts, and it is the female who protects her young, and therefore the species. All the male does is sleep, have sex with the females, and fight other males for possession of the females.
(Well, okay, from this example I guess we could say that we females lack the gene that makes us want to fight other females over a man.)
For every woman simpering in a kitchen saying she’s too frail to lift a gun because she’ll break a nail; and for every woman claiming woman as goddess who states that if only women were in charge, our nurturing natures would prevent war, I repeat what I said in Jonathon’s comments:
This “woman as nurturing mother figure” is absolute bullshit.
The primary reason women have been adverse to warfare in the past is because women have usually been left at home, unprotected, while the men went off with all the weapons, leaving them vulnerable.
Tara Sue needs to consider a little history lesson about women and fighting. Most of the early Celtic war leaders were women. Women were gladiators in Rome. Most of the native american tribes in this country were matriarchial and they did fight wars. Women have dressed as men to fight as soldiers, or have picked up the guns of fallen soldiers and taken their place — without training I might add.
There isn’t a ‘war gene’ that’s sex related. The only reason women aren’t allowed in fighting infantry is the stupid old men in this country who don’t want to face the political backlash of the first women killed in actual hand to hand combat. Horrors! A potential mother killed!
And because of this, women also lose out on advancements, many of which are dependent on being in a combat unit.
If women have one thing that men don’t have it’s more of a willingness to see and acknowledge our mistakes, and our aggressiveness is usually vocal rather than physical. And these are more from cultural upbringing than sex-related genetics. Perhaps because of these characteristics, there _might_ be less war.
Here we go again, another round of making women into these delicate flowers of sensitivity and feminity, fragile, manipulative little blossoms whose sensibilities are too refined to do something such as ‘fight in a war’. Horrors!
Girlism redux.
