It's The End of the World As We Know It.....

08:39 / 29.05.02

.... and i don't feel fine, actually.

i don't know how close to the brink india and pakistan really are - or whether there's a big case of 'the excitable darkies obviously won't think the consequences through' - but my overriding thought when this kind of squaring up happens is 'you fucking stupid, macho wankers. how *dare* you'. and i think men have made such an arse job of ruling this planet that they shouldn't be allowed to do it anymore.

we are tenants here, not owners. it's about time people got that fact into their heads.

08:49 / 29.05.02

ah, haus rather beat me to it.... moderators, delete this thread please.

08:50 / 29.05.02

Do you really think a state run by women would avoid wars SFD? cos i have to say, the history books kind of diagree with you there...

The Natural Way

08:54 / 29.05.02

Yr not going to mention the Amazons are you?

09:00 / 29.05.02

I was thinking more of an even more obvious example, Thatcher.

that

09:10 / 29.05.02

Re. Thatcher. That was not a state run by *women*. That was a state figureheaded by *a* woman. There is a distinct difference...

09:10 / 29.05.02

i *was* going to mention thatcher. yes, she most happily went to war with argentina as part of her general election campaign. but you could say that she became prime minister *despite*, rather than because, of being a woman. she played it the men's way throughout.

and one exception does not disprove the rule. how many countries, how many leaders, how many wars have there been? i don't have a vast knowledge of world history, but i could have a wild guess that the answer to 'how many wars have been started by women' would be in the region of 'not very many'.

but i'm having an angry, stampy rant about life in general, and i think haus' thread is more to the point than this one.

09:12 / 29.05.02

Yeah, and Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto is almost unique in the modern age for being arrainged for corruption in two separate terms.

However, one could argue that Thatcher (and Bhutto?) were victims of a basically patriarchal system - if you are female but your entire cabinet, upper house and senior civil service are almost totally male, how do you hold onto power without behaving like the boys?

09:15 / 29.05.02

Ooops. SFD's turn to beat me to it.

that

09:26 / 29.05.02

That was pretty much what I meant, too... unfortunately one does not express oneself very well...

09:27 / 29.05.02

Does this mean that New Zealand, the world's first democracy to give women the vote, and the one which IIRC currently has a majority female cabinite female premier and female leader of the opposition is more representative of women in power? or are these women still tainted by the touch of a (inherantly?) male political system ?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

10:11 / 29.05.02

Well, New Zealand hasn't started any wars lately...

I think the Mary Daley answer would be that states are constructed along male lines and demand male thoughtforms - giving power to women on the condition that they enshrine the maintenance of a man-made constitution is tokenism at best and infection at worst. The only way to do it properly would be to kill all men over the age of about 8 and start again.

10:17 / 29.05.02

figureheaded

Like hell. Many things, but not that.

10:20 / 29.05.02

I'm feeling a bit slow today, so can someone talk me through the idea that a state run by women would be more enlightened?

that

10:23 / 29.05.02

Nick: I think I already noted that I sometimes don't express myself very well...

Lurid Archive: Blokes have had their chance to run stuff for a very long time, and they've fucked up a hell of a lot. Perhaps it is time to hand over the reins to us, as an experiment? I think that is it in a nutshell... (apologies for the binary gender thing, everyone).

10:45 / 29.05.02

Haus.. New Zealand hasn't started any wars recently, but it does have a rather luxuirous position of being a large island state relatively distant from its nearest big neighbour...

cholister, but is it more than just handing over the reins. Does a female majority party equal female power? or is that femaleness compromised by working within the framework of a patriarchal political system?

that

10:56 / 29.05.02

Yes, it is compromised by history and patriarchy. But it is still a damn sight better than nothing... and I literally do mean that women should be given a decent go at this - be given the sort of privileges that men have had throughout history... perhaps men should take a back seat for a while, say 20 years, and we'll all see how we're getting on afterward? Seems a fairly small thing to ask, considering the historical and present extent of male power and privilege... I am stating the case quite extremely, and it'll never happen anyway... but the balance of power is so far tipped in far of the male, the patriarchal system is so damn ingrained that something pretty extreme *would* have to be done for us to achieve anything remotely resembling an egalitarian or female-friendly political system...

that

10:56 / 29.05.02

that should have read 'tipped in favour of the male'...

Jack The Bodiless

10:59 / 29.05.02

If the political systems involved originate from, and have evolved through, a history of almost entirely male-dominated thinking and actions, is it actually possible for a way of thinking coming from what are traditionally called 'female perspectives' to co-exist with said political systems, or are said systems simply going to co-opt it?

What I mean is (and apologies for the bluntness, but I'm in a hurry) - is it actually possible to be female in an inherently masculine and male-centred system, which is what modern politics seems to be?

Just curious...

Jack The Bodiless

11:01 / 29.05.02

...and you've just asked the same question in the time it took to post that...

Cholister: you seriously think that turning the clock back for a serious wodge of positive discrimination can be considered progress? Hypothetically, of course.

11:01 / 29.05.02

Didn't I just say that?

bitchiekittie

11:01 / 29.05.02

its "inherently masculine" because thats the way its been built up and the way that it continues to be maintained

11:02 / 29.05.02

You aren't really advocating discrimination against men, are you? Somehow, deliberately replacing one prejudice with another doesn't feel right. Wouldn't it be better to try to go for equality? And hasn't there been a trend toward gender equality over the past century in Europe/US?

Jack The Bodiless

11:04 / 29.05.02

Sorry. In a hurry. Had to skip your post, Haus, would have taken too long to read. Heh.

bitchiekittie

11:06 / 29.05.02

not sure if you were adressing me, but Im not advocating anything. the thought of handing over the reigns of anything to a group of people because of one common factor is, in my opinion, not even a realistic or practical consideration

bitchiekittie

11:10 / 29.05.02

I dont think women (in general) are any more equipped to deal with politics than men are. I certainly think that females (as a whole) would certainly bring a new light on certain things, and should definitely be doing so. and Im in no way saying that either our governments are doing just dandy or that things couldnt absolutely benefit from a more even distribution of people in positions of high power

11:12 / 29.05.02

Yeah, sorry bk. I meant that to come after Cholister's post, but there was a flurry of activity. I agree that it isn't realistic to "hand over power" to women. The only way to do it is precisely as Haus suggests - a culling of men. Though we should probably be clear that such a scheme would have to involve absloutely humane methods of destruction, in order to be acceptable.

that

11:12 / 29.05.02

I am not advocating discrimination. I am advocating extreme measures, yes, affirmative action. I think we're entrenched in patriarchy/androcentrism, and frankly I don't believe that real equality is even starting to happen to the degree that a lot of people (usually men) tend to assume... Just give women a fucking proper go, you know? How much worse can we be? I think it requires some real shaking up if we are to get anything remotely resembling equality... and I mean that on a day-to-day basis, as well as in the political arena...

that

11:14 / 29.05.02

Basically, I agree with bitchiekittie... but I get the impression that men tend to give women their little say to keep them quiet, and that's not enough...

11:16 / 29.05.02

But how do you inforce "extreme measures" without discrimination?

11:18 / 29.05.02

Lurid: I think the point is that the current system is not equal, and cannot be, because it has been designed by and for men. Like establishing equality by giving everybody size 12 shoes. Good for me and Sleaze, bad for tiny-footed people. The shitters.

Not saying I agree with this position necessarily, just trying to clarify.

Dao Jones

11:19 / 29.05.02

Blokes have had their chance to run stuff for a very long time, and they've fucked up a hell of a lot. Perhaps it is time to hand over the reins to us, as an experiment? I think that is it in a nutshell... (apologies for the binary gender thing, everyone).

Or perhaps we could do away with the whole sorry boys vs. girls playground war.

11:21 / 29.05.02

I must confess that I am the sort of bloke who thinks that gender equality is progressing, though there still is a lot to do. Out of curiosity, Cholister, what measures do you think need taking that will really get things moving? You mention affirmative action and I can't help but think of "Blair's Babes". Hmmm. I suppose a more sustained program would have led to different results in the long term.

11:23 / 29.05.02

well, having peaceful folk committed to keeping the planet healthy and not going into macho overdrive to solve disputes running things would be a good thing. it's a fairly obvious change in the balance of power to say replace men with women; i am reminded of reading here of the curfew on men one night in bogota and the next night the curfew on women. it was agreed all round that one night was bloody marvellous, the other bloody awful.

i am wondering what the planet would be like if women had always run it. difficult to visualise, but would we be in this sorry state if it were the case?