Don't bring gender into the debate
Blumner opened the skirmish with an Aug. 20 column provocatively titled ``US could use more girlie men." (Full disclosure: Blumner is a friend and a board member of the Women's Freedom Network, a group I helped found in 1994.) Drawing on the HBO series ``Deadwood," set in the nearly all-male environment of a gold mining camp in the 1870s, Blumner noted that a ``testosterone-laden" world ruled by the code of the gunslinger is an inhospitable place not only for women but for kinder, gentler, smarter men. Then she wrote, ``I've been feeling lately that the world has suddenly gone all male -- Deadwood-male to be exact. And this is not a good sign for civilization."
As an example of this hypermasculine ethos, Blumner cited radical Islamic fundamentalism and cultures where ``men would rather shoot guns at ancient enemies than build a modern society." But she argued that the Bush administration with its ``cowboy approach to geopolitics," its reliance on warfare over diplomacy, and its cavalier attitude toward niceties like due process was a part of the same problem. Enter Limbaugh, who was quick to brand Blumner ``blissfully naive" and ``a useful idiot," and whose callers (as Blumner recounts in her latest column on Aug. 27) scornfully asserted that without all those macho men to protect her freedoms, Blumner would be dead or encased in a burka.
Ok lets say for instance women were the heads of states for half of the worlds nations. Can you honestly tell me that as a result of this action war would cease among these nations and a general sense of harmony would spill over the world forcing us brutish and mean men out of our metaphorical "caves" if you will and it usher in a new world order based on gender equality, peace, life, and happiness.
You got to be kidding me...
Have you ever seen two women who don't like each other scheme and pick at one another for years because they both wore the same dress to a dinner party, or one of them flirted with the others man. Women are far more petty and hostile than men, just go to any American Highschool and observe the in crowd females, they all jockey for power and prestigue and will do anything to get it. Women are mean, mothers are nice but women are mean. Simply put if women consisted of half the worlds heads of states there really would be no difference I believe. To hold a position as powerful as the president to have to put a certain level of personal feeling aside and just focus of the task at hand. If solving this problem requires a military strike and you don't send one because as a woman you think it's a bad idea ding ding ding your not acting with the countries best interest in mind.
War is a natural construct of our collective societial instinct to protect and extend of umbrella of safety. Social Contract Theory states we formed society to protect one another and gave up certain rights and privilages to the state for our collective good. Perhaps ancient humans selected a man to lead because men at the time were more aggressive and better fighters so they were better equiped to protect the state.
The times we live in now dictate a softer hand I agree and diplomacy should always be the first option but the logic of women is just better makes you no better than a common bigot. It is flat wrong to think that any race, religion, culture, set of values, or gender is better than another and as a result more fit to lead. We are all equal, and if your reading this article don't let hate influence you, we are all people and we are all equal and no man or woman is better because of their gender.