Thursday, January 18, 2007
Boy, Now THAT'S a Stupid Comment
In this interview with ABC News some our new lady Senators have proven they are capable of really imbicilic remarks
Sure, I can accept that. If women were in charge there would be less war. It's just that there'd be a major international crisis every 28 days.
Sorry for the offensive comment, ladies, but this sort of piffle doesn't deserve much better. As James Taranto correctly notes Larry Summers was run out of the Presidency of Harvard for comments that were a lot more supportable. All one has to do is look at history to see how incredibly ill considered the comment is. If we are to assume that ladies are incapable of waging war, I guess we have to assume that the little thing Maggie Thatcher had with the Argentinians over the Falklands was just a difference of opinion, or that Golda Meir's issue with the Arabs was just a touch of that "not so fresh feeling". The list can easily be lengthened. The bottom line is that history shows that women are more than capable of being warlike.
But, you don't need to be a historian to realize this. Ask any bouncer and they'll tell you, fights between women are much more violent and much more vindictive. Heck, Athena was the Goddess of War, after all.
The more ridiculous part of all this garbage is the pop psychology that underlies all this notion. Countries don't go to war because their leaders think it's cool and like to blow shit up. They go to war for real, underlying interests and threats. You see, when there's a war, the leadership has to send people off to go fight and die. Not only does that suck from a moral and psychic perspective, but it presents a real big political risk. War, after all, is frought with uncertainty, and losses and setbacks can create huge problems for them. So, they only decide for war when the perceived danger of inaction (and I'm including opportunity cost) exceeds that risk. The reason you see so few countries whose male leaders systematically reject war isn't that men are warlike, but that the countries who had such leaders have either been conquered or exist as de facto protectorates of countries with leaders who don't have these qualms.
At the end of the day, I don't think most women share these views. I think they're the presumptuous blatherings of a few third rate politicians. But, it would be nice if more women might speak up and address them as such.
In this interview with ABC News some our new lady Senators have proven they are capable of really imbicilic remarks
Sawyer then asked the senators whether they thought there would be less war if more women were in leadership positions in government.
"How sure are you that there would be less war?" she asked.
"I think that women are agents of change. And while we're only 16 percent of the United States Senate, we are trying to make change," Cantwell said. "So it doesn't mean that you're going to predict the outcome, but it does mean you will hear about collaboration, you will hear about cooperation and you will hear about a format that I think brings people together."
With women in charge, there would be more collaboration, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., told Sawyer.
Sure, I can accept that. If women were in charge there would be less war. It's just that there'd be a major international crisis every 28 days.
Sorry for the offensive comment, ladies, but this sort of piffle doesn't deserve much better. As James Taranto correctly notes Larry Summers was run out of the Presidency of Harvard for comments that were a lot more supportable. All one has to do is look at history to see how incredibly ill considered the comment is. If we are to assume that ladies are incapable of waging war, I guess we have to assume that the little thing Maggie Thatcher had with the Argentinians over the Falklands was just a difference of opinion, or that Golda Meir's issue with the Arabs was just a touch of that "not so fresh feeling". The list can easily be lengthened. The bottom line is that history shows that women are more than capable of being warlike.
But, you don't need to be a historian to realize this. Ask any bouncer and they'll tell you, fights between women are much more violent and much more vindictive. Heck, Athena was the Goddess of War, after all.
The more ridiculous part of all this garbage is the pop psychology that underlies all this notion. Countries don't go to war because their leaders think it's cool and like to blow shit up. They go to war for real, underlying interests and threats. You see, when there's a war, the leadership has to send people off to go fight and die. Not only does that suck from a moral and psychic perspective, but it presents a real big political risk. War, after all, is frought with uncertainty, and losses and setbacks can create huge problems for them. So, they only decide for war when the perceived danger of inaction (and I'm including opportunity cost) exceeds that risk. The reason you see so few countries whose male leaders systematically reject war isn't that men are warlike, but that the countries who had such leaders have either been conquered or exist as de facto protectorates of countries with leaders who don't have these qualms.
At the end of the day, I don't think most women share these views. I think they're the presumptuous blatherings of a few third rate politicians. But, it would be nice if more women might speak up and address them as such.
