Women's Groups Leaders Comment

September 14, 2001 9:22 AM

Women's Groups Leaders Comment "There are many women's groups around the globe working for peace and against war, terrorism, and oppression. Women should be at the table along with men when decisions are made as to the future of our country and the world." Another quote, different woman: She added that in general, the more democratic a nation is, and the more women participate in public policy, the fewer the problems in these societies. What do you think? Israeli and Palestinian women seemingly often come together to speak out, since they're all losing sons and brothers. Russian mothers did the same in the '80s. With Congress currently bloodthirsty, would gender balance make a difference in the decisions they're about to make?
posted by fotzepolitic (21 comments total)

Arguably so. The problem remains that, if you've watched any kind of TV in the past few days (I know you have!), you've seen America represented by... men. Men aren't even the dominant gender in America anymore, yet these people are supposedly representing all of us.

In that sense, it's not very different from other societies around the world - men dominate. It can be written off as tradition, but I don't think that's necessarily fair. I also don't think the second quote you mention is fair. Women can't solve problems alone, just as men can't solve problems alone. We really and truly need to work together on this. By ignoring women, or simply pushing them off to the side, we're doing the entire world a disservice.
posted by hijinx at 9:30 AM on September 14, 2001

Let's see... the US has a woman in charge of national security and the Taliban has women deprived of all human rights...
posted by username at 9:34 AM on September 14, 2001

"Women should be at the table along with men when decisions are made as to the future of our country and the world."

and they are. condoleezza rice is the national security advisor.
posted by pup at 9:40 AM on September 14, 2001

With Congress currently bloodthirsty, would gender balance make a difference in the decisions they're about to make?

I'm a woman, but that doesn't stop me from wanting justice to be done. Genders don't decide what people think. Please.
posted by dagny at 9:41 AM on September 14, 2001

Cleopatra
Idira Ghandi
Margaret Thatcher
Queen Elizabeth
Joan of Arc
Benazir Bhutto
Winnie Mandela

Yeah, them chicks do make pretty serene leaders, don't they?

This kind of codswallop makes my skin crawl.
posted by NortonDC at 9:43 AM on September 14, 2001

Men lose sons and brothers (and daughters and sisters) as well.
posted by argybarg at 9:44 AM on September 14, 2001

hijinx: Men aren't even the dominant gender in America anymore, yet these people are supposedly representing all of us.

texas isn't the most populous state in the union, either. yet bush "supposedly" represents us! how dare he!

so we shouldn't allow men to run for office because they're not the in majority? what about blacks? handicapped people?
posted by pup at 9:46 AM on September 14, 2001

I, too, would like to see more women at the table when making decisions just because they will add an element to the discussions. However, it is what it is right now and we just have to go with it.

I have been a little disappointed in some of the news coverage that talks about "our brothers" in the rubble. Yes, there are many more men in uniform under there than women but it can't be just men. Also, I heard on one of the stations that there would be "many children without parents and wives widowed." Um... men will be widowed, too. It's interesting how these patterns are so deeply ingrained.
posted by amanda at 9:48 AM on September 14, 2001

The fact that we are under attack has obviously rendered this 1970's era rhetoric totally moot. A week ago we would have at least politely considered this absurd viewpoint.

I wonder what other stale ideas we are going to discover we can comfortably throw out on the scrap heap?
posted by username at 9:51 AM on September 14, 2001

I find that very strange amanda. We haven't heard that over here (UK). I suppose its the (inappropriate) rhetoric of war. If a country wants more women deciding its fate it has to elect them.
posted by Summer at 9:54 AM on September 14, 2001

Why not bi sexual leaders who can represent both genders and give a wider perspective?
posted by Postroad at 10:11 AM on September 14, 2001

I find that very strange amanda. We haven't heard that over here (UK).

Summer - it simply isn't true. I think some people enjoy controversy and seek it out. Some people hear what they want to hear.
posted by glenwood at 10:16 AM on September 14, 2001

Postroad - I know you're being funny but sexual orientation does not equal gender.

Gender is the condition of being female or male. Bisexual means you are capable of sexual relations with males or females.
posted by glenwood at 10:18 AM on September 14, 2001

pup: so we shouldn't allow men to run for office because they're not the in majority? what about blacks? handicapped people?

You've totally misconstrued my argument! Good job!

Everyone should have an opportunity to participate in this process. In America, a land that prides itself on our diversity, we're represented by... well, you know. Remember that in other countries, women are still oppressed and have no opportunity to voice their opinions, because they are silenced.

America is supposed to be bigger than that. Let's walk the walk.
posted by hijinx at 10:39 AM on September 14, 2001

hijinx, from your first comment: "Men aren't even the dominant gender in America anymore, yet these people are supposedly representing all of us."

you seem to be saying that the fact that men "supposedly" represent us is somehow inherently wrong because they are not the majority.

i guess it's your use of the word "supposedly". it's as if you don't approve of men being leaders. if that word wasn't in there, i can see how you may be saying that it's a shame more women aren't involved in the process and not blaming men for it. but the "supposedly" looks like you're casting blame on men for oppressing women.
posted by pup at 10:59 AM on September 14, 2001

With Congress currently bloodthirsty, would gender balance make a difference in the decisions they're about to make?

Hmm, why don't we ask all the women who died on Tuesday if they have some input. Or better yet, we could ask all the women who lost their husbands on Tuesday. Or all the mothers who lost their sons !!

Everyone has a mother. I wonder what the terrorists mothers feel right now. I wonder if they are even aware of the kind of scumbags they gave birth too. For there sakes I hope not.

There are going to be some troubling times ahead.

Tuesday was a real turning point. The future is not looking like a very happy one
posted by a3matrix at 11:33 AM on September 14, 2001

Goodie....

Shall we invite her?
posted by jackiemcghee at 11:42 AM on September 14, 2001

None of us would ever raise our sons to be suicidal killers, would we? It's time for women to raise our voices in favor of peace. We must speak out, we must act out if necessary, to change the mindset of a world that condones terrorism and mass murder. Do what you can, speak with love to the women and especially the men in your lives, write letters to the editor, talk on your favorite newsgroup, teach your children and show by your example that peace and love are the way to get along with people. The above link may help inspire you. May peace and common sense guide us in the difficult days ahead.
posted by Lynsey at 12:39 PM on September 14, 2001

pup: but the "supposedly" looks like you're casting blame on men for oppressing women.

Maybe I am.
posted by hijinx at 2:20 PM on September 14, 2001

None of us would ever raise our sons to be suicidal killers, would we?

Yet we still end up with the Tim McVeighs and Eric Harrises. I obviously don't know first hand, but I'm guessing there aren't any mothers [or fathers, for that matter] who don't hope for their children to grow into healthy, happy adults, and raise them accordingly. Even the mothers of the hijackers.
posted by gwenzilla at 4:05 PM on September 14, 2001

<intense sarcasm>Yes, perhaps we should develop groups to "study" the issue. Why don't we all divide up into "action groups" and present a Powerpoint with the pros and cons of moving forward. Remember to think "outside the box" people!</intense sarcasm>

Gimme a break.
posted by owillis at 4:22 PM on September 14, 2001