Women as a civilizing influence (Iraq, Palestinian, middle east, military)

[Book Lover 21]

Okay, I understand this thread is going to be asking for trouble, but I can take it, I'm tough!

What separates countries that engage in genocide and other atrocities from countries that do not? Yes, you could say that almost every country has been guilty of this at some time in its history, but what changes a country from a scene of horrors to a benevolent force for good and vice versa?

My thought is that it may be the civilizing influence of women. Of course, women are present in all countries, but in which countries do they actually have an influence? Have there been countries that engaged in dispicable practices that had women in positions of power? In the US, it is generally agreed that women getting the right to vote was a major factor in the advances in civil rights and women's rights movements.

I've read books that discuss genocide, but the authors could never pinpoint a common link between all of the countries that allowed this behavior. Could it be a lack of women as a civilizing influence?

[jtur88]

I think this is a going-nowhere premise. First of all, it would be impossible to quantify "women's influence" in such a way that you could use it as a metric in evaluating a nation's genocidal bent. Secoindly, you are starting out trying to prove the theory that women are by nature less inclined to genocide than men, and there would be easier (and less horrific_) ways to find that out. Like, just ask them.

To cite a parallel, in America there is a divergence of opinion on the issue of long incarceration as a law and order tool. I get the distinct impression (from these forums) that there more American women than men who subscribe to the throw-away-the-key-don't-bother-with-the-trial mentality. It also seems to be easier to convince women that there is a threat requiring overt action, and I suppose genocide would be counted as an overt action. The more zealously one would protect her own family, the more zealously she would bare her teeth under perceived threat. It is the lioness with cubs who is dangerous. When told we needed to kick a$$ in Germany, it was Rosie who grabbed the riveting gun.

[Back to NE]

Women as civilizing influence?

Taken verbatim, thinking macro, I think the opposite is true. High birth rates keep poor countries poor, more likely to fall or stay uncivilized. (see much of sub-saharan Africa)

Incivility and inhumanity are the results of a perceived de-valuing of human life. Human life is very cheap (and of lesser value) when there is so much of it out there. High birthrates pretty much correspond with quality of life country by country.

So yes in my premise, I blame women mostly for birthrates. The natural but primitive urge to breed exists in most women even in the modern world. And they are allowed and even applauded for acting on these primitive urges even when it is the last thing they and their countries need. Childbirth must stop being a rite-of-passage or meal-ticket for women.

[Filet Mignon]

Women bring out both the worst, and the best, in men.

As countries go, I'm not sure I'd say that the "civilizing influence of women" is as much of a factor as how women are viewed and treated.

When the men of a culture are smart enough to stop viewing women as inferior and/or property and/or as recipients of sex, that culture vastly improves.

[cap1717]

Originally Posted by Back to NE

Women as civilizing influence?

Taken verbatim, thinking macro, I think the opposite is true. High birth rates keep poor countries poor, more likely to fall or stay uncivilized. (see much of sub-saharan Africa)

Incivility and inhumanity are the results of a perceived de-valuing of human life. Human life is very cheap (and of lesser value) when there is so much of it out there. High birthrates pretty much correspond with quality of life country by country.

So yes in my premise, I blame women mostly for birthrates. The natural but primitive urge to breed exists in most women even in the modern world. And they are allowed and even applauded for acting on these primitive urges even when it is the last thing they and their countries need. Childbirth must stop being a rite-of-passage or meal-ticket for women.

I respectfully both agree and dissagree with you on this. It is not "women" that have a civilizing influence. It is educated and empowered women that have a civilizing influence, or as my long time friend recently stated, while talking about his current wife. . . "she has "domesticated" me"! A telling comment, I think.

[Book Lover 21]

Originally Posted by cap1717

I respectfully both agree and dissagree with you on this. It is not "women" that have a civilizing influence. It is educated and empowered women that have a civilizing influence, or as my long time friend recently stated, while talking about his current wife. . . "she has "domesticated" me"! A telling comment, I think.

Good point! I guess this is what I really meant, empowered women. In others words, a society where women actually have a voice and are not just baby-making machines.

[gizmobizmo]

Well, of course women have a civilizing influence on men.

If it wasn't for us, men would be living in cheap apartments, sitting on beanbags while eating Cheetos and Ramen noodles while watching their 46" Flat Panel TV and Bose stereo system that are set on boards supported by concrete blocks.

Well, you DID ask for it.

Originally Posted by Back to NE

Women as civilizing influence?

So yes in my premise, I blame women mostly for birthrates. The natural but primitive urge to breed exists in most women even in the modern world. And they are allowed and even applauded for acting on these primitive urges even when it is the last thing they and their countries need. Childbirth must stop being a rite-of-passage or meal-ticket for women.

There is a rising notion amongst women of child-bearing age in America and some European countries that they either want to delay having children to get their careers underway or not have children at all.

People in 3rd world countries often have children because there are few if any options for birth control available to someone who can't afford it.

Childbirth is NOT the result of immaculate conception. It requires assistance from men. I would venture that in most countries, men have the option to take birth control into their own hands anytime they wish by using a condom or having a vasectomy. Many choose not to, though.

[Eastern Roamer]

Did anyone consider "Bloody" Mary of England? Three hundred people burned at the steak for not being Roman Catholic is not very civilized. The Trojan War was supposedly over a woman. Cleopatra didn't exactly bring peace to the Mediterranean, either.

On the other hand, on a micro scale, look how men behave in the absence of women. I was on an all-male ship in the Navy and let me tell you, men act like fools when there are no women to impress. Our hygine deteriorates, our language gets foul, and juvenile pranks seem brilliant! Luckily it was such a small ship we had frequent port visits.

On the micro level, yes, women have a civilizing influence over men - we become "gentlemen." But the influence is superficial.
On the macro, politics, government, and the morality of a nation's population have never been influenced by femininity.

[rifleman]

Third-world cultural experiences notwithstanding, I'd immedately vote to ban all women from politics!

There! Now that I've got your attention, and you've "pegged" me, esp. with my on-line name, let me apologize for pulling your leg (in a non-sexist way, BTW). I'm actually quite a supporter of feminine influence. And it's generally a lot more attractive than a bunch of old-line arrogant fat cigar-smoking capitalist imperialist pigs deciding about mine or your life as well...

If we immediately mandated more female participation in all forms of decision-making, I'd be willing to bet that we'd all live in a much more peaceful world. Women are so much more attuned to their children, and to the value of children, even their late-teenaged sons, that they would stop the idiocity of wars as soon as they could.

They're also very concerned about education, music, art and philosophy than diesel-truck drivin' boys. (Actually, I drive one of those myself, but hey, I'm only a man, right? I also bake French bread every week, and make custom rifles!)

I wonder if it would have changed good old Don Rumsfeldt's amazingly arrogant approach to life and wars if he'd had to visit the mothers of each of the young men and women he, effectively, wasted in Iraq and explain that their child wouldn't be coming home again. But we did it all to "stabilze" the Middle East.

Poppycock!

And as for Gaza? H&ll, I really don't care whose fault it is now; I'd be willing to bet that if it were jointly up to the Isreali and Palestinian / Arab women, the endless rocket assaults would stop tomorrow. And they'd sit down and talk.

But are women as well prepared for, or capable of, tough but required military decisions? Probably not so much, given their more peaceful approach and respect for life. So what? For those situations we retain our Westpoint Graduate War College guys, under strict house management rules.

In the new Canadian territory of Nunavit (sp?) it was mandated that a percentage (Majority? Minority? Not sure. Google it!) of tribal native women would have to be in the new government. ...how thoughtful! What a breath of fresh (if somewhat cold...) air! I don't know if it has worked real well, but I can imagine it has; Inupiat have always valued women's input in their culture. I saw it at work up there years ago and it was joyous!

Personally, having been in the military, I've had enough of the blindered mentality accompanying male governance. Give women a chance, I say. (Want some fresh out-of-the-oven French bread, ladies? A bit of wine as well? Maybe even a ride in my Big Tonka Truck?)

P&L2A rflmn™

[Rathagos]

Originally Posted by Book Lover 21

My thought is that it may be the civilizing influence of women. Of course, women are present in all countries, but in which countries do they actually have an influence? Have there been countries that engaged in dispicable practices that had women in positions of power? In the US, it is generally agreed that women getting the right to vote was a major factor in the advances in civil rights and women's rights movements.

Okay... by defacto, this is stating that men are uncivilized and no "civilization" would exist in the world without women (leaving the obviously biological requirements out, of course). I have to say that theory is a bunch of bunk.

However, that said, I do believe women can be a stablizing or equalizing force, especially in a society that is prone to show equality (or near-equality, for those that think women are still waaay far behind men in equality). Women are generally calmer and slower to aggression than men. I agree that men would start a war long before women. But, as Rifleman said, I think when it's called upon, women might move too slowly (and potentially at great risk). I think Sally Field's statement that there "would be no wars if mothers ran the world" shows she hasn't been in the real world in a LONG time, and she hasn't been to a sale in a store. Women can be some of the most competitive and catty people (even moreso then men). But, the aggression of men and the nurture of women exist for a natural reason, to me.

I think the balance of men and women together, in equal terms, helps in providing stability of society, and therefore civility. But, the thought that without women, there would be no civility is as ludicrous as saying the converse with men. So, to some extent women bring civility... about 50%. The other 50% comes from men.

And, the comment about civil rights has no tie to women's contribution to civility, to me.