Gender Issues

[Lief Erikson]

It is important to our national security that we have the ability to stick out wars we're engaged in and to win them. It's also important that we have the ability to engage in the right wars. I know that men won't always get us into the right wars or be able to win them once we're in them. And being more likely to enter the right wars means also being more likely to enter the wrong ones. But unfortunately, we'd also be more likely to lose whatever war we fight, or to be attacked if we delay. I do believe that many men support peace and I think that that is very important to our national security too- it keeps us from overtaxing ourselves or being as likely to hit the wrong targets. But I think men tend to be better designed than women to make these leadership decisions. This is not a constant- some women are far better at making these kinds of decisions than some men. And some men's aggression does make them stupid. I think that as a whole though, the genders are designed to function in this way and there are a great deal of evidences (of which I have listed several above) that indicate this.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

And since in spite of doom-sayers, Western-originated liberal democracy has survived the test of time, triumphing over the challenges of dictatorial militarism, Fascism, and Communism, then maybe we should keep laying our winning hand, and even try to expand it as much as we can, instead of regressing to the level of our (failed ) opponents. I'd be much happier if the less aggressive sex had more influence in places like Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan.

I wouldn't equate Western-originated liberal democracy with women's having the right to vote. Democracy existed a lot longer than women had the right to vote, so arguing against the latter does not necessitate arguing against the former.

But on the issue of our current form of government standing the test of time, I don't really believe that it has yet. It's still called "the great experiment," and for good reason. Time has not yet passed on this one. On the other hand, the system that existed in the Medieval Ages survived for over a dozen centuries. It would be much easier to argue that their system survived the test of time than it would be to argue that ours has, seeing as our form of government has only been around for two or three hundred years at most.

And if one includes those two or three hundred years since our democracy's beginning, one has to include the wars we fought against Britain. This was in a stage of British history where they had a very powerful parliament. They had a king too, of course, but the parliament and their people voted in favor of war against us, and we ended up fighting two wars against the British. They were part of the liberal democracy tradition too, right? And then there also was the Civil War between the Confederate States and the Union. Both were democracies, although I grant you not precisely the same as what we have now.

If these cases don't count as clashes between democracies because the democracies weren't liberal enough (and the Confederates were actually fighting for less authoritarianism in government than we held to in our democracy, not more), then we're reducing even more the time that the Western liberal democratic government has existed. We're cutting it down then to about one century. Just to show that wars between democracies are not unheard of . They nearly wiped our country out, twice.

Originally Posted by Mari

Accepting that you're right, isn't it a good thing that it takes more time to convince women? It means the government has to really think it's arguments through and they can't rush into a foolish war. It might teach them some precaution. (Is that correct English?)

And before you start saying that sometimes there is no time for thorough consideration, like for example after Pearl Harbor, it is my believe that in such extremities, women are fully capable of saying yes to war. Mainly because Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks happened in a country they felt more or less safe. You defend what you feel is yours. And after attrocities are commited against them or their country(men) people are easier up for a war.

I agree that government should really think through its arguments and shouldn't rush into wars. I think that men are psychologically the better equipped of the two genders to make the decision on when it's time for war, though. I agree that some women are quite ready to handle all the same things as men, but I do believe that most of them are not. Which I don't see as a bad thing- I think both genders are equally valuable and necessary to the human race, with different and complementary abilities. I don't think men can do the same things as women any more than I do that women can do all the same things as men.

Originally Posted by Mari

It might teach them some precaution. (Is that correct English?)

Yes, that is correct English.