The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Resolving conflict - riots, confrontation and UN Security Council Resolution 1325 > Comments

Resolving conflict - riots, confrontation and UN Security Council Resolution 1325 : Comments

By Jocelynne Scutt, published 23/1/2012

Resolution 1325 affirms the importance of women's voices in the resolution of war and conflict.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. All
The nonsense idea that one gender is somehow more likely to be able to resolve disputes than the other continues to be perpetrated by Ms Scutt. There is no evidence for this and no evidence that women are somehow more 'peace oriented' than men. These are simply ancient and romantic stereotypes which are being used by the author to perpetuate the gender wars. The idea that everything can be made equal if there have been 'equal numbers of each sex' in any job is more like a childs way of resolving a playground dispute.

Of course, Ms Scutt would claim to represent 'women' but I would imagine she only supports women from the Left. No Maggie Thatchers, no Sarah Palins, no Marine LePens, no Michelle Bachmanns need apply. I wonder if she would show her sisterly support for any of these women? I bet not.

This is where her arguments always fall flat. They are basically Leftist arguments and not feminist arguments at all though they be disguised as such.
Posted by Atman, Monday, 23 January 2012 8:41:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article does not provide any solutions to the conflicts themselves. I highly doubt putting more women in positions of power via affirmative action will solve any of these conflicts.
Posted by Aristocrat, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 7:56:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have always wondered if there was some validity in the thought that women should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot & pregnant.

Every time I read one of this ladies articles I get slightly closer to agreeing with that position.

If there ever was a requirement for a fuzzy thinking person, this one should get the job.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 24 January 2012 8:58:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A great article by Jocelynne Scutt. UN security council resolution 1325 highlights the increasing success of women as negotiators and peacekeepers acknowledged within the UN with an expansion of all women peacekeeping forces. We all recognize that rape equals war. The US military has recorded a 75% increase in rape within their military ranks with reports of rape against women in the invaded countries unreported. We do know that 500,000 women were raped during the Rwandan genocide. Clare Hutchinson a gender affairs officer at the Department of Peace keeping operation in New York (March 2, 3010) reported in relation to the ‘highly successful’ all women Indian Peacekeeping unit in Liberia. “The Indian {women} pioneered a new way of peacekeeping with Commander Anne Abraham acknowledging that it was sometimes heartbreaking ‘we’d hear a woman say ‘I’ve been raped. My daughter has been raped... we performed duties that were different than men... It was just the presence of women that made a difference.’ Dr Jocelynne Scutt is right in suggesting hypocrisy (my words) within the UN organisation and further enlightens us to the reality that discrimination against women is rampant; in the UN, In Australia, the UK and the US and evidenced by the previous comments.
Posted by think, Monday, 6 February 2012 3:54:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Think, neither you nor the rather breathless stuff put about by Scutt offer anything more than an apologetic for affirmative action.

I'm at a loss as to how your recipe, which calls for less-competent women to be preferred to more-competent men when selecting candidates for political/bureaucratic jobs, can yield a better outcome. On the other hand I can see why you might find such a prospect personally attractive.

As Eva Cox said: "Emphasising women as victims also contributes to gender-based biases in political thinking."

I'd suggest that while Ms Cox is on the right track, she perhaps deliberately misses the fact that such gender-based biases are already entrenched. Men are just as guilty as women of perpetuating it, but there is little doubt that the body-politic is women-centric in its decision making, based on a feminist polemic that never acknowledges men as anything other than brute oppressors and women as simultaneously helpless victims in need of help and superior to men in every way.

Jocelynne Scutt's apologetics are not convincing, even to someone like Eva Cox.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 10:47:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy