“Groups of women subscribe less readily than men to the myth of the efficiency of violence”

I wonder whether this is true, or just traditional stereotyping. Women in senior government positions have often shown little reluctance to go to war, such as Margaret Thatcher, who couldn’t wait to go to war (or send mostly male troops to war) in the Falklands, even though both the US and Chile offered to intervene to settle the dispute with Argentina. She also did not limit the UK’s production of weaponry, and the arms race does seem to be a major reason behind so many wars.

And judging from the writings of people such as Condoleezza Rice, she doesn’t seem all that opposed to war or armed force as a means of furthering the political aims of groups such as the neocons.

As far as war goes, there is some hope for such things as the International Criminal Court http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html to help rid the world of tyrants, (whether they be male or female), instead of resorting to war or armed conflict.

However I think that women have plenty of opportunity for voice, particularly within women’s literature and magazines. Unfortunately the majority of it has become fiction, and the writers or authors use much “spin” to try and brainwash women into believing that they are perpetual victims. In that area, women are at war with themselves

Merit is the only measure of suitablity - that no or few women contribute to an area of debate on an issue is not a convincing basis to determine that they "should contribute".

Personally I would be unlikely to debate on a mstter of say the appointment of the new Pope since I have no interest in the outcome. When women want to express opinion they are sure likely to do so.

So, until then, presuming to blame men or look for a mythical male bias (“instead of perpetuating a male apathy which engenders resentment and ultimately confrontation.”) for a lack of input or involvement in an issue is both short sighted and childish.

Absence of involvement is more a matter for women to concern themselves with and not to criticise a pretend men’s “apathy” about.

Ultimately we are all individuals.

As the great and dearest Margaret Thatcher said

"I owe nothing to Women's Lib."
as well as

"The battle for women's rights has been largely won."
but most particularly true
"Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't."

I guess the challenge facing the female gender might be simple - there are no women who aspire, compete or “merit” the right to don the mantel worn by dear Margaret - and for that matter - very few men either.

One doesn't have to be psychic to know that the first post would be from our Timkins seeing how the author chose to genderise it. Like a moth to a flame! I cringe being the same gender as a Margaret T, as much as you guys might cringe to being the same gender as an Adolph. Warmongering is not necessarily driven by gender, more of a sign of the times and society which seems to accept it. Without meaning to bring sexism into it, we live in patriarchal society and some women in power will buy into it. Not all women are soft and cuddly, and not all men are Fabio's.

Which means none of us can afford to stereotype, especially those in positions of power. The gist is that women are not represented enough in the upper echelons due to a bit of stereotyping (and probably some lack of talent). But lack of talent never seems to hold the guys back.

The title of the article made me cringe. These gender debates always involve a lot of hot air. Its funny that we don't see many articles lamenting the lack of men in child care jobs or in nursing. Despite men having different perspectives that would liven up the debate within these closed and biased industries.

I must say that the article was actually going much better than I had expected until I hit this paragraph:-

"Groups of women subscribe less readily than men to the myth of the efficiency of violence; women tend to expose the "underbelly of war" by focusing on basic needs such as food and health security; they tend to be preoccupied with the bigger picture - the consequences - while some men maintain personal agendas of power. Initiatives powered by women usually emphasise inclusion, participation, consensus building, dialogue and sustainable elements crucial in international security."

This is absolutely hysterical. Surely the author jests.

Di,
There are many women’s groups in Australia. See a list of such groups at “Australia Virtual Centre for Women and the Law”. http://www.nwjc.org.au/avcwl/lists/info/index.html (NB this particular list is only a partial list, as I know of many other women’s groups that are not on that list)

Now could these groups be regarded as “think tanks”. This would depend on the definition of what is a “think tank”, but if someone digs beneath the surface it becomes evident that many of these groups are for women only (ie exclude men), and are private and not open to the press.

So women certainly cannot complain about not having their own groups (or think tanks), but there can be complaints made about the closed and gender biased nature of these groups as these groups are not “patriarchal”, nor are they democratic.

And in the area of women’s literature, the vast majority of it has now become “pulp fiction” and is taken up with topics as described in the article “What the gossip mags say” at http://www.smh.com.au/news/People/What-the-gossip-mags-say/2005/04/19/1113854194675.html?oneclick=true

So I become very suspicious of unsubstantiated statements that malign my gender such as “a male apathy which engenders resentment and ultimately confrontation.”

There is often a fine line between being pro-female and anti-male, and I think the author has crossed this line a number of times in this article

Stephanie Fahey bemoans the limited role of women in Australia's think tanks. She looks for women who are contributing to international security debates and finds a paltry total of just four at the Lowy Institute and Australian Strategic Policy Institute combined. Of this total, two turn out to be board members, and one has more of a managerial role than a research position.

Had the Professor looked a little further, she would have found that at The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) women hold five of the six staff and visting positions within the foreign policy programme that I (a woman) head. Indeed, Owen Harries – a Senior Fellow - is our token male!

Over the past six months alone, women wrote the majority of foreign-policy opinion pieces published in newspapers under the CIS flag on topics ranging from maritime security to America's war on democracy. Unlike the Lowy Institute’s Sturdee seminar that the Professor criticises, our premier annual conference, Consilium, features two female speakers on the changing strategic balance in East Asia.

Professor Fahey argues that women can 'enliven discussions' and 'make a difference to debates'. I could not agree more. The nearly all-female team at CIS has done just that. Our work on the Pacific, for instance, has consistently highlighted the link between poor security and economic stagnation, and the need for Australia's military and police interventions to be backed by major changes to our aid programme.

Professor Fahey accuses the defence/security establishment of being 'myopic' over gender participation. She has a point. This remains a male-dominated field. In overlooking our contribution to debates, however, it seems the Professor is the one who has been short-sighted.

Susan Windybank
Foreign Policy Research Director
The Centre for Independent Studies