“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

Suska
“women can 'enliven discussions' and 'make a difference to debates'. I could not agree more. “

I am rather perplexed at this statement, particularly when the Centre for Independent Studies is now a “nearly all-female team”.

Would you agree also that “men can 'enliven discussions' and 'make a difference to debates'.”.

Again it is difficult to define if an group is a “think tank” or not, but there are many hundreds, if not thousands, of women groups throughout Australia.

Eg
http://www.nwjc.org.au/womensorgs.html
http://www.abn.org.au/
http://www.nwjc.org.au/avcwl/lists/info/index.html

Then there are the women’s organisations attached directly to the government
http://www.women.gov.au/channel/channel.asp?ctid=1&cid=908&pid=828

and then there are the international women’ groups
http://www.internationalwomensday.com/organisations.asp

Hardly any of these groups or organisations allow males to be members at all, and many of them are subsidised by government.

Perhaps the CIS should do a study on why it is necessary to have so many (women only) subsidised women’s groups, and then have government as well

Stephanie, they are called "Think Wanks",and we all know men are the best at that that particular past time.Case dismissed!!

Arjay,

Would you like to elaborate on what you have said, or do you want to try and stereotype the male gender, exactly as the author has done.

If someone investigates the number of organisations in Australia that exclude men, and also considers the amount of literature written by women, then the idea that women are “perhaps being silenced”, does not equate to reality.

STEPHANIE

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.

You're RIGHT about one thing, women and men have different priorities in regard to conflict. One of my suppliers informed me of a little anecdotal survey she did among the staff asking "What does this mean"?
"Mr right, or Mr 'right now'". 90% of the males thought it referred to the guy u want to marry and the one u want to just 'bonk'. but the females thought it meant 'Ok as a friend/partner for now, but not a life time thing'

Now, back to conflict. Men are interested in power ...sure, but in conflict they are interested in ONE main thing "VICTORY" because girls, without it, you will all be raped and your possesions pillaged.
.. and we would all be either dead or slaves. The thing is, after a battle, its mostly the men who have spilled their guts all over the place to PROTECT the women who are thinking about the 'big piccy' as you say.

Its just a plain fact of life, undeniable, irresistable irrefutable, that without men to protect them, women are just 'meat' to the victorious side. Vulgar you say ?

How about 'realistic' in todays world, not yesterdays, nor tomorrows, but todays. Sure, not in Melbourne, but in Darfur, Bosnia, Congo ... and countless other places.

So, instead of ripping into we men about how we are 'partiarchal' (as if this is an evil thing, which it is not, it is culture) how about thanking us that you have the freedom to actually SAY these things.

I should add though, that behind every good soldier is a team of others, including many women who make his role more bearable.

The point being, 'horses for courses'

Do what you are good at, made for, shaped for, strengthened or unstrengthened for.
:)

Stephanie Fahey attacks males and adds fuel to the fire or inter-gender hostility. What would she think if a male writer made similar attacks on women? Like much of the politically correct, she preaches anti-discrimination but doesn't practice it. Her affirmative action dogma clearly knows nothing about social justice, because true justice is blind to gender. True justice does not paint-by-numbers (i.e. 50:50 male/female participation does not denote justice). True justice rewards superior ability and hard work.

By the way, the women from the Centre for Independent Studies have no need to seek recognition for the fact that they are females in a male dominated field. The quality of their work speaks for itself, commanding our respect.

Timkins,lighten up.I'm just having ago at the whole stupid argument.Women are good at multi tasking and men are good at doggedly pursueing a problem to the end.Our minds are wired differently both intellectually and emotionally.As David said," it's horses for courses," and there is no one sterotype of either sex that best fits any situation.Think tanks are only effective if the participants have real life experiences in the fields they are exploring.I think male and female complement each other and being male think that most women are pretty exciting to be around in an intellectual,emotional and physical sense.

Arjay,
I would mostly agree. I have worked with many different teams or groups of people, and most of the males I have worked with have had little opposition with having women on the teams. However it is people like the Professor who are now coming the “heavy”.

As an academic, she would readily know of the innumerable number of women's organisations in Australia that exclude men, and “The National Committee of Women in International Security Australia “ (which she is the chairwoman of) would be just one of those groups. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of others.

But the Professor finds a group that has currently fewer women in it such as the Lowy Institute, makes inferences about that group, tries to extrapolate it to make it seem that it is representative of all groups, makes a series of negative unsubstantiated comments about males, turns a blind eye to all the women’s organisations that exclude men on the basis of gender etc, etc, etc.

As well as that she should be abiding by the Australia Public Service Code of Conduct and Set of Values http://www.apsc.gov.au/conduct/

The Bureacratic Head of Planning in NSW has been held by women for over 10 years - some situations/problems can't be overcome, irrespective of gender, no matter how bright or meritorious your selection may be.

Having worked for the defence department for about ten years I can assure you that its not sexist.

It is totally blind to ALL talent, completely fails to appreciate how good existing staff members are, hires new, and often totally inept staff from outside rhather than promote what its got, and in general, treats everybody like dirt. Regardless of gender.