Don't ever forget that if some women behave stupidly - irrespective of the era, or the circumstances or even who was really pulling the strings.... ALL WOMEN ARE TO BLAME and this means we are not equal to men.

All this thread has shown is that there is still a lot of hostility to the idea of women participating fully in our world. Even relatively intelligent men believe they are more capable than women and argue why we apparently can't succeed in politics, business or other areas of influence.

The message still seems to be: "Know your place, girlies"

As for law of the jungle, animals behave more cooperatively than us 'civilised' humans:

http://littlurl.com/eipah

There are alternatives to an adversarial system - there is cooperation. However, this point is entirely moot until women are participating fully.

Bronwyn “I just don’t like the laissez faire, greed-is-good, dog-eat-dog, out-of-control, drowning-in-consumption type capitalism that we’ve ended up with now,”

Truth is whilst the tax payers, through government, funds bodies like ACCC, what you claim is patently untrue.

“thanks to deregulation and all the other “Thatcherite” reforms we’ve been subjected to in the last decade or so.”

I voted for Tahtcher when in the UK. I remember the industrial wasteland which existed under the socialists before she came to power.

I remember how my cost to commute dropped to one third what it was before Thatcher broke the transport monopoly which had the jackboot on the wallet of consumers to maintain an inadequate and incompetently operated transport system.

I recall the resources of a nation being thrown down a sinkhole of nationalized industries, each one a sheltered work shop for the vested interest of trade unionists.

I remember studying for my exams by kerosene lamp because the coal miners union decided they wanted to run the country and blockaded power stations.

I could write a book about the benefits of Margaret Thatchers prime ministership, including having the balls to send the military to the Falklands and her part in liberating eastern Europe from under the yoke of communism.

If you choose to defile the name of one of the greatest politicians of the 20th century do it with particular examples rather than using “generalities”.

But of course, “generalities” makes your personal accountability and responsibility for accuracy more difficult to challenge.

Fractelle “Don't ever forget that if some women behave stupidly - irrespective of the era, or the circumstances or even who was really pulling the strings.... ALL WOMEN ARE TO BLAME and this means we are not equal to men.”

I could cite from this site, instances where all men are blamed for the actions of a few.

It is a cheap point to "stereotype" in defence of yourself or in criticism of the opposite gender.

We are all individuals. That state exists above, before and regardless of race, colour, creed, gender, political or sexual orientation.

Fractelle,

You seem to me to have grasped the EXACT OPPOSITE of the point that is trying to be made!

'Don't ever forget that if some women behave stupidly - irrespective of the era, or the circumstances or even who was really pulling the strings.... ALL WOMEN ARE TO BLAME and this means we are not equal to men.'

The intended argument was a refutation that NO woman would ever support war. Further, women ARE equal to men, it just happens to be in something most women and men reject. Seeker said it best...

' Seems a little incongruous that while equal with men (or better) in every positive human attribute, deny such equality on the negatives.
'

'argue why we apparently can't succeed in politics, business or other areas of influence.
'

I argue women can and would succeed, but they would behave pretty close to how the men do who have succeeded. When women do succeed they are accused as acting like a man. I think this is an insult to men.

'The message still seems to be: "Know your place, girlies"'
The message from me is, power corrupts, men have had power, and ALL men have copped the flack for the powerful's decisions. Women need to get off their high horse, and until it can be proven, it's ridiculous to say that women would run this magical utopia if ony they had more power.

Danielle,

'However, they were a product of the thinking - also by men - of this period. '
Yes they were, but it's never been an excuse for men. Men are just believed to be all inherantly war-mongers. My argument about the world pre-feminism, is that until a critical mass of women was reached, women themselves contributed to the thinking and attitudes of society. I don't find many feminists accept this. It's all men the oppressors and women the victims.

It's occurred to me that apart from legitimately wanting historical accuracy with regards to the White Feather movement, a lot of women on here are just basically offended at any portrayal of women not being pure and innocent and virtuous. At best, the attitude is yes but it's really the influence of men. i.e. Women are inherantly superior, and anywhere you can find a woman who's done wrong, you will find a man as the root cause.

The anger at the topic, Fractelle as prime example, really does illustrate the very point I was originally trying to argue.

Bronwyn said 'Women sure as hell wouldn’t have led us up the garden path to the quagmire of Iraq'.

I've already used the Greens analogy with politics, whereby the Green's policies sound so altruistic and fair and ideal in theory, but I really think most people would accept if they got into government we/they would find it's not so simple.

Like children's sport. You can complain that your kid's not getting a go, that the team only cares about winning, that the coach gives his/her son better opportunities. But until you've had to juggle all the conflicting goals of all the kids and their parents and of trying to win while playing in the right spirit and giving everyone a go you don't realise how hard it really is.

So I say, if women can't see this, maybe it is because they have'nt been in enough positions of power, or because of the fact that men have, they have decided to paint all men with the same brush. I don't know any man who likes war, but somehow men are believed to be the reason for war. They are supposedly naturally violent, or oppressive or some such rubbish. When soldiers are killed, I've heard the attitude on OLO, 'well so what, men create the wars'.

But men have been in the role of leaders and anyone who knows anything about this knows you cant please all people all the time, and not every conflict can be resolved with a committee.

JamesH,

You are quite right about the white feather brigade (although I don't know anything about girls trying to get rid of boyfriends; but I suspect some girls would have thought it romantic to have a boyfriend in the services). I recall my grandmother being extremely critical of this movement. Once on a tram, a woman handed a man a white feather, only for him to reveal, by pulling up his trouser leg, that he had already lost a leg in that war.

Yes, boys did go, and came back men. I recall reading that WW1 soldiers would line their trenches with the bodies of their fallen comrades. Michael C. Kearl in his book "Endings: A Sociology of Death and Dying" argues that in wartime men have to be socialized to kill effectively, and to die for their country - socialized to a new system of beliefs and action.
Similarly, on the return of "warriors" - they have to be transformed back into civilian life.

I suspect that this is why there is so much ritual surrounding the military and death.

Undoubtedly, women in the forces also have to be socialised this way.

In the Korean War, the military was compelled to turn to psychiatrists, because of the high numbers of soldiers who could not pull the trigger in combat. (Peter Berger, ed. "Facing Up to Modernity: Excursions in Society, Politics and Religion" (1977) pp.83-94.

In WWI, the officers in command shot any men who "lost it" on the battlefield. Many of these were boys of 16 years, perhaps younger.

Danielle: 'Yes, boys did go, and came back men. ........Similarly, on the return of "warriors" - they have to be transformed back into civilian life.'

There would be many who would disagree with that first statement. It is the militarist rhetoric of the chicken hawks who send others to war.

As to the second, it is very doubtful if anyone can be successfully 'transformed back into civilian life' after their wartime experiences.

PTSD for example is as real for a Vietnam soldier as it was for a WW1 soldier, just that the naming of the condition was different.

As regards Vietnam, kids who were not old enough to vote were conscripted for war and whether we like it or not, there was a large rump of women voters who sent them there.

I am sure that women need to accept that they are humans just like men and are just as prone to the various human failings as are men.

This article fails because it is more of the 'same old same old' gender wars rhetoric that young women find so offensive. Honestly, we should be working with men, not against them. That is what mainstream women want.