Hasbeen, regarding global warming; I have asserted quite a few times in our discussions that it doesn’t matter if it is real or not. We should be taking practically the same sort of actions anyway in the interests of a sustainable society. You agree with me about the sustainability business, but you have steadfastly avoided commenting on this point. What do you reckon?

I asked you recently whether there is any leader in the last ~30 years that you support. You seem to knock the stuffing out of every single one. Is there actually one or two that you feel have done reasonably well, or at least not appallingly badly?

Hasbeen,
I do indeed, think about the way women conduct conflict or express hostility toward others, remotely, stealthily, the way women and particularly girls use social media to bully one another is another,it reminds me of remote drone warfare and is a good metaphor for our age.
The Predator drone is also a good metaphor for the so called "surgical" way war is portrayed by the human rights proponents, it speaks of minimalist intervention and an almost maternal concern for those in the vicinity.
The point I'm trying to draw from this array of threads is that perhaps Feminised Western governments are failing because they lack moral legitimacy, due in large part to their deceptive practices, double standards and often outright hypocrisy.
They'll send in B52's to secure womens rights, and it's ALAWYS about women's rights isn't it?
Asma Al Assad is the epitome of the modern empowered woman, yet the Feminised Western governements back militias who would rape and behead her and all Syrian women like her if she fell into their hands.
Anyway, you see where I'm going with all this, the discussion is petering out but I'm happy to keep going if you want to.

As I wrote earlier - the record of female leaders
is just as varied as their male counterparts
and demonstrates the impracticality of using gender
to differentiate between leadership styles.

However there are some people who interpret things,
consciously or unconsciously according to their
gender perspectives. As Petersen and Runyan (1999,
237) pointed out - "A great deal must change before
world politics is ungendered. Ungendering world
politics requires a serious re-thinking of what it
means to be human and how we might organise ourselves
in more cooperative mutually respectful ways. We
would have to reject gendered dichotomies - male versus
female, us versus them, culture versus nature. We would
have to recognise power in its multiple forms and be
willing to imagine other worlds."

In other words these changes are less a matter of
top-down policy than of individually and collectively remaking
human society by re-constructing our identities,
beliefs, expectations and institutions.

This is the most difficult and complex of human projects, but
history has shown that we are capable of such revoultionary
transformation.

Jay characterises the predator drone as 'female' because 'women conduct conflict or express hostility toward others, remotely, stealthily'. He suggests that it is "emblem of the struggle for "Human Rights" in the early 21st century, it's such a female weapon don't you think? No mess, no nasty confrontations if you strike while the enemy's back is turned."

But in the evolution of weapons, dealing death at an increasingly remote distance has a long history. Spears, bow and arrow, the long bow (Agincourt), the rifle, the cannon, aerial bomb, WW2 rocket attacks, high altitude carpet bombing (Vietnam), rockets in Somalia, and now the predator drone. Exactly when did feminists get involved in this?

However the ultimate remote, stealthy weapon, which strikes indiscriminately 'while the enemy's back is turned' must be the land mine and the IED (improvised explosive device). These are most effective in situations where there is a disparity in technology betwen the opponents, but where the technologically weaker side has a home ground advantage. An alternative gender analogy might equate the terrorists use of remote stealthy weapons with female and the big power's big techno weapons (the drone) with male. Under this analogy, for 21C wars in the Middle East, those using 'male' weapons would be the ones supporting women's rights etc,. while those using 'female' weapons suppress women's rights.

One of the most chilling male statements on war was made by a US general after a US rocket attack on a city building took out a number of Somali politicians / war lords. "We have to show them that they can't get their own way by using force." Surely the lesson was exactly the reverse?

Lexi,

You said "As I wrote earlier - the record of female leaders
is just as varied as their male counterparts"

For labor I agree, the Male MPs have been just as crooked.

Dear SM,

I think that you'll find if you do your research
(and your local librarian will be able to
assist you) that gender is a non-issue once a woman is
at the post. The power of the leader ensures that the
sex of the leader is irrelevant. You get leders like
Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Indira Gandhi of India,
Golda Meier of Israel, Violetta Chamorro of
Nicaragua and Corazon Aquino of the Philippines,
Margaret Thatcher of the UK, Julia Gillard of
Australia - just to name a few. They
all carried out their duties of managing their countries.

But of course you're not interested in any of that.
You only view this forum as a means to an end. To
use each and every issue as a bludgeon with which to
renew your attack on Labor and if possible -
the PM's character.