Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Queen Isabella financed Columbus but as far as bloodthirstiness goes,
    I'd emphasize her use of the Inquisition and her role in eliminating
    Jewish and Moorish populations over her part in eliminating Native
    American civilizations.  She has more competition (virtually all of it
    male) in the latter role.
    
>    Would it have been different
>    if women were in charge, and if so, how so? If not, why not?
    
    If the only change is that a capable woman is occasionally in power
    rather than a capable man, I think it's pretty clear that there's
    little difference.  If we're being asked to imagine an alternative
    history for European civilization based on completely sexually
    egalitarian or matriarchal governments, that's a tougher question.
    
    Ray

    If my history serves me correctly there was only one person who did not
    vote for war against Japan on 8 December 1941 - following FDR's famous
    "Day of Infamy" speech to a joint session of Congress.

    What does that tell us?  Nothing, however it is an interesting piece of
    historical trivia.

    Bubba

    	Can you name a female head of state that *hasn't* been involved in
    a war. In Britain you have Boadicea (war against the Romans), Mathilda
    (civil war against Stephen), Mary (England vs. Scotland), Elizabeth I
    (Britain vs. Spain), Victoria (the last monarch that had any real
    influence, and you would have difficulty counting the wars), down to
    Maggie (Falklands).
    
    	Actually, I can name two. Lady Jane Grey was queen for eleven days,
    but since her head was cut off at the end of her reign there wasn't too
    much chance for a war, and Queen Anne who was such a nonentity that
    nobody noticed when she died ;-)
    
    	I have read a theory that all wars are caused by international
    economics, and while this may be an exaggeration women are no more
    independant of international economics than men are.

    
    I think if women were allowed to hold power the way I believe is most
    suited to them things would have been, and could only be, different.
    
    Women who rise to power are either invited into it due to their
    adhering to the masculine power style, or acquire the masculine power
    style since that's the only thing that will allow them to stay in
    power.
    
    Carol Gilligan, in her book "In a different voice" suggests that women
    have a different way of wielding self, different needs for connection,
    and a strong desire for win-win outcomes, *naturally*, or *inherently*. 
    These are often seen as "weaknesses" within the male power structure,
    so often women in power will *not* act this way (whether they
    inherently are not this way, or are forced to not be this way in order
    to maintain power and be respected, is anyone's guess).
    
    I think it would be different. 
    Can I prove it?  hell no.
    
    -Jody
    

>    I think if women were allowed to hold power the way I believe is most
>    suited to them things would have been, and could only be, different.
    
    And I think if men were allowed to hold power the way I believe is most
    suited to them things would _also_ be different.
    
    There have been unwarlike cultures (though it might be impossible to
    eliminate all behavior which a 1992 American might label "violent").  I
    haven't seen convincing evidence that the difference between war-based
    and peaceable cultures is simply a mattter of patriarchy vs.
    matriarchy.
    
    It's true that peaceful cultures may not seem as sexist, but so much
    Western sexism operates via the threat of violence that our definitions
    may be getting muddled.
    
>    Carol Gilligan, in her book "In a different voice" suggests that women
>    have a different way of wielding self, different needs for connection,
>    and a strong desire for win-win outcomes, *naturally*, or *inherently*. 
    
    I believe this difference may be due to women's place in the power
    stucture rather than inherent in human biology.  Change to a different
    power structure and it may not be true.  Certainly _individual_ women
    who are placed unusually highly in our power structure do not always
    show such a difference.
    
    Ray

    People who look back upon history with disgust seem to quickly forget
    that morals and situations have changed quite a bit over the last 500
    years.
    
    I'm sure that in 500 more years, people will look back upon 1992 and
    express disgust with things that we do nowadays, like, for example,
    killing plants and animals and eating them, rather than synthesizing
    all of our food or just starving to death.

    
    
     �l#~t�
    
    
     I wonder what people from the past would think about our society
    today?
    
    David

    I'm not too sure that having a women at the head reduces the chance of
    war. I really think our violence/aggression is a HUMAN thing. I don't
    think it's gender related. There have been warrior women since the
    beginning of time. If we examine nature we certainly have examples of
    aggression in both male and female segments of a species. I believe we
    need to focus more on WHY humans have this great desire to 'own' things
    like other people,land, and animals....plus our desire to have 'more'
    of everything than if it's gender related. We continue to live in a
    world where one madman/woman can press the 'button' and the whole Earth
    is gone. (and it says something about the human race that whoever
    pushes the button seems to think that they alone will survive). I think
    we need to move to a great understanding that we are all interconnected
    and we need each other to survive. 

    
    
    
     I would prefer a world ruled by the matriachy than the Patriachy(sp).
    
    
    David

    
   >  I would prefer a world ruled by the matriachy than the Patriachy(sp).
    
	Yikes.  How on Earth do you know that?

	Just curious,
	Di

    
    > How  on Earth do you know that?
    
     I think you mean " why on Earth do I think that?"  Simple really,
    women are more empathetic, sympathetic, even tempered, nurturing, and
    patient then men. I would prefer a leader ruled more by emotion than
    by thought. Just as an aside, if the Genesis account of the bible were
    true, what do you think Adam and Eve said to each other after the gates
    to Eden were closed behind them??
    
    David

	>>I would prefer a leader ruled more by emotion than
        >>by thought.

	Wow.  Can you say "asking for it"?  

	Too much.
	Di

    
    
     > asking for it
    
     I meant nothing bad. In fact I am serious, I think women( qualified)
    would do a better job. Now with regards to my remark about ruled by
    emotion, I think women are more an emotional being than mental, this
    does not mean they are not thinkers . I think your blessed with brains
    and a heart.
    
    David

    
>>     I meant nothing bad. In fact I am serious, I think women( qualified)
>>    would do a better job. Now with regards to my remark about ruled by
>>    emotion, I think women are more an emotional being than mental, this
>>    does not mean they are not thinkers . I think your blessed with brains
>>    and a heart.

	Sorry, but ten-foot poles spring to mind.

	Di

    
    
    
     Di,
    
      I suppose it makes life more fun to imagine everything and everyone
    is the enemy.
    
    Lighten up,
    David             p.s. Did you get the mail?

    
>>      I suppose it makes life more fun to imagine everything and everyone
>>    is the enemy.

	Geez, I wouldn't know, but it doesn't sound like much fun at all.
	Sorry, but incredulity got the better of me earlier.  (This is
	not to be confused with an emotional response.)

>>       p.s. Did you get the mail?

	Yup.  I don't think I misunderstood.


	Diane

        PS  Lighten up?  You don't know quite how ironic that is, David.

    
    
    Diane,
    
     If you insist on refusing my explanation and apology for expressing
    myself in a poor way, so be it, you are not the first to try the sack
    cloth and ashes routine.
    
     Logically yours,
    David :-)

    
>>     If you insist on refusing my explanation and apology for expressing
>>    myself in a poor way, so be it, you are not the first to try the sack
>>    cloth and ashes routine.

	I'm afraid the "sack cloth and ashes" allusion is lost on me.

	But David, I don't believe you need to apologize for how
	you expressed yourself - I believe it's actually what you think.
	That's the part I find rather disconcerting.  That you believe that
	women are motivated more by "emotion" than by "thought".  As 
	contrasted with, for instance, men.  But then again, this does
	appear to be the Year of the Sweeping Generalization.  

	Sack cloth and ashes - hmmmm, I must have been absent that day.
	8^)
	Di

    
    
    > the year of sweeping generalizations
    
    
     No I suspect it is the year of " I will make everything fit into my
    preconceived notions."
    
    > I'm afrain the " sack cloth and ashes" allusion is lost on me
    
       Oh contraire Madam, it is found on you :-)
    
    David

    
    > the year of sweeping generalizations
    
    
    >> No I suspect it is the year of " I will make everything fit into my
    >>preconceived notions."

	Same difference.  But if you prefer...
    
    > I'm afraid the "sack cloth and ashes" allusion is lost on me
    
    >>   Oh contraire Madam, it is found on you :-)

        Ah, er, that's "Au", but anyways, maybe you'd do me the honor
	of explaining.  I love learning new nifty phrases.

	Di

    
    
    > au
    
      Always wondered about :-)
    
    > of explaining
    
     If you are really interested send me mail off line, otherwise, back to
    the topic..
    
    Tally ho (probably spelled that wrong too)
    
    David