Conference turris::womannotes-v2

>    Your opinion only. 
Back off sweetie. Your opinion is your opinion 'only' too.

>This is the real world. 
Yes. I know that. Honest.

>They had the ultimate
>    responsibility (Thatcher, Gandhi, Mayur) to decide whether their
>    countries went to war. 
Can you give me more information? Like; did any of them have to worry about
their political position? Their party's position? What did they start wars
over? How can you tell they started them (maybe it's clear, but I'd like to see
the facts, not 'just' your opinion). Got any references if you're too bored to
type in the facts?

>    	The fact that they may not have conformed to the mold of a
>    true feminist regime as defined by someone else does not change
>    history, or invalidate what they did. 
I assume you think that's what I'm doing. I don't mean too. I think you didn't
hear what I said. I'll try to say it again:

My opinion is that one woman at the top is not 'women leading'. It's a more
interesting data-point than no woman at the top, but no [wo]man is an island.
As a woman making it in a man's world, who watches other women do the same, I
see where certain actions or behavior patterns are acquired from dealing
substantively with men. I wonder if those samve patterns would be acquired from
dealing substantively with women, but _involving_the_same_issues_. I don't know
of any examples. Women dealing substantively with women have often done so
around "women's issues".

>    	There is an opinion that a strong conservative woman leader
>    is somehow either not a woman, or invalid when measuring women in
>    leadership roles or accomplishments.

It's not mine. Where did you pick this up? Has anybody read Dworkin's "Right
Wing Women" (is that the name?)? Any body know what she says about this?
	Mez

I would like information from _anybody_. I am not particularly interested in
getting into a "you said", "no, _you_ said" kind of discussion here. If it
degrades into that, I'll let it drop.
	Mez

>Back off sweetie.
          ^^^^^^^

 ? :-)

    More particularly, I think Golda Meier (drat, am _I_ getting the
    spelling right?) got a bum rap:  as far as I know, she didn't _start_
    anything!  Somebody know differently?
    
    						=maggie

re: .3

Yeah; I picked up the habit of over-use of terms of endearment from my mom, and
I write the way I talk, pretty much.
	Mez

    RE .5
    
    Golda <however you spell her name> as I recall [It is hard to keep
    the wars straight over there] launched a preemptive strike on the
    Jordanians and Egyptians because the Israelis thought they were
    going to attack.
    
    On other Female leaders:
    
    Cory <MS kinder and gentler Phillipines to be sure>. I wish her
    luck. She has an almost insurmountable mess. I think she will be
    forced to use more and more force to keep the country together.
    
    Banizir Bhutto (sp)
    
    She may have an easier time running her country. She is well educated
    and believes in freedom and democracy. The country has problems
    like most 3rd world countries, and the religious standards are high
    and not necessarily favorable to a woman. But unless she ticks off
    the USSR, and suffers apparent retaliation like here predecessor,
    she should fare much better then poor Cory.
    
    BTW: It would be interesting to know if she is still authorizing
         the attempt to buy at any price 'yellow cake'... The stuff from
         wich Nuclear bombs are made.
    
    
    Steve
    
    

    
    Golda did *not* pre-emporily attach the Arab countries; Sadat planned
    and executed the trans-canal assault and caught the Israeli Bar-Lev
    line unprepared. This happened in '73.
    
    

    RE .8
    
    You are correct. As I stated, it is hard to seperate the wars over
    there with '48, '56, '67, '73, and to a lesser degree '82.
    
    The Egyptians wanted the Sinai (sp) back and executed a
    brilliant move. Being '73, not '67 brings up another interesting point.
    As Israel started to lose the war, it was widely reported that
    Israel prepared to nuke Syria. Israel was in desperate shape, the
    Russians were preparing to airlift troops into Syria (to 'maintain
    peace' or whatever reason). The US warned the Russians to keep out
    of the war. When they didn't, the US military went onto one of it's
    highest states of alert short of war (in a very noticable way to
    the Russians) to show the Russians we meant business. Now if the
    ground fighting with Syria had gotten worse, or the Egyptians had
    not just crossed the canal and had really fought the Israelis hard,
    Golda <however you spell her name> might just have nuked Syria (the
    greater threat). What would have followed next.... I have my ideas,
    you conclude your own. This is probably the closest we ever came...
    (disclaimer - IMHO).
    
    Sources: Defense Electronics, US News, International Combat Arms,
             others including Henry Kissenger on TV.
    
    Was Golda right or wrong? Was she riding atop a male dominated macho
    war machine that had no concept of peace? Was she responding to
    a threat to her people? Should she have rolled
    over (along with her country) and meditated while the swordsman
    swung his sword? In this case, she, and Israel would have died

    Steve

    RE .1
    
>>    	There is an opinion that a strong conservative woman leader
>>    is somehow either not a woman, or invalid when measuring women in
>>    leadership roles or accomplishments.

>It's not mine. Where did you pick this up? Has anybody read Dworkin's "Right
>Wing Women" (is that the name?)? Any body know what she says about this?
>	Mez

    I believe it was two or three years ago. Jean Kirkpatrick (I am
    pretty sure it was her) was scheduled to speak to an assembled college
    audience and was prevented from doing so by heckling and disruptions from
    some (enough to disrupt) of the students. 
    
    Is she a successful woman - YES. Is she knowledgeable and 
    intelligent- YES. Should she have been allowed to speak - YES.
    
    Why would someone do this INSIDE (outside protest are OK with me)?
    "No one ever learned anything by talking" I don't know who said
    it, other than my father and me, but it makes sense. I don't agree
    with some in this notes file, but I listen and learn. I don't skip
    over someones notes (whose opinions I don't agree with) which is
    as close as I could come with this media to shouting you down, just
    because I don't agree with someone.

    I was in England this past summer. Margret Thatcher is either
    loved, or hated by her people, no middle ground. My friends and
    I learned quickly to avoid the subject as you couldn't tell
    who was for and who was against.
    
    Steve

    I love how we're referring to women leaders by their first names
    (Golda, Cory) and men leaders by their last (Sadat)...there wouldn't
    be a subtle message in this somewhere, possibly even pertinent to
    this topic, would there?
    
    Dorian

And still more questions spring to mind (thanx for trying to reply to some of
mine Steve; I hope others will too!).

Do women generate more polarized opinions in those they lead and those that
watch them lead than men?

Do we have some liberal women leaders? (politics is not the only arena one can
lead in) What about the woman from the Green party in Iceland? (did I get that
right?)

How are the known women leaders different/same in dimensions other than
war/aggression? Social, economic, morale, 'feminist' issues?
	Mez

>    I love how we're referring to women leaders by their first names
>    (Golda, Cory) and men leaders by their last (Sadat)...there wouldn't
>    be a subtle message in this somewhere, possibly even pertinent to
>    this topic, would there?
    
    Perhaps because nobody knows how to spell Meier or Acquino, but they
    can spell Sadat? I'm still not convinced that Meier is the correct
    spelling. I see many people referring to former President Reagan
    as Ronnie, and the current as George (Oh George...). I don't see
    anybody referring to Benazhir Bhutto[sp?] as Benazhir. Sometimes people
    do things without any hidden meanings.
    
    The Doctah

    I think one of the reasons why women like me sometimes discount 
    the contributions of conservative women leaders is that we see
    them as in league with their men to oppress others, men and women
    alike. Gender isn't the only variable -- social and economic class
    is also a major factor.
    
    So many women political leaders come from the conservative,
    wealthy ruling class, the class that's already in power.  Given a
    choice between a woman of breeding and education, and a self-made
    man, often voters will choose the ruling-class woman.  Can't have
    those proles getting uppity, you know . . . 
    
    I know that I frequently feel I have more in common with the
    struggles of the working-class men trying to break free, get an
    education, make ends meet, than I do with what appears to be the
    whining of upper-middle-class women privileged to attend good
    [read: expensive] schools and complain of discrimination in
    excellent professional jobs.  I find myself thinking, "Sheesh, at
    least she's got a good job, probably doing what she wanted.  She's
    not sitting in an open office typing away for peanuts while the
    professional women look down on her because she couldn't afford
    four years of college and now she has to support two kids and who
    has time to get more education?"
    
    I don't know that this is a fair attitude on my part, but it's how
    I feel. 
    
    --bonnie

>    I think one of the reasons why women like me sometimes discount 
>    the contributions of conservative women leaders is that we see
>    them as in league with their men to oppress others, men and women
>    alike.
    
    I think the root cause of women discounting conservative women leaders
    is that the political differences exist. I'd be willing to bet that if
    a woman made it from the deepest depths of poverty and was
    conservative, there'd still be a reason to discount her (in many
    women's eyes). Conversely, if a woman from the "ruling class" made it
    into power and was very liberal, she'd probably be accepted even by the
    most liberal of females. Why? Political concordance. JMO.
    
    The Doctah

    Discussions related to this, in particular in the area of women
    and power, can be found at
    
    womannotes-V2 (this file)
    314 - power and responsibility
    
    womannotes-V1 (be patient, there may be access errors still)
    344 - power - how?
    615 - we must redefine power
    744 - fem(inization) of power
    
    mennotes
    216 - feminization of power
    

I haven't read this entire string of notes, so perhaps this has already
been mentioned, but has anyone noticed that here in the US, to have a
woman in a position *near* the top is a big deal, and rather rare -- remember
Geraldine Ferarro (sp ?), and yet we are supposed to be a fairly progressive
country - -
   then compare us to the some other countries where women either have been
or are the top leaders in their contries -(please forgive any spelling
errors in this list) Indira Gandhi, Golda Meier, Margaret Thatcher, Benazhir
Bhutto, and Corey Acquino.

Leslie

>and yet we are supposed to be a fairly progressive country - -

I'd be interested in who thinks we're progressive (besides us :-). I bet
studies have been done, but I can't recall any.
	Mez

    re.18
    
    Well, Bhutto, Gandhi, & Aquino had highly charismatic male connections
    [a father, a father, and a husband] that enhanced their appeal to the
    masses.  Much as Nancy Kassabaum's road to the US Senate was made
    easier by being the daughter of Alf Landon.
    
    It is doubtful that Aquino would have run for president had her husband
    not been murdered.  The martyrdom of Bhutto's father is also fact.  And
    who could deny that Nehru's light reflected on his daughter.
    
    This in no way denies their abilities as leaders.
    
    Meir came to power through dint of much work, and there is some
    debate as to whether she wished to hold the reins or be a force for
    change.  Her rise to power didn't follow the 'traditional' path.
    
    Thatcher is a mystery to me.  Certainly, she is a classic
    over-achiever.  Much _was_ indeed made of this _woman_ being PM, but
    after all this time the novelty has worn off.
    
      Ann

	I believe the correct spelling is Golda Meir.

    In the political arena, we also have a liberal congresswoman who
    is known nationally, Pat Schroder (sp?) from Colorado. Because she
    was polite and decided not to enter the presidential race last year
    in deference to Gary (monkey business) Hart, you might say she was
    done in (using polite words) by Gary in a different way from the
    way he did in the bimbo on the boat. 
    	She seems articulate, knowledgeable, and nice. We (americans)
    will probably see more of her in the future.
    
    Steve
    
    Others?  Madaline Khune (sp?) governor of VT
             Diane Fienstien (sp?) mayor of San Francisco

>             Diane Fienstien (sp?) mayor of San Francisco

Feinstein, I believe -- no longer mayor, but likely to run for
governor of California, they say.

	MKV

    Also Kathy Whitmire(?), mayor of Houston.

    
    
    Feinstein left office while SF was (is) struggling with a huge deficit. 
    
    I hope the Demos do better than her next time around..
    
    
    

    Reagan left office while the US was (is) struggling with a huge
    deficit.
    
    I doubt the conservatives will do better this time around.