Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What If Women Ran the World?
BusinessWeek ^ | Tue Apr 15, 2003 | Thane Peterson

Posted on 04/15/2003 12:23:32 PM PDT by WaveThatFlag

When I look at the news these days, I can't help but wonder: Wouldn't we be a lot better off if women were in charge, given all the violence and atrocities perpetrated by men and male-run governments in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, and Iraq (news - web sites)? Would U.S. troops be in Iraq today if, say, Hillary Clinton (news - web sites) were President, and not George W. Bush?

Sure, woman leaders are sometimes as tough and warlike as any man. Britain's Margaret Thatcher comes to mind. But in my experience, women tend to pursue conciliation and cooperation long after men would have been at each other's throats. And, as the heroism of American women soldiers and pilots in Iraq has shown, when it's really necessary to fight, women hold their own.

Besides, once war ends, it's often women who step in first to help the orphans and other victims of battle. In Rwanda, for instance, 10% of the population was slaughtered in the 1994 genocide, mainly men. According to Elizabeth Powley in an article in the International Herald Tribune, about 70% of the population immediately after the genocide was female, so women set up numerous nongovernmental organizations to deal with the devastation. Today, some seats in Parliament and local councils in Rwanda are reserved only for women.

EUROPE'S LEAD. I suspect that the rising percentage of women in governments around the world is a very significant trend. It's a controversial notion, but some political scientists believe that when women [and other minorities] reach a "critical mass" of around 30% in an elected body, they often start to act together as a group outside party lines. And, in some governments around the world, the percentage of women has hit that threshold, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, a Geneva, Switzerland-based organization of Parliamentary governments that tracks the numbers [www.ipu.org].

Nordic countries lead the trend. Women hold 45.3% of the seats in Parliament in Sweden, 38% in Denmark, 37.5% in Finland, and 36.4% in Norway, according to the IPU. All told, the percentage now tops 30% in the Lower Houses of a dozen nations, including the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Argentina, and Mozambique.

At the low end are several countries in the Middle East: Iran, 4.1%; Egypt, 2.4%; Jordan, 1.3%; and Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates at 0%. The U.S. ranks 59th, in the middle of the pack, with 13.6% of the seats in Congress and 14 of the Senate's 100 seats held by women. But, according to the Center for American Women & Politics at Rutgers University, women now hold 30% or more of the seats in six state legislatures: Washington, Colorado, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont, and California. Washington is tops, with 36.7%.

NO WIMP. I realize that the notion that the world would be more peaceful if women ran it is a hard one to test. But I checked in with Swanee Hunt, director of the Women & Public Policy Program at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. She's no wimp when it comes to war. As President Clinton (news - web sites)'s ambassador to Austria from 1993 to 1997, she pushed for a quicker intervention to stop the atrocities in neighboring Bosnia. Out of that experience, she has formed Women Waging Peace, a global initiative to get women involved in peace initiatives in conflict areas around the world.

Daughter of Texas billionaire H.L. Hunt, she has used her wealth to fund initiatives aimed at helping women and children. A mother of three, she has also found time to compose a classical piece called The Witness Cantata as a memorial to victims of war. Her husband, symphony conductor Charles Ansbacher, is scheduled to conduct the work on Good Friday, Apr. 18, at Boston's Arlington Street Church. Here are edited excerpts of our talk:

Q: What's the idea behind Women Waging Peace, and why should it be a goal to get women involved in the peace process in places like Iraq and Bosnia?

A: When I was the ambassador [to Austria], Bosnia was right next door, and there was a terrible refugee flood into Austria. What I noticed quickly was that the 60 people who were sent up from Croatia and Bosnia for the [peace] negotiations were all men -- even though there were more women PhDs per capita in the former Yugoslavia than in any country in Europe. It made me wonder why the warriors involved wanted to make sure there were no women.

That question stayed in the back of my mind. After I left the State Dept. and came to Harvard, I asked some people at the U.N. why there were no women on the negotiating team in the African conflicts. A U.N. official told me: "That's very clear. The warriors won't have them because they're afraid the women will compromise." I thought: "Bingo!" That is, after all, the whole point of negotiation. I wondered if there was something to that.

Q: Where did you go from there?

A: I brought, ultimately, women from 25 different conflicts to Harvard for a week or two, listening to them exchange their strategies. Some were pacifists, some not -- I certainly am not. There were lawyers, investigative reporters, members of parliament, the whole range.

What we found is that there were some extraordinary strengths among these women that would be very useful in trying to avert or stop violent conflicts. The women were bridging the divide. They tended to not see the person on the other side as the demon. They would often talk about how, "We're all mothers, and as mothers we understand each other." One of the sayings was, "As mothers, we cry the same tears."

Q: How is women's participation going in Afghanistan (news - web sites)'s new government?

A: Before the Taliban, women represented about 50% of the medical doctors and 40% of the government officials. So, [when] a meeting was set up of the warlords to determine who would be in the transitional government, there was lots of pressure from the [Bush] White House and the State Dept. to ensure that the U.N. would insist that there be lots of women. A U.N. official told me that eventually one of the warlords said, "All right. We'll have the same percentage of women as there are in the U.S. Congress."

Q: Which is about 14%. Is that good or bad?

A: Well, we wish he had said Sweden.

Q: Haven't women been marginalized since then?

A: I'm told that many of those women [in the Afghani National Assembly] have suffered. And the war in Iraq has intensified the pressure on [Muslim] women [generally]. This conflict has been painted as the West vs. Islam. The husbands and male leaders say to women, "Show us that you are a good Muslim woman, and don't have any of those Western ideas."

Q: What's the potential for women playing a role in peacemaking in Iraq?

A: It's very important that Iraqi women be perceived as major untapped resources. They can play a key role as planners, leaders, and organizers of the reconstruction. That includes the transitional justice [system] that must be established. My experience with women in postconflict situations is that they very much have their fingers on the pulse of the community.

I've talked to maybe 500 women from conflict situations around the world [about] difference between men and women. Mary Okumu, who has worked on the conflict in the Sudan for years, once told me: "What men and women want in these situations is very different. The men want a whole state. The women want a safe place for their families." Maybe that's because of social roles, maybe it's because we're hardwired differently. But they all say, "We approach it differently."

Now, I'm very aware that many of the great peacemakers in the world are men -- Nelson Mandela in South Africa, for instance. We're not talking about all-men-this and all-women-that. It's just that the Bell curves are in different places.

Q: Do you think that the rising number in parliaments around the world will mean that it will become less likely that countries will go to war in various situations?

A: My educated guess is, yes. [Among] American men and women, there was a very significant gender gap [on going to war in Iraq] -- as much as 15%, depending on the question asked -- before the war. [But] if you convince women that it's about protection- -- such as [asserting a] September 11 connection [with] Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) -- then those numbers start eroding.

Q: Would it make a difference in voting patterns if 30% or 40% of the U.S. Congress were women?

A: I can't give you the numbers. But my experience in interviewing women over the years is that women tend to think of themselves as less competent than they actually are, [while] men tend to think of themselves as more competent than they actually are. Women are helped, therefore, when they have a larger group with which to identify. It connects to how good women are at relationship-building, collaboration.

Q: If I said what you're saying, many women would call me sexist.

A: Exactly. It's classic. Most of these stereotypes about men and women are grounded in reality. It's just that they are abused, used in ways that hurt men or hurt women. That's why we hate stereotypes.

Q: The other striking thing we see in the news these days is some very brave women soldiers in combat.

A: I've done some studying of women in combat -- not of Americans but of guerrilla fighters. For instance, I had [South Africa's] Thandi Modisi in my home for dinner, and I said, "Thandi, tell me, what did you do before you were in Parliament?" She said, "I was a [guerrilla] fighter."

I [also] spent a day interviewing an Eritrean woman who lead her platoon into battle several times. A very, very gutsy woman. She said she was particularly effective because the men would have been mortified to have not followed her into battle, even when they were petrified. She said the Ethiopians had a saying: "Oh, please God, don't let me be captured by an Eritrean woman." So there are other sides to this.

I don't think that looking for peaceful solutions is the job of cowards. There's tremendous damage anytime you drop the bombs. And I say that having implored [General] Wesley Clark to start the bombing in Kosovo sooner than he did. Military intervention is a tragic choice -- though sometimes the less violent of all of the choices.

Q: Why did you implore General Clark to drop the bombs earlier?

A: I had watched the genocide in Bosnia, and I was convinced that Slobodan Milosevic (news - web sites) would respond to military force and [nothing] else.

Q: Any further thoughts?

A: The interesting question is whether the women warriors have the same motivation as the men warriors.

Q: What's your answer?

A: I don't have an answer. I only have a niggling thought that there may not be the same kind of enjoyment of aggression that I see on the playground with my son and his friends. I'm convinced that boys and girls are different.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: anticapitalism; barfalert; bewaretheredmenace; commies; communism; communists; editorial; frontorganizations; goddessworship; hillaryclinton; queenhillary; reddupe; reddupes; redmenace; socialism; socialists; thanepeterson; theredmenace; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-310 next last
To: smadurski; Grampa Dave; budwiesest; dalereed
"You mean to tell me that women don't rule the world?"

"The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world!"

The writer of this article is so a part of the "Gelded Generation!" (especially with his playground analogy)

Didn't he also write: "All I Ever Needed To Know, I Learned In Kindergarten"?

281 posted on 04/15/2003 7:10:27 PM PDT by SierraWasp (Media Advisory: Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
"Not necessarily."

I am glad to be wrong on that, actually, come to think of it, my 20 year old (beautiful) daughter votes conservatively and has no use for political correctness.

I definitely agree that Hillary hides her true (leftist) agenda, but for that matter, so do many Democrats, including the "feminists, anti war folk, environmentalists, etc."

282 posted on 04/15/2003 7:32:42 PM PDT by Sam Cree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Either the unwed birth rate is high OR the abortion rate is high. Choose your poison, I guess. Personally, I'd like to see the unmarried CONCEPTION rate decline, and by all accounts it is declining, albeit slowly. In the interim, I'll take live children over dead ones, any day.

And once born, someone has to support children. They can't support themselves. The chart didn't say whether the working moms were unmarried, married, divorced, widowed, etc. It just indicated what percentage of mothers of young children worked. It would be interesting to see the breakdown on marriage and working moms by state.
283 posted on 04/15/2003 7:32:54 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
"successful Western woman in government"

Since you didn't ask for how many, I'll give a few: Jennifer Dunn of WA; Liddy Dole of SC; Condolezza Rice; Hitlery Clintoon, Nancy "Pube" Pelosi. Now, you name me successful women in the governments of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, pre-war Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, and any other islamic state?
284 posted on 04/15/2003 7:37:39 PM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Luna
"Unfortunately, I think most women leaders, particularly the liberal variety, would make decisions based on feelings, not thought."

I once tried to explain to my first wife the difference between thoughts and emotions and I finally gave up trying. She was convinced that emotions were thoughts and no amount of reasoning would persuade her otherwise.
285 posted on 04/15/2003 7:39:07 PM PDT by RipSawyer (Mercy on a pore boy lemme have a dollar bill!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: WaveThatFlag
But in my experience, women tend to pursue conciliation and cooperation long after men would have been at each other's throats

Odd, my experience is that women frequently fly off the handle at imagined slights, and retaliate viciously for years afterward, rebuffing reconciliation after reconciliation.

When was the last time you heard a woman apologize? And I mean, sincerely apologize -- not, "I'm sorry you feel that way."

If women ran the world, The Button would have been pushed a long time ago. That they have 51% of the vote is frightening enough. Women are why an emotionally crippled, philandering perjurer from Arkansas was President of the United States for eight years. Remember Janet Reno -- rolling the tanks at Waco, sending in machine guns to 'rescue' Elian? Enough said!

286 posted on 04/15/2003 7:53:41 PM PDT by JoeSchem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer
She was convinced that emotions were thoughts and no amount of reasoning would persuade her otherwise.

For her, emotions and thoughts were the same thing, so in a sense, she was right.

287 posted on 04/15/2003 7:56:20 PM PDT by JoeSchem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY
But in my experience, women tend to pursue conciliation and cooperation long after men would have been at each other's throats.

Well, the author certainly hasn't met many of the women in my life...

I'm with you here. I can't remember working at any office or other place where there weren't catty women picking sides, choosing the "in" group. And it never ends. I'm nearing fifty and I still see this with women my own age. I mean, how long do you have to be out of high school before women grow up?

288 posted on 04/15/2003 8:05:08 PM PDT by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WaveThatFlag
I really dont see anything changing in the foreseeable future.

Men still will continue to make all the "BIG" decisions: who they will vote for for president, what the families policy should be towards red china, what job the husband will get to pay all the bills, what new car to buy the wife, etc.

Women will still make all the "little" decions: what everyone will eat every day, what clothes everyone in the family will wear, whether or not to get married or have kids, how many kids, what schools the kids will go to, what church they will attend, what house to buy and live in, where we will go on vacation each year, what presents to give out, what movie to go see, what restaruant to go to, what furnature to buy and how to arrange it, how the house is landscaped and what deck for the man to put up, what stove and refidgerator and washer and dryier and dishwasher for the husband to buy, when if and what kind of sex, etc.

289 posted on 04/15/2003 8:15:16 PM PDT by waterstraat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
Would U.S. troops be in Iraq today if, say, Hillary Clinton (news - web sites) were President, and not George W. Bush?

No, but Iraqi troops might be in the U.S.

290 posted on 04/15/2003 8:18:59 PM PDT by Vigilanteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
The US did not give women the vote until 1920, and the US was the most prosperous country in the world at the time.

No. Women got the vote in the 1850's, 1860's, 1870's, 1880's, and in some of the original states- even sooner, Kansas, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Dakotas, etc. By 1920, women had the vote in nearly half of the states for all types of elections.

291 posted on 04/15/2003 8:22:31 PM PDT by waterstraat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
No, but Iraqi troops might be in the U.S.

.......good point.

292 posted on 04/15/2003 8:25:28 PM PDT by Lady Eileen (The rights of the people come from God. The powers of government come from the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: WaveThatFlag
Why Men Rule


293 posted on 04/15/2003 8:47:06 PM PDT by boris (Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WaveThatFlag
You mean women don't run the world???
294 posted on 04/15/2003 8:50:08 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th% (Is Algore really preparing for a recount of the war in Iraq?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
The US did not give women the vote until 1920...

On a national basis, no. On a state basis - Wyoming, for example - yes. But women in the culture as a whole were participating at a level quite inadmissible in Moslem culture. Annie Oakley, Dolly Madison, Calamity Jane, Molly Pitcher...these women were not enfranchised but they certainly were empowered. There is a difference, and the Moslems need to learn it or forfeit the creativity of half of the human race.

295 posted on 04/15/2003 10:38:42 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
read later bump
296 posted on 04/15/2003 10:40:15 PM PDT by nutmeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LuisBasco
Does thith man thpeak with a lithp?

Why is it ok for a liberal base an entire story on generalizations, but if a conservative employs a small stereotype to make a point he's a homophobic nazi?

297 posted on 04/16/2003 7:07:42 AM PDT by WaveThatFlag (Run Al, Run!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
No, she did it because a divorced woman would not get elected to a higher office, let alone President, of a Christian-based country.

Twenty years ago conservatives voted for Ronald Reagan in droves.

298 posted on 04/16/2003 7:20:09 AM PDT by WaveThatFlag (Run Al, Run!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

Marriage would become obsolete, replaced by the gigolo factor. Socialism would prevail. Lesbians would hold all positions of power. Petite women would become toys for both sexes. Gay men will be eliminated as rivals. Weak men will fill all pink collar and domestic jobs. Snakes, spiders, and mice will be eradicated. After that, it gets serious. Everyone will have to say "Oh My God" when surprised.
299 posted on 04/16/2003 7:38:20 AM PDT by Consort (Use only un-hyphenated words when posting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
I don't appreciate you comparing my statements with those of "complete nuts" who debate the right of women to vote.

I never stated I wanted to repeal the 19th Amendment. I stated that any woman who is existing or at least subsidized by tax-funded social programs should not be allowed to vote, as they are voting for a substitute husband/father-state to support their bad choices.

Therefore, my vote, a person who contributes to society and the Treasury, has about as much weight as an uneducated teen mother with two children. However, she votes for more aid, while I vote for stronger borders and military.

Why don't you read my reasoned arguments concering women who vote before you spout off your cakehole.
300 posted on 04/16/2003 7:53:40 AM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-310 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson