Doctor Who [8]

you are avoiding the fundamental question why are there more male leaders than women? its because historically men have ruled the world not women. - Figg

That was not the question under discussion. You said-

'the Doctor does already deal with so called male aspects, ie WAR, which is exclusively male or am I missing something? the last time women went to war it was the Amazons or something equally ancient Greek/Roman whatever.'

I have argued war is not exclusively male and then provided examples of female leaders for the last century who have gone to war- and like men they did so for  variety of reasons- some like Thatcher did so to protect ostensibly UK citizens, but in reality oil fields off the Falklands coast.
Whereas Indras Ghandi declared war and seized land from it.

In other-words as leaders they are not noticeably different from male leaders when it comes to wars.

'you been trawling the internet for obscure female leaders, sad.'

I think its a shame you regard some of recent histories most notable female leaders as 'obscure'.

"you are ignoring the fundamental reality that women go to war for completely different reasons than men. "

Now you've shifted ground and changed the question under discussion- now its not that war is a male exclusive domain since the iron age, but that women fight wars for different reasons.
So  which is it?

'90% of wars are started by men and fought by men'

Because statistically there have been more men leaders- but that says nothing about women would do if they were statistically the main leaders. To find that out we have to look to examples of female leaders we do have.

"do you see any females in burkhas running round with assault rifles in the middle east?"

Um, yes you do. Although more commonly they are suicide bombers- but still solders and martyrs to their cause, from their perspective.

"Again the denial of the truth"

I have denied no truths- but I have presented historical truth to make my case. Female leaders are no more or less likely to go to war than a male leader when put in the same position.


"I wont feed a troll."

I find it incredible you would accuse me of trolling over this- you cant be so blinkered in your feminism that you believe all women are incapable of conducting aggressive wars because 'WAR... is exclusively male'

That statement is eminently refutable.


Catherine the Great begs to differ- Ringdrotten

There is no shortage of women in history who have conducted aggressive first strike actions- from Cleopatra to Elizabeth I.

There are even a couple I know of from as far back as the Summerian city states at the dawn of recorded history.

The Pew Research Center recently released a new Global Attitudes Project survey based on polling conducted in 39 countries.

News headlines derived from the polling echoed the Pew survey's title: "America's Global Image Remains More Positive than China's." However, buried within the top-line results was another revelation: "Wide Gender Divide on Drone Strikes."

Of the 12 countries for which Pew provided corresponding data, the female-male gap approving of U.S. drone strikes ranged from 31 percent in Japan to 13 percent in Uganda.

When the same question was asked in 2012, the female-male gap similarly ran from 30 percent in Germany to 12 percent in Poland. Within the United States, the divide was 23 percent in 2012 and 17 percent this year. American women are also between 11 percent and 14 percent more likely than men to show concern that drones harm civilians, cause blowback from extremists, are illegal and damage the reputation of the United States.

This female-male divergence of opinions is an enduring characteristic of polls on the use of military force and generally persists regardless of the weapons system employed, military mission undertaken, whether the intervening force is unilateral or multilateral, and the strategic objective proposed
The gap is also one that is sustained over time and is consistently found whenever or wherever comparable questions are posed regarding prospective military options. Richard Eichenberg of Tufts University, who has written several essential works on gender differences in security attitudes, found: "There are many commonalities in the views of men and women, but the direction of gender differences is always and everywhere that women are less supportive of using military force than men."

This is roughly consistent with data covering significant U.S. military intervention over the past quarter-century:

8.5 percent more men than women supported U.S. military action in Iraq during the first Gulf War in 1990.

6 percent more men supported intervention in Rwanda in 1994.

7 percent more men supported intervention in Bosnia in 1995.

6.4 percent more men supported cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998.

4 percent more men supported intervention in Kosovo in 1999.

17 percent more men supported the U.S. war in Afghanistan in 2001.

12 percent more men supported military action in Iraq in 2003.

13 percent more men supported military intervention in Libya in 2011.

Beyond historical cases, gender differences are also found if you look at the latest polling regarding uses of force currently under debate:

17 percent more men than women support the United States and its allies using force in Syria.

28 percent more men think the United States should conduct cyberattacks against other countries.

8 percent more men support the United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

15 percent more men think that North Korea is a threat to the United States that requires military action.

6 percent more men think that President Barack Obama should have ordered troops to go to Benghazi, Libya, on the night of the attack on the consulate.

Fifteen years ago, Francis Fukuyama wrote an essay that tried to explain why men are more likely, and women less likely, to support bombing other countries. He contended that "there is something to the contention of many feminists that phenomena like aggression, violence, war, and intense competition for dominance in a status hierarchy are more  closely associated with men than women."

However, such mostly male characteristics cannot be changed as they are rooted in biology, and since rogue male leaders remain a fact of world politics the "democratic, feminized, postindustrial world" will not be up to the challenge of confronting them. "Masculine policies will still be required, though not necessarily masculine leaders."

The question more interesting than why women and men perceive militarized approaches to foreign policy challenges differently is: What might the policy implications of them be today? Unfortunately, many commentators who have written about this phenomenon in the past focus on the gender of combatants themselves, while ignoring the gender of those who actually decide to use force.
But as women and men do have markedly different perspectives about using military force, it is conceivable that less would be used if more women were in leadership positions.

Women already in those positions think so: In a 2012 FP survey of 43 female politicians around the world, 65 percent agreed that: "The world would be more peaceful if more women held political office." When I ask my peers about this gap, three consensus opinions emerge: 1) Women are more likely to see the other side's point of view, 2) are less likely to see the world as a zero-sum game, and 3) are more likely to believe that bombing someone does not ultimately achieve anything.

In a 2011 poll that asked respondents "the best way to ensure peace," 8 percent more men said "military strength," while 9 percent more women said "good diplomacy." Likewise, the undervalued and essential role of women as peacemakers was the core theme of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's landmark December 2011 data-driven speech.

Meanwhile, her husband Bill Clinton recently opined that presidents who refrain from using force because of public or congressional opposition "look like a total wuss, and you would be."

The time-honored connection between looking "tough," masculine, and bombing others endures, which makes military force the appealing default solution for so many U.S. foreign policy problems.

anyone who denies that the vast majority of wars are started by men and that men are not more violent than women is mind bogglingly self deluded bordering on unhealthy. I wont be posting on this forum any more. You all make me feel sick to my stomach, I actually trusted that you people werent sexists, but the truth is out and its ugly. Self satisfied smug replies are a waste of time, I wont be reading them.

Nobody is denying that the vast amount of wars are started by men- there are far more male leaders. That's just obvious.

The contention is your claim that war is EXCLUSIVELY the domain of men. Which is patently untrue when you look at female leaders throughout history. Many of whom have gone to war, some of whom have started wars.

Nor does that make anyone sexist to say so- its just looking at the facts from history.

I never meant to be self satisfied or smug, all I did was provide an example of a female leader with a passion for conquest. The reason I brought it up was your statement that "women generally go to war to defend themselves". I did not disagree with this (I don't know anything about it, so I wouldn't argue), I merely remembered Catherine the Great from History classes and thought her reign a relevant response to what you said. Have fun on your journey to your greener pastures, but forgive me if I place my bets on you not finding them and returning to this forum within 2-4 weeks.

I don't think that saying "women don't start wars" really says much about the comparative morality or temperament of women when the only reason this is the case is, as you say, because women have been excluded from political power for most of human history.  But there have been plenty of belligerent, violent, and militaristic female leaders just in the past half century when they started becoming relatively more common.  In addition to Thatcher, Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi (especially the latter) come to mind.

Edit: derp, missed that there was a whole additional page of posts made on this topic.

Mrs Figg wrote:anyone who denies that the vast majority of wars are started by men and that men are not more violent than women is mind bogglingly self deluded bordering on unhealthy.  I wont be posting on this forum any more. You all make me feel sick to my stomach, I actually trusted that you people werent sexists, but the truth is out and its ugly. Self satisfied smug replies are a waste of time, I wont be reading them.

It's now sexist to point out that women are capable of committing acts of violence and atrocities?  Is it also sexist to observe that it is, in fact, physically possible for women to rape men (and other women, too)?

http://www.hobbitmovieforum.com/t378p270-gif-thread#69749
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/709100-svjfry12-emb-052813#document/p23

I'm sorry if I offended Mrs Figg. You need to understand that my sister is a college professor teaching religion and bio-ethics, and a strong feminist. We've had friendly discussions on these subjects for years.

In this case I was quoting her regarding women being denied the right to make war, and being equally capable if given the opportunity. I respect her opinion and defer to it in most things relating to feminism.

I only come to Forumshire to have fun, and to occasionally engage in a friendly tussle with you all. This isn't fun anymore. I think I'll take a break too.

I must have missed something somewhere because I've just been back through this entire conversation and I still dont know what has caused such offence, let alone enough offence for two regular posters to quit over.

And besides soon its the Forum Summer Picnic and Mayoral elections and I've got a ton of stuff being worked on for it from NotP specials to vids- at this rate there will be no one left to enjoy all the work   

Eldorion wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:anyone who denies that the vast majority of wars are started by men and that men are not more violent than women is mind bogglingly self deluded bordering on unhealthy.  I wont be posting on this forum any more. You all make me feel sick to my stomach, I actually trusted that you people werent sexists, but the truth is out and its ugly. Self satisfied smug replies are a waste of time, I wont be reading them.

It's now sexist to point out that women are capable of committing acts of violence and atrocities?  Is it also sexist to observe that it is, in fact, physically possible for women to rape men (and other women, too)?

http://www.hobbitmovieforum.com/t378p270-gif-thread#69749
http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/709100-svjfry12-emb-052813#document/p23

What the..?! I'm not clicking that. That is below the belt in more than one way. Timeout, people! Please!   

Pettytyrant101 wrote:(...)
And besides soon its the Forum Summer Picnic and Mayoral elections and I've got a ton of stuff being worked on for it from NotP specials to vids- at this rate there will be no one left to enjoy all the work   

It's this weekend, right? I might miss it.   

It can be either this weekend or the following one- I can be ready for either date- whichever suits the most people at once really.

Amarië wrote:What the..?! I'm not clicking that. That is below the belt in more than one way. Timeout, people! Please!   

I'm not sure if you're offended by the claim that men can't be raped or by me pointing out a trend in Figg's post history.

Was more sad than offended really, I am quite aware that men can be raped and it is knowing Figgy's posting history that made me react to your post.

I felt you were making a deliberate low blow at Figgy, since I feel you should be well aware that feminism and rape are huge trigger points for her and I couldn't see how you felt that shouting* that women are rapists too would do anything but add fuel to the fire. But you are allowed to be pissed and have opinions too, sorry for singling you out.

*sounded like shouting to me.

Somewhere in here there was an interesting and non offensive conversation about having a female Doctor- to which end I am reposting the fan vid with a female Doctor I put up previously-

Amarië wrote: feminism and rape are huge trigger points for her

For me too I'm afraid (though perhaps I hide it better.)  

What I feel worst about is that I jumped into the fray when Figgy was already feeling defensive, so it appeared from her perspective to be 4 guys ganging up on her. I know better than that.... Sorry Mrs Figg.  

I didn't even realise I was in a gang, I thought I was just having an atypical rumble with Figg.
But I would hope she knows me well enough by now to know whilst I'm as prone any male to pure ignorance, I am far too lazy and drunk to put the effort into being sexist, I prefer just to argue with everyone equally.
But if Figg feels an apology is needed I will gladly give one.
I need you to stay Figgs as frankly the rest of this lot couldn't muster the crabbit to argue their way out of a paper bag Id already used in an emergency on route to Dave's fields.

SesameSt does its own take on comic-con, with numbers, and a few Who references- 'Numerate! Numerate'   

Jesus Tap-dancing Christ, what the fuck happened here?

Figures it would happen in the Doctor Who thread. I always knew that show was no good.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

Okay, you can call me sexist or misogynistic or whatever, but I'm gonna say it anyway: Jenna Louise Coleman is hot!

Jesus Tap-dancing Christ, what the fuck happened here?- BUngo

Hopefully nothing to worry about Bungo- this happens, Figg and I clash once to often, I same something wrong in complete male ignorance, Figg has a break from me, short or long as she requires, I apologise for everything Ive said in the last week in the hope I hit on whatever it was I did this time, and then Figg comes back to Forumshire where she belongs and reopens her Eel Emporium.  

Say what you like about Figg and I, but we work damn hard for that award   

Two households, both alike in dignity
In fair Forumshire where we lay our scene...

 

That'd actually be a good idea for the Creative Corner.   

Not sure Im that brave!   

But if you fancy giving it a go Bungo.