Re: [sixties-l] War and male bonding

From: Jerry West (
Date: Mon Jun 26 2000 - 08:12:25 CUT

  • Next message: Jeffrey Blankfort: "Re: [sixties-l] War and male bonding >"

    William Mandel wrote:

    War a man thing? How about Margaret Thatcher and the slaughter of
    helpless Argentinian seamen in the Falklands War? .... Because women
    have generally been subject to male oppression, the number of female
    rulers responsible for such slaughters is very much smaller than the
    number of men, but it does not explain or justify the fact that they
    acted as rulers, not as women.

    JW reply:

    I won't dispute your point, William, but I think that the idea that war
    is a man thing comes from the fact that most soldiers as a rule have
    been and are male, and that the military in most times and places has
    been a male oriented institution. I also think that the evolution of
    this may have something to do with physical attributes since generally
    combat favors stamina, size and strength.

    As far as the examples of women leaders that you put forward, I would
    say that they were acting as leaders and as women. I do not think that
    females have a blanket exemption from being agressive, brutal or cruel.

    Jerry West
    On line news from Nootka Sound & Canada's West Coast
    An independent, progressive regional publication

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 20:57:53 CUT