bruce potterMore Female World Leaders
March 18th 2010 00:53
I have no doubts that if it were President Georgina Bush, Prime Minister Antonia Blair
and Prime Minister Janette Howard, then we wouldn't be immersed in this fool's errand of wars that will never end in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's clear that women are far better at conflict resolution than men. I just think there may be a couple of coldish wars going on.
Political idealogies were described once as follows: A right wing approach is like having your father in charge – very strong on security; strong on discipline in law and order; but fairly loose economically. A left wing approach is like having your mother in charge – very strong on health, strong on education, very sensible with money, but not too concerned with defence.
Leading from that, if women world leaders were more common place it stands to reason that we would have very few wars being waged; we'd be very well placed for universal health care and everybody would have an opportunity to get the best education they desire.
I made the observation at a dinner party recently that it was troubling that the average 12 year old girl was much more likely to know who Paris Hilton was than who Gloria Arroyo was. A girl who perhaps belongs to generation Y, and who will remain nameless, looked a little puzzled, and asked why I thought it was important that 12 year old girls should know the identity of the lead singer of the Miami Sound Machine rather than Paris Hilton. Enough said.
That Gloria Arroyo can be President of the Philippines and be that country's second female president, shows that some countries have all ready embraced the idea of female leadership. Angela Merkel of Germany, and the recently deposed President of Chile Michelle Bachelet show other countries are ready to have mum in charge.
Robin Williams once said that women should be in power all over the world, that way there'd be no wars – just every 28 days you'd have really intense negotiations.
Taking Robin's lead, imagine the United Nations General Assembly with entirely female ambassadors. 192 women jammed into one room for weeks at a time decided the measure of world peace as we know it. Me thinks there would some time before resolutions would be achieved. But there would be very few calls for military action.
And I think that quite a number of countries would be involved in long periods of silence. There'd be no conventional weapons of mass destruction; just the deadliest known to all women – the silent treatment. It wouldn't be long held religious differences keeping countries apart. It might be more that Sweden aren't talking to Austria for some fifteen years because of something the Austrian Ambassador said about Sweden's shoes. And military action might be considered between Yemen and Libya because of the “regrowth” remark.
But seriously, women should be in power for one obvious reason – you've got the numbers. 54% of Australia's population and 57% of the world's population is female. By any measure that is the majority.
The darker side of it is that of those 192 UN member nations, two thirds are “developing”
countries. By “Developing” read poor; by poor read the oppression of women, because that is the reality of poor countries the world over.
So to solve the world's greater problems let's get more women in power. We'd be much closer to having an active reasoned policy for climate change for all nations.
And as can be witnessed in so many regions, men aren't exactly getting any of the problems fixed in a hurry.
What do you think?
and Prime Minister Janette Howard, then we wouldn't be immersed in this fool's errand of wars that will never end in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's clear that women are far better at conflict resolution than men. I just think there may be a couple of coldish wars going on.
Political idealogies were described once as follows: A right wing approach is like having your father in charge – very strong on security; strong on discipline in law and order; but fairly loose economically. A left wing approach is like having your mother in charge – very strong on health, strong on education, very sensible with money, but not too concerned with defence.
Leading from that, if women world leaders were more common place it stands to reason that we would have very few wars being waged; we'd be very well placed for universal health care and everybody would have an opportunity to get the best education they desire.
I made the observation at a dinner party recently that it was troubling that the average 12 year old girl was much more likely to know who Paris Hilton was than who Gloria Arroyo was. A girl who perhaps belongs to generation Y, and who will remain nameless, looked a little puzzled, and asked why I thought it was important that 12 year old girls should know the identity of the lead singer of the Miami Sound Machine rather than Paris Hilton. Enough said.
That Gloria Arroyo can be President of the Philippines and be that country's second female president, shows that some countries have all ready embraced the idea of female leadership. Angela Merkel of Germany, and the recently deposed President of Chile Michelle Bachelet show other countries are ready to have mum in charge.
Robin Williams once said that women should be in power all over the world, that way there'd be no wars – just every 28 days you'd have really intense negotiations.
Taking Robin's lead, imagine the United Nations General Assembly with entirely female ambassadors. 192 women jammed into one room for weeks at a time decided the measure of world peace as we know it. Me thinks there would some time before resolutions would be achieved. But there would be very few calls for military action.
And I think that quite a number of countries would be involved in long periods of silence. There'd be no conventional weapons of mass destruction; just the deadliest known to all women – the silent treatment. It wouldn't be long held religious differences keeping countries apart. It might be more that Sweden aren't talking to Austria for some fifteen years because of something the Austrian Ambassador said about Sweden's shoes. And military action might be considered between Yemen and Libya because of the “regrowth” remark.
But seriously, women should be in power for one obvious reason – you've got the numbers. 54% of Australia's population and 57% of the world's population is female. By any measure that is the majority.
The darker side of it is that of those 192 UN member nations, two thirds are “developing”
countries. By “Developing” read poor; by poor read the oppression of women, because that is the reality of poor countries the world over.
So to solve the world's greater problems let's get more women in power. We'd be much closer to having an active reasoned policy for climate change for all nations.
And as can be witnessed in so many regions, men aren't exactly getting any of the problems fixed in a hurry.
What do you think?
| 70 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog