ugh. The cafe is turning into Salon.com

So why are only 14-15% (according to the linked chart) of our Congress/Senate people women, when women are more than 50% of the population? Obviously, women are just as strong and aggressive as men, and just as well eduated, and lots of them politically involved. I recall, back in the day, when Sandra Day O’Connor became the first female member of the Supreme Court. Today, we are back to one female member of the Supreme Court, still in the teen percentage rate of the population.

So for every George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby,I can find a Karen Hughes, Condi Rice, Lynne Cheney, and Mary Matalin.

That isn’t exactly a realistic comparison. George and Dick were elected Pres & V.P., there are no/have never been women in those positions in the U.S.A. Condi Rice may be comparable to Donald Rumsfield as far as her position in the government (Cabinet Level), but what are Lynne Cheney and Mary Matalin’s position in the representative government, and how might they compare to Scooter Libby?

Yes women are human beings, and perfectly capable of being ignorant, stupid, arrogant, greedy jackasses, just like some men are.

So why are there so few of them in our representative government?

Ah. But Enloe will tell you this is because those women are also masculine. When men are ignorant, stupid, arrogant, and greedy, it's to be expected. When women are any of the above, they're just acting like men, probably because they had to get access to male-dominated positions or some such.

It's a neat trick, making your prejudices unfalsifiable.

And yeah: the only reason there's less female aggression is because it's culturally unacceptable. With the increasing dissolution of those gender barriers, female violent crime has skyrocketed.

It's not about men, it's not even about masculinity. Rumsfeld's swaggering arrogance and Bush's inflated machismo are as far from the traditional Western values of manhood as braiding hair. It's about simple stupidity and the inability to admit a mistake, and neither sex has a monopoly on that.

It's a neat trick, making your prejudices unfalsifiable.

A good assessment of the absurd arguments some people spin. Ranks up there with "irreducible complexity" supporting creationism.

Damn, I'm so sick of screechy activists recycling 60's dogmatic crap
and angsty kid wannabes who've discovered the 60's playbook decades too late. Like the perpetually clueless guy who discovers something long after everybody else has moved past it, and then wants to tell everyone about it, as if they didn't already know.

When will those people get the memo that their simplistic propaganda was debunked decades ago, and that they need to brush up on thier game. That we've all moved past it, that their screeching radicalism is no longer fresh or inspiring, it’s now become the same, flawed, reflexive dogma they thought to supplant. That their great truths turned out to be pretty flawed too, and represented just another incremental step in cultural evolution.

Rumsfeld's swaggering arrogance and Bush's inflated machismo are as far from the traditional Western values of manhood as braiding hair.

You're saying I can't braid hair anymore?

Nick, a quick question: who are you responding to?  I didn’t see anything in EJ’s post that counted as male-bashing. 

On the "Macho, Macho" article — that one definitely ties together "masculinity" and "militarization" and "aggression."  One can argue with the political utility of the argument.  At the same time, I don’t think these connections should be dismissed.

I’m reminded of an important history book on the Spanish-American war by Kristen Hoganson.  It’s called Fighting for American Manhood.  It demonstrates, quite effectively, that gender stereotypes at the turn of the twentieth century made it easier for the U.S. to engage in that war (for example, Cuba as a white woman who needed to be protected from the attacking Spanish; the U.S. as a benevolent mother caring for Philippine children; etc.etc.).

There’s also the classic quip about the Cold War and the importance to the U.S. of maintaining a virile image — just think of the rhetoric about being "soft" on communism.

Then again, I’ll admit that this is something of a hot-button issue for me.  That’s why I’m a bit insistent that female posters here be accorded feminine pronouns — it’s my small bit to resist the stereotype? assumption? that somebody talking about politics or thinking rationally must be a man.

I didn’t see anything in EJ’s post that counted as male-bashing. ... On the "Macho, Macho" article — ... I  don’t think these connections should be dismissed.

What an amazing self contradiction and twisted logic. Basically it's not "bashing" because it's true, men are responsible for all that is bad in regards to war. Lol.

So I guess all those women driving gas guzzling SUV, living in the McMansions paying emigrant women starvation wages to clean their toilets, and generally enjoying the Imperial lifestyle, their conscience is clean right? Just like the women of ancient Rome didn’t enjoy all the domestic slaves Roman conquest brought home. I guess women weren’t concerned about the Cold War and protecting “American Interests” abroad, and don’t themselves play cutthroat politics in business or urge husbands to bring home more bacon.

I guess there were no women Nazis exterminating the Jews, no women racists for slavery, all spotless. Rosie the rivoter wasn't actually thrilled to build bombers for the war that wouldn't have existed if she was in charge, she just wanted to show that she "could do it" if forced to? Right?

Have women throughout history protested wars of expansion which allowed thier offspring to be more wealthy and dominant? They've never supported those wars, or urged them on, and certainly never taken up arms directly. Right?

What a crock!

I've no doubt of your beliefs, and I've already said what I think of such people, of either gender.

I’m a bit insistent that female posters here be accorded feminine pronouns — it’s my small bit to resist the stereotype? assumption? that somebody talking about politics or thinking rationally must be a man.

Where did anyone say that? Btw, the best you could do to help promote gender equality in regards to reasoning ability would be to adopt a male handle.

Who what where when or why is "Enloe?"

Thanks.

the best you could do to help promote gender equality in regards to reasoning ability would be to adopt a male handle.
Why? Why should adopting a male name help promote gender equality? Are you not Nick? Are you really Nickie? Nicole? Have we made no progress in the last century, must women have men's names in order to be taken seriously? George Sands? What is the constructive part of your point? Would more women be elected if they had male names? I truly do not understand that remark.

Otherwise, in the “macho macho military Nation” article, it was also mentioned that families (mothers and fathers)  of service-people are in anti-war organizations, not just the Gold Star Mothers...

Basically it's not "bashing" because it's true, men are responsible for all that is bad in regards to war. Lol.

I don’t know about “bashing,” but if it’s men who are in the positions of authority in the government, making the decisions, then yes, men are responsible in that respect. For all that is bad or good in regards to war.

As for the women driving gas guzzling SUVs, living in McMansions paying emigrant women starvation wages, and the Roman slaves -- those are economic issues, aren’t they? You’re referring to women who are/have been married to rich, powerful, influential men who were making the decisions? Rosie the Riveter needed to make some money to support her children while her man was conscripted in the Army. (We know how the Armed Services treats its conscripts, and the volunteer Army today). Another economic issue. And when the man came home from the war, Rosie was expected to go back home and mind her own business, so the man could have his job back. I don’t know about Nazi women, and slavery was another economic issue, decided by men.

Have women throughout history protested wars of expansion which allowed thier offspring to be more wealthy and dominant?

Of course not, the women followed the power. But other women throughout history have protested those same wars which killed their offspring, providing no wealth or dominance for the survivors of the killed soldiers

Cutthroat politics and women? Yes! But women aren’t getting elected. Back to my original question.

And yes, women have taken up arms directly. But what is their position, what are their opportunities in the Armed Services of the U.S.A., as compared to the men? Kind of the same as their position in the representative government.

must women have men's names in order to be taken seriously?

You seemed to have missed the joke. The point was that her comment isn't very well thought out and that if she’s concerned about accrediting comments to genders, she should try and misrepresent hers. Neither is your comment very good btw. It's more of a rant.

I don’t know about “bashing,” but if it’s men who are in the positions of authority in the government, making the decisions, then yes, men are responsible in that respect. For all that is bad or good in regards to war.

Sorry, way too simplistic. Women are often pro-war as well, often militant and share the same nationalism and hubris. They also directly benefit from its spoils: slaves, wealth, resources, cultural dominance, etc when there are any.  In fact, one of the primary causes of war is to make one's own offspring more powerful in future, a goal which women are just as enthuiastic about as men, and maybe even more so.

Anyways, sorry your arguments are way too simplistic. You see things as unconnected and separate without accounting for how they influence each other or share common goals. You fail to grasp how division of labor is not conflict of means, but specialization of means to mutually enable the other which forms the combined package. 

The truth is that males and females build society together, mutually responsible for all actions. Each courts the other, selects desirable traits, and enables the other. To get around that, militant feminists concocted the myth that all heterosexual sex is basically rape, because if it were otherwise they’d have to accept the mutual responsibility females had in history. That and various other agendas. Needless to say, that theory didn’t go over so well with either gender.

Females often select males with big muscles and bones for home/territorial defense for example in the same way as males often select females with big breasts and wide hips for child rearing. Both benefit in the evolutionary sense, and those traits are passed on and reinforced. In civilization, ancient to present day, it's basically the same equation. Roman men for example specialized in warfare and expanded territory, bringing back riches from the conquered so that women could raise larger households with slaves and riches to create leisure time. Leisure time equals better educated offspring making better conquerers and home makers, architects and doctors, etc. In modern society that’s still the same, although with less gender specialization because the technology is less gender specific.

Both genders share equal blame and credit in that system. Making petty generalizations, men are better thinkers and more aggressive, women are more empathetic but inferior thinkers, etc. those are childish clichés that fail to address the real complexity of gender interactions and society generally. Besides, the truth is neither gender is biologically evolved to deal with modern society very well.

We can only hope we evolved enough brains before the "great acceleration"  to avoid catastrophe, which could be caused by war directly, or just by global damage caused by happilly consuming without considering the consequences.

snip

On the "Macho, Macho" article — that one definitely ties together "masculinity" and "militarization" and "aggression."  One can argue with the political utility of the argument.  At the same time, I don’t think these connections should be dismissed.

If what you mean by "political utility" is what I think, then you're on to something.  The "Macho, Macho" article overlooked some huge reasons why people support the military: it's the nation's largest jobs program and one of the few really open areas of opportunity for people in rural places, poor people, and minorities.  There's also a lot of warm-fuzzy for supporting the "men and women in uniform" for most anyone who wasn't raised in the cradle of the counterculture.  And likewise gender roles, most women were and continue to be in favor of equality of access and opportunity for women, but the support falls off precipitously when you talk about  "overturning gender roles".  So anything that leads with "machismo bad" is pretty much DOA except in a few intellectual and liberal circles.

Argh, the power went out just as I was editing my post to both amplify and clarify.  So now I return to it — and also to respond to NickDoe.

Several responses, from the specific to the more general.

First, I agree that the societal structure of the Puritans — and most people generally — was patriarchal.  My comment about the economic role of women was designed to highlight that our perceptions of gender roles (and culture!) have evolved over time.  In this case, the idea that women had no role outside the home (think of the "Angel of the Home") cannot be traced back to the Puritans.  Or rather, the idea of "home" extended far beyond what it came to mean during the 1950s, if you will.

Second, I think we need to distinguish between Old England Puritans and New Engand Puritans.  Just as one example, the names chosen for girls in New England were much more likely to be those of strong biblical women — than those in Old England.  In Old England, girls were often given names like "Patience" or "Chastity."  In New England, Puritan girls were named for Ruth, Esther, Hannah, or Jael (who killed the leader of an opposing army — it’s a great story). 

Third, I realize that NickDoe was talking about the entire country — and not just the Puritans.  But since he cited the Puritans as one of the key contributors to American culture, I thought a counterexample from that time period would be pertinent.

Fourth, I must take issue with NickDoe’s use of "whitewash" and "revisionist" history.  It is not whitewashing to complicate the picture we have of the past.  Generalizations are there, but are not accurate in all cases.  Related to that, "revisionist" has a particular meaning in American history.  It refers to the school of historians who argued that the Soviet Union did not bear sole (or even primary) responsibility for the Cold War.  Also, I’m not sure why NickDoe is so dismissive of revisions.  Does he think that we all get it right the first time?  History is made up of revisions, as more information is revealed or declassified. :)

Finally, I can accept that U.S. culture is more conservative about gender roles than many others.  At the same time, restricting the focus to "culture" suggests that there’s not really anything that can be done.  Consider that many European countries have much more generous maternity/paternity leave requirements.  One could, I suppose, argue that that too is simply the result of culture.  But it’s also a political development that makes the political and economic environment of the country more conducive to women.

Gender inequalities caused by discrimination first ought to be differentiated from gender differences leading to different choices. 

Ms. Graff seems to have focused on representation in the workplace by comparative numbers.  However, how many of these slots went unfilled by women because more women chose to stay home with children, deeming that a full-time, professional career that typically lasts about 18-19 years if done well?  And who can doubt that it is one of the toughest jobs in the world: managing the schedules, the emotions, the discipline and the various needs of the children above one's own?  Few leaders in any industry or government agency ever have to give of that sort of leadership and management breadth and depth.

I do not appreciate Nick's cynical take on women staying home as paying maids bad wages to clean toilets.  That was a low blow and likely inaccurate.  Also, Nick's sliming of women for driving SUVs is not the most manly argument I have ever seen.  In a world with SUVs I'd rather my wife and child have "equal protection."  At least a sound Volvo.  To hell with the gas.  Blame the bribery atmosphere in government for wars for unhindered petroleum access, not women driving SUVs.  The SUVs could just as well run on an alternative fuel if the energy firms had earlier invested in production of the alternative modes.

Do women exhibit more of the old FBI motto in relationships and family (fidelity, bravery and integrity) than men?  I think so, by the percentages, although I suppose with shows like "Desperate Housewives" and a few million other repetitive propagandistic programmings, that percentage may change for the worse.  I hope not.

In large part, it is up to men to be fair to women and women to be fair to men for there ever to be fair and honest treatment among us.  Laws will not force people to treat each other fairly and honestly, or else they would have achieved the goal by now.  People, like hackers, find ways to get around the laws the way hackers circumvent security programs.

More people living a their lives anew in the Ethos of the Golden Rule will spread around more well being and fairness in actual conduct than any law.  Because people have tended to shy away from church life (I think due to churches losing their identity to marketing hucksterism and mutating into more corporatized and bizarre entertainment oriented insitutions) there are fewer if any ramifications for abandoning the family or cheating on one's spouse.  Who will know it without a church of friends who know each other?  How would your reputation be hurt by infidelity without a community that knows and loves both spouses?  And so if you talk about inequality, I think it is more an issue of fairness and honesty, of love and goodness to one another, and accountability to these standards of conduct between the genders that is sapping women of their fair treatment and men of their manhood.

Oh Baloney yourself.  Europe isn't anymore "culturally liberal" than the U.S. and in some cases the U.S. surpasses Europe in gender equality.  The European nations are on a par with the U.S. as far as elections to lower houses of government with the Scandinavian countries surpassing the U.S. and Europe.  The other countries that surpass the U.S. are those countries that have many parties such as African nations and South American nations.

As to your other superficial comments on the suffragist and feminist movements, you simply do not know the history of the women's movement.  First of all, the suffragist movement was about gaining the vote for women and ran parallel to the feminist movement.  They were two different movements with different leaders who happened upon one agenda for a relatively short time and that was voting in federal elections for women.  Other than that, they had different agendas and different leaders.  They very often disagreed on tactics such as the role of militancy, party affiliations, party support and whether a third party uniting the feminists and suffragists would be of greater benefit.  As I already have said, once the voting right was won, the money for the feminist movement began to dry up.

Speaking of nonsense, your other comments are so facile and superficial as to be embarrassing.  A feminist making a comment on the News Hour is hardly indicative of an entire movement which has been in earnest existence since the Seneca Falls conference in 1848.  Yes, it was an accomplishment to make voting rights available to women, but it was hardly the ending and not even a very propitious beginning.  It does little good to be able to vote when until the 1970s women couldn't get credit without a male co-signing the loan, couldn't attend male ivy league universities or receive equal pay for equal work. No one said that there were never any militant or extreme elements in the feminist movement, but there are militant and extreme elements in all movements, which may add colour and immediacy to the movements but hardly defines them. 

An even sillier pronouncement is your comment that "the very best and brightest women were taking advantage... to pioneer careers" as if women were suddenly finding careers in science, business and politics, when there have always been women in those fields.  The difference is that women are now receiving credit and recognition for their contributions even though it's still an uphill battle.  Your officious and specious remarks on what constitutes the best kind of "activism" reflects the "battered spouse syndrome" you display regularly in these forums.  I don't care if we give ammunition to Rush Limbaugh or if we draw attention to liberalism or if we make the powerful angry.  That's exactly what we should be doing.  When has "setting a good example" ever moved a people forward?  There are "good examples" everywhere, but they seldom change the political landscape. 

In the words of Frederick Douglass the best form of activism is "to agitate, agitate, agitate."

Cynthia Enloe, author of the article cited above.

You seem to think Europe is a nation.  The rest of the post is officious pronouncement, irrational judgements and altogether silly remarks which have no factual claim to them at all.

Likly innaccurate?   Actually it's a common fact that many households which can afford to pay laborers minimum wage do exactly that, often women maids to clean toilets and such. That is a product of war, imperialism, and classism, ideologiclal siblings which are basically tribal warfare in essence. Actually throughout history women servants and slaves have been preferred for domestic work because they're less threatening, preferred by women masters as well. Documantary evidence of slavery in Rome, Europe, or America, show that to be true. Not cynical, just the facts.

 

The wars of the past happened around the globe, including among the "slave" people in the "new world" before anyone sailed to it.  They made slaves of one another's tribes and it depended on the goodness or evil in the decision makers' hearts at all levels whether it would be a denigrating, abusive captivity, or one according to certain rules.  And so, the particular order in which the tribes fought, empires were built or victories were won or lost, all peoples have warred and done injustice and attacking the current dominant order and impugning those born and raised into it for it does not recognize the fact that if the shoe were on the other foot, if European types were maids to Aztec families, similar or worse things may be done to them.  And so I don't buy any pristine state of nature assumptions about conquered or conquering peoples.  Evil is evil no matter whether it wins or loses.

In present day America, those hired as maids seek the jobs from the real life situation they are in.  And those who can pay them and who treat them well give them a chance in the current order to improve matters for themselves and their families.  In addition, if maids were more expensive perhaps they would not be hired unless people were forced to hire them.  People would find alternatives.

What seems better would be working on the conscience of those who could pay more to those who work blue collar jobs that are as difficult, in different ways, as white collar jobs, so that they will. 

One reason, I believe, that blue collar jobs are not paid more than white collar jobs when they are just as or more difficult in a different way, is that many people would flee the drudgery of offices to get paid the same to be able to be outside, work hard and feel better the way our bodies were meant to work.  However, these white collar folks would also force better working conditions, smarter on the job decisions and would change the face of work.  I think it ought to happen, and more office jobs ought to be automated to computerized tasking with IT controllers subject to checked and balanced audits doing the office stuff. However, this viewpoint may misunderstand the availability and efficiency of an influx of blue collar labor, however, with more organic farming and the greater number of tasks to be done to protect crops and the ecological balance work that's necessary to prevent wild fires while sustaining forests, and the cleanup and reclamation work to be done all over the place etc. etc. etc. it seems a shift could happen.

Who knows?  Maybe one day the premium will be on paying for everyone to become educated, thinking citizens who are simply bright and happy enough with their mastery to do no harm and live in and be qualified to live in and repair and substitute manually for a systemically automated nation with maximized efficiency in most if not all sectors; where profit is econonomic profit, not monetary profit; value profit to all, not to a few.

Why? Because war is ultimatly about tribe, not gender. Tribalism is biological, it's basically the desire to see one's own group and one's own genetic traits (biological or cultural) dominate. It's older than humanity and asexual. Women are just as tribal, and just as willing to subjugate others as men are.

 

Tribalism is political fear of other tribes, that they will abuse.  Abuse and fear of it is rooted in clashing pride.  Clashing pride is rooted in the fall of the souls of mankind.  In your world it is all incurable, innate instinct running the world, if I take your arguments accurately.  However, I believe we can rise above all of these distorted forces through humility, and by killing pride from stable, relatively democratic nations in which people are free enough to choose and develop their moral lives without being thrown into constant fight or flight mode.  This would help the SUV mothers and the maids alike, and their men and all of the children.  Instead, we enshrine the profitability of stupid, squalid and abusive things, whether by government force or market control.  Immorality has been institutionalized and expected -- until those expectation shackles are utterly broken, people will not be free in this physical world.  The freeing of the spirits their heart from the tyranny of the immoralities of pride must first occur.

It's also completly fair to point out SUVs and low gas prices, cheap foreign goods, and countless other examples of hypocricy. Much of the wealth in our nation stems from essentially imperialist pursuits, which are tied to warfare. As women gladly benefit from them so too are they equally responsible.

 

Imperial pursuits come from pride.  Rebellions against empires come from pride against being dominated.  Rebels when they win, to hold power, become imperial forces.  You tell me how mankind gets out of that loop. 

For example, who was drinking a lot of the sugared tea that was a staple of the British Empire's economy, and which came from colonies held at gunpoint? Who were able to afford to buy luxury goods as a result of the booming British textile economy, which owed a great dea of profits to mandating Indians buy British textiles at gun point?

 

See above. 

The examples go on and on. Women and thier offspring have benefitted from the spoils of war, they have blood on thier hands as well. When women start protesting war en masse, and stop buying the SUV or enjoying other imperilistic pleasures... but in the meanwhile it's just hollow claims.

See above.  Pleasures are pleasures whether taken, stolen or given.  Pride takes or steals,  while Love gives and gives in return.

The problem is lack of divine Love, and the other jargon filled diagnoses obscure this tectonic diagnosis.  If you cure the genetic defects, the genetic diseases and their symptoms go away.

In this case, the idea that women had no role outside the home (think of the "Angel of the Home") cannot be traced back to the Puritans.  Or rather, the idea of "home" extended far beyond what it came to mean during the 1950s, if you will.

Again, I think that's a rather distorted revisionist look at Puritan history. Rather than using infinatives, let's stick to the facts, and keep them in perspective. I don't think misleading propaganda, inspirational or otherwise, is helpful.

We've established Puritans were certainly patriarchal, and additionally the facts show that in Puritan culture "women's work" was primarially homewards/child-rearing/handicrafts oriented, and "men's work" was field/building/defense/leadership oriented. Both roles were vital to survival. While there certainly was overlap, for example I'm sure women had important consultory roles in home/community leadership, but males had the final say offically hence the patriarchy.

Noone claims women had "no role outside the home" that I'm aware of. Nor is anyone (sane) arguing Puritan culture is a model for modern society. 

Puritian immigrants lived in small agrarian communities. In  pre-industrial agrarian communities, neither male nor female went very far from home often.  "Markets" for trading goods in Puritan times were typically house to house barters. Sometimes goods were traded to other communities, such as at harvest times, exchnged for European goods for example. But again, it's important to keep than in context, remebering men controlled the finances generally (limited as they were) and what women made and traded was still gender segregated.

Regarding the 1950's, family life was in great part an extension of Puritan-type culture in a post industrial world. It was generally patriarchal (with overlap)  with the men working outwards labor roles, often blue collar labor, and the women working inwards, often with handicrafts and child rearing like tupperware parties for example. The tupperware parties were a better analogy for puritan markets than what we usually mean by markets in post industrial society.  So it's a real stretch, propaganda really, to claim 1950's were regressive to pre-Puritan gender roles, rather than a fairly predictable evolution stemming from our Puritan history. That propaganda fit some feminists agenda though, hence the skewed revisionism.

Again, not endorsing that. Personally sounds unappealing. But those are the facts, and 1950's culture was generally Puritan derived, and western/christian generally.

  It is not whitewashing to complicate the picture we have of the past.

I have no problem with complicated facts. I do object to shadings which mislead, even inspirational ones. A lie no matter how inspirational still producs ignorance which tends to erode and fracture culture generally being counterproductive.

  I’m not sure why NickDoe is so dismissive of revisions.

I'm not generally, just poor revisions or propaganda masquerading as revisions. Please make that distinction in future. So was Orwell against that sort of revision. For example I find the revision of the massacre at Broken Knee to be less favorable to American soldiers  very compelling. I find your revision of Puritan and 1950's culture, to be respectivly more progressive and less progressive, uncompelling.

I suppose, argue that that too is simply the result of culture.  But it’s also a political development 

Politics are a product of culture. Politics are not seperate from culture they're a specialization of culture.

I do not appreciate Nick's cynical take on women staying home as paying maids bad wages to clean toilets.  That was a low blow and likely inaccurate. 

Likly innaccurate?   Actually it's a common fact that many households which can afford to pay laborers minimum wage do exactly that, often women maids to clean toilets and such. That is a product of war, imperialism, and classism, ideologiclal siblings which are basically tribal warfare in essence. Actually throughout history women servants and slaves have been preferred for domestic work because they're less threatening, preferred by women masters as well. Documantary evidence of slavery in Rome, Europe, or America, show that to be true. Not cynical, just the facts.

Why? Because war is ultimatly about tribe, not gender. Tribalism is biological, it's basically the desire to see one's own group and one's own genetic traits (biological or cultural) dominate. It's older than humanity and asexual. Women are just as tribal, and just as willing to subjugate others as men are. 

It's also completly fair to point out SUVs and low gas prices, cheap foreign goods, and countless other examples of hypocricy. Much of the wealth in our nation stems from essentially imperialist pursuits, which are tied to warfare. As women gladly benefit from them so too are they equally responsible.

For example, who drank the sugared tea, a staple of the British Empire's economy, produced in colonies held at gunpoint? Who bought luxury goods with British textile economy profit by mandate that Indians buy British textiles at gun point?

The examples go on and on. Women and thier offspring have benefitted from the spoils of war, they have blood on thier hands as well. When women start protesting war en masse, and stop buying the SUV or enjoying other imperilistic pleasures... but in the meanwhile it's just hollow claims.