According to the Asheville, NC Daily Planet, at a women's conference in that city two years ago, feminist Jane Fonda gave a talk about the necessity of female leadership. The article reports her as saying, “I’ve traveled the world — and I am optimistic. I think what we’re seeing is the last flailings” of the patriarchal, war-prone leadership style.
I've heard that before. It has been a recurring theme in the feminist babbling I've encountered over the years -- that women are as capable as men at leadership and nearly anything else. There are odd and contradictory reasons offered to explain it, though.
Sometimes, the reason given is that there are virtually no differences between men and women. Women simply haven't held leadership positions in the past because men, the meanies, wouldn't let them.
Then, we have the claim that women would be better leaders because they're -- ready? -- natural nurturers, implying that men are natural meanies because they don't possess this trait.
The scientific description for this contradiction is "attempting to have your cake and eat it, too." In other words, men and women are basically the same, but if there are differences, exclusively female characteristics are good and exclusively male characteristics are bad.
I remember watching on TV some lady Congressman making the natural nurturers claim from the floor of the House of Representatives a number of years ago. Unfortunately, I can't substantiate which lady Congressman -- Barbara Boxer? Patsy Schroeder? Somebody else? -- or her exact words. I was too distracted by the contradictory nature of the claim to file that information in my memory banks.
But if natural nurturing makes women better leaders, wouldn't that fall under the category of biology equaling destiny, which feminist have railed against for decades?
The lady Congressman is not the only one who's made such a claim. Remember Sally Field's proclamation on the occasion of the Emmy Awards, that if mothers ruled the world, there'd be no more wars?
As if fathers don't care whether their sons (and daughters) are lost in wars....
Anyway, now comes a tidbit of info from Justin Riamondo of Antiwar.com and other sources that three of the most powerful people behind the President's decision to attack Libya with missiles are ... women. Specifically, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, National Security Council director of “multilateral affairs”and UN ambassador Susan Rice. Raimondo dubs them the three Vengeful Valkyries of the State Department.
Regardless of your politics, you must surely see the inconsistency here. Whether you agree with the decision to intervene in Libya or not isn't the point. The point is that violence and vengence are not the exclusive domain of the male gender, just as nurturing isn't exclusively female. Domestic violence statistics prove the former; the heartbreak of countless divorced dads longing for the children taken from them prove the latter.
I mean, really. What's more nurturing than a BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile?
It's time for feminists to show some consistency. It's time for Sally Field, Jane Fonda and countless other feminists who've made similar claims to ... man up, admit they were wrong and apologize to the multitudes of men they insulted.
But I suspect hell will freeze over first.
(The Daily Planet's article on Fonda's speech: http://www.ashevilledailyplanet.com/index.php/News/Male-led-world-urgently-needs-more-female-leadership-Fonda-says.html)
*Connie is an FRS contributor. Her personal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/