Pelosi Proclaims Women as ‘Peacekeepers of our Societies’

2007-05-16
By

I once assumed that Mother’s Day would be immune from the intrusions and calculations of partisan politics. But no longer. 

This past week House speaker Nancy Pelosi used Mother’s Day to launch her latest salvo against the
Iraq war. And while she was at it, she indulged in some back-handed gender stereotyping, making the remarkable claim that “Women have always been the peacekeepers of our societies.”
 

So is it true that women are the gentle harbingers of peaceful co-existence? And men are testosterone-addled warmongers, as Pelosi seems to imply?  

Of course, women have long played supportive roles for male combatants, serving as nurses, supply specialists, and the like. In his report War and Gender, University of Massachusetts political scientist Joshua Goldstein documents how women have actively encouraged military adventurism, both in modern and indigenous societies.  Goldstein notes that in the face of imminent conflict, women goad their men into combat. In the Revolutionary War, women were known to withhold sexual favors from reluctant fighters. During the Civil War, Southern belles refused to accept suitors who did not take up arms. In World War I, British women organized the White Feather campaign, calculated to shame able-bodied men into uniform.  

Among the Bedouin, frenzied Rwala women bare their breasts and urge their men to war. And before the 1973 coup in Chile, women threw corn at soldiers to taunt them as “chickens.” 

There are numerous documented cases of women killing prisoners of war, often in retaliation for the loss of loved ones. In colonial Massachusetts a mob of women tortured two Indian prisoners to death after they overcame their guards. During the era of the Soviet Gulag, female interrogators were just as ruthless as their male counterparts in extracting “confessions.” In 1993 a group of enraged Somali women murdered four foreign journalists.  

Women also play a key role socializing future warriors. Goldstein explains, “since mothers control child care, they could change gender norms, training girls to be aggressive and boys to be passive. But in fact mothers worldwide generally reward boys for being tough and girls for being nice.” 

Based on his extensive review, Goldstein reaches this simple conclusion: “Most women support most wars.”  

A scan of history likewise reveals that female political leaders are fully adept at the war-making craft. 

Let us recall the crusade of Queen Mary I of England, who beginning in 1553 betrayed a fondness for burning unrepentant Protestants at the stake? A sobering thought the next time you plan to raise a toast in the name of Bloody Mary. 

Anne of Great Britain was the first female monarch to have an entire war named in her honor – Queen Anne’s War. Thanks to her unblemished support, that devastating conflict persisted in both
North America and Europe for over a decade.
 

It was the scheming Queen Isabella II of Spain who saw to it that military expenditures were multiplied during her rule. That enabled bellicose sorties to be launched against Morocco, Peru, and Chile. 

In 1982 British prime minister Margaret Thatcher decided that a chain of wind-swept islands in the
South Atlantic warranted the shedding of blood, which triggered the Falklands War. That escapade cost the lives of 258 British and 649 Argentinian soldiers.
 

During the 1994 Rwanda genocide, Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, former minister for family affairs, handpicked the “nicest” Tutsi women to be abducted and de-flowered. Nyiramasuhuko was later tried for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal. 

Three days after the 9/11 attacks, an Authorization to Use Military Force was brought before Congress. All but one female member of Congress voted to authorize to “use all necessary and appropriate force” to wage the war on terror. 

And a few weeks ago the eight Democratic presidential candidates squared off in a
South Carolina debate. In response to a question about handling a terrorist attack, Hillary Clinton shot back, “I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.”
 

“Retaliate” – spoken like a true peacekeeper, for sure. 

But what about the women’s peace movements that have sprouted up over the years –don’t they prove the ladies are peace-makers at heart? No, for one simple reason: History proves that when women begin to fear for their personal security, they quickly revert to a pro-military stance. 

So coming just a month after her ill-fated peace mission to Syria, it’s regrettable the Speaker of the House would tap the occasion of Mother’s Day to indulge in gender stereotyping and male-bashing. As my mother used to say, “If you can’t speak well of someone, it’s better to not speak at all.”

6 views

  • amfortas

    Big brother new-speak, double -speak, eat your heart out. Big Sista is here.

    A brief, concise and accurate roundup, Carey. But what was that about Mrs Thatcher? The Argentinains invaded the Falklands; the British didn’t ‘trigger’ anything. It responded as it should have.

    Oh, by the way, you forgot Elizabeth the First, Mrs Bhutto, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi……

    In fact most women national leaders in history have been to war. Most male leaders haven’t.

  • steven deluca

    In the past I have written that while we were all watching for “big brother” it was “big sister” that would put a knife in our back.

    My wife’s uncle, had an 88th birthday last week, like some men and all most all women, who were able to avoid being harmed in that war (if on the winning side) he lead a long and prosperous life. If we had lost that war many American women would have seen a side of war that they have been protected from so far.

    In his book “Peace Was In Their Hearts” Hearld Press 1994 by Richard Anderson, my wife’s uncle wrote about his road to being a consciencious objector in WW11 and about the camps men like him were sent to.

    He wrote about how men and women shunned him and others for not volunteering for war, much less for avoiding war. He had to spend years in a work camp. I respect him for his views but not as much as I respect the men who fought and died to stop enemies that could not be stopped by the “peace making of women” as Pelosi suggests is women’s nature.

    Men may be more prone to war than women – but mostly I think it’s our job … boy are brought up to accept dangerious jobs and war is one of them. Men tend to be what their mothers trained them to be and to do what women as cheerleaders reward them for. Sexual selection by women for men who would defend and protect them and “their” children is undeniable part of what leads to war.

    What Mr. Anderson spoke little of, but his wife, also age 88 made very clear to me, was that women in his day jeered him while some men wanted to beat him … his own mother made him unwelcolm to her home as a war “coward”

    When I was AWOL from the army in 1967 “girls” my age, none of us old enoough to vote for the war in Viet Nam (voting age was 21 then) heard that I was AWOL and because it was Bellingham WA, close to the Canadian Border, they assumed I was trying to “escape” to Canada with “draft dodgers” They didn’t know me – all they knew was that some young guy was AWOL to see his girl friend.

    As a lower class male from the housing projects I knew little about world politics or the war and I was willing to go to Viet Nam but at this time I was being send to Korea for military police duty. The girls, whose fathers AND mothers supported politicians who supported the war found that they and their mothers didn’t have to go, but that didn’t stop them from contacting local police, the dean, and military facilities to let them know that some “young man” wasn’t doing his duty and was trying to avoid the war.

    These girls were quite willing to make sure that I was sent to Viet Nam to risk torture and death, while they were not expected to go and these were females who training to became teachers (likely became feminists who want equality) and taught our children that life is unfair to women and that “men make war”.

    Thank you Pelosi for adding to the shaming of American men, something you learned made you feel quite superior when you were young and never seemed to have questioned. You are too stupid to know how sexist you are while you claim to fight sexism.

    I am ashamed that such women have come to power and are willing to dishonor the American men who have died in several wars. The men were doing their duty to their country and they never got to live the long life of Pelosi, or my wife’s uncle, or the tens of thousands of American women who were protected during the Viet Nam war when 58,000 of my brothers died. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thosands of young men ended up living scared from wars, emotionally of physically while this “grandma” flexes her arm muscles pretending to be Rosie the Riviter – as if she didn’t climb to power on the backs of tens of thousands of dead men who died to provide a country where women have been protected – and promoted – in ways few women in history ever have been.

    When the terrorists strike America again, threatening her grand children, let’s see if she wants to draft boys and send them to war.

    SD

  • scottkirk

    its interesting that as a godless nation, we somehow want to make women into some sort of god…
    we want to think they are pacifists…when in fact most of the fights i’ve ever seen were “indirectly” started by women…in fact it may be in their nature to start fights between men..in order to weed out the strongest male to be her protector…
    this part of the womens nature needs to be civilized…
    Im drafting a bill which will hold women accounteable if they (in any way) incite violence.. false accussations..ect..
    If we started holding women accounteable for the” indirect incitement of violence”..we would most assureadly be taking a step toward rooting out barbarianism..and moving toward civilization…

  • scottkirk

    and the reason why you see more women than men in peace movements is because of feminist social control tactics have taught most men to keep their heads down and not get involved with anything…
    wev’e empowered women..not because their leadership capacity is greater…we’ve taken the approach of strenghtening the weak..by weakening the strong…

  • roger

    here is the data from your peace keepers Peloosi

    http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/figure4_2.htm

    http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/figure5_1.htm

    women kill and abuse children way, way more than any other perpetrator.

  • scottkirk

    thanks roger…i did not know the hard numbers in that area..

  • mruffolo

    With a Democratic House, Senate, and President, I expect more of the same in the years to come.

    If Hillary Rodham-Clinton wins the Presidence, I may plan to move out of the country.

    The media, church, and Republicans encourage this approach that woman are good and men are bad.

  • TheRanger

    The Islamofacist pigs are just frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a female “peacekeeping” president.

  • Denis

    This just in:

    http://www.drudgereport.com

    PELOSI LOWERS THE BOOM
    Wed May 16 2007 14:43:59 ET

    After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.

    The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.

    In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.

    Developing…

    In otherwords, if I can’t win according the rules, I will simply change the rules. Just like an American women eh?

  • http://egghead.adamsspace.com/?p=43 Egghead’s Observations » Carey Roberts demolishes Nancy Pelosi’s proclamation

    [...] Roberts gives a little history lesson in which he completely demolishes Nancy’ Pelosi’s ridiculous anti-male propaganda [...]

  • thurston861

    I hope she changes the Rules. America has suffered under Consensus Politics. Confrontational politics should Rule in Congress, and the thre branches fight like Larry, Moe, and Curly.

    When People realize the First Amendment Rights of Representatives are gone too, maybe we can begin the shooting war.

    The Courts have done this to the People, and the Press under the Republican Watch, it is about time the Republicans get a taste of their own medicine.

  • scottkirk

    thurst.
    there all republocrats to me….
    the new political divide will be are you concerned about mens/fathers rights or do you want to liberate women (even more)

  • Menck

    Just think, we’ll be able to watch the shouting matches and artful insults of our very own House of Commons on C-Span every day. Better than the somnolent debates our pols in Congress offer up now.

    Picture Diane Feinstein and John Warner both bellowing nose to nose at around 325 decibels while breathlessly assailing each other with as many witty rejoinders as humanly possible. And don’t forget the cacophony of other esteemed congressional blowhards all chiming in at the same time. Oh, the possibilties!

    End the tedium now! Ha!

  • donnieboy57

    steve deluca………….as a vietnam vet, that post #2 was appreciated.

  • Denis

    “I hope she changes the Rules. America has suffered under Consensus Politics.”

    We don’t have consensus politics today. Apparently you had’nt noticed that we had an electin recently.

    You want to replace true confrontational politics that now exists with a new fangled form of consensus politics via rigged rules that only you, the Democrats, and especially Pelosi could love. I’m not at all surprised.






Search