Women and war, cont.

Laura G writes:

I saw a discussion on VFR a few weeks ago where you were beginning to consider the possibility that the greater the proportion of women in an electorate, the more difficult it is for that nation to support an effective military, and therefore the more likely that nation is to succumb to foreign or internal aggression. By chance, I have been having reason to consider that same issue, and so am sending along my thoughts such as they are so far.

The situation is as follows. Within my little neighborhood, an interesting event is playing out. We have a prosperous neighborhood, and our problems are usually gentile ones. Traffic calming, support of the schools, care of a little local park, fund raising, neighborhood picnics, and so forth. Not surprisingly, women make up the vast majority of the active members of the neighborhood association (NA), and all of the Board.

This well-behaved situation has been disturbed by the attempt of a very aggressive developer to construct an enormous complex which fails to adhere to numerous ordinances and zoning regs. Our city ignores the regulations and ordinances which would defend the neighborhood and prevent the construction because the city is fundamentally in favor of big developments. The NA took notice and began a series of “discussions” with the developer. These discussions were held with the premise that the developer was an honest businessman and that he would abide by any statement he made. The NA was, of course, promptly persuaded to agree to several zoning changes which they had not anticipated and which are now major problems for us all.

While the NA was in the talking mode, another group of neighbors got together and agreed that the NA board was not up to the task of fighting the sort of warfare that we face. The is the “Southern Group” (SG). Probably I do not need to comment that most members are male. A lawyer was hired, an injunction was obtained, and it appears that the SG will prevail. The NA has continued to express the goal of ensuring that the developer should win (“a win-win is needed”), and to worry about the possibility that the developer will cease to trust them or might even dislike them. I believe that the NA is very well suited for the sort of social agendas which usually face our community, but entirely unsuited for the serious conflict which emerged on their watch.

This same sort of misplacement of temperaments may be a major issue in the dysfunctional response of the general American public to the current war. We have just come off of a decade or more of the most tranquil peace (if those little nuisancy attacks on embassies and such here and there are ignored), and we are for good reason used to worrying about education, insurance for the elderly, etc. Just because we did a poor job of those issues is beside the point. We are, in short, used to following “women’s issues” as the driving issues of our time. Shifting away and turning our attention to military matters has been a slow process, and we are doing it poorly.

In that regard, I seem to remember that some societies had a recognized arrangement by which they had a peace leader during peace, and shifted to a war leader in time of war. Maybe the Scots. The U.S. was incredibly lucky to have a proto-war leader who happened to inhabit the White House when needed, having just succeeded the quintessential peace leader of all time. However, it does bring up again the possibility that the influence of women voters when a nation is under attack may significant lessen the ability quickly to respond to the military changes which are needed. The 2008 election will be pivotal and should help to define whether or not women can support the nation to defend itself in the very aggressive ways we will undoubtedly need to do. Can women support expulsion of illegal aliens, detention for suspicion of terrorist ties, a large increase in military spending and call on resources, suppression of publication of restricted information, losses of some privacies, etc. I can’t wait to see. Whatever the result, I can’t help noticing that, when my own neighborhood was under attack, it was a group of men whom I joined for defense and support and who produced a credible plan of action, while the group of women who were supposedly the local leaders were still being successfully manipulated and deceived.

- end of initial entry -

Mark P. writes:

I wasn’t aware that a local neighborhood association could hire a lawyer to get an injunction filed against a developer and the city for ordinance violation. Would she be able to explain the mechanics of this?

I, too, live in a community (outside of Chicago) with very similar problems. I would like to hear more about this.

Dimitri K. writes:

There is one interesting tendency of which I read somewhere, but which is also supported by my own observations. During the time of war somehow more boys than girls are born, while at the time of peace more girls than boys. An example from our Sunday school where my daughters attend. In all classes for 5 year old and older, ratio of girls to boys is about 5:1.

Whereas in the class 3-4 year old, all of whom were conceived after the attack on Twin towers, the girls to boys ratio is inverse: 1:5.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 15, 2007 04:24 PM | Send