Feminists and war?

Question

Feminists oppose war frequently hoping to gain authority sympathy and an audience by labelling themselfs pacifists and at the same time attack men in general and promising a peacfull world if only men would step back and give up leadership to women. It doesnt matter if it is the first world war second world war (opposed by feminists and pacifists) or Iraq. Now I dont want to discuss Iraq because that is still in progress. I want to discuss another war feminists opposed the second world war. How would have women in charge handeled that era ? How would have a fictious female president dealt with Hitler responded to the treath in Europe and at the same time avoided war ?

Carrie you have nothing to contribute and result to shaming and namecalling. A classact, lets blaim all that white brain matter shall we ?
The question is NOT stupid feminists promised peace over and over. Is it so wrong to ask how they plan to handle things ?

Carrie you ARE a feminists you associate yourself with women who claim there would be no wars if women would lead and that women are better at avoiding wars than men. You surely have an idea how feminists plan to achieve that. Why wont you tell us ? Top secret ?

Laela yes it is true. They attack all "dissidents". Sorry to forget that :-). Dont let them put you down. But when it comes to war they shame and blame the men who look at the buisness end of a German machine gun claiming they would have done better. Or maybe only the men who send them to war. Kind of cheap isnt it ?

Carrie about every feminist I came across who opened her mouth about the subject did. Let me guess, they were aaall radical feminists and do not reflect the actual feminism, right ?

Feminists protested the second world war. Iam the one who asked the question. You are the one who has to provide a source.

Deidre it isnt my argument that feminists claim there would be less war with women in charge. I agree it is ridiculous to say such a thing, it wasnt me who said it it was the femnists who said it. Feminism descredits itself. Dont hate the messenger.

David I do not see a SOURCE anywhere in the ask section.

Answer 1

No it is not wrong; your question is fair and just. Now you have me wondering the same thing. I bet they would have had Hitler kissing their toes. Do you think so? Ah Cassius, they not only attack men only, they attack people like me, people who do not believe they are being oppressed. People who look like they are being oppressed, yet are strong. Again you are making a very valid point.

Answer 2

Feminist oppose war because it is morally wrong not for a platform to their ideology. Feminists do not expect men to step back and let them have leadership. They believe that with equality both men and women will take part in the process of decision making. Feminists were not against the second world war and perhaps you would be so kind to provide some proof to the contrary. That particular war was about the freedom of people and mass amount were being exterminated in the death camps of Hitler. I think that a fictitious feminists would be very much like Winston Churchill and would make the same decisions based on informed choices. The war was not one person against another in case you don't know history it was a number of strategies, leaders, issues etc. I find your arguments to be rather silly and maybe you should read up on something before you post it because you sound like you are grasping at straws attempting to discredit feminism. What will your next question be? What if Nero was a feminist? What if the Neanderthals were feminists? What if space people were feminists? What if the man in the moon is actually a female and a feminist to boot? All your arguments are moot.

Answer 3

It is not likely that a female president of any country would have changed anything during World War 2.

The United States was attacked and brought immediately into the war. The sex of the president would not have changed anyting.
The fact that the Third Reich and the Japenese Imperial army were expanding meant that war was inevitable for many countries irrelevant of the opinions of the leaders of the countries involved on war.

When a country is attacked, it goes to war.
Argentina occupied the Falkland Islands, Margret Tatcher went to war.

Interestingly enough, Tatcher was female and she refused adamantly to negotiate with the IRA despite the fact that it could have assisted peace.
One's sex has no bearing on one's viewpoint on war and violence.

Answer 4

Actually, liberal feminist theory in regards to world politics states that while women and men are different, when put into the same position of power, they will act in almost exactly the same way. There have been several examples of women who are considered to be icons of strong women that have been just as willing to wage war as their male counterparts. Examples: Margaret Thatcher ("Dont go all wobbly on us George!"), Golda Meir(Israeli PM during the Munich incident and the 73' war), Indira Gandhi (Indian PM who almost nuked Pakistan). The list goes on and on.

edit: HELLO! Liberal feminist theory! Liberal feminism! *wavewaveswaves* Im giving you a real challenge to your assertion about feminism! Can you hear me?

Answer 5

Without answering your question (because it's stupid), I'd like to point out that you are insinuating that female leaders are incapable of doing their jobs as well as men. I don't know why you trolls keep claiming that feminism is evil and you therefore hate it, when in actuality you hate women, or at the very least think they are stupid.

EDIT: Cassie, how is anyone supposed to know how a female leader would handle things? If she's qualified for the job, then what does her gender have to do with it anyway? And why does a female leader necessarily have to identify as feminist?

EDIT II: No, Cassie, in order for there to be no war, everyone would have to be a lot less greedy, and a lot less racist. If women ruled the world, would our problems disappear? I'm not psychic, so I can't say. Who said that women claimed that feminists are better at "avoiding" war? If this is the basis of your argument, please provide proof. And one feminist does not speak for all, by the way.

Answer 6

I think a woman in power would have acted much like a man, because politics is a male realm. For her to have gotten as far as the presidency, she would have had to "act like a man" to get elected. Many current women in power have also had to "talk tough" to get the male vote. I'm not saying they're being false, or intentionally acting masculine to gain power. I'm saying that power in this society is awarded for displaying certain masculine attributes. Many women honestly have masculine attributes, so they are more likely to get a little power.
Now if the world was run entirely by women, that might or might not look different. If the women created the same power hierarchy, it would probably look a lot like our world. There's a great book about this subject called Egalia's Daughters.

Answer 7

The Man who called You an idiot was nobody's fool.
Just read Your question back and assume that it was a legitimate request for an opinion. Between the qualifications, speculations, assumptions, specious logic and dubious hyperbole there is an underlying sense of self doubt and profound ignorance as to the human condition and, to quote Abraham Lincoln......."the better Angles of Our Nature".

Just as an after thought, for future reference, it is common certs to use capital letters when referring to The First World War, and The Second World War, as a make of respect for those who served and for those who died.

Answer 8

I'm sure if a female president knew her country was being attacked, she would've responded the same way in WWII as Roosevelt and Truman did.

Answer 9

For the record I'm against Bush's idiotic war in Iraq--because it's unconstitutional and unjust.

Now, that having been said, it's funny how the feminists want "peace" but a lot of them don't mind perpetrating violence on the unborn.

And a matriarchal society won't work.

Answer 10

Reduce testosterone, save the world!