Women/Peace and Men/Pacifism

Going back over this article a few things jumped out to me. The first of these being "The source of the problem lies not at the institutional level of analysis where decisions are made, but at the societal level where decisions are supported and implemented." This reminds me of the debate we had in class (stemming from the affirmative action discussion) about whether institutional changes or societal changes are better. I had argued that institutionally enforced changes (like Women's right to vote) can cause societal changes. This article is emphasizing the need of society to support the implemented changes from institutions (which I think, over time, they can, on the whole at least).

The other thing that struck me was in the discussion of women in goverment and how it would change how decisions are made. Gilman had said that if there were more women in government, the government would have a more caring attitude with a larger focus on education, etc). In that same paragraph Carroll argues that "more assertive or militant images of women need to be revived, in order for women to ocmpete with men in individualistic, aggressive, and competitive societal systems..." Both of these views, I think, affect women negatively. If you believe the first one, a woman in politics or higher up in institutions will probably not be taken as seriously because you wouldn't believe them to be as capable. If you believe the second one, it is devaluing some of the feminine characteristics. It is like we were discussing in class, how the traits you valued where the typically masculine traits. There needs to be a balance. All of these conflicting views gives me that much more respect for what Hilary Clinton is doing.

One thing in the men and pacifism section that I learned was that Leo Tolstoy was one of the three men to exemplify pacifism. Gandhi and MLK were apparant, but I didn't know that Tolstoy was a front leader of pacifism; I only associated him with Anna Karenina, but I'm sure if I read War and Peace it would convince me.

The article defines pacifism as "the principled rejection of physical force in resolution of conflict and of war." Relating this to the articles about the 'war against boys' and the box that boys are put into, it seems like it would be more difficult for a man to be a pacifist than a woman. Men are always taught that fighting is okay and emotions are not to be shown etc 9for more, see next post from Goldstein). This seems diametrically opposite to what pacifism promotes.