Posted by
Bert Chapman on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:43:14 AM
Hillary Clinton's campaign has resulted in the reappearance of the mythical belief of the peaceful woman ruler. This delusion basically states that if women ruled countries there would be universal peace because women are nurturing and would seek to resolve differences peacefully. This basic theme has been expressed in a recently published book by former Clinton Administration Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers.
This claim is flat out nonsensical stupidity! For those of us of Judeo-Christian background, we know that women, like men, are inherently sinful and subject to the same lusts and passions as men.. The Bible documents numerous instances of women engaging in aggressive behavior with Jezebel being just one of many examples. History is replete with examples of militarily aggresive women rulers including those who engaged in preemptive military assaults.
England's Queen Elizabeth I ordered military assaults against Spanish forces throughout many areas of the world to help defeat a militarily aggressive country that was hellbent on restoring Catholicism to England. Russia's Catherine the Great was an exceptionally voracious pursuer of territorial expansion and military aggrandizement. Her rule saw the partition and dismemberment of Poland, repeated military assaults against Turkey, and the brutal crushing of domestic uprisings such as the Pugachev peasant rebellion. The high point of British political and military power under Queen Victoria saw British forces engaged in primarily offensive military operations over enormous quantities of the world including India, Sudan, Southern Africa, and Burma, and numerous other locales. This historical reality has continued in the 20th century. Israel, under Prime Minister Golda Meir, conducted repeated military operations against its enemies including the Yom Kippur War. Development of Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal continued under Meir's leadership. Recently assassinated former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto allowed her country's nuclear weapons program to proceed and supported Kashmiri separatist forces against India. Former Indian Prime Minister Indira Ghandi used force against individuals and forces she believed were antithetical to Indian national interests and allowed India's 1974 nuclear weapons test to occur when she was Prime Minister. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher waged a successful war in 1982 to liberate the Falkland Islands from Argentinean conquest, decisively crushed a coal miners strike, allowed U.S. forces to use British bases to attack Libya in 1986, ordered the assassination of Irish Republican Army leaders, and allowed IRA terrorist Bobby Sands and many of his comrades to die as a result of hunger strikes. Mao Zedong's wife Jiang Qing was particularly noted for the violent ferocity of her viewpoints and the policies she advocated. Philippine Presidents Corazon Aquino and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had to use military force against violent internal opponents during their rule with Arroyo being particularly willing to use force against what she sees as threats to Philippine national interests.
I would welcome readers sending me other examples of women rulers using military force from classical and medieval eras or contemporary examples I'm not aware of. All of this shows is that the belief that women rulers are inherently more peaceful than men to be absolute stupidity and more reflective of how poorly history is taught in our schools and to liberal feminist pacifist delusions and political correctness. Any female President of the United States will have to use military force to defend national interests during her presidency. This need to use such force will be more likely if she gives any impression that she's unwilling to use overwhelming force against national enemies during her political career or presidential campaign. Conversely, an aspiring female President who demonstrates her willingness to use decisive military force against our enemies earlier in her career or during her presidential campaign and supports policies to augment U.S. military power, is less likely to have to use it once she becomes commander in chief. This is why the U.S.' first female president is more likely to be a conservative or conservative leaning Republican than Hillary Clinton or any other nationally prominent Democratic woman.