Can women govern in a world at war?

Feminist author and journalist Madeleine Gagnon wrote in her book Women in a world at War that if women ruled, “there would be no war”.

I don’t think it’s that simple. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was anything but soft on war, she was even accused of alleged war crimes during the Faulklands war, and once famously warned Bush not to “go wobbly on Iraq”.

And Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2003, a vote she claims to regret, and now promises to “end this war”.

She’s clearly positioning herself in the debate, which is important.

I don’t see her shying away from aggressive action or interventionist policy if America was threatened. “Liberation” is what they like to call it…

I wrote in my first posting that women generally don’t like war. And we don’t, because war destroys families, homes, economies and infastuctures.

But that doesn’t mean women politicians could simply put an end to war- war is systematically ingrained into capitalist society. And there is little sense in arguing against the fact that there is a war of global proportions going on right now.

So what would happen if America put a woman in office during a time of war?

Nothing different, is what I would argue. Hillary Clinton has stated publicly that the U.S should prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear technology. She is firm on this point, and it’s pretty clear she means business.

And those responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto were threatened enough by the prospect of her overthrowing Mushareff that they removed her from the political equation.

So can women govern a world at war?

They are certainly trying. It’s usually women that clean up the mess.