[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Agreed. But it's the male that seems to suffer the most for it. Males are the tools of war, regardless.

Ah, so the women who are left pulling society along while the men go off to battle, the women who left without partners and must do the jobs of two, the women who are often the spoils of war, and the crimes against women which are often a part of war--that's nothing compared to what the warriors (whose suffering is pretty much glorified in any event) face. I see.

And I still say that there was a lot of unwarrented gender-aggrandizement at the beginnings of the "feminist" movement. One of those was that an increase in the number of women in power would significantly improve governance. As that blossoms (as well it should), it has proven to be just as misguided as male leadership in power. I do not argue that they should not be in places of power, or that we should return to the gender/power distribution of earlier generations, or that women should play some lesser to nonexistant role in politics. Women should have an equal role to men in wielding and sharing the power of our communities, indeed, given the current biological realities, they should probably dominate places of power.

My point is that when they do, there will be no significant change in the product of politics.

I don't see how I'm disagreeing with you at all in this argument. I would say that governance is improved when more members of society are represented in government (and not just at the political level) because it is likely that this will improve awareness and responsiveness of government as a whole--not because women (or any other non-white male) are better managers or some such nonsense.