h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Pete, you too bring up some interesting points. However, I never intended to say that the number of people in a sport/group should be prortional to their numbers in the general population. What I was trying to say is that, in the case of women's rights (this is a specific issue, and should not be generalized to other populations) women want equal rights but are not held to equal responsibility (see my other posting above). During the Vietnam War young men fought for the right to vote at the age of 18. If we were old enough to be drafted in the Army and sent to die, we should have the right to choose the person who is sending many of us to our death. Women can not be drafted, yet have just as much say. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that women should not have the right to vote. I am in favor of equal responsility in exchange for equal rights.

I just see it as a double standard that should be corrected. Either abolish the Selective Service (draftee registration) or level the playing feild (or rather send the whole team out to play).

Ah, Moondancer, you're toying with me! You MUST know 'our' Walter is a nice fellow and an honorable man!

WHY won't you tell what's happened???? What if I miss it???

BTW I like your poem...I write them too....but only have had the nerve to post one on h2g2. Talk about baring your soul! That's where my writting seems to come from. How about you?

And, wasn't it you telling Pete how to chat with me on line??? I get it - you want Walter ALL for yourself Well, he's got a lady love. And a huge heart too So, you'll not be convincing me anytime soon that he's up to no good

Gooday Pandora,

It is beaut to know you will stand up for me, that's what I call a real friend. Thorpe's win was great, but the 4x100 men's freestyle relay was a real coronary-maker, and today we have won another gold in clay pigeon shooting. Take good care,

Walter.

Hi Pandora,
Yes I was teasing about Walter, he is a gentleman, and we are building an interesting dialogue, putting ourselves in history.
I know Walter has a lady in real life and probably many on here, plenty of room for all.

You obviously have a delayed telecast and I would not tell you who won a race before you gat a chance to see it. It would spoil the race for me if I already knew who was going to win.

Before I discovered h2g2, I would spend my time chatting on yahoo. I have met some really nice people on there, and you discover people from the inside out. That is the only thing I miss on here is the real time chat. And yes I did encourage Pete to talk to you about chatting on line . It helped me realise my poetry, I wrote that poem because of on line chat. Yes my poems are from my heart and they are mostly to a particular person, I am still amazed where they come from and how the words just pour out sometimes. But it makes me feel fantastic.

No I will not convince you that Walter is up to no good . Just to let him feel he is a bad boy in someone's eyes .

Cute...but I have a feeling that Walter's ego is in tact!

Time delay? Er, you're at the other side of the World dear! I think Walter & I have made it to be about an 18 hour difference! Ain't life grand???

Speaking of HIStory...all these chaps bitching about women not being made to do equal tasks, etc. should get off their high horses & DO something about it, at we ALL know the World IS still run BY men...FOR men! Ah, that felt good ~The great Pan has spoken

Oh, I forgot. My interest in the 400 meter is because that's one thing I also use to compete in...where are those ribbons?

Hi Pandora,
I didn't want to spoil the swimming relay for you.

You are right Walter probably doesn't need any help with his ego.

I have also been watching the bitching about not sending women to war. Apart form the fact that I don't believe on sending any one to war, don't they realise that in ancient times wars were conceived to keep the young men of the country under control. One of the major reasons why the crusades were fought was not to take Jerusalem back from the Turks, but was to take control over the ever expanding number of youths that were running wild with little else to but get into mischief. All that testosterone had to be directed in some direction so a war was just what was needed. Do we need to think very hard to work out who was keeping the countries together and supplied with food and raw materials while all these adventurers were off reeking havoc in other lands.

When it comes to 400 meters just watch our Cathy.

Gooday,

Can someone explain how me or my ego got to be a topic of discussion? But turning to more interesting issues, and moving very rapidly on and away from the subject of women AT war, is it possible that there has been too much of a tendency to 'absolve' women from the responsibility of causing or promoting or encouraging war? Sure, war is for the most part definitely a blokey thing, but the line we often hear that if it was left to women there would be no war - how true is that? Just a musing to share.

Walter.

"Cat fights...sure, war? I don't think so Seriously, we are forgetting about all the women who went off to war with the men!
Be they wives, cooks or whores. I'm sure there were few women who stood back swooning (as movies depict) whilst their lovers were being slaughtered! We've only just gotten a war memorial for the women who fought in Nam. Worse yet, we are still working on a memorial for the troops who fought WWII. We have evolved faster than our minds can understand. It's going to take years to catch up to where we need to be, and of course by then, more history will have gone by. (Hope I'm making sense, as I've just awakened to prepare for work.) Also, here in the US many woman fought for their lives & the lives of there families against the Native Indians. My all time favorite book by Mary Ingles is titled: 'Follow The River'. This woman went through amazing trials to reunite with her family after being taken by Indians, right here in my area. I tried to follow her path...with food & modern tech. to assist me & there were places I was unable to climb! I have been rock climbing bare-handed since I was a child. She was on a mission to get back to her family & made it too! Even the fellow who wrote the book was unable to follow all her steps!
So, as I've said before, there are many woman who CAN DO...it's that we've not been allowed TO DO!!! And I also want to go on record as saying that I do believe behind (nearly) every great man there has been one Hell of a woman to help him through major topics that have impacted the World."

As for Walter's question about how the topic of he & his ego came up...you know you're loving it! Digging for a bit MORE phrase? Okay, I feel the 'our' Walter has learned many lessons from past mistakes when it comes to how to treat a lady. Surely he's learned other lessons as well. I for one find him on the road to 'sage-ism'!" (I just make up words as I go along, always have )

Gooday pandora,

Gee, you've sprung me again, I really do just love it when you pay me a compliment, but I wasn't actually in this thread so I wondered how come it bobbed up. I think it is that Moondancer stirring the possum.

You may be right that behind every great (and not so great) man there is a woman, but I SOMETIMES wonder whether women might find that to be a convenient assertion for shifting responsibility for their own actions, as well as in an odd way taking responsibility. But my point was more along the lines of well, when women are in charge, so to speak, is conflict reduced or is it much the same compared with when things are run by male leaders. I'm talking here at the macro big political level. I don't have a barrow to push, no fixed views, I just think that you and Moondancer have opened an interesting line for discussion.

Did you get my snowdrops?

Walter.

"Yes, thank you, and when the first snow drops fall here I will think of you & just figure they took awhile to get here due to the distance! You are sooo sweet!"

"With regard to your pondering women in politics...I think it will be far beyond our lifetimes before that question can be answered. The women in 'power' (as it were) are still competing against the men who sit with them. Much pressure is placed on a woman in politics. I've only been head of local political Boards. But I'm here to tell you I was given a rough row to hoe! I had every insult thrown at me that you could think of & many that you'd never believe! I was told that the 'only' reason I was head of one Board was because I'm pretty!!! (the 1st time being told I was pretty ticked me off) It was also infered that I'd slept with the Mayor, thus being appointed as a retun of 'favors'!!! I could tell you more-but you get the point! It's really men that will determin if/when we will be equal." (NEXT?)

I agree with you Pandora, History was written mostly by men to the glory of men, which is reasonable they could not always see through the eyes of woman anyway.
Quite often the women fought with out the aid of weapons anyway, in wars of the last 100 year (being the ones I know anything about) people were not averse to killing unarmed nurses. There is a group working to get a monument for nurses that died in WWII.


On the subject women in a war camp, what happened to the women when the battle was lost. Were they then considered as booty of battle? Women were not only used as trade goods after the battle, sometimes they were traded to buy alliances.

Walter you suggested going to Viking times with me, ok you go as the woman and I will go as the hammer wielding worrier.
I would still rather be a woman in ancient Roman or Minoan times. Are you with me Pandora, or have you a preferred time in history.

I am a bit slow getting my replies in as I am writing between serving customers

Hi Moondancer,

What customers? Tell them to go away and stop interrupting you.

I fear that I am not making myself really clear. Moondancer, you talk of the slaying of unarmed nurses, or that women in camp become booty to the victors, and all of that and much much more is true. But war claims untold numbers of innocent and unarmed male victims too, children, babies, the aged, the infirm, the helpless, prisoners. War is and always has been a vehicle for atrocity, the unspeakable brutality that men and women are capable of doing to each other. In my view, the violence of the Vikings, or the Romans for instance, is no worse or better than say the violence taking place all around the world this very day. Violence is endemic in the male (I don't presume to speak of or for women), no matter the views and actions of many individuals, or even physical cowards like me.

But that is not my point. It has been said by some that 'if women ruled the world' instead of men there would be less conflict, less propensity for nations to make war against each other. I think the basis for those kinds of statements is that women are less violent, they are nurturers rather than takers of life, and that they do not have the inherently violent aspects of male make-up. There are probably other reasons too, but you get the picture. My interest is to see if 'history' provides any instances where we could take such a notion and examine whether it has some substance i.e.in times where women are 'in charge', does anything really change? I hesitate to plonk examples down without any explanation, but for instance when Thatcher and Ghandi were in charge wars still occurred.

I will probably regret opening this subject up, but oh well ......

Walter.

Better than stirred possum stew is con of worms

In the case of women like Thatcher and Ghandi, I cannot be completely certain but I think they were women who gained their positions by battling men on their own levels, making them really tough ladies to start with.

Apart from the Amazons, and I don't know anything about them whether they were ruled by women or just women worriers. But they were reputed to have taken off one breast, to make it easier to use a bow. Well from one who has tried archery and ended up with an almighty burse on the boob, I can well understand why they did that.

There have been queens from different countries that took their people to war.

I don't know of any other female political leaders, only ones that ruled from behind.


I cant send the customers away, If I don't have them who is going to pay my internet account's. I think I killed nearly 300 hours last month

Moondancer,

Don't get me on to the Diet of Worms.

Walter.

I seem to have opened a real can of worms on this topic. I never ment to "gripe" about women not being compelled to serve in the military, I was only trying to point out a double standard. I know many women participated in war and usually got the short end of the stick. Take the home front of WWII for example, women were the only ones who could assemble the aircraft, tanks, boats, ships and guns needed on the front lines. The women's ferry service (delivering aircraft to the sqadrons) was instramental in the war. Some of the pilots even came under fire and most clocked more time in more different types of aircraft than any other group of pilots. By the way, they were often gone for weeks at a time and the only possesions they could take most the time was whatever they could fit in the empty ammunition boxes in the wings (one shoe in each wing).

HA! It's me, the philandering cad again, back into the fray (or is that frey? Reminds me of the joke about the rope that went into a bar. The bar tender said, "aren't you a rope? You know we don't serve ropes in this bar." The rope replied, "No, I'm afraid not." Get it? "A frayed knot?")

First of all, Walter, I AM a philandering cad who's intentions are much less than honorable. So? I never said I was anything other.

It seems to me that you ladies here are playing both ends of the issue. On the one hand, you're saying that if women ruled the world there would be less war. Then, you cite all those examples of how women have participated in wars. Am I missing something? My observation is that if women ruled the world, it really wouldn't be any different because, at the individual level, women really aren't any different than men. Pan, you cite examples of dirty politics being thrown at you. But don't men throw dirt at each other too? And isn't it just that any dirt or disparagement that is available is fair ammunition?

On the individual level, I treat everyone equally, and that's my contribution to making change. However, I don't flirt with men. I believe in making love, not war, and I like to be in touch with my feminine side. I want a female at my side in times of love. In times of war, I just want anyone at my side who can carry my butt if it gets blown up. (And I'm down to a svelt 186... or at least I was on Saturday. And I have pretty nice legs too.)

Y'all have a great day... you too, Walter. I tend to agree with everything you've said. (Including the 'philandering cad comment.)

Kisses, Pan and Moondancer!

By the way, what the heck is a "fair dinkum?" And it's not Pan's affection that I want to 'toy' with.

It may well be that large-scale organised warfare driven by politics would be significantly lessened with women in charge, but when things get to a more tribal level, I think there are examples throughout history where women have played a significant part in violence, from Dacian women torturing Roman prisoners of war, guerrilla fighters in numerous conflicts, to mothers playing as much part as fathers in passing on ethnic hatred through the generations in areas of deep-rooted conflict.
I think history often only pays attention to *leaders* in wartime, which have tended to be men. It doesn't mean there's any actual deliberate exclusion of women, just that they weren't in the kinds of position that generally get remembered. After all, presumably Joan of Arc and Boudicca had many men in the second tier of leadership, but I think those men have been pretty much forgotten by history.

There's certainly a lot of truth in the 'behind every great man' theory, but I suspect many men achieve power or success mainly by being single-minded or obsessive. Many *will* have had the support of a woman, but some have been too busy or obsessive to find one, and some of the ones that weren't solitary may well have paired up with a partner for procreation, or even (like many monarchs) for political reasons.
On the other hand, some men may have been a relatively passive front for a domineering woman who couldn't achieve power on her own. From what I've heard, Slobodan Milosovec was somewhat less ambitious before he met his wife.