PDA

View Full Version : “Sweden says it will pursue a feminist foreign policy to counter macho Russian aggression …”



verdo
12-17-14, 06:43 AM
And some of you scratch your heads and wonder why there is a sexodus. Hope this helps your understanding. All i know is that if Sweden is really being led by a hyperfeminist agenda, Russia, in all their backwardness, will run over them.

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/08/sweden-says-it-will-pursue-a-feminist-foreign-policy-to-counter-macho-russian-aggression/)




By Eugene Volokh (http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/eugene-volokh) December 8
<article style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: FranklinITCProLight, HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue Light', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/10/22/Production/WashingtonPost/Images/SwedenSubmarineHunt-0db17-13401.jpg&w=1484
The Swedish minesweeper HMS Kullen, left, and a guard boat in Namdo Bay, Sweden, on Oct. 21, 2014, on their fifth day of searching for a suspected foreign vessel in the Stockholm archipelago. (Fredrik Sandberg/TT News Agency via AP)

“… even if no one really knows what that means.” An interesting article byNathalie Rothschild (Foreign Policy) (http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/05/can-vladimir-putin-be-intimidated-by-feminism-sweden/); here’s an excerpt, though you should read the whole piece:

Margot Wallström, the newly minted foreign minister, has said that under her leadership Sweden will become the only country in the world to conduct a “feminist foreign policy.” That’s a perspective that flows from U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325, a landmark measure that recognized both the disproportionate impact war has on women and the role women must play in ensuring peace and security….By empowering women, the argument goes, there are better chances of snuffing out wars before they start and of ending them in more equitable ways. However, it is less clear what such a feminist foreign policy has to say about the old-school power politics that Putin has helped resuscitate in the past year.During a recent debate in the Swedish parliament, Wallström said that her feminist approach is based on the American political scientist Joseph Nye’s concept of “smart power.” “The tools of foreign policy can, in varying degrees, be hard as well as soft. The situation at hand determines this,” Wallström said. “The half of the population that so far has been almost systematically excluded and forgotten — namely, women — will now be included.”Asked how she believes a feminist foreign policy will help end Russian aggression, Wallström suggested it would be useful to review women’s participation in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and to look at what it does to address the problems women face — a statement exactly as vague as it sounds …



</article>http://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2014/01/volokh.jpg&h=180&w=180 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/eugene-volokh)
Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.

Woodsman
12-17-14, 08:20 AM
And some of you scratch your heads and wonder why there is a sexodus...

Lord, this again? Anyone notice there's bigger fish to fry?

And we cite Volokh, a right wing legal eagle. What next, we go to the Klan for opinions on civil rights? Head to the AHR for questions on the Holocaust?

So what's a feminist foreign policy, anyway? Read the article:


Egnell pointed out that Wallström’s focus on women, peace, and security is not unique, and has also been embraced by figures such as Hillary Clinton and William Hague, the former British foreign secretary. Wallström’s approach, however, is arguably more original in that she has chosen to label efforts to boost women’s power and participation as “feminist.” She herself insisted that her government is “starting something new here” rather than emulating other international leaders’ approaches.

Critics say the Social Democrats’ push for a feminist foreign policy amounts to little more than branding. “This is about sending a signal to the world that the new government wants to bring in some kind of paradigm shift after Carl Bildt’s time as minister for foreign affairs and to show that, in the international arena, this government’s priorities are different,” said Katarina Tracz, a research fellow at the McCain Institute for International Leadership and deputy director of the center-right think tank Stockholm Free World Forum.

Really, do most of the he-man women haters around here give a hoot about it anyway? I mean, beyond confirming their own comfy, man-as-endangered-species bias and the need to soothe anxieties of castration and vagina dentata.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBIC8JTQMMQ

You guys should hear yourselves. "Ohh, I stopped dating because girls are mean and they'll reject me and hurt me again." But, harumph, a "feminist foreign policy", now that's so pussified.

Sure it is. How could it possibly be compared to the testicular foreign policy of say a he-man like GWB? He's a goddamn Metternich with a pair of bowling balls between his legs, he is.

https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bush-flightsuit.jpg

What a hunk of man steak. Grrrrowwwlll! He can enhance (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-worst-findings-waterboard-rectal)my interrogation any time he wants.

verdo
12-17-14, 11:22 AM
Yes, because we would have total peace on earth if only women were the sole gender in charge. A foreign policy that is embraced by the likes of Hilary Clinton has so much potential ;]] Success in foreign policy, in case you've forgotten, is about hiring people with the most experience and who aren't total warhawks. Assuming that things would be any different by simply changing the focus to hiring women for the job is quite ignorant, as well as your assumption that because I think a feminist foreign policy wont help Sweden, I must be pro-Bush era policies. If sweden actually wants to get a foreign policy that works, simply find the most qualified individuals across the spectrum of people out there. There is no special brain cell in a woman's head that makes them any more capable than men in international politics, which is why there is no need to have any particular focus on either gender to achieve a successful foreign policy.

I would have thought that observing Hilary Clinton or Michelle Bachman's own war hawk agenda alone would tell you that simply empowering more women into these positions wont necessarily give you a different outcome.

Woodsman
12-17-14, 12:18 PM
Yes, because we would have total peace on earth if only women were the sole gender in charge. A foreign policy that is embraced by the likes of Hilary Clinton has so much potential ;]] Success in foreign policy, in case you've forgotten, is about hiring people with the most experience and who aren't total warhawks. Assuming that things would be any different by simply changing the focus to hiring women for the job is quite ignorant, as well as your assumption that because I think a feminist foreign policy wont help Sweden, I must be pro-Bush era policies. If sweden actually wants to get a foreign policy that works, simply find the most qualified individuals across the spectrum of people out there. There is no special brain cell in a woman's head that makes them any more capable than men in international politics, which is why there is no need to have any particular focus on either gender to achieve a successful foreign policy.

I would have thought that observing Hilary Clinton's own war hawk agenda alone would tell you that simply empowering more women into these positions wont necessarily give you a different outcome.

I would have thought that observing the consistency in foreign policy between administrations would alone tell you that simply choosing between lady parts and boy thingies, Republicans and Democrats, white or black, cat or dog, won't give you a different outcome.

And I wouldn't worry about the Swedes getting too nambi pambi on us. Feminists or not, the Swedes have an excellent military (for its size), make world class strike fighters, surface ships, submarines, small arms, and are more than prepared to take their place in NATO once the Warsaw Pact... sorry, old habits... Commies... sorry, wrong again... Russians roll their T80s in to Stockholm. The Swedish cloak and dagger boys also have a great relationship with their counterparts back in Northern Virginia (just ask Olaf Palme), so I'm confident that when the balloon goes up, the Swedes will be in it to win it.

As for assumptions, I haven't made any. But you have. Now it would be nice if POE could be achieved if only women were in charge, but anyone who has been married or cohabitated with a woman for any length of time (I know you've expressed some ignorance in this domain) can put the lie to that one. Also never claimed that female brain anatomy provides any advantage in foreign policy making, but what does that matter? You think there's no need to focus on either gender (surprise) and I disagree because there are decades of data to show otherwise.

You have a great day now. Good luck with the ladies.

Morgasbord
12-17-14, 12:27 PM
You know, there are women who read this forum who want financial security just as much as anybody else here. And it's pretty hilarious to see a bunch of men with lots of money on this forum complain about how bad men have it.

LorenS
12-17-14, 12:40 PM
The irony of feminism is it only thrives where it's not really needed.

Fuss and whine about Bush all you want, US foreign policy has only gotten worse. And remember I called Bush the worst president since Nixon.

verdo
12-17-14, 12:40 PM
I would have thought that observing the consistency in foreign policy between administrations would alone tell you that simply choosing between lady parts and boy thingies, Republicans and Democrats, white or black, cat or dog, won't give you a different outcome.


You don't say? What an amazing observation. Unfortunately, that really isn't in debate here, so that was a wasted point

And yes, you've made at least a couple assumptions that I wont reiterate to avoid sounding like a broken record. It's clear that you're trying to weasel around having to prove that using a soft power approach is something women are inherently capable of (versus it being an approach that requires some learned skill, a task capable of both genders). I don't blame you. But given that you think simply having big guns/toys makes your country capable of achieving successful foreign policy objectives and being a positive element of NATO, i'm not surprised by your ignorance on the matter either. Good day to you as well

Woodsman
12-17-14, 02:25 PM
You don't say? What an amazing observation. Unfortunately, that really isn't in debate here, so that was a wasted point

And yes, you've made at least a couple assumptions that I wont reiterate to avoid sounding like a broken record. It's clear that you're trying to weasel around having to prove that using a soft power approach is something women are inherently capable of (versus it being an approach that requires some learned skill, a task capable of both genders). I don't blame you. But given that you think simply having big guns/toys makes your country capable of achieving successful foreign policy objectives and being a positive element of NATO, i'm not surprised by your ignorance on the matter either. Good day to you as well

Okay Field Marshal. You keep up the good work, now. And do try to relax around the ladies. I hear their brains are wired to smell fear.

gwynedd1
12-17-14, 02:44 PM
You know, there are women who read this forum who want financial security just as much as anybody else here. And it's pretty hilarious to see a bunch of men with lots of money on this forum complain about how bad men have it.

I don't think that's what is going on. I think its a reaction to essentially women in the West complaining how bad they have it.


For example :

” That’s a perspective that flows from U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325, a landmark measure that recognized both the disproportionate impact war has on women "

Who is whining here without even going into its laughably ridiculous premise?

Machismo morons with their pit bulls to the left of me and feminist hallucinogenic jokers to the right. Here I am stuck in the middle with you.

vt
12-17-14, 02:46 PM
I'll take Maggie Thatcher (and Ronald Reagan) over the whole lot since.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/margaret-thatcher-in-every-sense-a-leader/2013/04/08/6fe5dac6-9091-11e0-b3d5-067e674ea64a_story.html

dcarrigg
12-17-14, 02:50 PM
You know, there are women who read this forum who want financial security just as much as anybody else here. And it's pretty hilarious to see a bunch of men with lots of money on this forum complain about how bad men have it.

Aye. That's what makes me cringe the most about the race/gender threads. We've got people of all walks here. Best not to be mean or rude to any of them if you can avoid it. One of the best things about this place in my opinion is that people can and do come and think and discuss for years on end. You've been around as long as I, proof of the 'silent majority' that hang around here.

Woodsman
12-17-14, 03:50 PM
For example :

” That’s a perspective that flows from U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325, a landmark measure that recognized both the disproportionate impact war has on women "

Who is whining here without even going into its laughably ridiculous premise?

What's laughably ridiculous is a fat, happy and rich white guy sitting in the comfort and safety of home (presumably the good ole USofA) while millions of dead female war victims lie under the Earth, their last moments spent in terror as they are raped and mutilated by soldiers of whatever army rolled over them. You've pushed out plenty of turds in the past but this one is big enough to have a pulse.

Consider the conduct of the good guys in the good war:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Taken_by_Force_by_Robert_Lilly.jpg


Taken by Force explores the patterns of rapes committed by US servicemen during the Second World War between the years of 1942 and 1945, as well as the reaction of the American army in response to the crimes. The book draws upon court records, newspaper articles and trial transcripts, covering the 14,000 rapes that Lilly estimated, using a formula created by Leon Radzinowicz, occurred in Britain, France and Germany at the hands of US soldiers.

Chapter 2 covers "explanations for sexual violence during war", which includes discussion about rape being used as a "tool of genocide", as a "inherent feature of military culture", and as a "means of revenge."

Chapters 3, 4, and 5 consecutively act as "analyses of rape and rape prosecutions" in the countries of England, France, and Germany and how the number of rapes in each country differ because of views American soldiers held toward the civilian population in each country.


It wasn't just the defeated; the liberated (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/new-book-reveals-dark-side-of-american-soldiers-in-liberated-france-a-902266.html)experienced a similar fate.

Next time you want to squeeze another one these, do us a favor and flush before you leave. And do wash your hands, please.

shiny!
12-17-14, 04:30 PM
You know, there are women who read this forum who want financial security just as much as anybody else here. And it's pretty hilarious to see a bunch of men with lots of money on this forum complain about how bad men have it.

Thank you, Morgasbord, Woodsman and dcarrig. Sincerely.

vt
12-17-14, 04:32 PM
War is terrible for all humans.

U.S. soldiers likely would behave differently now than WW2. There would always be isolated cases like rapes we saw on Japanese islands where we have bases over the last twenty years.

The real tragedy now is what is happening to women with ISIS, and the children in Pakistan with the Taliban. Truly barbaric.

lakedaemonian
12-17-14, 04:50 PM
I would have thought that observing the consistency in foreign policy between administrations would alone tell you that simply choosing between lady parts and boy thingies, Republicans and Democrats, white or black, cat or dog, won't give you a different outcome.

And I wouldn't worry about the Swedes getting too nambi pambi on us. Feminists or not, the Swedes have an excellent military (for its size), make world class strike fighters, surface ships, submarines, small arms, and are more than prepared to take their place in NATO once the Warsaw Pact... sorry, old habits... Commies... sorry, wrong again... Russians roll their T80s in to Stockholm. The Swedish cloak and dagger boys also have a great relationship with their counterparts back in Northern Virginia (just ask Olaf Palme), so I'm confident that when the balloon goes up, the Swedes will be in it to win it.

As for assumptions, I haven't made any. But you have. Now it would be nice if POE could be achieved if only women were in charge, but anyone who has been married or cohabitated with a woman for any length of time (I know you've expressed some ignorance in this domain) can put the lie to that one. Also never claimed that female brain anatomy provides any advantage in foreign policy making, but what does that matter? You think there's no need to focus on either gender (surprise) and I disagree because there are decades of data to show otherwise.

You have a great day now. Good luck with the ladies.

Talking to some serving Swede's in Europe 6 months ago, according to them their capability has collapsed considerably since the end of the Cold War.

While they undoubtedly have developed and possess some very impressive indigenous(with quite western support) qualitative technological capabilities, quantitatively Sweden is a hollow shell of it's former defensive capability self.

Sweden's defense posture is in vulnerable transition that will take another 5 years to execute as well as vulnerable to having it's growing immigrant population exploited by an external actor(s) to disrupt and distract the Swedish government's attention away from growing regional foreign policy issues.

EDIT: Swapped out WWII for Cold War

lakedaemonian
12-17-14, 05:28 PM
It's quite strange really.

Maybe it's coincidence, maybe not, but in the last 50 years the most recognized national female leaders have all taken their countries to war:

Golda Meir(Israel)
Margaret Thatcher(UK)
Indira Gandhi(India)

All three authorized and led their nations thru extremely serious full scale conventional warfare operations(Yom Kippur War; Falklands; Indo-Pak War 1971).

All three authorized and led their nations thru extremely serious unconventional warfare operations(Op Wrath of God targeted assassinations; IRA targeted assassinations, training Khmer Rouge; Op Blue Star as well as support for LTTE insurgency in Sri Lanka)

I would call that geopolitical equality...at least in terms of use of force/violence/war in politics.

lektrode
12-17-14, 07:12 PM
altho i hesitate to comment here... the use of the line from stealers wheel brought back some good memories:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DohRa9lsx0Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

all i'll say ?

"only in america..."

verdo
12-17-14, 08:05 PM
It's quite strange really.

Maybe it's coincidence, maybe not, but in the last 50 years the most recognized national female leaders have all taken their countries to war:

Golda Meir(Israel)
Margaret Thatcher(UK)
Indira Gandhi(India)

All three authorized and led their nations thru extremely serious full scale conventional warfare operations(Yom Kippur War; Falklands; Indo-Pak War 1971).

All three authorized and led their nations thru extremely serious unconventional warfare operations(Op Wrath of God targeted assassinations; IRA targeted assassinations, training Khmer Rouge; Op Blue Star as well as support for LTTE insurgency in Sri Lanka)

I would call that geopolitical equality...at least in terms of use of force/violence/war in politics.

Precisely. An easy point to understand for those who use at least 5% of their mental capacity ;_TU

Woodsman
12-17-14, 10:35 PM
Precisely. An easy point to understand for those who use at least 5% of their mental capacity ;_TU

Only 5%? You'd think with all the surplus blood flow you have available it would be at least 8 or 10?

Woodsman
12-17-14, 11:23 PM
It's quite strange really.

Maybe it's coincidence, maybe not, but in the last 50 years the most recognized national female leaders have all taken their countries to war:

Golda Meir(Israel)
Margaret Thatcher(UK)
Indira Gandhi(India)

You forgot:

Cleopatra (Egypt)
Boudica (Iceni)
Mavia (Tanukh)
Elizabeth I (England)

I'm sure there's more, but for the sake of your argument let's add my four to your three to make seven female war leaders since 185 BC. How many male war leaders in the same period, do you think? How many male state leaders in the last 2200 years?

Yeah, really strange.

lakedaemonian
12-18-14, 12:19 AM
You forgot:

Cleopatra (Egypt)
Boudica (Iceni)
Mavia (Tanukh)
Elizabeth I (England)

I'm sure there's more, but for the sake of your argument let's add my four to your three to make seven female war leaders since 185 BC. How many male war leaders in the same period, do you think? How many male state leaders in the last 2200 years?

Yeah, really strange.

Are you being intentionally facetious?

If you're implying there hasn't been enough female leaders through history, I would tend to agree.

But what is funny, and not in a facetious way, is a comparison of what proportion of female leaders have gone to war compared to what proportion of male leaders have gone to war.

The Female sample size may not exactly be huge, but the consistency of warfare conducted under their leadership is striking.

Anomaly? Perhaps.

But a rather strikingly consistent one.

gwynedd1
12-18-14, 12:42 AM
What's laughably ridiculous is a fat, happy and rich white guy sitting in the comfort and safety of home (presumably the good ole USofA) while millions of dead female war victims lie under the Earth, their last moments spent in terror as they are raped and mutilated by soldiers of whatever army rolled over them. You've pushed out plenty of turds in the past but this one is big enough to have a pulse.


Spare me the sententious tripe. There is reason why after WII American soldiers in Germany were chased by German women shortly after WII ( my father who was stationed there shortly after the Korean war telling me so first hand unlike your hand picked second hand information proving its cold without mentioning its December , working the action on a binder like a librarian commando thyself. My God you call me an arm chair fatty and then hand me a book? Be sure in person I may to disabuse you of your cartooned caricature of me, but then that would verify a fact . You'd never act this way bumping shopping carts, but you sure can over a wire like Mars, the god of war...oh pardon me I mean Athena.


http://www.res.org.uk/details/mediabrief/4475541/SHORTAGE-OF-MEN-RAISES-BIRTHS-OUTSIDE-MARRIAGE-EVIDENCE-FROM-POST-WAR-GERMANY.html


Their study looks at the experience of Germany shortly after the Second World War, where there were only two men for every three women in the 20-40 age group, as a result of military casualties and soldiers being missing in action or prisoners of war (POWs). At the same time, the share of children born out of wedlock, which had been less than 10% before the war, had risen to more than 16%.


In war, all through history the men were dead and the women raped. I fail to see the how the balance falls to one sex or another. The rape of women in war is not even remotely against women. Its a war against a people and neither men , women or children are typically allowed to retain humanity. If anything the women are most likely to keep their lives if nothing else. .




Consider the conduct of the good guys in the good war:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Taken_by_Force_by_Robert_Lilly.jpg



It wasn't just the defeated; the liberated (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/new-book-reveals-dark-side-of-american-soldiers-in-liberated-france-a-902266.html)experienced a similar fate.

Next time you want to squeeze another one these, do us a favor and flush before you leave. And do wash your hands, please.

And again the men were dead.


Name one head of state that did not use her military with enthusiasm. Cleopatra? Zenobia? Bloody Mary? Indira Gandhi? Margaret Thatcher? Golda Meir? Catherine the Great? Anyone? Let alone that women are the majority in this country. especially in the demographic both allowed and inclined to vote, but they just keep not electing female pacifists for some reason and instead elect no man I have ever even remotely considered worthy. The men may be caught killing, but just as often its the woman that wears the fur.

vt
12-18-14, 06:59 PM
The real war on women:

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/12/17/isis-slaughters-150-females-in-iraq-for-refusing-to-marry-have-sex-with-militants/

Woodsman
12-18-14, 07:09 PM
VT, be a mensch and let the thread die, already.

vt
12-18-14, 09:13 PM
Sure, you've posted 7 times in the thread in the last two days and now you want to shut off reasonable discussion?

verdo
12-18-14, 11:26 PM
Sure, you've posted 7 times in the thread in the last two days and now you want to shut off reasonable discussion?

He doesn't want reasonable discussion. Modern western feminism is immune from critique in his view. Question it, and you're automatically a woman hater...even if you've shown preferential support for women in power like Elizabeth Warren over right wing men like Rand Paul, on a website that is almost completely made up of Libertarian men. The easy route, and the path of least resistance is to simply state/imply that the people debating against you hate women or are afraid of them. Requires little thought or deliberation, which is why he chooses it consistently

Woodsman
12-19-14, 02:15 AM
He doesn't want reasonable discussion...Requires little thought or deliberation, which is why he chooses it consistently

Okay, have it your way. Too many Cuba Libres and año nuevo en Cuba toasts today to give a damn about your reasonable discussions. Time for bed.