« Womenomics au Québec | Main | NF »
February 1, 2007
More women in government = a better world?
I referenced the following article in the previous entry. There was something in it that made me curious about some things. Here's the quote:
More women in government could also boost economic growth: studies show that women are more likely to spend money on improving health, education, infrastructure and poverty and less likely to waste it on tanks and bombs.
I might say that women might be more naturally inclined to do so, but would they? If you assume that women are also more likely to be concerned with their own safety and that of their children, wouldn't war in the same of security (because what is the military for, if not for that, right?) make sense to the women in power? Wouldn't they then spend the money on tanks and bombs the same way that men would? Even if this isn't true, wouldn't the economic and political pressure to do so, which are probably quite real, pretty much require that such women take such action more than they might be normally inclined to do if they had their druthers?
And what about our (North Americans) expectation of women in power? Would we expect them to shift our focus so that it is more woman-, people-oriented, or would we doubt her wisdom and second-guess her at every turn, calling her soft and weak when she embraces health and education spending when she could spend money on tanks and bombs? Was Margaret Thatcher seen as, more or less, male?
Just wondering.
Posted by JonasParker at February 1, 2007 9:04 PM
Comments
Margaret Thatcher. Condoleezza Rice. Barbara Hall. Enough said.
Posted by: Vila H. at February 2, 2007 12:57 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)