On 10/14/06, Mark Lause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm concerned about leadership in the movement, but the gender of the
bloody, stupid worthless figurehead for the sexless monstrous Moloch of
THEIR institutions and THEIR Holy State seem irrelevant.
As Yoshie surely recognizes, in our biz, we've had lots of woman in
presiding positions, even in this, perhaps the most hidebound reactionary
state north of the Mason-Dixon line. And why not? Conservatives and
liberals have learned through trial and error (as with the adoption of woman
suffrage) that it really changes nothing about what gets done and why.
One modest advantage to having a female dictator de jour is that they
further educate their subjects that the problems run far deeper.
If it really changes nothing about what gets done and why, and it
doesn't matter if parties and states are led by men or women, why
haven't socialist parties and states made women their leaders as often
as they have made men their leaders? The consistent pattern of male
dominance, which appears to strengthen further to the Left one goes
from conservative/liberal to social democratic to socialist, suggests
that it is not a random occurrence.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
