Women.

This is coolbert:

[This particular blog entry dedicated to Karole P., who stimulated my thoughts regarding the subject of this entry].

Now, it is a common assumption that, "if only women ruled this world, why, there would be an end to all wars." Women are supposed to possess better powers of negotiation, compromise, a willingness to forego ego trips, and just a generally more genial and less aggressive attitude toward life.

Well, is this true? That there would be an end to all wars if women ran things? I say, intuitively, but emphatically, NO! Now, before we go further, I would mention that generally, at least in western societies, and in Indo-European cultures throughout the world, women are recognized as having the ability to be a ruler. We see this from Indo-European etymology. Gwen=woman. Gweena=queen. A specific word signifying female ruler having very ancient roots does exist. This would tell me that in antiquity females did rule, as well as they do now. This is an ancient tradition. I am not sure if this same recognition of women exists in other cultures other than the Indo-European. I again intuitively feel it does not! But, we do have the possibility of women ruling, wielding power, and in numbers to be significant too.

Now, in previous blogs, I have mentioned the innate aggressive natures of primates. In chimps for instance, as observed by Jane Goodall. While surfing the web recently, I came across an Israeli author who is studying the roots of pre-historic warfare. And this man also was struck by the observations of Goodall, and the films taken of chimps warring between troops [groups of chimps are referred to as troops, amazingly enough]. Goodall herself has stated that she does believe man does have a basic innate aggressive nature, and this manifests itself from time to time as war.

Does this basic innate aggressive nature exists in human females as well? Perhaps not in the exact manner as it does in men. But women do have a very strong protective nature toward their offspring. When a woman feels her private living space, her resources, or her offspring are threatened, she will react in a manner to protect them. Does anyone disagree with this? I think not! If evidence is brought to a gweena [female ruler] that a threat exists that threatens her offspring and community, I very much doubt she will hesitate to react.

And history demonstrates that this is so!

Queen Boadicea of the Britons [queen of the Iceni], from two thousand years ago is perhaps the archetype in this regard. When her land was invaded and conquered by the Romans, and when those same Romans raped her daughters, Boadicea did not react with kind words and negotiations. She reacted by raising an army, and leading that army against the Roman invaders with a vengeance. It was said of Boadicea that the wheels of her war chariot were splattered with the blood of the Romans! Read further about Boadicea at this excellent web site by clicking here.




Another English queen [gweena], fifteen hundred years later, Elizabeth the First, also demonstrated her mettle at war making, albeit in a defensive manner. When threatened by invasion at the hand of the Spanish Armada, Elizabeth did not hesitate to order Sir Francis Drake to lead the defense of her realm. Elizabeth did not send more legations to the Spanish, employ kind words, or implore the Spanish King to cease and desist. She acted and the rest is history. During her forty year reign, England went from one of the poorest nations in Europe to one of the richest.



Centuries later, another woman leader, Golda Meir of Israel, rallied her nation and commanded with tenacity when her people's existence was threatened. At the outbreak of the Yom Kippur/Ramadan War of 1973 broke out between Israel and the Arab states, Israel really found itself in jeopardy. When Israeli Generals vacillated as what to do, Golda kept her head, accepted the advice of men she trusted, and led her country in it's successful defense and eventual counter-attack. Golda did not hesitate to only defend, she went on the attack, and successfully too.



And Margaret Thatcher of England.



Prime Minister at the time of the Argentinean invasion of the Falkland Islands. Did Mrs. Thatcher regard this invasion of British territory as not worthy of a military response? A cause not worth the fight? It can be argued that the Falkland Islands, South Georgia Island, and the South Sandwich Islands were NOT worth fighting a war over. The total populace of the Falklands at the time was around 1500 souls, only nominally subjects of the British Crown. This mattered not a whit to Mrs. Thatcher, who as with Golda Meir, did not merely defend, but went on the attack, with resoluteness, achieving ultimate success. To Margaret Thatcher, defense of the realm, no matter how insignificant, was a matter of principle!

When female rulers find their realm threatened, they not only act, they in some cases act with more resolution than men do!!

coolbert.