jlbrand@pttesac.UUCP (Jack Brand) (01/04/90)
[Further discussion along these lines should probably go to talk.politics.misc -- AMBAR] Agreed. I'm moving it there and cross-posting this once. In article <1989Dec26.191501.21605@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes: >> WHY WE OPPOSE VOTES FOR MEN >> >> by Alice Duer Miller >> >> ... while their innate tendency to appeal to force renders >> them particularly unfit for the task of government. > >The irony in this last is that government is about the >application of force. If appeal to force is a "male" I beg to differ. Government does not have to be (and often in real- life is not) *only* about "the application of force." My local city government is "about" things I do not choose to or have no expertise in taking care of -- utilities, roads, libraries, schools, parks, zoning, and the like. The same goes for most of county, state, and federal "government". It's more involved with boring (compared to "the application of force") attributes like mediation, negotiation, decision-making, diplomacy, and of course the negative "politicking" that goes on. >(patriarchal?) value and mode, then government is, by its nature, >a "male" institution. Those who do not like settling political >disagreements by appeal to force should join the ranks of the >anarchists and libertarians who seek to end or limit government >power. Or join the ranks of those who want to govern without resorting to force, I'd say. It doesn't sound as cynically glamorous as chucking the whole bath water, libertarian style, but there are some of us who haven't quite accepted that the only way governments can possibly settle disagreements is by force. Jack Brand | "They're beating plowshares into ...att!pacbell!pttesac!jlbrand | swords, for this tired old man | that we elected king" - D. Henley