This concept that women would be less violent world leaders is just such a bizarrely sexist take.
There is no innate feature of the female body that makes them less prone to geopolitical conflict, lmfao.
:hillgasm: When you destroy Libya so you are the last Lib remaining.
:hillary-contempt: Next up: Liberia.
The funniest part is that lib who lib claimed Boudicca was an example to support the point. Siri, are massacres justified/non-violent?
It’s also very idealist and great person of history brained.
Executive leaders are just a cog in their nation state’s apparatus. Rarely do they have much ability to change anything, if they don’t go along with what the machine wants they get spit out. The entire structure and mechanisms of state and capital are much more powerful than any specific capitalist leader
Feminist international relations theory (specifically about how "war-like" leaders are) is not very compelling. We have historical evidence of a plenty of epic girlboss dictators who murdered their enemies. Indira Gandhi is one of my favorite examples. Fukuyama (yes the end of history guy) argues that in a democracy female voters are less likely to support war compared to men but even that has only shakey statistical evidence, plus the fact (that liberals won't accept) that democracy has never mattered in foreign policy and probably never will barring world revolution.
Other Feminist IR theorists are doing great work though deconstructing the international patriarchy. The "only men can be warmongers" is just a like a pop science thing in the field
Let's not go with the take that "women are alienated from the consequences of war". It is a really, really bad take.
To be fair under a patriarchy, the only women that are going to be elected into any form of power are going to be those that have politics that appeal to the patriarchy. So to say that Thatcher is any indication of what female leadership looks like is naive
The capitalist state will spit out any leader that doesn’t inflict the necessary violence to suppress the growing contradictions. This is an irrelevant discussion under capitalism, it doesn’t matter what the personality of a leader is ultimately or whether the leadership is male of female dominated, it will have to violently wage class war or be toppled
Counterpoint: Fuck the british including the 4.000 britons peacefully inhabiting those isles who just want to keep on with their peaceful lives herding sheep and drinking tea. If they could they would colonize and destroy your country.
only in chapo chat would a stuggle session start up about the Falklands.
And most importantly, the people living there actually wanted to be Br*tish.
I'm not necessarily defending this stance, but NATO installing themselves in Ukraine could definitely be seen as aggression onto "disputed" land that was very recently Russian
Are these Russian government fascists in the room with us right now?
Nobody said they were socialist, but they aren’t fascist either. They are a boring old bourgeois liberal capitalist state like Syria, Belarus or Nicaragua - all of which we critically support for their anti-imperialist geopolitical actions.
Ukraine is quite literally fascist.
*Disagree with the nuke part but that was clearly hyperbole I hope
Do not apologize for outspoken critical support of Russia’s anti-imperialist action
