The science fiction story of War of the Worlds fascinated many people around the world. Given that the aliens came from Mars may even have been inspirational for the book; Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. However, the actual motivation for the book was to improve communication between the sexes.
Following the logic that Martian (men) and Earth men like war, it may (not) come as a surprise that women also engage in war. They fight amongst each other on Venus and they will fight with women on earth (who also fight amongst each other). According to the book, preventing all this fighting against each other, or with each other, requires changes in communication.
The deduction is that fighting women would not only communicate differently than men, but also that they would use different approaches. Military specifications provide for ergonomic differences between men and women where prior specifications in most cases limit who does what. For example, changing truck wheels is specified as a man’s job. The outcome is therefore that since trucks remain in service for twenty years, that changing wheels on those trucks will remain a manâ€™s job for the same time.
Over time women became more and more available for various military jobs and were even taking highly specialized jobs such as fighter pilots. The communication adjustments made within the Army is unknown but in general sexual intercourse between officers and non-commissioned officers are frowned upon (perhaps even prohibited).
The point is that each job in a military organization is defined, even if it is allocated to a specified sex. Keep in mind that it is not just the sex that is specified but an enormous range of characteristics. Going up the command ladder require specifications to change in the same way it would for a normal company (more or less).
The interesting point is when the top military commander, having worked his entire life to get to that position is supervised by a civilian, in most cases with only eight years political experience. The Commander is qualified for the job, but there are no specifications for the politician other than to be a “favorite.”
However, since men are more naturally prepared for (physical) war than women, the question of “specifications” for male political oversight of trained and tested Commanders could be seen as a less pressing matter, than for a woman politician. In European politics, having a female political leader also appears to be a lesser problem vis-a-vis Margaret Thatcher, as was witnessed by her contribution to the short Falklands War.
An alternative solution as exemplified by Angela Merkel, who appears to be using the typical female “balancing act,” is to push migrant diplomacy “warfare” as a means to enforce an economic union (Turkish threats). At this stage it appears to be less successful on the non-economic home front. What is interesting at this point is that women leaders are inclined to move away from physical warfare in favor of “economics” and carroty “pressure.”
In the United States, having untrained, untested, unspecified direct female oversight of physical military objectives including oversight of the execution towards those objectives means that America is cruising on unchartered waters. This is dangerous in the sense that the situation is entirely unpredictable. If the European example is to be the accepted role model, then one should prepare for less physical war and more “economic” war “by any means necessary.”
The Pentagon has in fact been pushing for a “less war” narrative when they published the Mr Y article in 2011. Based on this and the unchartered waters female leaders cruise upon, one can expect a lot of hair grabbing and face-spitting, but no real physical conventional war. The war however, is now at home and inside each home. Just like intelligence gathering is now done via social media (which the public pays for), so will the cost of war also decrease (where the public will pay for security).
This necessitates further examination of female leaders in war (conventional and/or in-home). History provides examples from various parts of the world, as well as from different periods. Searching on Google provided various references, but a popular website was “The Mary Sue” publishing a piece on “10 Hardcore Female Military Leaders from History”. One famous example is the illiterate Joan of Arc where France has her to thank for not becoming part of England. Another less known female pilot during WW2 was the Russian Major Marina Raskova. (The Russians used female soldiers widely.).
One thing that appears to be common amongst historic women leaders is a selfless passion combined with an unmistakably physical confrontational effort to overcome the enemy. But one female leader not mentioned in this reference was Cleopatra, the Queen of Egypt.
She was actually from Greek descent ruling Egypt after the death of Alexander the Great. She was quite wealthy and smart but could not compete militarily with Rome.Â In summary, she effectively turned the Roman Army into her own Army by sleeping with the much older Julius Caesar. The story ended with her suicide by snake because she knew that a follow-up Caesar (Octavian) would not fall for her charms.
It is common cause that women fight differently to men. For example, they scream a lot and pull each other’s hair, but will stop to go and plot somewhere else, meaning no resolution was found and might never be found actually. Men on the other hand, will for the most part “sort things out.”
As if all this is not enough, the cultural world add to this complexity with different approaches to management of the sexes, on the inside and outside. The book Culture’s Consequences indicates the following incomplete sentences on “leadership”:
There appear to be a paradox in that the “masses” have a fantasy towards leadership (which might be based on their own fantasy of having inherent leadership), while actually depending on authoritative leaders to â€œenableâ€ the environment in which they operate, where even that is country specific.
This paradox may be demonstrated by West German men voting for an East-German Merkel, while also burning migrant housing. They are willing to be subordinates in exchange for Merkel enabling their environment (which she is not doing). In fact Merkel said “you must do what you always do” which is similar to something de Klerk said to Afrikaner conservatives before giving his “country” away to Mandela (who was in fact a leader — but from a different nation). The new “leadership” in both these countries (dis)-abled those countries instead of (en)abling it.
Regarding transformation it is probably true that women are better than men simply because of their inherent ability to balance things out. This could be a technique to stop corrupt men from becoming leaders, but the term transformation is more appropriate in a managerial situation, meaning that men have to set up the “system” such as liberal-democracy, before women can be appointed as leaders/managers. However, balance in our actions is not the same as achieving balance in external reality.
Finally the factor of religion: Christianity allows each man to have one wife, while Muslims allow each man to have many wives. African tribes also support the multiple wives principle and this affects the way they live, how they raise kids and what examples leaders set for society. Religion therefore has enormous effect on those societies including culture and how those societies would view leaders. Compare for example the leader of Iran with Merkel. Even though Merkel is a woman, it is doubtful that she would be able to “transform’ herself to an Islam leader.
The dark side of religion is multiple women involved in sexual relations with a single man. Because Muslim women constantly hide themselves and are prohibited from speaking out, their contribution is to society is highly underrated. After all, they literally raise the next generation leader. According to the Podesta leaks, Muslim women see German women as “whores” and suitable for their husbands to be used as “slaves”. It is clear that “covered” women would not like “uncovered” women to engage their husbands, or even their own sons, unless they were designated as “slaves” and “whores.”
Many people exclaimed that migrants are mostly (about 70%) young men, which in that culture would simply mean that their mothers authorized them to go on a “conquest” of western society. Muslim women know from experience that if you control women you control their men too. This was also demonstrated in the 1901 “scorched earth” military campaign Britain executed against the Boers, where they put an entire ethnic group’s women into concentration camps.
It may have taken a hundred years, but women are again at the forefront of war. However, this time it’s the Muslim women against Western women. They follow intuitively the Cleopatra model, where they “use” the vices of men against other men, towards their own objectives. In my opinion the reason this is happening now, is because the system men set up i.e. liberal-democracy, has failed, just like the British Empire has failed hundred years ago.
The question Americans and indeed the West should ask today: Is a woman leader, at this time in Western history, a suitable choice? For example, Hillary Clinton. Let us consider:
Thus we see someone who is inclined to balance her own responses according to social factors, a.k.a. appearance to others, but not achieve balance in actuality. This is the most dangerous situation: someone who protects herself by adhering to tradition, but as a result, cannot think beyond it, dooming us to more of the mistakes of the past created by relying on those assumptions.