History demonstrates that women leaders will just as surely go to war as their male counterparts and very often for the same reasons.
In accepting her Emmy Award for Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series for the ABC TV show Brothers & Sisters, Sally Field said, “If the mothers ruled the world there would be no goddamn wars in the first place.”
Most of the controversy generated has focused on FOX TV’s decision to censor the remarks (although they were aired in Canada and in other countries). Frankly, this was a rather silly thing to have done because Field’s daft remarks deserve scrutiny. Daft or not, her views ought to have been heard so they could be exposed for nonsense that they are.
What I found so intriguing about those remarks is that over the years I have heard similar remarks made by women who insist that war is somehow entirely a male prerogative. Unsurprisingly, I heard these sentiments in NDP circles. The NDP, after all, is full of ardent feminists who believe they swim in enlightenment against the backwater of a male-dominated society. I would also hear these sentiments from time to time while a student at Carleton University, from both professors and students alike, including male students who had obviously enrolled in several Women’s Studies courses.
Keep in mind that at the time I was a member in good standing with the NDP and was in solidarity with gender parity on party executives and at party meetings. I believed in affirmative action and testified in favor of it in front of legislative committees at Queens Park in Toronto. I was no reactionary behemoth back then.
But when I would hear how women would govern by consensus and that there would be no more war I drew the line. I would inevitably point out that Margaret Thatcher led Great Britain into the Falklands Islands War against Argentina in 1982. Almost to a woman, the response to that would be, “Thatcher’s more like a man.” As one might imagine, this would be said in the most derisive way imaginable.
Yet history demonstrates that women leaders – be they monarchs or presidents – will just as surely go to war as their male counterparts and very often for the same reasons.
The final years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I in the late 1500s and early 1600s were consumed with the Anglo-Spanish War, fending off the ambitions of Spain’s King Phillip II, who wanted to convert Britain back to Roman Catholicism. When King Phillip’s forces invaded France and captured Calais, Queen Elizabeth sent 2,000 troops to prevent them from crossing the English Channel.
A century later, Queen Anne became embroiled in the War of the Spanish Succession with France after Louis XIV’s grandson, Phillip V, ascended the Spanish throne. In the U.S. this became known as Queen Anne’s War, as battles were fought in colonies that eventually became part of America such as Deerfield, Massachusetts and St. Augustine, Florida.
In Russia, the 18th Century was dominated by female czars. Anna Ioannovna would declare war on the Ottoman Empire in 1736. Her successor, Elizabeth, would involve Russia in the Seven Years War as did Maria Theresa I of Austria. Elizabeth would be overthrown in a bloodless coup by Catherine II, who is better known to the world as Catherine the Great. She would expand the Russian empire considerably, especially during the Russo-Turkish War, 1768-1774. In this campaign, Catherine The Great brought Crimea, the Northern Caucasus and much of the Ukraine into the Russian fold, succeeding where Anna Ioannovna could not.
Now one might say, “Oh, come on now. That’s ancient history when the world was run by kings and queens.” Fair enough. Let’s look at some more contemporary female leaders.
While Sally Field was starring in The Flying Nun, Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister of India. In 1971, she sent India into its third war with Pakistan in support of Bangladeshis who wanted (and gained) independence from Pakistan. Although India won the war, created tremendous unrest in the country and she declared a State of Emergency in 1975, claiming extraordinary powers including arbitrary arrest and torture of political opponents. After losing power in 1977, Gandhi was returned to office in 1980. She spent much of her last term in office battling with Sikh separatists. Her controversial decision to order a military raid of the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest temple in Sikhism, in June 1984, would lead to her assassination by her own bodyguards three months later.
Of course, some politicians are forced into war. In 1973, on Yom Kippur, Israel was attacked simultaneously by Egypt and Syria on the holiest day in Judaism. Prime Minister Golda Meir was compelled to act. With support from the Nixon Administration, Israel was able to turn back Egyptian and Syrian advances. Meir was criticized by some for not acting swiftly enough. On the other hand, had Meir acted sooner no American aid would have been forthcoming. Either way, Meir would resign from office the following year to be succeeded by Yitzhak Rabin.
All of the women mentioned here were both mothers and leaders of their countries. All of these women led their countries into wars. Some of these wars were fought to expand empires. Some were fought in aid of a people seeking independence. Some were fought in self-defense. In other words, these women led their countries into war for the same reasons their male counterparts do. Some went into war eagerly. Others more cautiously. The decision to lead one’s country into war is a decision a head of government sometimes makes, even if that leader is a woman and has children.
Sally Field undoubtedly sincerely opposes the War in Iraq and wants the troops to come home, and might very well believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton is in the best position to bring that about. Should Mrs. Clinton become our nation’s 44th President, she will be greatly responsible in determining how long we remain in Iraq and, for that matter, Afghanistan. But if she chooses to withdraw troops and this country is attacked again, be it by al Qaeda or by Iran through Hezbollah, what then? Would she think like a mother with a child or will she think like a Commander-in-Chief? Of course, we might not be attacked either. But then again suppose there is ethnic cleansing in Europe? Would she use force as her husband did through NATO against Bosnian Serbs who were massacring Croats and Muslims in the former Yugoslavia? If the UN peacekeeping force in Darfur proves to be ineffective would she send in American military personnel to alleviate the situation? These are all decisions Mrs. Clinton might very well have to face if she is elected to the White House. Should Mrs. Clinton decide to remain in Iraq or decide to use force elsewhere in the world, what would Sally Field then have to say about mothers and goddamn wars?
aargold24@hotmail.com
http://www.poetsforthewar.org
Read more articles by Aaron Goldstein
