Women as Peacemakers

Historically speaking, women have been left out of the most important conversations regarding war and peace until fairly recently. (Only 17 percent of the seats in the US Congress are held by women - and that's the most it's ever been.) As more women are coming into positions of power around the world, I believe there is the strong potential that future conversations on the topic will be different. Instead of the focus being on, "How do we gain power over a nation?" I think the conversations will more likely focus on, "How do we gain power with a nation?"

Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D., former clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Francisco, has said:

"Women as a gender have an ability to physiologically be the more empathic gender. It has to do with when stress occurs. Men as a gender go to 'fight or flight,' and ever since the research was done at UCLA in 1991, we know that women tend, when stressed, to want to talk to other women closest to them, and that when they do, the stress level goes down, and the maternal bonding hormone -- oxytocin -- goes up." She concludes: "Essentially if there is ever going to be a peace negotiated well in this world, women have to be at the table."

Some would disagree with the thesis that women are better peacemakers than men. In fact, I have been challenged on this subject by several men who insist that women are more jealous than men, bear grudges longer, and can be "vicious psychological warriors" -- meaning they have long memories for perceived slights and don't give up a fight. One male friend said: "Women are more territorial than men, particularly when it comes to protecting their children. I mean, look at a New York mom trying to get her kid into preschool. She'll kill to do that!"

While I agree that women, like men, are competitive and have a strong warrior spirit, I do think there is a difference in how those characteristics get played out. As brought out by the research project mentioned above it seems that men go to "fight or fight" and women talk.

For example, in 1994 in Rwanda, 800,000 people were massacred. There were orphanages filled with children. Women got together to talk about how to reconcile the situation. They decided that they needed to adopt these orphaned children whether they were Tutsi or Hutu -- in other words, no matter what side they were on. Women played a pivotal role in reconstructing Rwanda. And in that country, they now make up the largest percentage of women in government leadership compared to anywhere else in the world -- 56 percent in the parliament and one third of all the cabinet positions including foreign minister, education minister, Supreme Court chief and police commissioner general.

And what about a woman's ability to hold a grudge? How does that contribute to peace? Some may think it doesn't -- at least not directly -- but things get interesting when we examine this grudge-holding ability. One explanation for it comes from Christiane Northrup, M.D., women's health expert and author of Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom: "Men compartmentalize their feelings, but women remember everything," she says. Research has also shown us that women's brains are more wired for communication and interconnection.

This could mean there's a greater capacity for empathy in women as compared to men. Although holding a grudge isn't a good thing, seeing things long-term and as interrelated can be positive traits for peacemaking. When we can see the bigger picture, we see that every child is in fact our child. As a result, the borders of fear and hatred dissolve, and we move toward power with all nations.

"We have been training for this job all our lives, negotiating home and community with empathy and a willingness to compromise," says Marie Wilson, Founder of The White House Project, a non-profit organization that aims to advance women's leadership.

I think it's important to mention that I am not promoting the idea that men are the war-makers and women are the peacemakers and that men should cede their power so women can be the leaders and rule the world. Frankly, I think anyone who is thinking along those lines is repeating a non-supportive divisive pattern. I am suggesting that with more women at the table of diplomatic, economic, and political leadership -- who take with them their natural feminine strengths of compassion, empathy, and unconditional love - we will see some great changes taking place.

Comments

[research]

How to make friends and influence people: Tell them that your group is superior.

Let's work together for peace, liberty and prosperity world over for all.

[JScott]

Interestingly when most of Icelands banks went bankrupt it's only the banks there that were mostly governed by women that didn't and women who have to clean up the economic mess, but then again sadly that's typical, women have to clean up and fix the crap that men did.

[yankees]

You overlook that some of our most bloodthirsty World leaders were Women. Elizabeth in England, Isabel in Spain and so forth.
Having said that I think having Women in Leadership roles is something long due worldwide. Your focus should of course be on the Arab and Asian World.
Golda Mier said , "Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us". If Women were in charge of the Middle East I think we would see Peace.

[samjer]

It was " Bloody" Mary not Elizabeth.

[Tabby Biddle - Huffpost Blogger]

Focusing on the Arab and Asian world is very important. Thank you for highlighting this.

[2Bfair]

lbicomber, you are becoming bizarre in your insistence that only you can know and pronouce the truth.

Based on a mountain of public information about them and their 30 years in public life, I believe the Clintons are fundamentally dishonest and selfserving. Believe me, it doesn't take being a mindreader to come to that conclusion. Many honest, progressive people see them exactly that way.

You despise Obama because he defeated Hillary and now you demand that everyone else despise him too. It is a very bitter psychology.

How in the world have you come to the view that I or anyone else must view the Clintons and Obama the same, because you have decided they must?

The major difference between us is that I have strong opinions and state them. I accept the fact that some people agree and some do not.

You have strong opinions and when people don't share them, you feel you have a liscense to attack them personally. It is truly bizarre.

[samjer]

Women havent been left out on anything. Women are the majority in this country and have been for quite some time. The minute they start voting for qualified well informed women, like Hillary, instead of what you think they should, this country will be alot better off. As for Rowanda it was only women who could make those decisions because that was all that was left, was women. If there were any men left they centainly wouldnt have given them anything let alone a vote on what to do with the children. Your cookie cutter view of women (and men for that matter) is way outdated and frankly naive. I would have expected to see this piece in the 50s. Oh I think Hillary called it "smart power" working with other nations.

[2Bfair]

This nation will rally to support a woman for president who merits their support -- a strong leader with integrity and good judgment. Neither Hillary or Sarah Palin qualify.

[lbicomber]

Hillary EASILY qualifies, as evidenced by the 18 million votes she received and her 705+ approval ratings.

[eileenflemingWAWA]

The genesis of Mother's Day in the U.S.A. began when Anna Jarvis, an Appalachian homemaker, organized a day to raise awareness of poor health conditions in her community and fifteen years later, Julia Ward Howe, a Boston poet, pacifist, suffragist, and author of the lyrics to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic," organized a day encouraging mothers to rally for peace.

As mothers bear the loss of human life more acutely than anyone else, in 1870, Julia Ward Howe wrote the first Mother's Day Proclamation; A call to "Disarm! Disarm!"

In the 21st century, patriarchal testosterone driven 'civilization' persists in the insanity of violence for violence which terrorize every innocent caught in the crossfire.

In 1999, the UN dedicated the first decade of the 21st century to Create a Culture of Nonviolence for All Children of The World.

In December 2005, I attended Holy Land Trust's Celebrating Nonviolent Solidarity Conference in the Little Town of Bethlehem: Occupied Territory.

One of the workshops was sponsored by the United Network of Young Peace Builders from the Netherlands.

They informed me that in regards to the United Nations Decade of Creating a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence for the Children of the World, America abstained from voting and is on the record in the UN as stating:

"We cannot support this initiative as it will make it harder for us to wage war."

The Rest: "Mother's Day Manifesto 2009"
http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1278&Itemid=220

[MARNIE2]

After all ...will we've seen the ways of men ? ...conquers& their agressiv behavior ...no fault of
them-self it's in their ....D N A .... ! Women are as you so rightly stated ....or strong points.......but
may I add , we do have a toleance attiudes.... & diverisity ....the ability to live and let other's live.
...It wouldn't hurt for all people & nations to have & to show with a good heart to recognizing &
Respecting the BELIEFS OF OTHERS ..........­...[FAITH'­S BASED OR POLITICAL VIEWS ]!

[2Bfair]

Thanks for an interesting article. You state: "I think it's important to mention that I am not promoting the idea that men are the war-makers and women are the peacemakers..." It is worth noting the three women who have served as US Secretaries of State, and thus third in line to the presidency, and with power to influence international peace, have all been major hawks. One of them also voted as a Senator to give Bush authority to start war of choice with Iraq, in contrast to the more than two dozen of her more experienced, reasoned, informed and peace-concernedmale colleagues who voted against it.

[2Bfair]

edit..... last sentence should read:

One of them voted as a Senator to give Bush authority to start a war of choice with Iraq, in contrast to 23 of her more experienced, reasoned, informed and peace-concerned colleges (19 of whom were male), who voted against war.

[lbicomber]

Just because they voted against the AUMF they're "more experienced, reasoned, informed and peace-concerned (whatever THAT is)"

LOLOLOLOL....

I guess she could have given a SPEECH against going to war and that would have proven something?

Oh wait, she did .... at the time of her vote.

[2Bfair]

Hillary is a hawk, and her speech at the time she cast her historic vote for war took every side of every issue so she would have cover as a candidate. Too bad it didn't work.

When faced with the most consequential decision of her political life, a choice between war and peace, Hillary chose unecessary war with all of its major human and financial costs. She did it without even consulting the intelligence report that raised huge questions fo the more responsible Senators who did read it about the justification for the war, leading to their vote not to support Bush. She did it out of the misguided, self-interested judgment that it would make her LOOK stronger as a presidential candidate. Big mistake from every angle, and a demonstration of deeply flawed judgment.