Well, what Patricia said is that, historically, "women primarily avoided the use of
violence and war". And it's true! That's not the same as "men are by
default warlike barbarians". It's like if I say: "we have a tail bone, which
prehistorically was a tail", and I deduce that we have a tail like monkeys. I
don't know if history could have been different, for example, with men taking care of
the family and women fighting, but I'm inclined to think not. :)
Miguel Ángel
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:19 PM, patricia morales
<mariadelcarmenpatricia(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Oliver,
I believe it is constructive to reply you, for
improving the quality of dialogue.
When I use the world `female-friendly space what I is
inclusive,
constructive, a dialogue (following the rules of argumentation) that allows scientific
articles, ea.
Take a look at these examples:
If we talk about a child-friendly hotel we refer to a family hotel
where the space is adequate for every member of the family (we don’t
talk about a kindergarten or about a niche). It is talked about a
place that meets the challenge of a deficit or historical gap.
Other interesting examples are:
Women-friendly companies (for ex. Dell, HP, Abbot, ea. taking needs of working mothers)
Child-friendly justice (initiative by the European Council for giving better access to
justice)
When I talked about historical gaps (I talked from an historical
point of view and not about Wikipedia)...
I have the impression that my words in your reply
were
unintentionally modified and lost the original sense of the proposal.
If you read with more time and without adding meanings or changing
words my suggestions, it would be better for improving them. It is
about maximise efforts and get better results.
That's fair enough - as it happens, that language
wasn't the
language I was opposed to. Your statement that "I believe that the
leadership of this process has to be in various female hands, taking
solidarity as a major principle. When we take a look at history, we
can see that women primarily avoid the use of violence and war" was
the awkward one, and the one that led to a critique of what sounded
like gender-dominant segregation. We cannot and should not and won't
even consider excluding women from this process, but suggesting
that, by default, women should be prima facie assumed to be more
useful in the process than men (and for that matter that men are by
default warlike barbarians) is not going to help matters.