On 10/14/06, Mark Lause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yoshie,
I am as certain as you that this is NOT "a random occurrence."
Your response conflates "parties and states," though I wrote, "I'm concerned
about leadership in the movement," that is "parties."
My comment had to do with what is achieved if women become "the bloody,
stupid worthless figurehead for the sexless monstrous Moloch of THEIR
institutions and THEIR Holy State." If I am correct in suggesting that this
latter doesn't really matter in terms of substantive functions and policies,
doesn't it offer a reasonable tentative explanation of why
conservative/liberal elites may be more willing to use females as
figureheads?
To add a couple more comments on this, it's really no explanation for
the virtual absence of women leaders at the top of socialist parties
and states, and the relative dearth of women leaders at the top of
social democratic parties and states, to say that
liberals/conservatives have bad motives (such as tokenism) for
promoting women, unless the suggestion is that those who have no bad
motives have no reason to promote female top leaders or that women are
capable of rising to the top only because of such bad motives.
Besides, that the gender of top leadership made no difference in
capitalist parties and states doesn't mean that it never can for
socialist and social democratic parties and states, for these parties
and states should not play the same roles for women in particular and
the working class in general as the ones played by capitalist parties
and states.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
