'Implicated' means 'guilty of', though, not 'involved' or 'touched by'. And it seems pretty likely to me that Rwandan women were less involved in the violence as perpetrators, rather than as victims.

"In the last election women in Rwanda took over 56% of the seats in Parliament. Now granted Rwanda has a law that 30% of the seats must go to women"

In my opinion, I think this is a good example of feminism causing the proverbial pendulum to swing to the opposite extreme. First, there was not enough women is power, now there ain't enough men.

Look, I think that women should be in power, but lets face, when push comes to shove, governments need men in power and at the helm. We can run things, but not like a man can.

Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

Bobbigrl, how is 56% female "extreme"? It matches the percent of the general population that is female. I think it's totally fair.

And why do you say that governments need to be male-run? What about Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Gro Harlem Brundtland?

"We can run things, but not like a man can"
Wow, internalize sexism much???
You make me sad.
Good for Rwanda. I hope these women push through a few laws that ensure better education for kids, particularly girls, stop girls being married off too young and improve medical care for all.
I would be thrilled if this country would institute a 30% rule. And let's push for more diversity while we're at it. That might make congress a little less old white male.

"But aside from that, it is actually misinformation to suggest that women didn't feel the violence or weren't touched by the genocide in Rwanda."

Who in the world suggested THAT? Wars conducted according to chivalry, soldiers killing soldiers, kill men and raise the female share of the population(the American South after the Civil War, France after WWI). Genocide targets populations, and that includes women just as much. Whoever suggested that the Hutu Power crowd had tried to annihilate the Tutsi population in their homes without touching women is either extremely foolish or seriously deranged.

I was going to say what Mags said.....I must learn to be more prompt!

"Look, I think that women should be in power, but lets face, when push comes to shove, governments need men in power and at the helm. We can run things, but not like a man can."

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Whatever bobbigrl. Keep living in the past.

Look, I think that women should be in power, but lets face, when push comes to shove, governments need men in power and at the helm. We can run things, but not like a man can.
September 23, 2008 5:39 PM

Maggie and Golda had their problems, especially Golda, but insufficiently masculine styles of governing were not among them.

I'm just going to ignore the idiocy that is bobbigrl's comment. Isn't there moderation? Why is feministing allowing trolls to hijack threads with anti-feminist remarks? This same person has made sexist statements on other threads.

I agree with how Mags read it. I don't think women lead government = peace, but it's a great opportunity for women to get their foot in the door. The reasoning for the electing women may be for wrong reasons (moderating behavior of men/mother like duties) but at least they are respected and seen as capable of making decisions/leading their government.

"In my opinion, I think this is a good example of feminism causing the proverbial pendulum to swing to the opposite extreme. First, there was not enough women is power, now there ain't enough men."

The general population is 55% female and the Parliament is 56% female. You call this % representation extreme?

I think Samhita is misinterpreting the quote she cites...
"they have not been implicated in the violence "
means that the woman were not accused of killing people (implicated here is used like a criminal is accused of a crime). That quote doesn't suggest that the women didn't *feel* the violence, but that women weren't the ones with AK's and machetes.

I just wanted to say thank you guys for running this website!! It’s so great to hear from young women who care about feminist issues! Keep it up despite the huge amount of misogyny you face!

Just because you might not have leadership skills doesn't mean the rest of us don't. We don't all share your personal faults.

Indeed. "Implicated" is a term generally reserved for criminals (just as "enormity" is reserved for describing bad things that are huge). I understood it to mean that men are the faces of the violence they've seen, so they feel secure with women in power.

Another interesting political gain for women this week was in Israel. It's the first time we've seen a female prime minister, female speaker of parliament, and female chief justice of a nation's supreme court simultaneously, at least to my knowledge.

And Tzipi's problem isn't that she's too feminine, I think her Mossad skills show that. The issue was whether or not Arab leaders will be able to publicly make peace with a woman, which may be perceived by their own as a sign of weakness.

"I find it poor logic to say that women should vote because they are good. Men do not vote because they are good; they vote because they are male, and women should vote, not because we are angels and men are animals, but because we are human beings and citizens of this country."

- Jo March, Little Women (movie) 1994

I think the same could be applied here.

I wouldn't use Indira Gandhi as an example of a great woman leader either. My impression, someone correct me if I'm wrong, is that she was an ineffective leader who allowed really horrible policies and actions to happen under her watch (such as widespread sterilization of the impoverished).

And Tzipi's problem isn't that she's too feminine, I think her Mossad skills show that. The issue was whether or not Arab leaders will be able to publicly make peace with a woman, which may be perceived by their own as a sign of weakness.
Posted by davenj Author Profile Page | September 23, 2008 8:54 PM
*****************

It's not like they've been all that keen to make peace with men. Likewise, the segment of Israeli society that will have to be CRUSHED to make peace, the psychotic settlers, are religious fanatics, many of whom won't regard PM as a proper role for women. But Rabin was one hell of a man and they killed him.

I wouldn't use Indira Gandhi as an example of a great woman leader either. My impression, someone correct me if I'm wrong, is that she was an ineffective leader who allowed really horrible policies and actions to happen under her watch (such as widespread sterilization of the impoverished).
Posted by keshmeshi Author Profile Page | September 23, 2008 10:53 PM
***********************
She was also dynastied in, and that's not usually a recipe for good, strong leadership (Eva Peron, most royalty, GW Bush, Hillary Clinton, John Quincy Adams).

Semi-dynastic, aleks, certainly less than Olmert, and winning the primary over Shaul Mofaz really did put it to a test.

Strong leadership depends on the country and system of government. Livni's ability to form and manage a coalition will determine her power, not that she gained premiership via Kadima primaries.

And keshmeshi, one of Livni's key pieces to govern will be the very religious Shas party. Even the settlers don't necessarily want to go Likudnik, and the fact that Livni's a woman has yet to swing Shas or United Torah Judaism the other way.

I was referring to Indra not Tzipi, about whom I know next to nothing.

Strong leadership depends on the country and system of government.
****************
Then she's screwed.

And keshmeshi, one of Livni's key pieces to govern will be the very religious Shas party. Even the settlers don't necessarily want to go Likudnik, and the fact that Livni's a woman has yet to swing Shas or United Torah Judaism the other way.
*************
The concern isn't whether they'll support her politically, it's whether she can and will kick them out of the illegal settlements. I don't know whether her gender will be an issue with them, but it's not like the men since 74 have done it, except for Sharon in Gaza.

Damn, bobbigirl dont you ever piss off? Go to some bullshit MRA site for fucks sakes! And I highly doubt youre a female. Men are the reason their country had a genocide and is so torn apart today. Leaders my ass.

I think this is a great opportunity for Rwandan women. I hope it remains this way for that country. But lets hope its not always a 'men fucked the country, women clean up the mess' kind of scenario for the future. Lets hope the women leverage their power and use it to secure their country as a vital and stable one.

I can't remember exactly where I read it, but in the case of some other African country fraught with civil war, the reason women weren't implicated in the violence was also due to sexism. There had been women fighting during that conflict, but their participation wasn't talked about, probably by the logic of silencing women's agency (note: you don't need to pick up weapons to have agency in war, naturally).
I don't know if such an argument could be made here, as I don't know enough about Rwanda.

Thank you Gopher (you beat me to it!). Reading "implicated" as "affected by" is more than a slight misread... and unfortunate, because I would much rather read a discourse about how even the so called "positive" stereotypes about women, for example, that they are not violent like men, affects, negatively and sometimes positively (as in this example), our role in social contexts. It's a lot harder to talk about women as possible perpetrators of violence than to get on your high horse and decry violence against women, when the fact of the matter is that both instances can be simultaneously true and highly problematic.

I think this is great progress. The fact that the number of women in government actually reflects the percentage of the population that is female is great. It's particularly important, because, post-genocide, there is the risk of a community becoming more socially conservative and seeing women as vessels who are meant to bring the population back to its former numbers, and therefore should stay home and have babies rather than try to govern a better nation....

AndersH, that's exactly what I was thinking. Women were both victims and perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide (though there were few women in official leadership roles at the time), and we shouldn't oversimplify the situation there. The Coalition for Women's Human Rights in Conflict Situations has a good article on this: http://www.womensrightscoalition.org/site/publications/vol4No1/womenaccusedofgenociderwanda_en.php

Also, here's a detailed report from the UN on the role of women in post-genocide Rwanda: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/meetings/2004/EGMelectoral/EP5-Powley.PDF

I think its a great stepping stone for the women of Rwanda especially with the history that goes along with that government. Also congrats to the first female prime minister of Israel. It's great to see women as such high authority figures. I hope to see them do great things.

Your post about women in Rwanda’s Parliament made a lot of great points. I agree in part with the statement, “It is correct that this [women dominating Rwandan politics] should be so,” because while I believe it is correct women should have power in the government, I do not think it is 100% right that Rwanda should have the highest percentage of women in parliament in the world. You explain why Rwanda should have the highest percentage making a case that Rwanda needs a “woman’s touch” in these times of reconciliation and reconstruction, but since men had a huge part in the 1994 genocide (as both perpetrators and victims) it is good for them to be involved in the healing of the country as well. By no means am I diminishing the importance of women in politics, I think that is essential, though I do believe political power should be equal between men and women.

You also mention that women are fit for this position in Rwanda, “…in part because they have not been implicated in the violence that has marked the country's murky past to the same extent as men.” However, there may be more reasons behind the Rwandan women’s ascent to power. Some will acknowledge that because the population was 70% female directly after the genocide, women were forced to take on the duties of both men and women. Women became responsible for not only their families, but their communities, livelihood, income, and so on. Women became leaders during this time as they “stepped up to the plate” to help Rwanda survive. For that reason, women were positioned to take on more power. It is also important to note that the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which took control after the genocide and has remained in power, has been a gender sensitive party. This is perhaps due to the fact that as exiles (before the genocide), they understood discrimination, and since they were a rebel group they were aware that including women would double their numbers. So, while women may be in power partly because they were not as involved in the violence (though that is still debatable) there are other reasons behind this extraordinary case of women holding a majority of political seats.

I do agree that this is a great opportunity for women -- I hope that more of the international community will hear the news and follow suit! Thank you for your thoughts on this interesting topic. I have included a link to my blog I have just started which focuses on women’s issues in Africa.
www.devonvdemars.blogspot.com