I DON'T REMEMBER precisely who said it, but I know I heard on a number of occasions commentators say that if women led many nations they'd be less likely to promote wars than men -- or something like that.
So it's kind of interesting to read in today's New York Times that Barack Obama, a man who was, until a few days ago, strongly opposed to U.S. military action against the Libyan regime, was persuaded otherwise by three of his top officials -- who happen to be women: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council; and Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
So what does this mean? That the stereotype of women being softer, less confrontation is just that, a stereotype? That this is a more righteous use of force than, say, the invasion of Iraq, and only a woman could have championed that? Or that one's sex is irrelevant when there faced with harsh reality?
Will the people who made those statements, about women being the anti-warriors, please acknowledge that was a silly thing to say at the time?