Review: The peaceful case for giving women the vote

 

Review: The peaceful case for giving women the
vote


When the First World War broke out, Marguerite de
Witt Schlumberger,  chairman of the
French Union for Women’s franchise, issued instructions to her  womanish members put away your hunt for
political rights, serve your country and 
quicken your loved bones   to the
front. Schlumberger also embraced her 
nationalistic duty, abetting dogfaces and deportees and  steering her five sons off to war, but
she  noway  stopped 
featuring of a return to peace and of the popular world to follow.

Indeed, the French positivist saw the two as
inextricably  connected. In a letter to
Woodrow Wilson dated February 1, 1918,co-signed by suffragists from nine Allied
nations, Schlumberger  supplicated the
American  chairman to  plump  women’s
global enfranchisement at the war’s end. ‘ The participation of  women 
and  maters   in the 
franchise, ’ she argued, ‘ would be one of the stylish means of
guaranteeing a  unborn peace. ’ Was
Schlumberger, right?   The Suffragist
Peace, an ambitious, if amiss, new book by political scientists Joslyn Barnhart
and Robert Trager, concludes that 
posterior patterns in 
transnational relations prove she was. Barnhart and Trager’s thesis is a
tricky one to prove, and to their credit, they guide  compendiums 
through their  sense step by step.   First, they seek to establish that the world
is more peaceful now, pointing to the absence of ‘ great power war ’ over
the  once 75 times, though abbreviating
the tremendous  mortal cost of  deputy wars from Vietnam to Ukraine. Still,
the action of bilateral relations between popular  countries is a notable achievement.

Barnhart and Trager advise us,  still, that 
masculinity  franchise alone
wasn’t enough to  induce this peace  tip. Only with  womanish enfranchisement have popular  countries astronomically renounced war.   To reach this conclusion, the book advances
a alternate argument women’s political participation matters because  natural differences and artistic gender  morals help determine preferences for war and
peace. Barnhart and Trager fete 
that  womanish choosers can and
do  plump 
aggressive foreign  programs and
that  womanish leaders from Catherine the
Great to Margaret Thatcher have initiated 
expensive  transnational
conflicts.

From neuroscience to political polling

Yet, drawing on a wide range of data from
neuroscience to psychology to political polling, they argue convincingly that
across different ages and  societies, for
complex  natural and artistic
reasons,    Barnhart and Trager’s third
logical step is to link women’s propensity for peace to foreign policy  issues in 
countries with universal 
franchise They compare state 
geste  over the  once two centuries grounded on dates of
women’s enfranchisement, degrees of 
womanish participation in  choices
and aggressiveness in foreign policy.  
Between 1893 and 1955,  manly-
voting republic were 113 per cent more likely to start wars compared with  countries that had  disenthralled 
women

This number- 
scraping produces the book’s most eye- catching findings. Since 1799,
republic with only  manly choosers have
proved themselves to be 30 per cent more likely to hang  the use of force and 130 per cent more likely
to start wars compared with republic that include a substantial portion of  womanish choosers.   Between 1893 and 1955 – when the world saw
the broadest  blend of  manly-only voting republic and republic
with  womanish  franchise – 
manly- voting republic were 72 per cent more likely to hang  force and 113 per cent more likely to start
wars compared with  countries that
had  disenthralled  women. Expanding the electorate to include
women correlates  explosively with a  drop in aggressive foreign policy.

Muddying the statistical waters

Has the emancipation of women caused states to
avoid war? Or have states  simultaneously
evolved into more inclusive democracies and less aggressive foreign policies
for other reasons?

 In the
1990s, the Four Mothers movement pressured the Israeli government to end the
occupation of southern Lebanon  the
deepening economic interdependence of world powers are the variables that
obscure the statistical maps.

 Barnhart
and Trager attempt to explain these variables, but skeptical readers may be
left unsatisfied. For example, the authors attribute Neville Chamberlain’s
desire to appease Hitler in 1938 to 
pressure from peaceful British voters.But they do not explain why
France, which denied women the right to vote until 1944, also pledged to seek a
diplomatic solution to the Munich crisis, and their statistical model cannot
and does not explain why German  voters
supported warmongering Nazi MPs.

Here Barnhart and Trager draw clear causal lines.
In the late 1990s, the “Four Mothers Movement” urged the Israeli
government to end the occupation and fighting in southern Lebanon. In 2003,
Christian and Muslim women in Liberia forced the warring parties to a peace
table. And in 2010, Japanese public opinion, heavily influenced by women,
blocked a constitutional revision aimed at expanding the armed forces.

 Interestingly, these case studies show that
while women’s empowerment increased their political influence, elections alone
did not end conflicts.Borrowing strategies from 20th-century suffragettes,
21st-century voters continue to combine maternal rhetoric with grassroots
activism to discourage predominantly male leaders  from aggressive foreign policies and
disastrous wars.

Leave a Comment