« The Winner Is | Main | Quantity Over Quality Since 2002 »

Waddaya Know

03 Aug 2007 10:23 am

womenonapanel

I've been to a lot of foreign policy panels in my day, and the composition of the panels tends to skew even more male-dominated than is true for other kinds of political panels. The audience, too, for such events tends to be overwhelmingly male. Right now, though, I'm at a panel where three of the four panelists -- Amira al Hussaini (left), Amanda Michel (center), and Suzanne Nossel (right) -- are women (the one dude, Ari Melber, is hidden behind the podium). It serves as a reminder of how rare it is to see a mostly-women panel unless the topic at hand is specifically "women's issues" or something similar.

And though I guess it might be a coincidence, it's striking that there seem to be a lot more women in the audience than you normally see at a foreign policy event.

Share This

Comments (6)

I would give 3-to-1 odds that the social science research says that's not a coincidence.

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality”
Dante
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Has anyone at this conference called out Bush for the genocidal madman he is and demanded a war crimes trial?

And now, gender guilt!

More women in politics and making policy would, in my opinion, mean a less imperialistic foreign policy.

"When women are depressed they either eat or go shopping. Men invade another country." -Elayne Boosler

Elayne Boosler is wrong. The notion of women in power resulting in a less hawkish policy is not bourne out by history. See: Peron, Thatcher, Arroyo, Meïr, etc. And now, of course, Hillary.

No, Elayne's totally right. I was depressed the other day, and I was like, "Who wants some of this?" And I saw Lichtenstein shivering in the corner. So I was like, "BRING IT ON!!!!" Needless to say, I am now the Emperor of Lichtenstein.


Comments closed August 17, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.