تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح

تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح


12-12-2003, 11:07 AM


  » http://sudaneseonline.com/cgi-bin/sdb/2bb.cgi?seq=msg&board=81&msg=1132340281&rn=0


Post: #1
Title: تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح
Author: osama elkhawad
Date: 12-12-2003, 11:07 AM

Quote: ( ستحسن صنعاً لو اخترت سيدةً لرئاسة أجهزة الأمن )

يعاني العالم كله من شرور وويلات الروح الذكورية التي -متسترة خلف اقنعة مختلفة"فاشية,نازية, اسلامية, يهودية,مسيحية وغيرهامن الاقنعة" اهدرت كرامة الانسان واشعلت الحروب والغزوات ,

و قد ان للحضارة الانسانية ان تتانث لتستعيد قيم الحب والحنان والرقة .
ووجب على شعبنا ان يؤنث حضارته

ذلك ان شعبنا قد عانى الامرين من وحشية وهمجية الروح الذكورية
وعلى راسهاالروح الانقاذية الذكورية التي اتخذت الاسلام قناعا لها

فهل لنا ان نقترح لشعبنا السوداني- ما اقترحه درويش لشعبه-:

( ستحسن صنعاً لو اخترت سيدةً لرئاسة أجهزة الأمن ) ؟؟؟؟؟

فما رايكم\ن في هذا المقترح؟؟؟

ارقدوا\ن عافية
المشاء

Post: #2
Title: Re: تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح
Author: ابراهيم حموده
Date: 12-12-2003, 12:00 PM
Parent: #1

العزيز المشاء
لو كانت الدولة تحكم بمشيئة شاعر ,
اذا لنام الجميع علي مقربة من احلامهم ,
ولكني حين اتذكر نساء جيمس بوند الشرسات يقشعر بدني من الفكره ..
فكيف بالله عليك يمكننا هندسة هذا القمع .. وما اجمل الاسئلة التي
لا تبحث عن اجابة في الاصل .

Post: #3
Title: Re: تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح
Author: نصار
Date: 12-12-2003, 12:06 PM
Parent: #1

العزيز الخواض

تحية سامقة

لا ارى ان الامر يقف و لا يجدر به ان يقف على الفردبمعنى شخصنة المؤسسات بل على ذوبان الفرد فى منظومة متكاملة منضبطة بالقانون,,و عندها لا يهم نوع المسؤول او خصوصياته و مزاجه فالمعيار هو مدى التزامه بالقانون الحاكم للمؤسسة و ليس المرأة على اطلاقها بمنجا عن العسف و الغلو اذا سابت الامور و سمحد السائد بذلك. و دون ان نغوص فى التاريخ يكفينا مثلا رائدة نميرى التى بذت الرجال عنفا و سوء و دناءة. الدولة المنضبطة بالقانون يحدث فيها الترفيع بمعايير واضحة و توجد فيها ضوابط تحكم اداء الفرد و يرتب على ذلك الاثابة و العقاب

لك ود (يماشيك و يؤنس)

Post: #5
Title: Re: تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح
Author: فتحي البحيري
Date: 12-12-2003, 12:29 PM
Parent: #3

والله فكرة (مجنونة) يا أستاذ
انا ما عارف ليه دائما قاعد اربط بين انه آخر الزمن حيكون أكثر سلاما
وبين انه حيكون أكثر نساءا
كما في المقولات الشعبية المختلطة بنصوص دينية
ويديك ويديهن العافية
قول آمين

Post: #4
Title: Re: تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح
Author: Alsawi
Date: 12-12-2003, 12:13 PM
Parent: #1

فعلتها بريطانيا قبل ايام

وجيمس بوند في The World is not Enough ولا غرابة

Post: #6
Title: Re: تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح
Author: Hussein Mallasi
Date: 12-12-2003, 01:05 PM
Parent: #4

اخونا المشاء تحياتي

اجدها فعلا فكرة المعية ... و لعلها تكون بداية النهاية لاسطورة الجنس اللطيف ...

تقديري

ملاسى

Post: #7
Title: Re: تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح
Author: nada ali
Date: 12-12-2003, 03:34 PM
Parent: #1

الأستاذ أسامة الخواض،

تحية و سلام
عام 1998 كتب فرانسيس فوكوياما مقالا بعنوان "المرأة و نشوء السياسة الدولية"
Women and the Evolution of World Politics
حول أن الحروب ستنتهى اذا حكمت النساء العالم
فى
Foreign Affairs
تمت كتابة العديد من الردود عليها من قبل النسويات – انظر أدناه.
بالنسبة لسؤالك أقترح الغاء جهاز الأمن بصورته الحالية فى السودان ( فهو جهاز ارهاب بجدارة).

لك التحية
ندى

Post: #8
Title: اجزاء من مقال فوكوياما
Author: nada ali
Date: 12-12-2003, 03:43 PM
Parent: #1

Women and the Evolution of World Politics

Francis Fukuyama
From Foreign Affairs, September-October 1998

Summary: To some degree, biology is destiny. The feminist school of international relations has a point: a truly matriarchal world would be less prone to conflict and more cooperative than the one we now inhabit. And world politics has been gradually feminizing over the past century. But the broader scene will still be populated by states led by men like Mobutu, Milosevic, or Saddam. If tomorrow's troublemakers are armed with nuclear weapons, we might be better off being led by women like Margaret Thatcher than, say, Gro Harlem Brundtland. Masculine policies will still be essential even in a feminized world.

Francis Fukuyama is Hirst Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University. His book, The Great Disruption, will be published in 1999.

CHIMPANZEE POLITICS
In the world's largest captive chimp colony at the Burger's Zoo in Arnhem, Netherlands, a struggle worthy of Machiavelli unfolded during the late 1970s. As described by primatologist Frans de Waal, the aging alpha male of the colony, Yeroen, was gradually unseated from his position of power by a younger male, Luit. Luit could not have done this on the basis of his own physical strength, but had to enter into an alliance with Nikkie, a still younger male. No sooner was Luit on top, however, than Nikkie turned on him and formed a coalition with the deposed leader to achieve dominance himself. Luit remained in the background as a threat to his rule, so one day he was murdered by Nikkie and Yeroen, his toes and testicles littering the floor of the cage.
Jane Goodall became famous studying a group of about 30 chimps at the Gombe National Park in Tanzania in the 1960s, a group she found on the whole to be peaceful. In the 1970s, this group broke up into what could only be described as two rival gangs in the northern and southern parts of the range. The biological anthropologist Richard Wrangham with Dale Peterson in their 1996 book Demonic Males describes what happened next. Parties of four or five males from the northern group would go out, not simply defending their range, but often penetrating into the rival group's territory to pick off individuals caught alone or unprepared. The murders were often grisly, and they were celebrated by the attackers with hooting and feverish excitement. All the males and several of the females in the southern group were eventually killed, and the remaining females forced to join the northern group. The northern Gombe chimps had done, in effect, what Rome did to Carthage in 146 B.C.: extinguished its rival without a trace.
There are several notable aspects to these stories of chimp behavior. First, the violence. Violence within the same species is rare in the animal kingdom, usually restricted to infanticide by males who want to get rid of a rival's offspring and mate with the mother. Only chimps and humans seem to have a proclivity for routinely murdering peers. Second is the importance of coalitions and the politics that goes with coalition-building. Chimps, like humans, are intensely social creatures whose lives are preoccupied with achieving and maintaining dominance in status hierarchies. They threaten, plead, cajole, and bribe their fellow chimps to join with them in alliances, and their dominance lasts only as long as they can maintain these social connections.
Finally and most significantly, the violence and the coalition-building is primarily the work of males. Female chimpanzees can be as violent and cruel as the males at times; females compete with one another in hierarchies and form coalitions to do so. But the most murderous violence is the province of males, and the nature of female alliances is different. According to de Waal, female chimps bond with females to whom they feel some emotional attachment; ...

Post: #9
Title: Some replies to Fukuyama's article
Author: nada ali
Date: 12-12-2003, 03:45 PM
Parent: #1

MEN HATE WAR TOO
By Barbara Ehrenreich
Francis Fukuyama marshals the familiar evidence suggesting that males, in our species and others, are more prone to violence than females ("Women and the Evolution of World Politics," September/October 199. Despite the current academic bias against "essentialist" or genetic explanations of behavior, this evidence shows that males are indeed more likely to fight, murder, loot, pillage, and, of course, rape than females. The question remains, however, whether this apparently innate male predilection has much to do with the subjects that concern Fukuyama -- war, international relations, and politics.
If Fukuyama had read just a bit further in the anthropology of war, even in the works of some scholars he cites approvingly, he would have discovered that there is little basis for locating the wellspring of war in aggressive male instincts -- or in any instincts, for that matter. Wars are not barroom brawls writ large, but, as social theorist Robin Fox puts it, "complicated, orchestrated, highly organized" collective undertakings that cannot be explained by any individual impulse. No plausible instinct would impel a man to leave his home, cut his hair short, and drill for hours under the hot sun. As anthropologists Clifton B. Kroeber and Bernard L. Fontana have pointed out, "It is a large step from what may be biologically innate leanings toward individual aggression to ritualized, socially sanctioned, institutionalized group warfare." Or as a 1989 conference on the anthropology of war concluded, "The hypothesis of a killer instinct is . . . not so much irrelevant as wrong."
In fact, the male appetite for battle has always been far less voracious than either biologically inclined theorists of war or army commanders might like. In traditional societies, warriors often had to be taunted, intoxicated, or ritually "transformed" into animal form before battle. Throughout Western history, individual men have gone to near-suicidal lengths to avoid participating in wars -- cutting off limbs or fingers or risking execution by deserting. Prior to the advent of the nationalist armies of the nineteenth century, desertion rates in European armies were so high that, according to historian Geoffrey Parker, "at certain times, almost an entire army would vanish into thin air." So unreliable was the rank and file of the famed eighteenth-century Prussian army that military manuals forbade camping near wooded areas. Even in the supposedly highly motivated armies of the twentieth-century democracies, few men can bring themselves to shoot directly at individual enemies -- a fact, as Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman writes in On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, that has posed a persistent challenge to the Pentagon.
MALE RITES
Fortunately, we need not resort to instinctual male aggressiveness to explain the male near-monopoly on warfare. One reason is clearly biological, resting on men's advantage in upper body strength -- an undeniable plus when the weapons of war are heavy swords, spears, pikes, maces, or clubs. Another explanation is cultural, or at least as purely cultural as one can be: In many, if not most, human societies, male initiation rites feature acts of violence committed by or on the initiates, and one of the most common of these rites has been participation in battle. Through "blooding his spear" a boy proved his manhood (or through ordering the bombing of some smaller nation, in the case of recent American presidents). For an activity to be a male initiatory rite, it cannot, of course, be open to women and girls. Hence the widespread taboos on female handling of weapons and, in many cases, the tools of peaceable male-dominated crafts.
But there is no reason to think that such initiatory activities derive from instinctual male proclivities. In some cultural settings, the young male's initiation to the adult world may be entirely bloodless, featuring the receipt of a diploma or admission into a guild. In others it may be violent in ways not related to war, involving circumcision, homosexual rape, or nose-bleeding induced with sharp sticks -- activities few would claim are instinctually driven. In fact, the very purpose of male initiation rites is to distinguish biological maleness, which undoubtedly includes a healthy desire for self-preservation, from cultural manhood, which requires a certain amount of self-discipline and even self-sacrifice for the group (as does cultural womanhood).
WOMEN WARRIORS
Nor can it be assumed that the male monopoly on warfare has been as eternal and universal as Fukuyama imagines. Gravesites recently excavated in Russia contain the remains of women warriors from the second millennium B.C. -- female skeletons buried with weapons and bearing wounds inflicted by similar weapons. The victims of the Neolithic massacre at Jebel Sahaba, mentioned by Fukuyama, included both women and men, and there is no evidence that the perpetrators were exclusively male. Moving back into the Paleolithic Age, when hunting was probably the principal form of human violence, growing archaeological evidence suggests that it was a communal enterprise in which women and children joined men in driving herds over cliffs or into nets or culs-de-sac. Thus, Fukuyama overstates the case when he says that "men [unlike women] have clearly evolved as cooperative hunters and fighters." The male-centered hunting strategy that figured so prominently in the writings of sociobiologists in the 1960s and 1970s -- in which a small band of men stalks an individual animal -- may be a rather recent innovation, necessitated by declining game populations in the Mesolithic Age.
Myths of ancient civilizations also throw doubt on Fukuyama's assertions. Some of the earliest deities worshipped by humans were female, but they were hardly the nurturing earth mothers imagined by many scholars. The archaic goddesses unearthed from Mediterranean and Mesopotamian ruins or recalled in Mesoamerican mythology were huntresses and avid consumers of blood sacrifices, often accompanied or represented by predators such as lions and leopards. Only later were these terrifying deities "tamed" through marriage to patriarchal male gods and reassigned to agricultural duties. Although the characteristics of the archaic goddesses tell us nothing about the roles of actual women, they do suggest a time when the association of manhood with violence and femininity with gentleness was not as self-evident as it has seemed in the modern age.
MACHO MAN
Whatever our genetic and prehistoric cultural legacies, women in the past two centuries have more than adequately demonstrated a capacity for collective violence. They have played a leading role in nonmilitary violence such as eighteenth- and nineteenth-century bread riots and revolutionary uprisings, in which they were often reputed to be "foremost in violence and ferocity." In World War II, the Soviet military deployed them as fighter pilots and in ground combat. Since then, women have served as terrorists and guerrilla fighters in wars of national liberation. More to the point, women have proved themselves no less susceptible than men to the passions of militaristic nationalism: witness feminist leader Sylvia Pankhurst, who set aside the struggle for suffrage to mobilize English support for World War I by, for example, publicly shaming men into enlisting. Fukuyama concedes that, among ######### of government, Margaret Thatcher is an exception to his gender dichotomy but ignores the many exceptions on the male side of the ledger -- such as the antimilitaristic, social-democratic Olaf Palme and Willy Brandt. Nor does he mention the gender of the greatest pacifist leaders of the twentieth century, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mohandas K. Gandhi.
But perhaps Fukuyama would concede all of the above, for in the end he has little use for his own dubious claims about the inherent aggressiveness of men and niceness of women. Up until the last three pages of his essay, one might assume that he was gearing up to demand solely masculine leadership, if not participation, in the arenas of politics and war. But no. Women in the military? His only objection has to do with ####### as an activity rather than a category, which leads him to the mild suggestion that men and women should be segregated into separate combat units. As for political leadership, he worries a little that the female, and hence over-kindly, ######### of state who arise in the northern democracies will be a poor match for the macho young males whom he expects to dominate the south. But even here he quickly backtracks, admitting, "Masculine policies will be still be required, though not necessarily masculine leaders."
If, as Fukuyama concludes, either ####### can be "masculine" in both admirable and execrable ways, what is the point of his essay, with its lengthy excursion into the supposedly murderous habits of cavemen and chimps? Perhaps Fukuyama is right about one thing: Whatever the innate psychological differences between the sexes, a certain male propensity for chest-thumping persists, and can be found among desk-dwelling American scholars as well as alpha apes.
Barbara Ehrenreich is an author and lecturer whose essays have appeared frequently in Time, The Nation, and The Guardian. Her most recent book is Blood Rites.

Post: #10
Title: Another reply
Author: nada ali
Date: 12-12-2003, 03:47 PM
Parent: #1

PERILOUS POSITIONS
By R. Brian Ferguson
In his desire to prove that world conflicts have a basis in biology, Fukuyama makes a number of outright errors.
First, chimpanzees do not "routinely" murder their peers. The famous incident at Gombe that Fukuyama refers to occurred only after major human-induced changes, most important of which was the researchers' artificial provisioning of bananas. Other reported instances of "chimp wars" also took place in stressful situations. Primatologist Margaret Power offers a contrasting view: "Virtually everywhere that they were studied by naturalistic methods, undisturbed wild chimpanzees live peacefully in nonaggressive, nonhierarchical groups." Fukuyama fails to note that the lesser-known bonobos are as closely related to humans as chimpanzees and display no tendencies to collective violence.
A debate rages within the anthropology of war about the relationship between the high rates of violence observed in tribal societies and the behavior of our distant ancestors. Fukuyama takes one side. On the other, copious evidence documents dramatically increasing violence after Western contact. Disruptive factors -- new weapons, trade rivalries, demand for slaves, and forced migrations -- transformed and intensified indigenous warfare. This higher-level carnage has been incorporated into our theories and images of "primitive war." War leaves many recoverable archaeological signs, and global findings are straightforward and consistent: Evidence of war is rare until long after a shift to agriculture and the development of hierarchical social systems. War emerges late in human history because it is difficult to organize without authority. Fukuyama's conclusion that "the line [of collective violence] from chimp to modern man is continuous" is a breathtaking leap over a mountain of contrary evidence.
On the connection between violence, gender, and age, Fukuyama's position is again perilous. A 1993 review of aggression literature concludes, "In laboratory studies of human aggression, where the use of physical aggression is controlled and the possibility of escalation of violence is eliminated, there is little difference in the frequency of aggression in males and females." The evolutionary psychology Fukuyama follows claims that most violence is done by young men. The study cited to support this human universal is based on contemporary homicide statistics, primarily from Detroit. Crime patterns in modern industrial cities tell us no more about our distant past than do statistics on automobile fatalities. Ethnographic data on war in tribal societies provides an entirely different picture. War leadership and killing are usually tasks of middle-aged (by local standards) family men, while young men go along as apprentices.
Men make war. There are important exceptions, but they are rare. Yet women are often among the most vocal advocates of war, making a gendered disposition to peace hard to support empirically. Why not more women warriors? Because war is work, and all tribal societies have pronounced, gender-specific divisions of labor. Women get tasks compatible with pregnancy and child-rearing; men get those that put a premium on strength and endurance. Tribal men also get the job of long-distance trade, but no one claims men have a gene for shopping.
Fukuyama asserts that having viewed "international relations through the lens of ####### and biology . . . it is very difficult to watch Muslims and Serbs in Bosnia, Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, or militias from Liberia and Sierra Leone to Georgia and Afghanistan . . . and not think of the chimps at Gombe." This is ridiculous and misleading. Recent world conflicts have occurred in an intricate political field complicated by the intersection of local structures and global forces. Fukuyama replaces this understanding with a crude discussion of chimp behavior, aggressive young men, and biological tendencies.
R. Brian Ferguson is Associate Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University.
PREHISTORY RETURNS
By Lionel Tiger
A remarkably valuable feature of Fukuyama's essay is that he admits he was wrong -- not by acknowledging that the earlier approaches to macropolitics with which he made his reputation were incorrect but by emphasizing the bizarre distinction made between natural and social sciences. This has let social scientists believe they can conduct research quarantined from neurophysiology, paleoanthropology, genetics, endocrinology, and the comparative study of animal behavior. It is now overwhelmingly clear that, however complex, humans are subject to the same rules as other species and thus that human studies should not work in isolation. It was recently revealed that only 50 genes distinguish us from chimpanzees -- with whom we otherwise share some 100,000.
Fukuyama has moved from the "end of history" to the beginning of prehistory, a study that will soon be required for contemporary political history. He understands that much of feminist theory entails profound disruptions in how human beings have always balanced production, reproduction, and civil society. Fukuyama's appropriation of prehistory lets him recognize that the overwhelming mass of traditional political analysis -- even when described as "human behavior" -- has been about the behavior of males.
Feminism has produced two contradictory assertions: first, that men and women are the same and that any important behavioral differences result from discrimination, sexism, and patriarchy; second, that women are different and morally better than men. The first assertion is employed most often by lawyers, who conclude that there should be as many women in any job, sport, club, party, or cabinet as there are in the relevant population. The second assertion is made by Carol Gilligan, whose In a Different Voice proposes that girls pursue moral behavior and social harmony better than boys because, well, because they are girls. The fact that sexual differentiation in negotiating strategies also emerges in other primates does not affect the feminine sentimentality that propelled Gilligan's work to prominence. Other writers, including feminists such as Katha Pollitt and Christina Hoff Sommers, criticized the Gilligan approach. Nevertheless, it stimulated efforts to restrict male behavior, stigmatize males as generally brash and insensitive, and claim that girls suffer from low self-esteem because they conform to male wishes. That women generally do better than men in the educational system and now compose 55 percent of the college population does nothing to discourage such zealous misinterpretation.
Fukuyama acknowledges the genetic male propensity to competition and violence. In our 1971 The Imperial Animal, Robin Fox and I proposed that the central question of any social system is "What do we do with the young males?" The question remains central today, especially in economies unable to generate jobs for them. Fukuyama suggests that the introduction of more women into the controlling systems of society, especially in politics, will give a pacific tone to national and international action. For this view, he cites some opinion-poll data about the support for military adventure, examines the behavior of the few female leaders involved in military decision-making, and could have noted the preference of many females in contemporary militaries for "operations other than warfare."
But though Fukuyama's forecast that political change will accompany changes in the sexual composition of leadership is plausible, the picture remains conjectural. There is no empirical evidence of large-scale, long-term social structures that have been created and maintained exclusively or even largely by females. The overworked myth of matriarchy notwithstanding, we do not have good examples of groups of women engaged over generations in creating and sustaining public organizations such as armies, religions, police forces, or even international businesses. It remains an open question if there is a female equivalent to the omnipresent male bonding that encourages the alloy of assertion and self-sacrifice at the heart of a community's central power structure. The political gender gaps emerging in liberal democracies certainly suggest the beginnings of such edifices.
It is possible, even if unlikely, that one response to greater female influence will be greater male belligerence and even violence against them. At the same time that the Taliban restricts women from kindergarten, radical activists restrict women from abortion in the United States. In the contemporary world, there is nowhere for women and children to go. We receive daily bulletins about the bewilderingly lethal intransigence of male leaders committed to some program of desperate importance to them. The struggle for social control may be one that women choose not to take up.
Lionel Tiger is Darwin Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University. His next book is The Decline of Males.
STATES MAKE WAR
By Jane S. Jaquette
Fukuyama gives insufficient weight to the dynamics of the nation-state system in explaining both war and peace. Wars start not in biology -- instinctual male aggression -- but in realpolitik -- a state's need to defend itself from outside threats. War does not come naturally to humans. Men must be trained to fight and kill others, and all people must be taught patriotism. States go to great lengths to demonize their enemies.
State power explains the brutality of internal ethnic conflicts such as those in Bosnia and Rwanda. Fukuyama mistakenly cites these examples to hammer home his equation of humans with murderous chimps. But control of the state involves high stakes, with winners deciding how laws are made, taxes applied, and access provided to economic and educational opportunities. Unsurprisingly, competition is fierce when the incentives are so large.
Fukuyama suggests that women are more pacifistic than men. Several decades of research shows that women do differ from men regarding war. Women are markedly less interested in and knowledgeable about it. Women prefer lower military expenditures in times of peace and negotiations instead of force. But this does not mean that women are unaggressive; they can sometimes be more aggressive than men. When women are allowed to carry arms, they are often fierce fighters, as was true of many Central and South American guerrillas. Once war commences, there is little evidence that women withhold support from the male-dominated state. Today many women receive military training and press to go into combat -- not to satisfy their hardwired desire to kill but to succeed in military careers that require proving oneself on the battlefield.
If women are more inclined to negotiation, what difference does it make? The cliche Fukuyama cites is that more women leaders would mean more peace. But female leaders face the same pressures as men. For every Mary Robinson or Gro Harlem Brundtland who has made peacemaking a focus of her leadership (and who probably represents a small European state that can afford to promote peace because it relies on the protection of larger powers), there is an Indira Gandhi or Margaret Thatcher leading a major power that uses force to achieve its foreign policy and domestic goals.
But these women may have been forced into male posturing because there are so few female leaders. If there were a critical mass of women leaders or if nation-state sovereignty gave way to international law, the argument goes, international relations would include less interstate competition and more global cooperation. This would spotlight social issues and organizations in which women already play important roles. As women's traditional concerns become top priority issues, women's say in foreign policy debates will rise.
Jane S. Jaquette is Professor of Politics and Chair of Diplomatic and World Affairs at Occidental College.

Post: #11
Title: Re: تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح
Author: Nada Amin
Date: 12-12-2003, 03:49 PM
Parent: #1

ندى فيكي الخير كنت حأطلب منك تنزلي لينا مقالة Women and the Evolution of World Politics
أسامة الخواض الموضوع جميل و أنا متابعه النقاش، شكرا.

Post: #12
Title: Re: تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح
Author: nada ali
Date: 12-12-2003, 03:57 PM
Parent: #1

شكرا يا ندى,
فعلا موضوع هام
فقط احب ان اضيف انه بالطبع لاتوجد مقارنة بين اقتراح الأستاذ أسامة الخواض و كتابات فوكوياما. أجد كلام الخواض اقرب للمعنى الذى اورده درويش فى قصيدته

Post: #13
Title: Re: تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح
Author: bunbun
Date: 12-12-2003, 05:26 PM
Parent: #12

هسة اخوات نسيبة الشرسات الشينات ديلك فرقهم شنو من السفاحين الرجال

Post: #14
Title: Re: تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح
Author: تراث
Date: 12-12-2003, 11:20 PM
Parent: #13

أوافق يااسامة
وحينها سنسلم أنفسنا طوعية لتلك الأجهزة اذا كان تعذيبها من ذلك النوع الذي نعتبره ألذ من أكل الزبيب .

Post: #15
Title: Re: تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح
Author: نصار
Date: 13-12-2003, 00:00 AM
Parent: #1

تراث اهو اتجندرت زينا لووول
فى زول/ة سامعن/اـ ى ؟؟

Post: #16
Title: Re: تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح
Author: الجندرية
Date: 13-12-2003, 09:04 AM
Parent: #15

وفايت اضانا يا نصار
وان شاء الله عثمان تراث تسلط عليه واحدة من عينة ........... ولا بلاش ما بهون علي برضو ابو الاولاد
بعدين يا اسامة
الموضوع التأنيث دا ما عنده علاقة بجنس المسئول / ة
هسي لو عينوا حفصة حيكنوا انثوا الجهاز ؟

Post: #17
Title: Re: تأنيث أجهزة الأمن السودانية-ما رأيكم\ن في هذا الاقتراح
Author: osama elkhawad
Date: 13-12-2003, 06:59 PM
Parent: #1

Quote: انظر\ي الى هذه الاكليشيهات المرعبة التي تمجد الحرب والغلظة والقسوة:
الكلية الحربية مصنع الرجال
اغلى الدموع هي دموع الرجال

شكرا للمتداخلات اولا ,

وليس هذا من باب الاتيكيت الذكوري الثعلبي "Ladies First"
وانما لان هذا البوست قصد به الاحتفاء بالانوثة كقيمة راقية ومرهفة في الانسانية واللطافة بالمفهوم الصوفي المضاد للكثافة

والشكر ثانيا للمتداخلين الذكور الذين بالفة الحوار دخلوا البوست فاضاؤوه

ظلت فكرة الانوثة في العقل الذكوري مرتبطة بالضعف واللاعقلانية والعاطفة
وبعد الانقلاب التاريخي الذي انهى العصر الامومي, اصبحت فكرة الانوثة هي المبرر الذكوري لاضطهاد المراة والانقاص من شانها وتقييد مشاركتها ومساهمتها الاجتماعية والسياسية والاقتصادية

وتم الاعلاء من شان القيم الذكورية المرتبطة بالقوة والعنف وادعاء العقلانية
وتجاهلت تلك العقلية الذكورية ان الانسان ذكرا كان ام انثى هو\هي مركب من الذكورة والانوثة معا
فقط تختلف النسبة

اذن الانوثة مكون اساسي من المكونات البشرية,
فكيف لعاقل ان يحتقر جزءا اساسيا من ذاته؟؟؟

وطور هذا الفهم البيولوجي العالم النفسي كارل جوستاف يونغ في حديثه المدهس عن الانيما"الانوثة"و الذكورة"الانيموس"
وان النموذج البدئي " Archtype" للرجل هو الانيما اي الانوثة وللمراة هو الانيما اي الانوثة

تاريخ التطور البشري لا يمكن النظر اليه في كل مستوياته بدون التطرق لمسالة الجندر والعقلية البطريركية في كل تجلياتها البشعة
دعونا نلامس بعضا من تلك العقلية البطريركية في مجتمعنا السوداني:

انظر\ي الى هذه الاكليشيهات المرعبة التي تمجد الحرب والغلظة والقسوة:
الكلية الحربية مصنع الرجال
اغلى الدموع هي دموع الرجال
؟؟؟؟؟
وساعود لاحقا
المشاء