If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Fairly dodgy ground if you ask me, I think there are far more crucial factors that influence foreign policy than the sex of the person who runs the country.
When you think about it deeply and honestly, it is morally wrong for nations to capture and own pieces of land in outside their territory that have been forever lived on by a different people and culture. And the only reason for nations to hang on to such territories is nationalistic pride.
While no doubt there are some women who think along those lines, I should think, for instance, that far more women than men would answer if asked that they don't really give much of a fuck about how owns the Falklands or even Northern Ireland (as the British example- the same would be true IMO in most other nations and their respective territories).
Then is the issue of the armed forces. Most Western nations have amassed a level of firepower many times greater than what is actually required to defend one's territorial integrity. Like many blokes, I like looking at and discussing military hardware and would love to see the latest state-of-the-art fighter jet joining my country's air force and so on, but the truth is that if one is honest with oneself it all amounts to 'my toys are better than yours' rather than the country being in desperate need of such weaponry.
What's defined as 'outside their territory'? Parts of Trentino are German-speaking but were annexed by Italy after WWI. In continental Europe especially wars and treaties have changed borders over centuries - when does it become nationalistic pride?
Do you think both have remained British because of male 'nationalistic pride'? I think if we were hanging on to places out of 'nationalistic pride' Malta, Barbados or St Lucia might have made a bit more sense instead of some remote, freezing cold islands in the Atlantic... The Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and NI have remained British because the majority of their inhabitants want it that way. Plenty of male Prime Ministers wouldn't have had much qualm I imagine with a united Ireland if it wasn't doomed to fail in any referendum of the NI people. And Tony Blair would have quite happily paved the way for giving Gibraltar away - if Gibraltarians hadn't reacted with such outrage to the prospect of 'joint sovereignty.'
Yes... because of nationalist pride.
So long as the original owners of the land don't plan to kick out the inhabitants or oppress them, what on earth is the reason, for instance, of the people of Gibraltar to refuse to cede sovereignty to Spain? And for the immense majority of British to feel so defensive about Gibraltar? Because of nationalistic pride. No more, no less.
I expect women living in such territories to be as virulent as the men in their opposition to any change. But I suspect there is a lot less resistance to any suggestions of joint sovereignty amongst women in mainland Britain than there is amongst men. And surely you must know that it all boils down to nationalistic pride, rather than a selfless concern for the right of self-determination of the local inhabitants of a territory.
It all amounts to "Ulster/Gibraltar/Falklands (delete as appropriate) is British! Hands off it!" chest beating attitude. Nothing more.
Or national identity. Gibraltarians do not see themselves as Spanish. Falkland Islanders do not see themselves as Argentinean. Gibraltar has its own individual identity, separate from Britain - and the people of Gibraltar do not see Spanish sovereignty as the best way of preserving it.
Er because they don't want to.
In part, yes. (Which might be why the Spanish cling on to Ceuta and Melilla).
As far as I'm concerned Gibraltar and the Falklands (whilst legally British overseas territories) can return to Spain/Argentina tomorrow - if the inhabitants want it that way. If, on the other hand, they wish to remain part of Britain - we should wholeheartedly support and respect that.
NI is slightly more complex as a significant proportion of the population do not support the status quo. (There is no pro-Spanish/pro-Argentine movement in Gibraltar/Falkland Islands).
But if they really like it so much they can certainly keep it. Nobody has ever suggested forcing people to do anything to their town or customs. Plenty of British people already do so and are allowed to do so by the Spanish in many of the 'colonies' that can be found along the Costas.
Precisely my point. No rational (or real) reason other than infantile nationalistic pride.
Yes, that is also the case. And I for one wouldn't care less if the cities go to Moroccan sovereignty, so long as the locals are not forced out or persecuted afterwards.
As a hypothetical scenario, if the French used military force to invade a chunk of Kent tomorrow, forced Britain to cede it through more military action, and proceeded to build up and populate the area with French people, declaring it a French colony and with its own flag, planted on your land, flying on your face, would you just shrug your shoulders and say "oh well, if the local people choose to remain French who are we to tell them otherwise?"
Slightly unfair. It's not that bad. And Gibraltar is actually culturally and ethnically quite diverse, it's got its own individual identity.
I'm not really sure either Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands are comparable. The latter, certainly was not inhabited when initially discovered by Europeans. And Gibraltar, ethnically is not solely made up of the descendants of British settlers - it's history is a bit more complex.
Regardless, the situation we're in as regards to both Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, is that the majority of people who live there (many for generations) wish to maintain the status quo.
If we were invading countries today and filling them with settlers it would be a different situation and obviously not acceptable. But I think we just have to accept history sometimes. Should the Shetlands go back to Norway? What about the Channel Islands?
This is going to be obnoxious, but you are wrong. Just because females get older it doesn't mean they automatically start loving everyone and their mom.
Females have the exact same capabilities to engage in war as men. As said, methods might be different and I am inclined to say that it would be more of a cold war style than full-blown, but war nonetheless.
To suggest anything else, is demeaning.
Females shouldn't be given jobs cause we're females, but because we're capable.
(I had the same discussion with a professor on the topic of post-colonialism, funnily enough)