With so much changing so quickly in the world, why on earth are women still seems as “distractions” to some of the most important conversations of our time?
—-
There are a lot of important and positive conversations happening at the Nuclear Security Summit held in the Hague on March 2014 and 2015. Tasked with the huge goal of preventing terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear material, 35 of the 53 nations who took part in the Summit reached an agreement pledging to turn international guidelines on nuclear security into national laws. The initiative also seeks to create an international legal framework to thwart nuclear terrorism by getting countries to commit to open their security procedures to independent reviews. According to AP/Mint Press news, this was “hailed by experts as the meeting’s most significant achievement.” U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said the guidelines agreed to are “the closest things we have to international standards for nuclear security.”
So what are outdated, stereotypical and harmful gender patterns doing at a place like this?
According to The Independent, in an article titled “A serious affair: Why are women not allowed to serve lunch at the Nuclear Security Summit in the Hague“, the catering company was trying to make sure their personnel was acting in a “reserved” manner, and “you can’t achieve that by adding a couple of pretty, conspicuous ladies to the mix.”
This is not a case about a lunch where women are not allowed into the room because they might be distracting. This is a case of a world where women are not allowed into a room because they might be distracting.
Doesn’t this seem like exactly the type of stereotype about men that we want to change? That men who are making important decisions about nuclear terrorism at the UN cannot be served lunch by women because it is “too distracting”? That men can make the some of the most important decisions in the world—but not if there are women around? That men can’t be trusted for a minute to pay attention to the task at hand if there is a “pretty lady” around?
Here is what some men in our community have to say about it:
“#Women “too distracting” to serve lunch to men at #UN (font of #humanrights) I give Up” @katgallow http://t.co/gXDrzZReBz #cdnpoli #G7
— Richard Anderson (@RicksDesk) March 26, 2014
—
Shawn Allen Says more about the men than the women IMO.
Chris Hicke This is honestly just funny. These people are supposed to be the first line of defense against nuclear war, but the mere possibility of a cute girl walking by is too great a risk. They’re a bunch of freaking children.
Shawn Allen This is how the Illiad started…
Tsach Gilboa Insulting indeed that we are still buying into the myth that men cannot possibly think with their big heads when women are around and are irresistibly and uncontrollably taken over and dictated to by the small head. Do not know any men like that but I’m sure they are out there running countries, companies. large and small, and making life and death decisions for millions. Good thing we make sure there are no women around to distract them and create a nuclear holocaust while they’re eating.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad freeDanny Gibbs Quite insulting.
What do you think?
—
Photo: AP / Bart Maat
Like someone correctly noted above, if the staff had been all women, it would still have led to controversy. Anyway, men better watch out next time a female obgyn hands them their baby, or a female driver gets in her car to be serviced, or a female hands them a mike at a seminar lest they land into trouble. Oh, and we really should re-think whether it is prudent to have female air-hostesses or female nurses, what if the male pilots or doctors got distracted!
What does that say about men?
Nothing whatsoever. I don’t recall that the UN Nuclear Security council (or whoever organized this thing) asked me or any of my friends about who should serve lunch there.
To take place at this summit you basically have to be old, privileged, patriarchical, dominant and conservative. It is not a fair sample of men at large, and therefore cannot even have a bearing on the whole of men in a statistical sense, as correlation.
Damn straight.
Actually, it says something about men. Not about how men behave, or who we are, but about how we can expect to be treated. That is, we can expect that we will be addressed aggressively about our possible wrongdoing, whether or not we have done anything wrong.
Defamation of men as a group putting attitudes and thoughts into the mouths of men who are never asked, can be taken as fact, nowadays, in a way that defamation of women will not.
And such “facts” are assumed, without any analysis, to have negative effects mainly on women, and not on men.
I think men will make up any excuse they can to keep women from entering positions of power and influence that are reserved for men. And since men are in power they can make any excuse they want and it have weight, not be questioned, and reflect the target of the abuse instead of the abuser. Men may not like the idea of creating a perspective in which they cannot control themselves because their sex drive, I”m sorry, I mean women, are too strong of a temptaion, but they’ll be the first to jump at the chance to use it… Read more »
And yet more bigotry from Lynn.
Yes. And it grieves me deeply that this kind of expression of hate of men (all men, mind you) is accomodated on this website. To be honest, those postings of Lynn’s strike me like a hammer blow in the face, and at times make me feel profoundly unsafe.
i reckon, it is an crude alter ego of a regular commenter. very funny parody of an overly earnest young man ( yes i said man for a reason)
Franky, I don’t think so. I’ve seen a number of false-flag sockpuppets on discussion boards, and they all jump the shark towards the end of their posting, or after a few postings, and give themselves away by pushing things too far. If Lynn were one of those I would expect to read something like “Btw., I think men should not be allowed to take part in political actions at all, because they are animals and just create wars, but women will heal this tortured planet.” Therefore I reckon she is for real. Unfortunately.
@ Lynn
“I think men will make up any excuse they can to keep women from entering positions of power and influence that are reserved for men.”
Might I suggest the roasted chicken Madam. Yes, you’ve influenced me and I am powerless against it. If you feel serving lunch is a position of power and influence, might I suggest that the problem may be less men keeping women from positions of power and influence and more women not knowing what power and influence are?
Right, there seems to be a woman in the group being served. So by some odd logic this is a step forward, right? All men serving a group that is nominally mixed…
I really do think it really is unconsciously about luxury and traditions of male servants being more luxurious than female servants. Even if the original call for *that* tradition was bout excluding women from entering prestigious buildings. The whole concept is reaching for significance where it is lost.
If women are excluded, how do you explain Margaret Thatcher, Janet Reno, Janet Neopolitano, Dianne Feinstein or any of the other politicians who are just the flip side of their male colleagues? Hillary Clinton is no different than her husband. They are both sociopaths who despise anything not under their control. Do you really think a female President would not send kids off to war, or a female CEO would not lay off workers or outsource jobs for profits?
Don’t go too far there. Women are still systematically undermined in politics. But I do think you are right that the women who succeed at getting elected are not necessarily the ones that might bring the best version of a feminine perspective to bear on issues. It is all well and good to invite the women who want to join the boys, but maybe, for good governance, we need even the women who really would rather not, and eventually even the guys who really would rather not… I think countries like India are better at gender integrated politics because their… Read more »
Jeez this is depressing.
And one small request for Chris Hicke, if we are going to have a discussion that talks about *men*, can we use the word *women* instead of calling *men*, *men* and *women*, *girls*. Often I see women referred to as girls when what we are really talking about is *women*.
Both sides are missing a central point: The UN is a foreign governing body that has no Constitutional basis to even exist on American soil, let alone dictate policy. Like any beauracracy over time it has become top heavy, inefficient, heavy handed and corrupt. It has also become a home to countries openly hostile to America and a financial burden we can no longer afford to bear. I would urge any country that wishes to retain their freedom and sovereignty withdraw from it ASAP. Every President who has allowed it to exist on our soil is guilty of treason.
This is all based on assumptions about what the catering company could be trying to convey in its interpretation of the definition of uniform. As the above poster noted, it is stupid to assume there are not already women in the room. So I doubt the catering company did so. Did it occur to anyone that being served by men is a higher-prestige marker in a lot of traditions (cf Downton Abbey). So maybe this is not about sex, but about money. Traditionally men cost more. If you are asked to keep something uniform, and you want to impress people,… Read more »
Besides if they decided to go with a female staff, they might well have been judged for trying to use the women as eye-candy. There is no winning, every decision has some implication except perhaps for mixed pairs.
Now that’s an interesting comment and a good question.
If they had chosen an all female staff would the “outrage” have just flipped and been about “why are women being used as eye candy” or “why were women chosen to serve and not men?”
Nice! Anything I’d have written would have been more confrontational.
I fail to see how a gender specific staff, either way, makes any sense.
And, correct me if I’m wrong – isn’t that one of those distracting females on the podium? However did they get anything done? and how’d she make it through lunch?
From what I heard the requirement was that the serving staff was EITHER all men or all women.
“The summit’s spokesperson Daphne Kerremans confirmed that the request was made for the serving staff to appear uniform. It was left up to the caterer to decide whether to staff the plenary events with either all men, or all women.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/why-are-women-not-allowed-to-serve-lunch-at-the-nuclear-security-summit-in-the-hague-9213150.html
Would it have been better if they had excluded men? Funny thing is I bet these same people complaining have no problem when the U.N. or member nations create social programs for women only.