In my opinion, International Relations would operate differently if most leaders of states were women. Maybe for the better, maybe for the worse but things would definitely be different. In order to determine how drastic the differences may be in relation to male leaders, we may have to take each woman player’s background, self-interests, and beliefs into consideration. After thorough research, I feel we would discover that women gender plays an important role in all aspects of life.
In an analysis by Joseph Nye at www. scotsman. com, he states that, “As mothers, women have evolutionary incentives to maintain peaceful conditions in which to nurture their offspring. Skeptics immediately reply that women have not made war simply because they have rarely been in power. ” According to the article titled If Women Ruled the World, we must keep in mind that “90% of the folks who are in jail are male. Men are much more likely than women to develop their aggressive side.
The male hormones, androgen and testosterone; male physical strength; the cultural mandate that men be warriors; the societal conditioning of men to avoid tender feelings; the evolution of an economic system that rewards competition rather than co-operation; and the expectation, until quite recently, that the male be the bread-winner: all these factors have combined to push aggression in the male and to discourage the development of relationality, spirituality, and an emotional life that can contain fear and sadness as well as anger.
This information alone is evidence that men behave differently than women, especially where leadership is the main topic. If most states leaders were women, it is believed that the United States would not waste its resources on foreign wars to protect American business interests and to support our poor habits of consumption. Instead, the money would be used for education, for service to the most vulnerable among us, for the strengthening of our infrastructure, both human and material.
Additionally, competition would belong to the world of sport and games, but in other human endeavors, other values would prevail, such as co-operation, excellence, integrity, character, skill, patience, care, and compassion. On the contrary, it is stated online at www. telegraph. com in an article titled “If Women Ruled the World” that “The myth that women are the less aggressive sex is disproved every day, in ordinary social intercourse. Introduce a room full of men to each other and they will quickly find a common interest – usually sport – around which to bond.
Introduce a room full of women and they will circle round each other like hungry lionesses, trying to decide who should be admitted to the pride and who should be eaten for dinner. Power-hungry and ruthless women litter the pages of history: I give you Boadicea, Elizabeth I, Cleopatra and Margaret Thatcher, for starters. If it's mere financial mismanagement you're after, the credit crunch has exposed plenty of flawed female bankers – even "superwoman" Nicola Horlick allowed one of the funds she manages to invest heavily with the fraudulent Bernard Madoff.
However, there are many different views, theories and debates regarding this topic. As stated in the book International Relations, “Difference feminists do not think women do all things as well as men or vice versa. ” Women tend to be perceived as better leaders due to their nurturing nature and conflict resolutions in the home. However, the nurturing behavior of most women is not of nature, but learned through cultural experiences.
And since nurturing is a learned behavior, it does not belong to just one gender. Liberal feminists believe men and women are equal and essential differences between them do not exist. While they believe women should be included in international affairs, they do no believe that much would be different. Finally, a postmodern feminist would claim that it would depend on the particular person due to their belief that no one trait can be attributed solely to a man or a woman.