Many people believe that if women were in leadership positions, engaged in decision making, nations would work better and there would be less violence and precariousness, and more peace. In this case, I partially agree with the assumption because it depends on leadership quality and not on gender.
In many corners of the world, women are transcending from the traditional role into the public and modern roles. Due to their nonviolent nature, in general, the hypothesis emerged that the globe would be less violent and sustainable under female leadership. This notion has also been put forward due to women’s different opinions and paradigm thought. To illustrate, women, with the paradigm of thoughts, bring different prism of looking at the world, different approaches to analysing problems and different ways of offering remedies. A very good example here is Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Africa’s first female president. She put Liberia back on its feet after 14 years of brutal civil war. Not only did she liberate her countrymen from the horror of civil war, but also stood down for Liberia’s first peaceful transfer of power since the 1940s.
On the contrary, women, many a time, are stereotyped as having an intellectual capacity that is different from men and emotional fortitude to reach the difficult decisions that leadership required. The deep-seated prejudice against women exerts profound influence in making their decisions. In other words, the fear of appearing feeble in fact affects women leaders, which in turn make them prone to waging war. A piece of research carried out by the National Bureau of Military historical research shed some fascinating historical light on this fact. A case in point is Margaret Thatcher. She went to Falklands war so as to save her premiership according to many historians.
To conclude, it has long been perceived that female leaders are less combative than their counterparts, more prone to seek peace than wage war. This is because the women have a different worldview which affects the way they approach a problem and come up with solutions. However, perception is not always grounded in reality. History shines lights on the fact that females are not always as peaceable as their trait suggests.
Many
people
believe that if
women
were in
leadership
positions, engaged in
decision making
, nations would work better and there would be less violence and precariousness, and more peace.
In this case
, I
partially
agree
with the assumption
because
it depends on
leadership
quality and not on gender.
In
many
corners of the world,
women
are transcending from the traditional role into the public and modern roles. Due to their nonviolent nature,
in general
, the hypothesis emerged that the globe would be less violent and sustainable under
female
leadership
. This notion has
also
been put
forward due to
women’s
different
opinions and paradigm
thought
. To illustrate,
women
, with the paradigm of thoughts, bring
different
prism of looking at the world,
different
approaches to
analysing
problems and
different
ways of offering remedies. A
very
good
example here is Ellen Johnson
Sirleaf
, Africa’s
first
female
president. She put Liberia back on its feet after 14 years of brutal civil
war
. Not
only
did she liberate her countrymen from the horror of civil
war
,
but
also
stood down for Liberia’s
first
peaceful transfer of power since the 1940s.
On the contrary
,
women
,
many
a time,
are stereotyped
as having an intellectual capacity
that is
different
from
men
and emotional fortitude to reach the difficult decisions that
leadership
required. The deep-seated prejudice against
women
exerts profound influence in making their decisions.
In other words
, the fear of appearing feeble in fact affects
women
leaders, which in turn
make
them prone to waging
war
. A piece of research carried out by the National Bureau of Military historical research shed
some
fascinating historical light on this fact. A case in point is Margaret Thatcher. She went to Falklands
war
so as to
save her premiership according to
many
historians.
To conclude
, it has long
been perceived
that
female
leaders are less combative than their counterparts, more prone to seek peace than wage
war
. This is
because
the
women
have a
different
worldview which affects the way they approach a problem and
come
up with solutions.
However
, perception is not always grounded in reality. History shines lights on the fact that
females
are not always as peaceable as their trait suggests.