Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!randy
From: randy@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: women as world leaders
Message-ID: <860@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Jul-83 22:17:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.860
Posted: Fri Jul 15 22:17:34 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Jul-83 05:21:16 EDT
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 25

Here's a theoretical question I've been wondering about for some
time and would love to get the opinions of netters on.

Suppose, suddenly, the leaders of the most powerful countries were
women.  Not just the heads of state either, I'm imagining a complete
reversal of the current predominance of men at all levels of
government.  Now, do you think the chances for peace would be any
greater?  (If nothing else, it would certainly be worth a try.  Us
men have had our turn and the results are pretty dismal, though
not totally hopeless.)

One standard response points to current and recent leaders like
Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir as examples of women who seem no
more peace-inducing then their male counterparts.  It may be,
however, that male-dominated governments filter out all but these
kinds of women in the early stages.  Perhaps it all comes down to
the question of whether women are in general less aggressive and
more willing to negotiate than men.  But then again, perhaps it
doesn't.  Comments?

		- Randy
-- 
Randy Trigg
...!seismo!umcp-cs!randy (Usenet)
randy.umcp-cs@udel-relay (Arpanet)