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)