Since women are not so aggressive as men, there is a view that disputes between nations won’t be much dangerous if high seats of power are held by women.

• How far can you support or oppose this view?

Not many people would deny the fact that women are less aggressive than men. Therefore, if women are in power, international disputes may become much less damaging. All the practical difficulties notwithstanding, I am inclined to support the idea greatly.

Let me try to substantiate the view by pointing out a general proposition. It is a fact that women are the victims of all types of aggression, emanating either from domestic surroundings or from international disputes. Naturally, they are bound not to be confrontational. For example, women have the will to think in terms of consequences whereas jingoistic men have the “come what may” attitude when it comes to disputes. This is not only dangerous; rather it is devastating in today’s world of international tensions.

However, the fact remains. How many women are going to hold offices of power so that the world could be made less dangerous? Obviously, their number is very small. How about holding those highest offices of power which demand extreme will and acumen? Not many women would say ‘yes’ to it. And, finally, is an all- women-run world is going to be appreciated by all men of the world? No. All these practical difficulties cannot that easily surmounted very easily because running nations is a highly demanding responsibility.

So, looking at the view from both the angles, I tend to support greatly the idea that women diplomats are much less damaging than men in many counts. However, it is not that easy, though, to envisage such a danger-free world run by women of great calibre.

Ajaypeesdoc.
260 words