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.
Essay 151
- 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,
there are some unpleasant facts. 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 be surmounted because
running nations is a highly demanding responsibility.
In
short, 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
