By Jack Kelly

“ This is my rifle {holding up rifle}, this is my gun {pointing to crotch}; ones’ for killing, the other’s for fun”(Goldstein).  By starting out with this particular quote in the text, from a soldier, I am trying to set a certain type of perceived tone for this essay.  I must confess, as a male, I love that quote.  It may have something to do with my testorone being released as I envision myself hanging with friends and simply “clowning around” before a hockey game in High School.  But, either way, I like the quote.  There seems to be something so genuinely male about it.  In one sentence it almost explains the childlike approach men can sometimes have towards hostile situations.  When I look at this example, it is quite difficult to find the female equivalent, as far as quotes would go.  Trying to dissect and think about females in the context of International relations and their effect, I must admit, is more difficult then previously thought.  Do I think a foreign policy dominated by females may act differently as opposed to the current system that is predominantly male? My answer is yes and no.

Although, there are females throughout history who have performed admirably in “male” tasks such as combat, Joan of Arc rallying French troops to defeat England comes to mind (Goldstein), it is still extremely difficult to completely equalize the genders, at least in a physical sense.   This is not a statement for equality, but a statement of physical fact, in most cases.  For example, in the four major American sports, Baseball, Hockey, Football and Basketball, there is not one female participant.  One of the reasons for this, again on a physical sense, is that, for the most part, women would not be physically able to compete in those sports.  A liberal feminist would most likely, harshly disagree.  The liberal feminist may argue that this example is trivial, and if given the opportunity, would become nonexistent (Goldstein).  It would be a great debate and a debate that is refreshing to consider on many levels.

One of the things that I am looking for is; can a person favor women in positions of ultimate power or a major actor on the international stage and still take the position as a realist and concede that, on the physical level and certainly not mental or speaking in terms of true equality of opportunity, women most likely will continue to participate in less numbers than men during combat in times of war.  And if the majority of major policy makers or actors on the international stage were women, would this effect International policy?   In regards to questions of women being the majority in major policy making roles, I would tend to favor the attitudes of the liberal feminists.

There is no evidence to suggest that women would be weaker or more nurturing when it comes to decisions such as war or trade.  In fact, some recent cases may suggest women have been just as hostile as any male leader in all of world history.  Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir and Tansu Ciller all led aggressive wars against other countries.  In Thatcher’s case, she authorized a war against Argentina to recover land, which in itself could be looked at as a“ testosterone” act (Goldstein).

In my previous example of the four major American sports, my focus was on the physical liabilities of most women as opposed to their male counterparts.  In this example, I would be favoring the difference feminism approach.   The difference feminism approach essentially concludes that women do not perform or do things as well as men or vice versa.  So, in regards to combat, women may still have reduced numbers because, for the most part, women in the physical sense cannot perform those duties as well as men.   Also, the difference feminist approach would look to the advantages and disadvantages of the genders to either highlight or exploit for weakness.

Even historical women in power have tried and used conventional stereotypes to convince men, or embarrass them through ridicule of there “manhood”.  A perfect and recent example of this would be when former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher essentially attacked former U.S. president George H.W. Bush “manhood” by stating “ Don’t go all wobbly on us, George” (Goldstein).  It seems Thatcher had no such qualms about being a realist and bringing “good old” male “jabbing” as a means to convince President Bush to take a harsher stand and attack Sadam Hussein in Iraq.  But you can clearly assume that Thatcher, as Prime Minister of a major world power, believed in equal rights and equal opportunity for women, and saw zero distinction for women in power.

In conclusion, it is my belief that if the majority of the International power brokers or actors were women, we would have very little change.  In reference to world leaders, I believe that women, based on the evidence, would be neither more or less inept as males in deciding issues such as conflict, war, trade and other highly difficult foreign policy decisions.  These women would be representing their country’s best interest and would act in accordance of their respective countries mandate, just as a male leader would.  In regards to combat, I would tend to agree with the realist and the difference feminist by concluding that men should and will, carry out most combat missions.  This is not to conclude that certain women may be able to physically fit the profile and then, and only then, may they participate in combat, but it should not be a mandated policy by the U.S or any other country.