Are female presidents less likely to involve their country in wars?

Question

Formerly limited to the realms of political science and feminism, whether female presidents are less likely to involve their country in wars is a topic that is gaining more and more momentum. This is true, in particular, in light of the 2008 Race on the White House, highlighted by the candidacy of U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton. Already the electorate of a number of countries has taken the historical step of electing a female president, including that of Chile, Finland, Germany, India, Ireland, Liberia, Mozambique, New Zealand, Switzerland and The Philippines. Now, it seems the world's currently most powerful country is or might be making a bid to join this still exclusive club.

Do you put any stock in the notion that a female chancellor, president or prime minister is less likely to engage her country in a war? Would the fact that a particular presidential candidate is female influence your decision to vote for her? Explain why or why not.

Answer 1

No.Golda Meier and Margaret Thatcher both led their nations into war.There is no evidence that a leader's gender has anything to with their ability or propensity to take their nation to war.

And a candidate's gender wouldn't influence my vote.My vote is determined by a candidate's political stance,their apparent honesty and moral standing.

Answer 2

Hilary Clinton, for instance, is a woman with a lot of experiences. However and in my view, politics would not suit her as a first woman president of the United States of America. For sure, she is less likely to engage his country in a war. See for example the German chancellor Angela Merkel. As a female politician from a center right party, Merkel has been compared by many in the English as well as the German press to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Some have referred to her as "Iron Lady" (she belongs to the Christian Democratic Union).
I think that Mr. Giuliani (Mayor 9/11) has a chance at winning the presidential election.
But politics matters are more complicated and leaders tend to be manipulated. Why? Because I think that global neo-liberal capitalism is dominated by the international holding companies.
Furthermore, there is nowadays a 'Modus Vivendi'. This consensus permits of an agreement between hostile States in the world within the G8 (or the G8 is driven by a 'Modus Vivendi'). The Group of Eight or G8 is the international forum for the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Do not forget that the G8 leads (controls) the globalization of capital and labor markets, which has put workers into global competition against each other without any scruples about labor conditions, wages and human dignity.
To conclude, I cannot see Hilary Clinton as a representative within the G8 too.

Answer 3

Less likely than to what...lower taxes? Push for a better health care system? Or - are you kidding?
"Frailty, thy name is Woman" is strictly fiction.
It might be different - about getting the country into a war - if the woman president could be one from , say...WWII Europe; or anywhere having lived through a blitzkreig or a fire-bombing.
But, Alas! US Chief Execs must be native-born.

Fortunately, we still have more than a year to decide.

Answer 4

If the U.S. elects Mrs. Clinton she would be more likely to commit troops to a foreign engagement because she knows other govenrments view her as weak on defense.
Regardless of the importance or viablility of any opperation (such as Jimmy Carter's idiotic attempt at the Iranian hostage rescue) she would commit troops to show she isn't afraid to put our servicemen in harm's way.

This is the same woman who DEMANDED that all security details and Honor Guards wear plain clothes while in the White House.

This person HATES the U.S. military.

Answer 5

I doubt it, considering women can be just as conservative as men, Germany's Merkel is a good example. And the world's most powerful country? Arrogant are we? I think Russia, China and India would argue that.

No, Merkel for example is much more likely to go to war than her male predecessor, Schröder, who was ball-less metaphorically and literally. It all depends on the individual. Yes, sex would be an influence, but not for something like 'likeliness to involve their country in wars'.

Answer 6

Some women are tougher than many regular guys, so not necessarily. Just think of Margaret Thacher. The sex of the candidate makes no difference to me.

Answer 7

Well, the gender gap tells us about postive and negative peace, and how men and women typically view peace. However, women are just as likely to commit to war. War isnt necessary a bad thing, if we are forced to war then we need to fight. I think if Hillary is elected and Iran threatened us, that she would try diplomacy (and be better at it than Bush), but if push came to shove she would fight. This is not a bad thing.

Answer 8

No, I think it's insulting for anyone to suggest that women are passive as leaders.
Female leaders can be just as aggressive as male leaders.
And, no, I don't want HIllary to be that leader.

Answer 9

hahaah Hillary would make a fool of us all,hahaha

Answer 10

i don't think it would be bad to have a female president but i think country would be more likely to attack us because they think woman are weaker