Introduction
The human family in all its forms and all its habitat has undergone struggles to restore the world in order and create a peaceful society. As long as we can remember, the struggle to attain security and peace has been reflected in the various lifestyles of the entire humanity. The nation-state remains the largest single component that comprises of human grouping willing to achieve a peaceful coexistence. It has not been easy to maintain peace in the world we live as nations have engaged each other in conflicts. The detrimental effects that resulted from the first and second world wars promoted the people of independent nations to form the United Nations. Reardon (1993) asserts that it was created, “to avoid the scourge of war and create just a lasting peace.”
The closing decades of the twentieth century has witnessed the realization of the meaning of war and the possibilities of peace (Reardon 1993). The UN has played a fundamental role towards the pursuit and conservation of peace. It is obvious that women also played a major role in establishing peace across the globe. For instance, the United Nations International Women’s Decade 1975-85 has help up its voice and visions to raise public awareness of the meaning and the need for peace. In this decade, according to Reardon (1993), the movement set an agenda that, “became the outline of a comprehensive positive peace and demonstrated that, in spite of great obstacles and limitations,” the movement’s mechanism led to the social ambitions of the human family. Undoubtedly, it is women who articulated and pushed this agenda. It is women who proceed further to visualize humane alternatives for the world. From the ancient days, women have condemned war and advocated for social justice and human rights, an element that has reshaped the world and made it better.
The courage and bravery of women towards the resistance to war and the struggle for social justice have contributed to different concepts of positive peace. Women have inspired the society through their visions, aspirations, strivings, sufferings, and frustrations that they have experienced when promoting peace and stability in the society. They have fought oppression and exclusion to unimaginable extents. Throughout time, women have endeavored to attain equality with men socially, economically, and politically. Moreover, they have stressed the importance to recognize the authentic, balancing differences between genders. Because women have called attention on respecting differences that exist between men and women, human equality has been established. Many people have been asking themselves if it is the right time to allow women in politics. Absolutely, an increase of women in elective posts will serve to improve the status of the society.
According to Fukuyama (1998), men and women take part in spreading the stereotypical gender personalities that link men with warfare and rivalry, and women with peace and concern. Jean Bethke is a sophisticated feminist who argued that the traditional dichotomy defines men as “just warriors” and women as ‘beautiful souls” The practices in the society are said to have induced cruelties inside men. In the traditional setup, the society, including women used to send their husbands and sons to fight in the war. Women could not associate themselves with men that lacked the muscular strength and skills to fight in a battle.
In addition, women also took part in questioning the manliness of the men who refused to participate in wars. It is not a good idea to blame men for the violence that occurs in the society. It is unproven that sex differences are determined by nature. In the real sense, both genders are psychologically identical, and the alterations in behaviors may be determined by some preceding social construction embraced in a given culture (ibid). Therefore, both men and women should be given equal opportunities in politics. Treating women as special beings who deserve elective posts will not be helpful. Rather, the social order should be transformed to instill good behaviors to all people.
The role of The United Nations International Women’s Decade (UNDW), 1975-85), irreversibly transformed the universe overall acceptance of women’s submissive status. It created a society with reduced injustices subjected to women. The movement empowered women and as a result, women started participating on public platforms on an equal basis with men. The status of families is improving because of the participating of women in issues that affects the human affair. The role of women in active politics had led to the establishment of equality, development, and peace. Women are ready to sacrifice themselves for the sake of world peace. Nature makes women kind and caring, and this gives them an upper hand in solving problems that affect human existence.
“Women’s Access to Politics and Peaceful States*” article by Regan and Paskeviciute reveals that the participation of more women in politics will create more peace. Regan and Paskeviciute (2003) states that empirical evidence demonstrates “women are more peaceful than men.” As a result, the inclusion of women in politics will compel the use of excessive force in states and international dome. Therefore, time has come for the male in the society to allow the internal distribution of power and authority in all levels of the society. The notion of the ruling elite that they are the only one with the capabilities to transform the society should be discarded. The participation of males in politics has prevailed for a long time, and I feel that it is the time for a change. Regan and Paskeviciute (2003) proclaims that offering job opportunities to women and encouraging more to take control of the political office helps the society to achieve its vision and dreams.
Regan and Paskeviciute (2003) gathers extensive public opinion literature that pinpoints the attitudes of women concerning the use of force vary from those of men. The scholars, therefore, concludes the accessibility of more women to the political office will lessen the use of force within the society. Men are always determined to engage in militarized intestate disputes and fierce battles that lead to destructive of property and massive loss of lives. In addition, women are unwilling to send their children to go to war compared to men. They are not ready to lose a member of the family through engaging in battles that cause loss of human life. If more women access the political office, it is certain that the high rates of war and conflicts across the globe will reduce to high levels (Afshar 2005).
Steans (2006) proposes that women will bring more peace if they dominated the world of politics. She views that women are consistently compelled in practice to explore the necessity for speaking in peace because they are not positioned in areas where decisions about the battles are taken. According to Steans (2006), if the women are not allowed to agitate for peace they would be excluded from speaking on all death and life inquiries that face the species. He views that such scenarios lead to the conscious and subversive use of women’s traditional roles as ‘mothers’. He maintains that such instances highlight that women are refusing to stay on the margins. The women are positioned under the perspectives in which the public disclosure is conducted (ibid).
Steans (2006) claims that the women tend to have some initial persuasion at the first instance, but when they get on the ground with the males, they become competitive as well. Steans (2006) postulates that the Indians have re-elected the female politicians again in the presence of the males, even though they were perceived as weak Women such as Andhra Pradesh have been at the forefront at preaching peace in India. This illustrates the women as mass leaders with incredible social and local comprehension. Steans (2006) emphasizes that it would be great if the women believe in themselves and undermine the male dependency syndrome thereby feminine norms can accrue universal recognition in politics and world affairs (ibid).
Warren (1996) asserts that women will be more peaceful if they dominated the political scene. The traditional battles were men’s issues and that the ethnic women were not allowed to liaise to ambush neighboring villages. Often the women are associated with dynamic motivations to ensure peaceful situations in which to support their kids and assure that their genes survive in the preceding generations. Warren (1996) believes that the women occupied the leadership positions by adhering to the political rules of the ‘man’s community’.
It is their triumph to align to the males’ norms that allowed them to rise to leadership in the first instance. In an era where women could hold the majority of these leadership positions, they would behave differently in authority. Warren (1996) explains that the stereotypes perspectives elucidate why women are peaceful in nature and that authority bestowed on they cannot lure them. Warren (1996) describes the psychological research studies reveal that the men are linked with the hard power of command. On the other hand, women are collaborative in nature and spontaneously comprehend the soft power of authority and persuasion. A majority of the countries often describe leadership with tough male stereotypes. The present studies imply an increased success for what was once described as a ‘feminine style.’
Some people may argue that the assumptions that the world would be more peaceful rely on the traditional opinions that the women are less aggressive and a weaker sex. These arguments can be satisfied by theoretical perspectives. A critical analysis of the behavior of several women who have served important leadership roles would suggest that those who succeed in leadership display traditional masculine characteristics and hence would not ignore this assumption. Carlsnaes, Risse-Kappen & Simmons (2002) says that the militarists’ approach of women such as Thatcher implies that the presumption of peaceful female leaders is not true. In the world is reversed and that the men halt to hold authoritative political roles and that the opportunity for supposed masculine initiatives was removed, the main factors of wars would still rule the world. Carlsnaes, Risse-Kappen & Simmons (2002) argues that the differences in religions, races and economic resources are viewed as the main triggers of the conflicts in the present conflicts around the globe. Therefore, the exclusion of men from powerful political responsibilities will not solve the guarantee more peace. In the contemporary world, there will be factors that will result in conflicts even though a more pacifying leadership system was implemented (ibid).
Carlsnaes, Risse-Kappen & Simmons (2002) recounts that Fukuyama demonstrates that the familiar evidence that suggests that males are more susceptible to violence than females. Fukuyama opens his article with a chronicle of male chimpanzee behavior. The feminist argues that in a world dominated by females, the world would be more peaceful. His article received a lot of criticisms from Barbara Ehrenreich, Katha Pollit, and Jane Jaquette.
Carlsnaes, Risse-Kappen & Simmons (2002) maintains Jacquette says that Fukuyama gave insufficient conviction to the dynamics of the nation-states system in describing both the war and peace. He says that the wars begin in realpolitik which refers to a nations need to safeguard itself from the outside threats. He reveals that the main should be offered tutorials to master the fighting skills and that the people must be taught patriotism. He believes that the states put more efforts to demonize their rivals. The critic gives illustrations of internal ethnic clashes in Bosnia and Rwanda to explain his argument vividly of his equation of humans with murderous chimps. He relates that control must take high stakes with the victorious ones making judgments on how the laws should be formulated (ibid).
Carlsnaes, Risse-Kappen & Simmons (2002) does not support the arguments that the women are unaggressive. He maintains that the women can be more aggressive if they are allowed to carry firearms during wars. Carlsnaes, Risse-Kappen & Simmons (2002) postulates that the women seek support from the male-dominated state when the war starts. He addresses that in the today’s world the women receive training and stress that they should go to the battles that require persons to prove themselves in the battle fields. Jaquette illustrates that persons such as Magret Thatcher lead countries that necessitate that power is the only way to attaining its foreign policy and domestic goals. If the national independence offered ways to international law, then the world affairs would encompass less interstate competition and more world competition.
Carlsnaes, Risse-Kappen & Simmons (2002) contends that critics such as Pollit perceive disagrees with those of Fukuyama. There exist differences between these two scholars based on the women impact in the world affairs on the peace. Pollit argues that Fukuyama does not address the argument on why the major world modern war has not necessitated the draft that is convenient to the women. Carlsnaes, Risse-Kappen & Simmons (2002) assess that that such types of men are old and not violent in stature.
Carlsnaes, Risse-Kappen & Simmons (2002) reveals Pearce recommends that in his chronicle that installing individuals in the power who don’t convey the genetic disposition can trigger international harm. He reveals that if the species are entrenched in the primitive cells, it is a mandate to react in gene therapy. It is important that the men should display their DNA profiles to assess their behaviors. Pearce asserts that these feminists have ignored violence, competitiveness, and aggression as behavioral topics, and this leads to the adoration of the sociology and anthropology.
Women are different and far much better than men. According to Fukuyama (1998), violence is very common within species of the same kind in the animal kingdom. It has been noted that males are always on the urge to eliminate rival’s offspring and goes ahead to mate with their mother. Fukuyama (ibid) compares chimps and men by asserting that both of them are focused on accomplishing and upholding dominance in the status hierarchies. Males are said to “threaten, plead, cajole, and bribe their fellow chimps to join with them in alliances, and their dominance lasts as long as they can maintain these social connections” (Fukuyama 1998). Men pay close attention to coalition-building to garner more support for their activities. In the process, they end up engaging violence with an objective of expanding their territories wider. On the contrary, the nature of female alliances is distinct from the rest. Women will relate to people they are emotionally attached to and will avoid hurting them. Men, on the other hand, make up alliances for their personal interests. In other words, women often construct effective relationships, while men practice realpolitik.
For an extended period of time, men have coordinated fierce wars that have led to massive loss of lives. For example, the Holocaust, Cambodia, and Bosnia are examples of hostilities full of horror and were planned by men. Therefore, it is clear that men have remained in the front line towards the perpetration of wars. In societies where women dominated men or were comparatively equal, incidences of conflicts have been uncommon. Feminists have therefore argued that men are associated with high levels of aggression, brutality, intense competition, and violence. It is therefore argued that a world where women are given more position in leadership will be a different one. The world that is governed by women will implement different rules. Fukuyama (1998) contends that as women gain power in these countries, the latter should become less violent, daring, modest, and fierce.
The elucidation above illustrates that it will be more peaceful if women dominated politics. Women are soft-hearted creatures willing to improve the status of people within the society without victimization members of the community. Unlike men, women are less aggressive, violent, and less competitive. The personalities and characters of women makes them the right candidates for the elective posts in nations and across the globe. Therefore, time has come for the society to embrace change and offer women the opportunity to occupy elective positions in the available posts. We should reduce the high number of men in political office because they are associated with high levels of aggression, brutality, intense competition, and violence. These traits makes them participate in violent acts that are against the expected norms and standards within the society.
References
Afshar, Haleh, ed (2005). Women and politics in the Third World. Routledge, 2005.
Carlsnaes, W., Risse-Kappen, T., Risse, T., & Simmons, B. A. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of international relations. Sage.
Fukuyama, Francis (1998). "Women and the evolution of world politics." FOREIGN AFFAIRS-NEW YORK- 77:24-40.
Reardon, Betty (1993). Women and peace: Feminist visions of global security. SUNY Press.
Regan, Patrick M., and Aida Paskeviciute (2003). "Women's access to politics and peaceful states." Journal of Peace Research 40.3:287-302.
Steans, J. (2006). Gender and international relations: issues, debates and future directions. Polity.
Warren, K., & Cady, D. L. (Eds.) (1996). bringing peace home: feminism, violence, and nature. Indiana University Press.
