As this chapter's discussion of the individual-level of analysis tells us, gender is a factor that needs to be taken into consideration when studying world politics. The difference (or lack thereof) between male and female leadership has been a heated debate for centuries. Most discussions of gender and leadership tend to center around two themes: (1) leadership and negotiation styles; and (2) concept formation and policy construction. This chapter debate will deal with the former, as the debate box in Chapter 5 of your text deals with the latter, specifically in terms of defining national security. Although it is often difficult to completely separate the two, we will focus here on whether or not women negotiate and communicate in ways significantly different than men, allowing for women to resolve conflict differently and perhaps even better.

A recent UN Security Council Resolution speaks to this debate directly. Resolution 1325, adopted in October 2000, was a landmark step in raising awareness of the impact of armed conflict on women and girls and in acknowledging the vital role of women's agency in conflict resolution and peace-building. For the first time in the history of the United Nations, the Security Council formally decided on a gender issue, setting a new threshold of action for the Security Council, the UN system, and for all governments. This watershed political framework, using the term gender mainstreaming , calls for and makes gender (and, accordingly, the involvement of women) relevant to negotiating peace agreements, planning refugee camps and peacekeeping operations, reconstructing war-torn societies, and ultimately making gender equality relevant to every single Security Council action. The idea behind this resolution is not only that is it more fair and just to include women in international negotiations and conflict resolution, but that it is also advantageous to include women for the different voice and approaches that they bring to the negotiation table. But do women really negotiate and resolve conflict differently than men?

Yes: Women do speak with a different voice and if Resolution 1325 is actually implemented, the world will see a difference in the way international negotiations and conflict resolution are managed.

This side of the debate is most often argued from a social construction perspective. This means that women's and men's experiences and social interactions from the time that they are born have real and lasting implications for the way that they negotiate and communicate. Research pioneered by Carol Gilligan makes the case that girls tend to be more relational than boys, making girls more sensitive to others' needs and the inclusion of others' points of view. Boys, on the other hand, tend to be more task-oriented, aggressive, and at times more conflictual.

Proponents of this perspective maintain that women in general demonstrate certain central and important tendencies in communication. Dialogue is central to a women's “natural” (or learned) problem-solving approach. Problem-solving through dialogue in negotiation suggests a certain level of flexibility, adaptiveness and collaboration. This jointness and openness, in place of strategic planning model of negotiation in which considerable effort is devoted to analyzing and second-guessing the possible interests and positions of the other, involves the weaving of collective narratives that reflect a newly emerging understanding. Women value and practice “really talking,” which requires listening actively, sharing experiences, and contributing to the development of newly emerging ideas.

The literature suggests that women bring a personalized component to negotiations. This personalization is seen as a positive contribution to the process of international negotiations because women are often perceived to be more compassionate, less threatening or insistent on status, less willing to opt for force over reconciliation, and more willing to listen, learn, and contribute to an environment of stability and morality, thus fostering confidence and trust among the parties involved.

No: Women in politics often behave and negotiate the way men traditionally do, and incorporating more women into the negotiation process will not necessarily lead to more successful outcomes.

For those on this side of the debate, Great Britain 's prime minister Margaret Thatcher immediately comes to mind. Thatcher was not only the first woman prime minister in the United Kingdom , she was the first in all of Europe as well. During her rule from 1979 – 1990, she became known as the “Iron Lady” for her rigid approach to international monetary policy, her successful military campaign in the Falklands, her firm opposition to the workers' unions, and her overall aggressive stature. Maggie Thatcher defies the notion that women in power are (or will be) more compassionate, inclusive, and collaborative when it comes to international negotiations. Some argue that no matter who is in power, the structure of the international system is the same--a self-help, anarchical system. Men and women are forced to play by the same rules, and leadership under those rules requires what are stereotypically defined as masculine qualities (rationality, competitiveness, aggression, and autonomy). Thus in order to survive in the political arena, women will engage in behavior similar to that of men.

Others maintain that women (and men for that matter) are not homogenous categories, and therefore such sweeping generalizations about gendered approaches to conflict resolution are simply inaccurate. From Martin Luther Kin Jr. to Gandhi, male leaders have proved they can be peaceful, collaborative, compassionate, and inclusive. From this perspective, while Resolution 1325 is a socially just policy in terms of gender equality, it is not likely to have a significant impact on the way the United Nations approaches international negotiations and conflict resolution.

Use the links below, as well as your personal experiences, to better understand how women and men approach negotiation and conflict. Are there really significant differences between the two? If so, what are they? If not, what are the implications of this finding for the future of Resolution 1325?

http://www.peacewomen.org/un/sc/1325.html .
Full text of Resolution 1325 and related documents.

http://www.womenwarpeace.org/issues/peaceprocess/peace_process.htm
A thorough discussion of women's past experiences in international negotiations.