7 March 2008: In reading Leo Tolstoy’s epic work War and Peace, a clear demarcation becomes apparent. War revolves around men, while the crux of Peace is women. The women socialize and emote, consumed by issues of love, while the men negotiate the landscape of warfare. Bellicosity is in a man’s blood, it seems, while women navigate society with a far more humane comportment.

War and Peace isn’t necessarily centered on the distinctions between men and women, but its survey of early 19th century Russian society and the grand events of war that affect it encapsulate a certain essence about the roles of men and women in society. While it depicts a specific Victorian gender ideology, War and Peace’s strict gender roles still typify modern stereotypes about male and female attitudes toward life. Women take care, while men take action.

What does this mean for diplomacy? In a world still run predominantly by men, are diplomatic relations nowadays predicated more on aggression than they would be if more women acted as ambassadors and diplomats? As scholar Francis Fukuyama once posited, a greater feminization of government might result in a different kind of diplomacy.

“As women gain power… [countries] should become less aggressive, adventurous, competitive, and violent,” Fukuyama wrote in a 1998 article in Foreign Affairs.

Fukuyama’s argument is that government would benefit from women’s less competitive, divisive, and aggressive nature. While there are always exceptions to the rule, scholars from primatologists to psychologists to evolutionary biologists have backed the idea that physical and verbal aggression in males is an innate trait. Though culture does play a major role in developing gender roles, an early 1980s study by Stanford psychologists Dr. Eleanor Maccoby and Dr. Carol Jacklin confirmed that males are more aggressive across the entire spectrum of societies. While this aggression doesn’t necessarily extend to assertiveness or competitiveness—these two traits are more culturally inculcated than biologically predetermined—it does lay the basis for male interaction. The conclusion, by Fukuyama and feminist scholarship on international politics, is that a male-dominated world results in a superfluously aggressive international system.

The belief, therefore, is that a greater female presence in government might temper the more aggressive male slant that currently exists. This is because the idea of male aggression extends to how men and women negotiate. That is, men tend to see negotiation as a competition of wills, while women tend to value the sense of community that comes from working with another negotiator by searching for common interests. Consequently, women are more likely to pay attention to tacit clues indicating how well negotiations are proceeding, while men focus more on the task to be resolved, according to Psychology Today.

Furthermore, neurological research has found that innate differences between male and female brains also contribute to a contrast in negotiating styles. Females generally have a greater ability to empathize while males are better at systemizing. As such, women are better able to see the broader historical context of a negotiation, as they are more attuned to alternate sides of an argument. Men, by systemizing issues, see them far more myopically. While this allows them great concentration and focus in dealing with an issue, it sometimes limits their ability to see the broader picture.

The progress toward parity in diplomacy has been slow. While Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice have brought equality to the top of diplomacy, the numbers for the U.S. diplomatic forces still lag behind. In 2006, women held only one-third of all ambassadorships, with all major ambassadorial assignments being given almost exclusively to males. However, women have been entering the Foreign Service at a faster rate than men in recent years. Of the 387 new FSOs enrolled at the Foreign Service Institute in 2006, 215 were women, 172 men.

Countries not normally recognized for gender parity are also improving their numbers regarding female diplomats. According to the Jakarta Post, nearly 25% of Indonesia’s diplomatic corps are women. While this is not full parity (particularly if one notes that only 9% of ambassadors and chiefs of mission are women), 47% of new recruits in 2006 were women. This brings hope for a changing diplomacy.

The statistics elsewhere are a mixed bag. Though generally recognized as a leader in the Middle East for women’s rights, women comprise only 10% of the diplomatic corps in the United Arab Emirates. Similar to the U.S., 35% of Diplomatic Services in the British Foreign Office are women.

While these numbers show that women can succeed in a male-dominated society, one might also ask: do only women with the traits of men succeed? One might point to examples such as Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and Golda Meir as women who succeeded by taking aggressive stances. Much has been said about Hillary Clinton’s fight to hide any stereotypical female “weakness,” she has attempted to show that she is strong and resolute by taking more hawkish stances.

As Ambassador of Israel to Russia Anna Azari once said, “What is important is not the gender, but the brains.” As gender equality increases, women feel less inclined to adopt male posturing in order to succeed. This may be a good thing, as research has shown that female managers who are seen as unkind, insensitive, and unaware of other’s feelings are judged to be worse bosses, even though men who exhibit the same qualities are not, according to research in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.

Professor Kristin Byron notes in her research that, “It seems female managers may be expected to be sensitive to others’ emotions and to demonstrate this sensitivity by providing emotional support. Because of this, female managers’ job performance is judged on them being understanding, kind, supportive, and sensitive,” says Byron. “In contrast, this is not the basis to evaluate the performance of male managers. It is far more important for male managers, and men, in general, to be seen as analytical, logical, and good at reasoning than showing care and concern for others.”

Applying this logic to success in the field of diplomacy, women should utilize their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses instead of taking aggressive stances in negotiation. They will, in turn, complement traditionally masculine approaches to negotiation.

Will this cause a collision between the worlds of War and Peace? One would hope not. Fukuyama’s idea of tempered, peaceful governance through feminization is an optimistic one. Its reality remains to be seen.

Special Feature celebrating March 8, International Women’s Day. Feature is published in the print edition of The Diplomatic Courier—Issue II, Volume II, Spring 2008.

Want more? Subscribe to receive the print edition? Click to subscribe