Should women be peace-keepers?

An international women's organisation says the UN should do more to involve women in attempts to build peace around the world.

The United Nations women's fund, Unifem, says women have the greatest interest in preventing conflicts, because they are the likeliest victims.

When countries are at war, it is women who are more likely to be raped, killed or captured.

Unifem says that when women have a role in conflict resolution, priorities that would otherwise be left out of peace processes are strongly reflected.

Should women play a greater role in peace keeping? And if so, what should that role entail? What can they offer in conflict resolution that men cannot?

We are at war because of a patriarchal attitude, but that is not to say that a matriarchal attitude will resolve it

Lyndsey, Wales

Women have a long history of contributing to both war and peace. It is only in today's hypocritical age that we have to start asking these questions. I think the question is almost irrelevant - no one man and no one woman will sort out this conflict. It is not about gender - this is about a mass misunderstanding of cultures, history and a blind ignorance about our various contributions to the chaos our world now faces. Whether you are a man or a woman, you are subject to the same ignorance and the same blissful realisations. We are at war because of a patriarchal attitude, but that is not to say that a matriarchal attitude will resolve it. How about a humanitarian attitude where we try to understand, as men and women of this planet, what has happened and why one solution cannot be used to heal all.
Lyndsey, Wales

This is a non-issue. What is a peacekeeper anyway? Haven't the last ten years proved that it only means the same thing as "impotent bystander"?
Henry Case, UK

Those that claim that women are more nurturing leaders than men and that Thatcher was an exception forget Golda Meier who was no shrinking violet, though a lousy baker. Yes women should fight. They have the right and responsibility the same as the rest of us and the ability to play a strong role in combat.
Bill Wallace, UK

It's ridiculous to assume that women can't be warlike

Alice B, Bahamas

It's ridiculous to assume that women can't be warlike. What about the mother I heard about in Pakistan, in another Talking Point, who sold her jewellery to buy her son an automatic rifle to go to war in Afghanistan? What about the ancient Greek women who instructed their men to "come back with your shield or on it"? And these were not Boudiccas or Maggie Thatchers, these were "ordinary housewives". Yes, women have an innate tendency to be better socialisers, but whether or not they would make good diplomats has more to do with the culture they were raised in and how they were treated by their families. Women do need greater representation in international relations but leaders and diplomats should be chosen for their ability to think logically and communicate effectively rather than for their gender.
Alice B, Bahamas

This is an interesting question. It is almost as if we women are regarded as a different species. However, far from taking it that way, I would vehemently agree that we should indeed be more involved in peace issues. Women too are human beings and have feelings just the same as men. Some of us are pacifists, as are many men, yet some are much harder and will walk into a war just the same as a man would. Do we remember the Iron Lady Thatcher's reign? From an overall point of view, I do however think that if more women were involved in such issues, certainly there would be more dialogue than killings. War is far too ugly for all of us.
Maryam, UK

It remains to be seen when we are going to have women as the president of the US before we focus on this issue!

Mohamed, UK

It is ironic to think that on the one hand we show how badly Islam treats women, but on the other hand we see only nations that had/has women as leaders are in the Islamic world! Let me name a few: Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. It remains to be seen when we are going to have women as the president of the US before we focus on this issue!
Mohamed, UK

Mohamed, UK, you are wrong. Plenty of non-Islamic nations have had female leaders including the one you purport to be from, the United Kingdom. Don't you remember Margaret Thatcher? Please try and be a little more accurate in your west-bashing comments.
Bill, UK

I'm sure women would make great peacekeepers. They're natural communicators, and a pretty woman can still influence a man in a way another man never could. But as for women being the likeliest victims in war - what garbage! It is predominantly men who are killed in wars. This has always been the case. How many American women were killed in WWII? Not many, they were safely thousands of miles away from the carnage. But how many American men died? Also, to Mohamed, haven't you ever heard of Margaret Thatcher? Although I wouldn't exactly classify her as a peacekeeper. She was quite the opposite, in fact.
M Maguire, UK

If a woman is physically and mentally up to the job then they should do it. The old stereotypes of male and female are outdated and were never correct anyway. Oh and Mohamed from the UK. Maggie Thatcher was a lot of things, but never a man.
Simon McDowell, UK

I think there is a real difference in attitude to war between the two sexes. Men will easily start a fight for a fairly vague ideal - a religion, a state, a tribe, freedom, order. They will sacrifice their own lives and those of others for such a goal. But for most women the protection of life and happiness has priority. It is not true that women would not fight wars; but they would fight wars with different goals. In many cases their contribution can help to keep the peace; in other cases it won't.
Manu, Belgium

What capability could a woman bring to any "negotiation" with a despot that would bring him to heel? A skill that her male counterpart would lack? Of course! It's blindingly obvious! So simple when you think about it - all we really need to do to constrain the world's dictators is to shout at them for leaving the toilet seat up!!!!
David/Milton Keynes, UK

Of course more women should be involved. This is like asking whether there should be as many female teachers as male ones or as many female politicians. As many women, if not more, as men are affected by conflicts around the world and therefore as many women as men should be involved in their resolution.
Richard Johns, Australia (British)

Women are natural homemakers; since planet earth is our home, women should fulfil their true potential

Michael Thomson, UK

Women have a special and unique role to play in our evolutionary path. Not only should women play a part in peace keeping, but that part should be major with full and total support by all governmental and international bodies. Women are natural homemakers; since planet earth is our home, women should realise this and fulfil their true potential.
Michael Thomson, UK

Yes. It took the western world three horrific terrorist acts and germ warfare to awaken to the threat posed by the dark-age warriors of the Taleban and their supporters. Perhaps when female peacekeepers are captured, raped and maimed the western world will substitute reality for political correctness and leave direct war actions to men.
Tom, USA

If we look through history about the main and the most successful role of women is in nurturing their babies. Those babies are the leaders of the future, actually women can contribute and greatly but in an indirect way. Let women be real mothers and their sons will be real peace keepers in the world by following their principle which women has put in them.
Daffodel, Sultanate of Oman

There cannot be gender bias for a peace-keeping force. Though not physically, but the women are mentally stronger than men and can act as useful companions to men in peace-keeping operations. In many war-ravaged countries, the women are too shy to express their grievances and difficulties to the men-folk. In such cases, presence of women peace-keepers will greatly help in rebuilding the lives of these affected ladies. Definitely, a woman understands the problem of another woman better than men.
Mahesh Chandra Somani, Finland

How many women are left widowed, sonless, fatherless and brotherless?

NTia, Australia

I accept that more men than women die in war, but how many women are left widowed, sonless, fatherless and brotherless? PLENTY. So, that gives women an equal right to be part of the peace process. I think that people whether they be female or male, should be peace keepers based on their abilities to communicate well and reach an understanding for the common good. Yes, women have a nurturing tendency but this quality cannot be used alone, so if more women are going to be incorporated in peacemaking around the world it is very important for them to have other valuable qualities that make a good peacemaker, as should men. It shouldn't be an issue of men/women peacemakers but based on an individual capability for peacemaking.
Tia, Australia

Naturally, women and men differ. Several stereotypes can be built up in our minds around these differences while we are searching for the typical features of an "average" woman or man. There is no use of building up these wrong images or stereotypes, anyhow. All in all, the differences between persons are much greater than those between the two sexes. This means it is misleading to claim "average" women (or men) are (more) capable peace-keepers because of their default qualities. It is the personal qualities that make the difference. It is always the person one should judge. Never the sex. I think a randomly selected woman and a man have equal chances of becoming a capable peace-keeper.
Volford Peter, Hungary

Women are often extraordinary, and we should give them the credit they so deserve

Michael Entill, UK

The bottom line is that men and women need to take equal responsibility for the state of the world we share equally. Certainly men are better suited for some tasks (infantry etc.) and women for others, but that's just a matter of casting. The women of RAWA have proved to be not only the bravest people in Afghanistan but also those who have best managed to hang on to their humanity. Women are often extraordinary, and we should give them the credit they so deserve.
Michael Entill, UK

In order to achieve true gender equality, we must cast aside this distinction between women and men and forge a new relationship between the sexes, based on the principles of gender equality and unity among all people, regardless of sex, nationality, color, creed or any of the other minute differences between us.
Peter Bolton, UK in US

'Most likely victims'? Hmmm. What about the men on the front lines waging the war? Then again, under the new regimes, maybe it will be women on the front lines waging war, rendering the contention logical. Since we are told there is no difference between men and women, by feminists, I fail to see how women can add anything to what a man already brings to the table (so to speak)!
Russ Antonille, US

I support the idea. We should welcome any person who wants a career in International peacekeeping.
Alun Williams, Cardiff, UK

Come on women, it's time for you to lead the world to peace!

R.L., U.K.

With regard to Women being given more leadership roles - I say YES!! I believe with more Women in power, there would be more negotiations and less war. Women are more compassionate then men (Lady Thatcher being an exception to the rule). Much of the world's war is tied in with machismo. Come on women, it's time for you to lead the world to peace!
R.L., U.K.

It has been proven that women can do anything men can do, and sometimes they do it better.
Raymond, Britain

There seems to be an assumption that all women are somehow these gentle 'Earth mother' types who are somehow less violent than men, and will compromise in conflict. Boudicca, Mrs Thatcher, Golda Meir, Mrs Ghandi, women..and all very strong. I could just imagine Mrs Thatcher getting all touchy feely, and giving the 'earth Mothers' a hug, before ordering troops in somewhere.
Alan Cameron, Scotland

Why are women the likeliest victims?

JT, UK

This is a nonsensical argument about more female victims. Why are women the likeliest victims? What has happened to the males while the women are being 'victimised'? Do all the men stand by as their wives/daughters are captured or murdered? Maybe they have been conscripted into the army under duress, maybe they have already been killed, and maybe they are kept in concentration camps, a victim therefore themselves. Either way, I can't see how this statistic stands up that women are more likely to be 'victims'. I know I would try and do something if my wife and family were being attacked, whether it is defending them at the point of 'victimisation' or whether it is by joining the army and being pro-active (at which point the report says I'm fair game to be killed!). But to say that there are more female victims than male is pandering to the weak minded.
JT, UK

As far as I'm concerned, women can join any organisations they desire. It's a free world, anyway, but there's no gain in forcing them to join.
Peter, Finland

I believe that due to the beliefs, which these terrorists employ, the only persons who should be sent in on these military manoeuvres should be women. This would be an even bigger "slap in the face" and would go to show them (the terrorists) that their belief systems are severely flawed.
Adam West, U.S.A.

It should no longer be a male majority who decide the fate of the planet

Chris C, UK

I would like to underline comments highlighting the lack of representation by and of women in the Worlds governments and International organisations. It should no longer be a male majority who decide the fate of the planet whether by war, trade disputes, law or health issues, when half the human species (probably more) is female. Biologically the male of the species has always been more combative and sexually aggressive, whereas the females have had to be the backbone of family holding it together when the men are tearing each other apart. Of course women are capable of strong leadership, even to the point of being destructive (Thatcher!), but making up for this inequality is long overdue and the results will in the future be very positive I believe.
Chris C, UK

I can't see how woman would contribute to anything as they would be following orders from their superiors. This the same in Government and the armed forces. Having said that if they want to put themselves in a dangerous situation then that is their choice. I can't believe any woman who joins the armed forces has a compassionate bone in her body anyway. Behind every man there is a woman be it a wife or mother, surely if woman were so good at peace then why do they let their men make war.
Saraka, UK, London

All organisations dealing with post conflict situations would benefit from equality of the sexes

Lynne, UK

Having worked for the last seven years running health programmes in the Balkans and Africa, I would have liked to have seen a more balanced 'gender' representation. All organisations dealing with post conflict situations would benefit from equality of the sexes. I believe it makes for more balanced decision making. True, not every woman is a Maggie Thatcher - that's not always what's called for in delicate situations. I've seen fantastic female operatives in Bosnia who have calmed situations with their femininity and, equally so, their male colleagues who have made dangerous situations more secure by their actions. Both male and female have a lot to offer - let's not think either is perfect and doesn't need the other.
Lynne, UK

There are so many conflicts going on in the world today, but I would like to limit my comments to just the disaster in New York and DC. All of the terrorists aboard those planes were men. All of the Islamic extremist leaders are men. What could it possibly hurt to turn the situation over to women for resolution?
Karen Pearman, Laguna Hills, USA

Women are supposedly the nurturing sex and therefore look to solving problems through calm and reason. That said, introduce the hormone factor and you have perhaps a slightly different scenario. Depends on the woman, I suppose, but I would say until they treat female military members exactly the same as males, the question is irrelevant. Not every female can be a Maggie Thatcher or Hillary Clinton (thank goodness!)
Di Stewart, USA

Why not have an equal number of male and female peace keepers in any situation?

Rachel, UK

My initial reaction is to say that of course women would make better peace keepers. But doesn't it depend on the situation? As previously stated some countries do not respect women and so would not listen to a female peace keeper. And I'm sure there are countries where the opposite is true. In other situations it may be necessary to act forcefully, that is - a show of strength which may lead to some deaths, but which may result in peace. In some situations women would be best, in others men. But in all these cases it depends on the individual's ability to do what is necessary for the greater good. In this case why not have an equal number of male and female peace keepers in any situation? In this way the different styles of working should balance each other out to create a better solution.
Rachel, UK

Whether we like it or not the sexes are different, and just as men are by their nature/genes more fitted to fighting than women, so women are more fitted to negotiating than men. Women do this as a part of their natural social skills. As men are wired to win as individuals (alpha male actions), women are wired more to win for the whole group with the result being more of a 'win/win' situation. Of course that is a simplification and generalisation and individuals are varied in their abilities whatever their sex. But I truly believe that more women in the attempts to build peace would build more peace.
LBW, Reading, England

Women should be peacekeepers and leaders. No doubt at all. The World would be a better place.
Bill Pleace, UK

Personally speaking I don't think we should let women anywhere near peacekeeping negotiations. In our house it is the only woman present who shatters the peace. My wife!
Bill, Australia

Why would the Taleban change its attitude to women when the people it meets in delegations from the West are overwhelmingly male?

J-C, Scotland

Martin Adams says that in his opinion more men are killed during conflict. This misses the point being made by Unifem. More women during conflicts are VICTIMS. Soldiers who have chosen the Army (leaving out conscription) can hardly be argued to be victims in the wars they fight in - they have taken on board that possibility surely when they joined up. Women are more likely to be victims through rape, murder, or being captured.

And using the argument that regimes like the Taleban won't listen to women almost proves the point in itself. Putting women in peacekeeping delegations or having them take part in negotiations for the UN will bring the status of women to the attention of those around the table. This can only have a good effect. Why would the Taleban think about changing its attitude to women when the people it meets in delegations from the West are overwhelmingly male?

Perhaps it should be remembered that women form the majority of the world's population (so stop treating us like a minority). Shouldn't their views therefore be given proper weight? Perhaps we should lead by example?
J-C, Scotland

From my understanding of war - it is men who are more frequently killed. I do not accept that more women than men are killed, either as combatants or civilians. History shows that it is men who either predominantly kill or who are predominantly killed.
Martin Adams, UK

An interesting question. One could also ask what the outcome would be if it was left up to women to make the decisions about whether to go to war or not. Throughout history, men have always been the warmongers (with some exceptions of course such as Maggie Thatcher, Boadicea etc) and women have been in the passive or supportive role. I believe most women, because of their inherent nature and motherly instincts, would always view any conflict as something to be resolved, but whether or not it would influence the men to think likewise is debateable. I'd also be interested to know how Unifem have come to the conclusion that women are the likeliest victims. Do they actually have proof of this?
Jacky, UK

Indian and Pakistani governments have been led by female leaders, proving that they can gain the respect of both male colleagues and voters

Fara, UK

Women should play a role in peacekeeping and government. Both Indian and Pakistani governments have been led by female leaders in the recent past, proving that they can gain the respect of both male colleagues and voters. In Afghanistan one of the strongest and bravest opposition forces to the Taliban is RAWA, a female group. Unlike the so called moderate elements of the Taliban and Northern Alliance who are currently being proposed as the being the basis for forming the future Afghan government, they are not responsible for the bloodshed of innocent people.
Fara, UK

Each person should be judged on their own merits. There are pros and cons (as with most jobs); women might possibly lean towards peaceful solutions, but how much authority do they have in patriarchal countries, for example Afghanistan?
WGS, UK

Peacekeepers should be chosen for their ability to keep peace

Helen, UK

Peacekeepers should be chosen for their ability to 'keep peace' not for whether they are male or female. Without doubt some women would be good at resolving conflict, but lets not overlook the men who have equal ability. Some of the women I work with have many more conflicts than their male colleagues!
Helen, UK

Having worked with several capable women in the male-dominated world of oil drilling in the North Sea, I know that individual women can be operationally just as capable as men. This assumes an environment of equal operational freedom. It may be the case that military leaders decide not to deploy women in a cultural zone which regards them as having a low status, and denies them any authority.
Blewyn, UK

I don't think it matters in the slightest so long as the person is professional, trained and knows what they're doing. Obviously there are some differences, perhaps in physical strength, but I'm sure as ever appropriate skills and abilities should be considered for various roles.
Alex, England

First of all the statement that women are more likely to be killed in war is a little suspect. Remember all the outcry over the women refugees in the Balkans? Were the men better off? No, they were in mass graves. Secondly, conflict resolution at this level is not about the tone of your voice or subtle wording, it's about facts. Therefore any intelligent, resourceful person (male or female) stands a similar chance. It's sexist to imply otherwise.
Alison Brodlie, Ireland

The leaders of Afghanistan are unlikely to listen to a woman

Karl Grahame, UK

I certainly believe that women could do much to help salvage the current horrendous situation in Afghanistan. However, we have to bear in mind that the leaders of Afghanistan and neighbouring countries are unlikely to listen to a woman, since they tend to be deemed to be second-class citizens. In Afghanistan, certainly, the Taliban makes sure that women have no say in their own lives, never mind the running of their country.
Karl Grahame, UK

I cannot see why anybody would think of posing such a stupid question. Consider the converse: women shouldn't be peace-keepers. Whoever subscribes to that effectively leaves out half the human population from taking part in any dialogue about peace.
Edwina Ramsay, Norway (ex UK)

If there were a woman as the president of the USA, then perhaps there would be a little more diplomacy than is currently the case.
Colin, Netherlands

Women would be good peace keepers because their compassion for humanity will make them want to seek a non-violent resolution.

Sharon B, UK

Not another Man versus Woman debate! How many do we have to have? Each gender has certain flairs and traits that the other does not and therefore we differ. Men are good at making war decisions because they can separate logic from emotion. Women would be good peace keepers because their compassion for humanity will make them want to seek a non-violent resolution. However, if war was the only viable option then men would be the best to lead. I think Tony Blair jumped too quickly into a war, didn't even vote on it, and I think that the offer to hand over Bin Laden to a neutral country for trial should have been accepted. Personally I don't agree with the razing to the ground of Afghanistan, but then perhaps the cold hearted logic is just what we need at this time.
Sharon B, UK