This paper uses Valerie Hudson’s What Sex Means for World Peace to respond to the credibility in the argument that women treatment plays a vital role in making of a peaceful world. For instance, the author notes that the pillars of inter-cultural cohesion lie in the perfectness of inter-gender relations. Furthermore, she goes on to suggest that patriarchal homes with violent males always translate to patriarchal regimes marred with similar cases of violence. The following are responses to three core issues outlined in the article.
The Justification in Connecting National/International Security and the Treatment of Women
The author tries to justify her arguments in connecting the treatment of women to national security using numerous instances. She ranks girl child treatment over national wealth, religion, and expenditure as the true indicators of the peacefulness of any given state. Furthermore, she asserts that no country is immune in ranking as worst when it comes to gender biasness (Hudson para 2). Indeed, we witness bills and constitutional struggles around the world that try to empower women into becoming equal partners in the society. The author uses such and other reliable data to affirm that stable countries record high levels of gender violence, as are their unstable counterparts (APS para 3).
A society where women tend to share equal platforms with men has a better chance at having quality opportunities in life. The author lashes out at her notable counterpart Steven Pinker for suggesting that the world has become much more peaceful. To this, the author states that, gender based violence continues to grow at a higher rate vis-à-vis the violence that come from armed conflict and war. Thus, Hudson seems to have justified her argument in labeling such propositions as uninformed and “oxymoronic’’ (Hudson par 5).
Most importantly, Hudson notes that gender is a vital construct on how societies perceive the concept of difference. Regardless of state or regime, cases of gender based violence such as verbal harassment, domestic violence, rape, and restrictions in the freedom to reproduce mark as top instances of gender inequality as related to the perceived concept of difference. She then connects such behaviors to counters of national security using multiple counters (Hudson par 3). Following Hudson’s arguments, for instance, regimes where men subject women to violence at the domestic level, with limited rights to privacy, bodily integrity, and equality in legal protection, are more likely to become violent at national level. The successful correlating of micro-level violence against women to the macro-level national violence further justifies the author’s intentions. Indeed, the violent and patriarchal a nation’s micro structure, the higher the chances that it would resort of forceful and violent ways (Swim and Becker, par 5).
The Dependence of World Peace on the Treatment of Women
Following the author’s arguments, the road to world peace would solely depend on how societies treat their womenfolk. Together with her Sex and World Peace co-authors, the author asserts on the positive correlation between world peace and women treatment. Thus, as earlier stated, the bigger the gap of societal gender-based treatment, the more likely a state will become involved in conflict. This holds true in such a way that countries that experience higher gap levels resort to even higher violence levels. On other key issues such as national health, corruption, welfare, and economic growth, the author finds that their vital indicators relate to the concern on women treatment. Furthermore, she argues that the general treatment of women folk reflects on the country’s level of advancement in stability, bellicosity, corruption, prosperity, security, and health. Indeed, gone are the days when governments could overlook the role of gender equality in tackling national security. The significance of the empirical findings, as the author asserts, stand as too high for governments to ignore (Hudson par 3).
Yet other global dimensions of this dependence prove significant. For instance, under family law, women face disadvantageous situations during marriage, inheritance, and divorce. Such social inequalities act the cornerstones for gender-based violence. This is because they undercut their capability to raise their children and themselves. However, unlike fathers, mother figures have a greater favorable value with respect to their relatively low mortality rate. Educated women tend to do better than their male counterparts do when it comes to striking peace deals, breadwinning, and responsibility. Thus, no matter the denial level, most nations seem to be dependent on women in the raising of their children into independent and peace loving citizens (APS par 1).
The results reveal that gender-related violence is in most cultures. Violence spares no girl child from birth to deathbed. The authors also use a scale measurement to ascertain that the world average generalized preference of the boy child over their girl counterpart at 2.41. This implies that in most countries, sex ratios work abnormality positive in favor of the boy child. The author then uses this information in relating sex preference to violent cases such as infanticide and sex-oriented abortions. Furthermore, scientists believe that gender selectiveness could lead to a situation where China reverses its take on the girl child due to an acute shortage of young women. Using these instances, the author states that such dependence adversely affects a country’s security and stability (Hudson par 6).
The Role of International Peacemaking Efforts for Women Empowerment
Peacemaking efforts always concentrate on matters concerning the tackling of an array of issues. These include fighting for equity in family law, reduction of gender-based violence, and the inclusion of women in decision-making processes. For instance, the CEDAW is a globally renowned rights bill for women across cultural fronts. The author suggests that countries follow the guidelines as stipulated in the convention when dealing with their womenfolk (MEWC par 12).
The author further states that the current level of inclusion of women in decision-making processes stands at a global average of 2.74 out of 4. She measured this average through studying the level of female inclusion in world governments. A majority of individuals are aware of the role of women in brokering for peace during conflict. This means that, through experimental surveys, women-involved groups are better at brokering long-term peace deals compared to their male counterparts. In her study, Hudson assumes the all-males group as risk taking, aggressive, and better at making less empathetic decisions compared to their mixed counterparts. Thus, according to Hudson, the all-male setting was likely to result to high levels of inter-national conflict (Hudson par 6).
It is not surprising that the average global presence of women in governments is less that 20%. It is also ironical that the US, with a female representation of 17%, invaded countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, who have at least 25% female representation. Presently, the two countries score even higher than their bad big brother does with Iraq at 25% and Afghanistan at 28%. Based on this respect, the US seems to have done better in empowering Iraqi and Afghan women than its own (Hudson par 8).
However, America’s last hope on world peace lies in powerful women such as the outgoing US state secretary Hillary Clinton who declared women empowerment a core concentration of the US policy. Thus, the search for women equality goes beyond morality, humanitarianism, and fairness. It embraces security as a matter of concern and interest to most states, specifically the US. This effort further strengthens the argument that an increase in the security of womenfolk translates t improved state stability and security. However, the author suggests that the fact that this is still a major problem means that third party agents such as countries and NGOs become powerless in the hands of traditional practices. The best instance in this case would be Afghanistan where gender-based issues continue to get passive attention at the expense of other concerns. The author postulates that the Afghan woman would continue to suffer in the hands of her male compatriots once the US forces withdraw from Afghanistan (Hudson par 12).
Gender dynamics with respect to the international sphere relate to equitable distribution of justice and rights within the warring society. This then translates to how their power undergoes a transformation on the global forum. Women are most likely to fall prey of injustices and violence during war. Though nations are usually hesitant in adopting gender-based approaches when improving security, lobby groups are usually on the forefront urging them to push for equality as the long-term solution for peace. For instance, as Somali, activists raise the call to end FGMs; their Saudi counterparts continue to press their government for the right to drive. All these are calls for the closure in gender gaps leading to peaceful and prosperous nations (MEWC par 13).
In conclusion, the author categorically states that countries with bigger gender rights and gaps tend to exhibit high rates of perceived and actual inter-state violence, low national incomes, corruption and less sustainable fertility rates. Contrarily, a shrunken gender gap and powerful women rights correlate to durable peace agreements, focused welfare concerns, lower child mortality rates, and increased level of public trust in governments. Thus, attaining greater equality for warring nations depends on activists, policymakers, and international pressure all of whom root for peaceful causes.