
The Secretary of State, though an important post in the U.S, cannot bring about a paradigm shift in policy matters unless the President also approves. In that sense he is only a glorified negotiator. However he must be able to perform the way president wants to get results from negotiations and that is where the choice of a S O S makes the difference.
Now that a male secretary is chosen I wonder who, the male or female, ones are better suited for the job. To give an august and pompous look for a diplomatic conference it is better a male to chair it, whereas the presence of women at the Head of the meeting has an advantage of making the air a little relaxed and it depends on the nature of the meeting to evaluate whether it helped or not. With regard to bargaining I think it is advantage women as most of the heads of states are males and they are more prone to buckle under pressure from women than from men.
An irritated male secretary of state is more prone to shout than women and shouting has no place in diplomacy.

The job of a secretary of state demands frequent travels and staying in different settings, meeting different people and eating different dishes. I think men are better suited for it than women as it is difficult for women to abandon family and children for a long spell unless the family is also cut out for it.
A pregnant secretary of state and its allied problems are remote possibility as few women of conceivable age qualify for the post. However the press cartoonists will celebrate it sumptuously if ever such an occasion arises.
Images: Google
1 comment:
Peculiar article, exactly what I was looking for.
Feel free to visit my web blog - jameatulquran.com
Post a Comment