It was not too long ago that the typical diplomat would have reacted to the possibility of women serving alongside him as Dr. Johnson notoriously did to female clergy: “a woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs,” he said. “It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”
Diplomacy, like war and other matters of high politics, has long been considered the special province of males. No matter that some of its most sophisticated and toughest of practitioners—from Cleopatra to Queen Elizabeth I to Golda Meir—have been female. They continue to be seen as exceptions to a very long standing rule.
Or that diplomacy itself is still depicted, especially by Americans, as the soft side of power. It is what you engage in when you do not wish to bomb or invade or occupy. How many times have we heard the old saw: “if only the world were run by women, there would be far fewer wars”? Madeleine Albright, the first female U.S. Secretary of State, liked to say this, which was curious given her reputation for being among the more hawkish members of the Clinton administration and one of the most eager to advocate the use of force.
Similar stories have been told about Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and others. Yet many people still equate femininity with pacifism, and point to prominent female leadership of various peace organizations—from Jane Addams and Jeannette Rankin to Elise Boulding and Helen Caldicott.
Diplomacy is not immune from the gender stereotypes that persist and define our lives. The attributes of a good diplomat—empathy, intuition, flexibility, discretion, moderation—may be applied to both women and men, although almost all contrast with the aggressive, militaristic, “masculine” image of the warrior. And of course certain “feminine” adjectives of caricature—emotional, injudicious, gossipy—are considered inimical to good diplomacy.
In truth nearly all of the above qualities are present in diplomacy and in diplomats of both genders. The inclusion of women in foreign ministries is today almost taken for granted, even though it has only happened in the past couple of generations. In the United States, for example, just 30 years ago, female officers had to resign if they married. There were but a handful of female ambassadors a decade ago.
The few women who reached the top of the profession were generally sent to places like Scandinavia or the Caribbean. Today they are running embassies everywhere, including in such regional male bastions as Latin America, South Asia, and the Middle East.
Tallying results is one way to judge progress. But most diplomats will say that the picture is more complex. There was never a moment when women were not important diplomatic participants. Many were the wives or companions of great (or not-so-great) men. There was the Princess Lieven, wife of a Russian diplomat, who was said to know more of the inner workings of the Congress of Vienna than nearly anyone else present; the Soong sisters who presided over the diplomacy of Republican China; Evangeline Bell Bruce, the daughter and wife of American diplomats, whose salon was the foremost transatlantic “network” of the middle 20th century. A biographic anthology of such diplomatic worthies is long overdue.
Jane Ewart-Biggs, the widow of a British diplomat, wrote a clever memoir about her life: Pay, Pack and Follow. That will sound familiar to many diplomatic wives. But as demeaning as it could be, these and other more glamorous roles were regarded as essential by foreign ministries. In the U.S. Foreign Service, until the 1970s, the efficiency ratings of an officer included ratings for his wife. Wives were given their duties by the ambassador’s wife, and most had no choice but to comply.
Few unmarried diplomats could reach the highest levels of the service. Bachelors and widowers were forced to depend on female relatives or others to perform vital functions, which included supervising the social life of the embassy and in many cases providing the independent income needed to offset the high cost of doing so. The value of either should never be underestimated, as any diplomat will attest.
Today many diplomatic couples serve together in full-fledged official capacity or, more commonly, in arduous long-distance marriages. Other spouses simply pursue professions of their own alongside their diplomat-wives or husbands, as best they can. The diplomatic profession, contrary to some persistent perceptions, is no longer as tradition bound as it once was.
This need not mean that women in diplomatic service no longer deserve praise, or study. For while gender roles may change, they do not disappear; just as men and women will forever be different, so will male and female diplomats. Understanding the ways of their interaction shall forever be fruitful—as surprising as that may be to the Dr. Johnsons still among us.
a global affairs media network
In Honor of 100th Anniversary of International Women's Day: Women Worthies
March 6, 2011
It was not too long ago that the typical diplomat would have reacted to the possibility of women serving alongside him as Dr. Johnson notoriously did to female clergy: “a woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs,” he said. “It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”
Diplomacy, like war and other matters of high politics, has long been considered the special province of males. No matter that some of its most sophisticated and toughest of practitioners—from Cleopatra to Queen Elizabeth I to Golda Meir—have been female. They continue to be seen as exceptions to a very long standing rule.
Or that diplomacy itself is still depicted, especially by Americans, as the soft side of power. It is what you engage in when you do not wish to bomb or invade or occupy. How many times have we heard the old saw: “if only the world were run by women, there would be far fewer wars”? Madeleine Albright, the first female U.S. Secretary of State, liked to say this, which was curious given her reputation for being among the more hawkish members of the Clinton administration and one of the most eager to advocate the use of force.
Similar stories have been told about Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and others. Yet many people still equate femininity with pacifism, and point to prominent female leadership of various peace organizations—from Jane Addams and Jeannette Rankin to Elise Boulding and Helen Caldicott.
Diplomacy is not immune from the gender stereotypes that persist and define our lives. The attributes of a good diplomat—empathy, intuition, flexibility, discretion, moderation—may be applied to both women and men, although almost all contrast with the aggressive, militaristic, “masculine” image of the warrior. And of course certain “feminine” adjectives of caricature—emotional, injudicious, gossipy—are considered inimical to good diplomacy.
In truth nearly all of the above qualities are present in diplomacy and in diplomats of both genders. The inclusion of women in foreign ministries is today almost taken for granted, even though it has only happened in the past couple of generations. In the United States, for example, just 30 years ago, female officers had to resign if they married. There were but a handful of female ambassadors a decade ago.
The few women who reached the top of the profession were generally sent to places like Scandinavia or the Caribbean. Today they are running embassies everywhere, including in such regional male bastions as Latin America, South Asia, and the Middle East.
Tallying results is one way to judge progress. But most diplomats will say that the picture is more complex. There was never a moment when women were not important diplomatic participants. Many were the wives or companions of great (or not-so-great) men. There was the Princess Lieven, wife of a Russian diplomat, who was said to know more of the inner workings of the Congress of Vienna than nearly anyone else present; the Soong sisters who presided over the diplomacy of Republican China; Evangeline Bell Bruce, the daughter and wife of American diplomats, whose salon was the foremost transatlantic “network” of the middle 20th century. A biographic anthology of such diplomatic worthies is long overdue.
Jane Ewart-Biggs, the widow of a British diplomat, wrote a clever memoir about her life: Pay, Pack and Follow. That will sound familiar to many diplomatic wives. But as demeaning as it could be, these and other more glamorous roles were regarded as essential by foreign ministries. In the U.S. Foreign Service, until the 1970s, the efficiency ratings of an officer included ratings for his wife. Wives were given their duties by the ambassador’s wife, and most had no choice but to comply.
Few unmarried diplomats could reach the highest levels of the service. Bachelors and widowers were forced to depend on female relatives or others to perform vital functions, which included supervising the social life of the embassy and in many cases providing the independent income needed to offset the high cost of doing so. The value of either should never be underestimated, as any diplomat will attest.
Today many diplomatic couples serve together in full-fledged official capacity or, more commonly, in arduous long-distance marriages. Other spouses simply pursue professions of their own alongside their diplomat-wives or husbands, as best they can. The diplomatic profession, contrary to some persistent perceptions, is no longer as tradition bound as it once was.
This need not mean that women in diplomatic service no longer deserve praise, or study. For while gender roles may change, they do not disappear; just as men and women will forever be different, so will male and female diplomats. Understanding the ways of their interaction shall forever be fruitful—as surprising as that may be to the Dr. Johnsons still among us.
