Recently, there has been a lot of criticism of current women leaders by leaders of women's organizations, asking whether they are accountable to women in their countries. This includes Senator Hillary Clinton, who is running for President in the U.S., President Cristina Fernandez in Argentina and Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany. Do you think women in power should be expected to stand up for and protect the interests of women in their countries, even more so than their male counterparts? Or should we be holding male leaders and female leaders to the same standards in terms of taking care of the people within their borders?

Both. I do think that we should be holding both male and female leaders accountable to their constituencies. At the same time, since, until recently, many countries have not had women in leadership positions, women leaders need to make up time.

But, should I be expected to automatically vote for a woman if she is running in an election? The debate used to be that women weren't necessarily as qualified as men, but that's changing rapidly and is not true in many cases. However, there are some qualified women - like Margaret Thatcher - whom I would not have voted for. Her conservative policies did not serve women! When women asked her about government support for childcare, she told them to figure it out themselves, like she had to do!

I would say that it depends on the country you live in. If I had the right to vote in the US or in France, I would vote for a political platform more than for a "gender". But if I had to vote in a developing country where women's voices need to be strenghten, I would vote for a woman.

As a young woman, I would vote for the best candidate regardless of whether they were a man or a woman. If I am brutally honest though, I see so many men in top desicion making positions making so many BAD choices... and who is always on the receiving end of these bad choices? Women! I want to see change globally and I think more women at the top would be the best start. Women leaders have to be WOMEN leaders though... too many of them seem to turn to their masculine side to be accepted by their voters.

I agree slightly with Hasna. I live in a developing country and I would vote for a woman not only to strengthen women's voices but one who is 'gender sensitive'. Right now, we have women in political parties who are more interested in carrying out their parties political policies rather than promote policies that positively affect women's rights and lives. In Nigeria, a bill is being proposed in the National House of Assembly which as been tagged 'Indecent Dressing Code' because it attempts to describe what indecent dressing is and prohibit and punish offenders. Unbelievably, the bill is being sponsored by a Female Senator, Eme Ufot Ekaette (MFR)! If I was in her constituency, I would be appalled that I voted her in. There are many socio-economic problems and this senator if focusing on indecent dressing! This is a big disappointment.

Women voting
Here are some tips from the women’s joural.usa

women should vote beccause it is fair and right as the size of the tax and the way it shall be spent.
Beccause the moral ,educational ,and the humane legislation desired by women
Because it help to keep wages down to minimum
Because equal suffrage would increase the proprtion of educated voters
Because it will increase the proportion of native -born voters
Because of the crinimal vote ,it will decrease the number of the women inprisons at the united state
Because it lead to fair treatment of women in the public service
Because it is the easiest ,quitest way of infuencing public affairs, you just drop in a silp of form to vote
Because it make women more practical and wise
Because it will make it hard for bad candidates to be oiminated or elected ,as in the equal suffrage state ,both parties have to put men of respectable character or lose the women;s vote
Because it would help women who need help the most as Theodore Roosevelt recommended women suffrage in his message to then ew york legislature
Because it would increase increase women’s influence ,such as women club indorse the social science department of the state fedrration department ,member of the legislators has to sit each week to confirm with who seek the edorsement
The experience of women voting has been proven it is good .women for years have been voting scoring hundrads of thousands in England .Scotland ,Australia ,New Zealand ,Canada ,Wyoming ,Colorado,Kansas , Utah ,and Idaho .

Masum, great question!
Depending on the country and it's past government. In the developing countries, where certain laws and patriarchal foundation is rooted, it would be beneficial to vote for a woman who is able to amend laws that effect women in society and in the rural areas, where dometic struggles are harsh and far more. For instance, take Pakistan's turbulent politics - which has featured military takeovers, and the women's issues have been marginalised in the past...it is only now, with women being in leadership positions, there seems to be certain changes administered. What matters is that I would vote for a woman based on whether she is grounded in her beliefs to "better' a society, where women's rights are met. But, I do not think women HAVE to vote for women, if the woman leader in question has questionable attributes that can hinder and/or reflect her performance as a leader. There are certain North American women I dare not vote for. Showing solidarity for women supporting women is one thing, but, not if she does not possess virtues to being a leader who can make progress in civil governance.

So there seems to be an emerging consensus among visitors that women shouldn't necessarily vote for women unless they respect and believe what the women candidates stand for. My next question: how do we nurture women (and men) politically and personally to become these kind of exemplary candidates? What are the social, education and political mechanisms that will make this happen?

Leadership styles can vary from candidates according to the countries they represent. The freedom of nurturing certain leadership can be quite challenging, but, never impossible. I think there are broad differences in the way men & women conduct the leadership scale... Women instinctively are less hierarchial, and I find that immensely at the grassroot level in women's organisations. The social, education and political background of the candidate is utmost of importance in forming a style of leadership. But, most of all, the leader should have strong understanding of key issues for the nation. Skills of reconciliation, persuasion, assertive yet compassionate, unafraid to challenge what does not work and implement an infrastructure for betterment. The search for leadership attributes among women as national leaders occurs in the context of fundamental contrasts between men and women, which places women in opposition as "the other". In a sense, failure to find hard-and-fast rules about women as...leaders could...signal success for those who appreciate diversity and seek to develop their own identities.
Again, it does boil down to the women leaders country... Example, Benazir Bhutto could not (unfortunately) have succeeded politically if she had not agreed for an arrange marriage. In a country where male dominance plays the role in governance, she would have been subjected to being an "available" women should she have not married. Thus, the roles imposed by the contries does impact women. With women empowerment, such roles are slowly being redefined and we can only hope for a stronger women leadership in the world. Education for young women, independent econmic education should encourage a participation at a younger level, thus, opening doors for women for future leadership endeavours.

More often than not, I have realized that in politics, women seem to be their worst enemies because they are also reflections of a patriarchal society. They are made to believe that a woman cannot be a good leader.
Voting should not be based solely on gender: if a woman and has leadership capacities that will strengthen the nation why not I will vote for her. What really matters is this: Can HE or SHE deliver?

History tells us that when men have monopolized office holding, they have rarely looked after women's interests, except as dependent creatures. One of the most important goals of the early women's movement was to raise women's voices, to articulate what women wanted, and to achieve representation in decision-making. The big question, though, is whether there ever was, or is now, a "women's vote" as such, and the conditions that would foster women's bloc voting.

i dont believe that i should vote for a women just because she is a woman. i believe its all about the people and what you can offer the people.

i have had women in leading possitions in my country and sad to say the were the worse leaders that have been in that possition and also we have had very outstanding women who have performrd more that their male counterparts.
both male and female aspiring to be leaders should be held in the same standard in terms of accountability and taking care of the people.

When it comes to voting for new political leaders, I think what's most important, is what their true agenda is. Are the person (male or female) most intrerested in the advancement of his or her own people, or mostly interested in his or her own personal career? Leaders that are leaders for their own benefit, are the weakest leaders on earth. They will always do what they have to do to stay in their position, no matter what it does to the poople they are exploiting. Both male and female politicians can be found most interested in becoming powerful and rich for themselves, preserving their names in history. I believe there are just a very few politicians that are displaying themselves in order to benefit the people, but they do exist.
But sometimes, also selfabsorbed politicians can do good things for the people in order to stay in position, especially in a democratic political system.
I'm just waiting for a 'Nelson Mandela' type of politician to occupy the White House, male or female doesn't matter.

I think this question takes on a new importance with the nomination of Sarah Palin for Vice President in the USA. It is clear that women are not one big generic group - they hold a variety of views and opinions which are many times very opposed. Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are two examples. Political leaders hold much of our future in their hands and we are wise to consider any candidate's background, social views, and past performance regardless of their gender or ethnicity.

If you want to add your comments on the U.S. Vice Presidential Republican Nominee Sarah Palin, click here to view the conversation.