As the nation furiously debates whether a woman (Hillary) could be elected President, I’m about to start teaching my fall women’s history classes, where we routinely examine the role of female queens, Pharoahs and goddesses in every ancient society. Sooner or later, a student will raise her hand and point out that long before the terms women’s rights or feminism entered political speech, Queen Hatshepsut ran Egypt, Catherine the Great ran Russia and innumerable queens ran England. For extra credit, I usually present this test question: which American state was ruled by a beloved Queen once upon a time? Answer: Hawaii—Queen Liliuokalani. Aloha oe.

       Catherine                    Hatshepsut             Liliuokalani

There’s no question that in even the most uptight and conservative nation-states, including India, Ireland, Israel, Pakistan and the Philippines, women have served as Presidents and Prime Ministers with power and impunity, sometimes when the civilian women they ruled over lacked access to basic rights or education. In more progressive countries such as New Zealand, Canada and Iceland, women have also headed the government. We’re really the last “democratic” society to awaken to this possibility. Of course, simply putting a woman on the throne doesn’t signal a clear victory for justice and mercy—one only has to think of England’s Catholic and Protestant queens plotting to have one another executed, or Spain’s Queen Isabella piously ordering the expulsion of all Jews and Muslims (plus the torture/Inquisition of remaining non-Christians.) Yep, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and many a female leader who gained access to state policies/treasuries in the Old World ascended to power through family title alone, a puppet for nasty ruling-class pomp established by her brother/father/cousin/son/lover.

Yet the interesting question remains: given the opportunity to introduce reforms, do women lead differently? Could an increase in female world leaders whittle away at war in our time? When I was invited to appear in the documentary film “If Women Ruled the World,” women from all walks of power met for a formal dinner in the Capitol Rotunda to debate these questions. Our party included several college presidents, a Senator, a former Prime Minister, authors, journalists, anthropologists, chefs, a sheriff, a psychotherapist, a supermodel, a Supreme Court Justice, a four-star general, Betty Friedan—and me. As different as we were in political outlooks and careers, we all agreed that women are expected to be more emotional or compassionate in comparison with men, and thus considered ruthless and “unnatural” OR praised as degendered, hononary men when taking a tough stance. And too often, women gain election in the wake of a male candidate’s corruption scandal, based on stereotypes that a female is always more honest, above temptation, unlikely to fool around. Would that we were all so pure!

These are the conversations I’ll be having with 200 new women’s studies students beginning at –gulp!—2:30 p.m. today, as I write these words four blocks from the White House, and a short Metro ride away from the Senate building, which, we all recall, built a women’s restroom for the newly elected female Senators just fifteen years ago.