Men's approach vs women's touch?

Hillary Clinton, the American Secretary of State, is using the paradigm of Anne-Marie Slaughter, her policy planner, as I have detailed before. Men create hierarchies whereas women network. Clinton's solution for the US foreign policy is to become the most networked country, ie the leader country.

Will Kymlicka, in his book Contemporary Political Philosophy, discusses the same phenomenon in his chapter on Feminism. I was under the understanding that it was politically correct in Sweden to claim that men and women are performing identically but this is not the case from the academic standpoint.

It is well established that women have superior verbal skills whereas there are relatively more very intelligent men than women to mention a few known biological differences. Men apparently also strive for finding universal principles, ie export democracy across the globe, whereas women tend to establish and maintain relationships on a case by case basis, as Clinton above.

The solution for solving problems concerning multiculturalism is, according to Kymlicka, to deal with problems like differences in religion, ethnicity etc on a case by case basis. The problem is too complicated for dealing with by political philosophy. It demands an experimental approach. In other words it is not enough to say learn the language, because it is necessary to dive down and start solving problems as they come.

I have not seen anything in the Swedish press about Kymlicka's approach. I wonder if it is because of the politically correctness on insisting that there are no differences between men and women? It is important in other respects. Take for example the quotation of board membership to 40% women. The result is going to be an altered function not the same function with 40% women on board.