The survey questions on the home page miss the mark. In a survey I did in the late 90"s of female heads of state, one result that jumped out is that the office makes the person, not vice-versa. That is to say, women and men responded identically to a majority of international situations because the rules and responses of international relations dictate the range of action and often the actions. Additionally, domestic politics and cultureal conditions also constrain and direct responses (i.e., Secretary Rice's record of US Sec. of State is not much different than tht of the man who preceeded her).
Where women leaders do differ from men is in the domestic political arena, where they are better at decou0pling interntional and domestic concerns, and at practical problem solving. However, the record here is mixed - female heads of state have often shown little difference from their male counterparts simply becaue the political conditions (i.e., parliamentary support, constituency needs, budget constraints, etc) narrow their range of action.
This is not to argue against electing more women - in fact it is an argument FOR electing more women. When a critical mass of women populate a political infrastructure, they can change the rules and the conditions and constraints, allowing both male and female leaders to make decisions based on the common good and problem solving.