Why War is Gendered- Masculinity, Militarism and the International System
- polsodepthindu
- 2 minutes ago
- 8 min read
International Relations is indeed a very complex arena to enter into, but what makes it even more complicated is the chest-thumping power politics of wealth, military arsenal and the arbitrary display of hard power. Indeed the following lines present the whole crux of the argument of this theme :-
“International politics is a man’s world, a world of power and conflict in which women are marginalised.”
By - J. Ann Tickner
Wars are what we often consider as the nucleus of our understanding of global level conflicts. But what gets overshadowed is the fact that war is not simply a political, economic or strategic move, instead it is also the result of social institutions shaped by patriarchy, gender norms and violence.The precursors of war which initiate the emotional upheaval and the psychological justifications of war are the so-called ‘masculine traits’ of aggression, domination, hierarchies, heroism, jingoistic behaviouralism and egoism, or to an extent propaganda driven decisions of invasion and control of territory, sovereignty, body and minds of people, especially the weaker sections comprising of women and poor. ‘Feminine’ traits of caregiving, shyness, forgiveness, softness and nurturing are seen as weaker and not fit for the ‘serious’ public domain (Jankowiak, Naranowicz, Skałba, Drążkowski, Pawelczyk, 2024).
The Male Warrior Hypothesis states that men have evolved psychological mechanisms to form coalitions in intergroup conflicts to gain resources, status and mates resulting in greater male tendency toward aggression and warfare than females (Muñoz-Reyes, Polo, Valenzuela, Pavez, Ramírez-Herrera, Figueroa, Rodriguez-Sickert, Díaz, Pita, 2020). War evolved as a predominantly male activity because men are on average, stronger, taller and faster, which makes them more effective in battles. Even the evolutionary evidence shows that intergroup conflicts and warfare have been widespread in human history with sex differences in morphology, psychology and behaviour shaped by stronger selection pressure for male aggression in these contexts.
Laura Sjoberg argues in her book ‘Gendering Global Conflict: Toward a Feminist Theory of War’ that gendered hierarchies are the permissive causes of war alongside anarchy. The mainstream intellectual theory of Realism which claims to be logical, rational and state-centric frames the international system as anarchic where states pursue self-help through power maximisation and rationality. But feminists critique this notion of “protector-protected” because the foundation of this claim rests on patriarchal binaries and devalues the ‘feminine’ qualities of empathy, interdependence and cooperative security, the same values which are the very basis of the formation of international organisations and alliances such as the United Nations (UN), Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
Cynthia Enloe's foundational question of “Where are the women?” highlights how realism ignores women's labour (for example - military wives supporting deployments, female nurses, doctors, women supporting the family and finances at home or as victims of wartime sexual violence) (Cynthia Enloe, 2014). Here the crucial idea is of hegemonic masculinity which is a concept developed by sociologist Raewyn Connell in the 1980s where he refers to the culturally exalted and dominant form of manhood which dominates women, displays aggression, rationality, dominance, emotional stoicism, competitiveness and heterosexuality as becoming the core points of the discussion. Militarised
masculinities build directly on hegemonic masculinity but are specifically shaped by military institutions and cultures (Uwen, Ebebe Eyang, 2023). They construct the ‘ideal soldier’ as the embodiment of masculine traits like the warrior-hero who is tough, courageous, disciplined, uses violence when needed in service of the nation and defending “women and children” as Cynthia Enloe famously phrased it. These socialising processes make being aggressive a normalised rite of passage to prove masculinity.
Classic World War 2 era American posters (for example- “Let ‘Em Have It” or Rosie the Riveter’s male counterparts) depicted muscular, determined soldiers, sword or gun in hands as the epitome of heroicism. Even in countries like Afghanistan, men gain important socio-political positions by the mere possession of weapons and the system of kangaroo courts. This shows that the two extremes, one nation claiming to be liberal and democratic while the other an autocracy, both show the same effects of patriarchy. This warrior ideal glorifies arbitrary sacrifices and violence, making anti-war stances seem unmanly and peacebuilding efforts secondary to ‘hard power’. Protracted conflicts reinforce rigid masculinity by associating masculinity with resilience and violence which leads to emotional suppression that increases mental health issues. In studies of U.S.A veterans, adherence to stoic masculinity, characterised by emotional restrictiveness and risk-taking, correlates with a 2.32 times higher lifetime risk of suicide attempts with veterans showing younger onset ages and stronger somatisation of depression symptoms (Anis, L. S., Lehavot, K., Vanderwerker, L., Kaufman, J. S., and Pietrzak, R. H., 2023).
Globally, male veteran suicide rates are 1.5 to 3 times higher than normal civilians. In 2024 itself, American male veterans aged 18-34 had a suicide rate of 45.9 per 1,00,000 compared to 19.2 for non-veterans, driven by combat-related PTSD and emotional repression (Andrew R. Morral, Terry L. Schell, Rosanna Smart, 2023). This hardening manifests in post-conflict societies like Afghanistan and Colombia, where militarised masculinities link status to weaponry and protection roles which narrows emotional bandwidth and increases the use of substance abuse as coping mechanisms, as reported by 40% of male ex-combatants in Cameroon surveys (Dean Peacock, Guy Feugap, 2023). Misogyny enforces compliance through heightened gender-based violence (GBV) as in militarised zones, where domestic violence rates surge 20-50% post-deployment with 2024 data showing 43% of American military couples experiencing bidirectional intimate partner violence often tied to male emotional suppression and control tactics. In sub-Saharan Africa, post-conflict areas report domestic violence prevalence at 35-45%, compared to 25% in non-conflict zones with misogynistic norms justifying violence to maintain male dominance amid economic instability (Dean Peacock, Guy Feugap, 2023). It makes us ask the question: where does this militarism actually perpetuate from? And the answer is not surprising at all as it sustains itself through recruitment— targeting young men in economically vulnerable areas, cultural glorification of warrior ideals and war-linked economies that displace communities and reinforce gendered hierarchies.
Global defense spending hit $2.7 trillion in 2024 which is a staggering 9.4% increase from 2023, with NATO countries accounting for 55% of the total, fueling recruitment drives where 80% of enlistees are male under 25 who are often from low-income regions. In resource extraction zones like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), militarism ties to mining economies displacing 7 million people in 2024 with men facing emasculation from land loss (leading to 30% higher domestic violence rates), while women endure 288% increased sexual violence (SIPRI Fact Sheet, 2025). Morgenthau’s focus on human nature as driven by power further embeds masculinised traits, devaluing emotion as irrational which feminist critics argue sustains narrow military definitions of security. In 2024, this bias was evident in conflicts where 92% of UN verified sexual violence victims were women/girls, yet realism prioritises state power over holistic harms like economic violence, affecting 840 million women globally (CRSV Annual Report of the United Nations Secretary-General, 2024; WHO Report, 2025). Realist assumptions correlate with higher conflict in gender unequal states, like the countries with high Gender Inequality Index (GII) scores (example- Chad at 70.7%) saw 25% more conflict involvement from 2010-2025 than low-GII peers (example- Sweden at 4.8%) (Women, Peace and Security Index, 2025). This hierarchy sustains itself through a $2.7 trillion global defense spending where masculine coded military power distribution favours male-led states (98% of leaders initiating wars between 2005 and 2025 were male) (The Gender of War: A 20-Year Analysis of Leadership and Conflict, 2025) diluting feminine peace metrics like inclusivity.
Change via inclusion can become the major watershed moment where women’s peace process participation reduces recurrence by 37% in UN-led efforts, with 35% 15-year durability boost as in 2024, when gender-balanced militaries cut conflict by 11% via a focus on empathy. Challenging masculinities through programs like DRC's Living Peace reduced violence by 40% among ex-combatants via emotional tools while feminist peace promoted inclusivity, with 35% female legislatures nearly zeroing relapse risk. In 2024, women's 20% peace agreement signatory rate cut recurrence by 64% (Stone, Laurel, 2015; GBV Prevention and Social Restoration in the DRC and Burundi, 2014; UN Secretary-General’s Annual Report on Women, Peace and Security, 2025).
In conclusion
The gendered nature of war which is rooted in hegemonic masculinity's valorisation of aggression, dominance and protection intersects with militarism to perpetuate a hierarchical international system that normalises violence and marginalises feminine traits like empathy and cooperation. This framework not only sustains cycles of conflict, as evidenced by the 2024 surge in conflict related sexual violence (CRSV) by 25% (4,600 verified cases and 92% targeting women and girls) (Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: 16th Annual Report of the Secretary-General, 2025) but also embeds patriarchal binaries in state behaviour and global security discourses, rendering realism’s anarchic worldview as inherently masculinised and incomplete. By deconstructing these dynamics through a feminist IR lens, we reveal gender as a causal driver of war, operating via mechanisms like masculinist competition and protection which predict escalation patterns more precisely than anarchy alone, as the high gender inequality correlates with 25% higher conflict involvement in states from 2010-2025. True peace demands dismantling militarised masculinities, fostering inclusive peacebuilding (example- women's involvement reduces recurrence by 37%) (Women, Peace and Security Index 2025/26: Gender Equality and the Risks of Armed Conflict, 2025) and redefining security holistically to encompass economic and sexual non-violence. To sum up the above arguments :-
“Killing in war does not come naturally for either gender, and that gender norms often mold men, women and children to the needs of the war system”.
By - Joshua S. Goldstein
(from War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa)
References
Stereotypically thinking: Norms for stereotypical gender nouns in Polish and English (article) (Jankowiak, Naranowicz, Skałba1, Drążkowski, Pawelczyk, 2024) https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/11c2/f7813d528d1afe5b48efbc00e0dbc6739b39.pdf
The Male Warrior Hypothesis: Testosterone-related Cooperation and Aggression in the Context of Intergroup Conflict (Muñoz-Reyes, Polo, Valenzuela, Pavez, Ramírez-Herrera, Figueroa, Rodriguez-Sickert, Díaz, Pita, 2020) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-57259-0.pdf
Cynthia Enloe, 2014, Second Edition, University of California Press (Bananas, Beaches and Bases Making Feminist Sense of International Politics)
Uwen, Ebebe Eyang, 2023 (Officers and men, and fallen heroes: The discursive construction of regimented masculinity in the Nigerian Army)
Anis, L. S., Lehavot, K., Vanderwerker, L., Kaufman, J. S., and Pietrzak, R. H., 2023 (Traditional Masculinity and Risk of Suicide Ideation and Attempts Among US Military Veterans)
Andrew R. Morral, Terry L. Schell, Rosanna Smart, 2023 (Comparison of Suicide Rates Among US Veteran and Nonveteran Populations)
Dean Peacock, Guy Feugap, 2023, WILPF International (Men, Masculinities and the Prospects for Feminist Peace in Cameroon)
SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) Fact Sheet: Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2024 (Released April 2025).
Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: Annual Report of the United Nations Secretary-General, 2024
Lifetime toll: 840 million women faced partner or sexual violence (WHO Report, 2025) https://www.who.int/news/item/19-11-2025-lifetime-toll--840-million-women-faced-partner-or-sexual-violence#:~:text=Violence%20against%20women%20remains%20one,(WHO)%20and%20UN%20partners.
Women, Peace and Security Index 2025/26: Gender Equality and the Risks of Armed Conflict, 2025 https://giwps.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/WPS-Index-2025-Report.pdf
The Gender of War: A 20-Year Analysis of Leadership and Conflict (2005–2025), 2025 https://www.wilpf.org/militarised-masculinities-a-closer-look/
Stone, Laurel, 2015 (Quantitative Analysis of Women’s Participation in Peace Processes)
2014, Living Peace Groups, Implementation Manual and Final Project Report: (GBV Prevention and Social Restoration in the DRC and Burundi Prepared by Promundo-US for LOGiCA) https://www.equimundo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Living-Peace-Groups-Implementation-Manual-and-Final-Project-Report.pdf
UN Secretary-General’s Annual Report on Women, Peace and Security (October 2024/2025), 2025 https://www.un.org/en/peace-and-security/page/women-peace-and-security
Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: 16th Annual Report of the Secretary-General, 2025 https://reliefweb.int/report/world/conflict-related-sexual-violence-report-secretary-general-s2025389-enarruzh
https://theconversation.com/why-war-evolved-to-be-a-mans-game-and-why-thats-only-now-changing-101473
https://www.professormarkvanvugt.com/images/files/TheMaleWarriorHypothesis.pdf
https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/book/tickner/tickner16.html
https://www.wilpf.org/militarised-masculinities-a-closer-look/
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-masculinity-after-world-war-ii
https://www.wilpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/RL_20_WILPF-Afghanistan-research-report-AW.pdf
https://neurosciencenews.com/masculine-gender-role-suicide-28158/
https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/partner_violence.cfm
https://theglobalobservatory.org/2025/10/soaring-global-military-spending-is-sidelining-the-sdgs/
https://www.inclusivesecurity.org/publication/why-women-inclusive-security-and-peaceful-societies/
https://www.wilpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/RL_19_WILPF-Men-Masculinities-Armed-Conflict-AW.pdf
https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/book/tickner/tickner13.html
ABOUT WRITER
Raazia Khan is a 2nd Year Political Science Student....
Comments