Fundamental Gender Differences in Warfare
SOCI 339 - Sociology: War and Armed Conflict
Course Materials
Textbooks
The Sociology of War and Violence by Siniša Malešević, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
War: the Lethal Custom by Gwynne Dyer, Carroll and Graf Publishers, 2004 (revised edition)
War by Sebastian Junger, Harper, 2010.
Either
Compare and contrast what you have learned about war, combat units, and warrior societies with what you have seen of, or personally experienced in, aggressive team contact sports such as hockey, Canadian (or American) football, rugby, or even soccer—in your own society. Do warrior societies share any common characteristics with opposing contact sports teams? Try to itemize and describe as many common features as you can that seem to be shared by military combat groups and aggressive contact sports teams; and then try to find some features that sharply distinguish these groups from each other. To what extent may contact sports teams—and sometimes their fans or supporters—be seen as “civilized” surrogates, or substitutes, for war? Are there any other forms of inter-group activity that resemble some—psychical or psychological—aspects of military combat?
Or
The history of warfare proves that men are far more suited to combat than are women, not only because they are physically bigger and stronger than women, but also because of their innate disposition for aggression, hierarchy, territoriality, and male-bonding. Warfare, more than any other human institution, demonstrates the fundamental difference between the two sexes. Critically review the above statement and, using some concrete examples, discuss to what extent research findings support or refute this view of warfare. Try to ensure that your essay makes full documented use of the relevant course readings while, at the same time, expressing your own informed opinions and critical insights.
Or
In 2010, The Guardian newspaper reported that leaked Pentagon files revealed details of more than 100,000 people killed in Iraq following the 2003 US-led invasion, including more than 15,000 deaths that were previously unrecorded. But British ministers have repeatedly refused to confirm the existence of any official statistics on Iraqi deaths, while US General Tommy Franks claimed in 2002: “We don’t do body counts.”
Distinguish between direct and indirect causes of wartime death in civilian populations, and provide some illustrative examples for the main causes of each type of death. Explain why wartime civilian deaths are always underreported and identify some of the principal reporting agencies. Compare and contrast the respective strengths and limitations of the three main sources of data collection for wartime casualties. Briefly estimate the proportion of civilians (or non-combatants) to the proportion of combatants killed in wars over the past few centuries.
Fundamental Gender Differences in Warfare
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Code and Title
Professor's Name
Due Date
Fundamental Gender Differences in Warfare
Indeed, men are more suitable to fight during warfare than women since they are physically stronger, heavier, taller, faster, and more prominent. They have an inherent hierarchy, male bonding, aggression, and territoriality. Warfare institution illustrates the primary differences between men and women. Just like the history of warfare, research findings support that men are more suited to combat than women to a large extent. In addition, societies and entertainment war movies reflect men in battle and very few women to none are engaged in war. This paper highlights the differences between the two genders regarding their involvement in warfare.
Gender asymmetry exists in warfare institutions due to the diversity that generally includes men fighting in wars but excludes women. Battlefields are exclusive for men, with less than 1% of total combatants being women (Malešević, 2010). Women are excluded from the actual combat since they often provide a different kind of support during wars. For instance, women in many societies offer emotional support or cook food for their men during warfare. They can also act as spies against enemies to inform their men of their opponent's moves. Therefore, women do not engage in actual fighting but rather play supportive roles in warfare. Malešević (2010) reported that 99.9% of several million soldiers in combat forces around the globe constitute men. Therefore, warfare is gender exclusive since women are nearly universally prohibited from fighting.
Warfare requires several capacities to enhance its success. Fighting requires an excellent sense of orientation, such as engaging in long-distance navigation, recognizing objects and shapes, reading maps, and demonstrating complex mathematical reasoning (Malešević, 2010). Based on empirical research on cognitive capacities and brain function, men have better quantitative proficiency, spatial orientation, and imagining objects in space. In contrast, women have better verbal skills, accuracy and speed of perception, and attention to detail (Malešević, 2010). These empirical findings prove that the gendered character of warfare is founded on solid biological differences since men possess the capacities required to combat. For instance, as portrayed in fiction, warfare entails planning and navigating around places with long distances and complex maps. The heroes in those fictions are portrayed as intelligent men with the capacity to read maps and navigate such long distances while fighting to prevent defeat but enhance the war's success. Furthermore, the team leaders of the combat groups, primarily men, are portrayed to have complex reasoning skills that enable strategic planning for the success of their fighting. Therefore, biological and cognitive differences in genders significantly explain why men are involved in warfare more than women.
Societies provide basic training for war to thousands of men but exclude women from the training. Dyer (2004) noted that societies offer training to men from martial cultures rather than those from commercial or civilian cultures. Notably, societies train both older and young men to be soldiers. However, they mainly target their recruits for training before they get to 20 years old since the younger men can easily believe that they like being soldiers, unlike the older men (Dyer, 2004). Societies can train men in small-group dynamics of five to ten men who would then form the solidarity of the main groups of men to combat. Moreover, societies offer basic training to young men as a formal rite of passage where young men in tribal societies transition into adult warriors in the community (Dyer, 2004). According to Malešević (2010), societies train boys to act bravely, obey paternal authority, and suppress or manage their emotions. This training serves a prerequisite role of preparing boys to be motivated and disciplined in military combat in the future while fighting for their communities.
According to Dyer (2004), societies recruit their strong and built young men for training purposes to fight against society's enemies. Notably, energetic older male soldiers train these younger male recruits. Alternatively, middle-aged men fight to accomplish specific missions, like revenge or rescue missions. Dyer elaborated that Marine Corps pushed many eighteen-year-old boys' buttons from the beginning of training to teach them how to be men soldiers (2004). Additionally, the captains who train the recruits are men. Dyer (2004) further highlighted that soldiers are honorable men performing terrifying and brutal jobs, including killing during warfare, as society requires them to. For instance, as many war movies portray, most military companies recruit young men for combat training. These young men fight to protect their societies and can even kill. Thus, women are excluded from basic combat training and warfare, where men perform these combat tasks entirely.
Furthermore, biological masculinity emphasizes the apparent gender differences in the involvement of men in warfare more than women. Adult males have more testosterone than females, while adult females have more estrogen than males (Malešević, 2010). Experimental studies on animals have reflected that the more the testosterone levels, the more aggressive behaviors. Therefore, biological masculinists inferred that testosterone leads to men's aggressiveness and violent behaviors, such as war (Malešević, 2010). Furthermore, the high progesterone and estrogen levels in women make them life preservers, givers, and natural carers. Thus, women are not engaged in warfare since they naturally preserve life but do not harm or kill life, which is part of warfare. Besides, these levels of female hormones make women more vulnerable to...